Presidential election maps relative to the national margin

[A18]

Starting with 2004:



Based on quick math, involving rounding the decimals out.

Blue >30% indicates >0 points more Republican than the nation as a whole
Blue >40% indicates >3 points more Republican
Blue >50% indicates >6 points more Republican
Blue >60% indicates >9 points more Republican
Blue >70% indicates >12 points more Republican
Blue >80% indicates >15 points more Republican
Blue >90% indicates >18 points more Republican

Red >30% indicates >0 points more Democrat than the nation as a whole
Red >40% indicates >3 points more Democrat
Red >50% indicates >6 points more Democrat
Red >60% indicates >9 points more Democrat
Red >70% indicates >12 points more Democrat
Red >80% indicates >15 points more Democrat
Red >90% indicates >18 points more Democrat

[Erc]

Virginia can't be right.

I've got it as +2.9...and even if you used a slightly different method, there's no way it could be in the >6 category.

[A18]

This is the margin of victory, not the percentage the winner got.

[Erc]

Margin of Victory, not "relative to the national margin."

You've got to be a bit clearer with your terms there.

I was thinking...
Say Bush got 55% in a particular state, and 51% nationwide, he'd be +4 in that state.

[Gabu]

Margin of Victory, not "relative to the national margin."

You've got to be a bit clearer with your terms there.

I was thinking...
Say Bush got 55% in a particular state, and 51% nationwide, he'd be +4 in that state.

I assume that what he means is the following:

- Bush won Virginia 54-45, which is a margin of victory of 9.
- Bush won nation-wide 51-48, which is a margin of victory of 3.
- Therefore, Virginia's is 6 points more Republican than nationwide.

[Joe Republic]

What's the deal with OH, IA and NM?

[Machiavelli]

What's the deal with OH, IA and NM?

Kerry did better than the national average in those states

[A18]

Actually, Bush did better than his national percentage in Ohio, but the margin of victory was smaller due, I guess, to no Nader.

[Soup18]

When are you going to do this for other years A18?

[Smash255]

I would say the biggest battleground states for 08 are those in light blue & pink. with some changes possible to do depending on which states the candidates are from

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Kerry had very narrowly lost the popular vote, he would have gotten 284 eletoral votes.

[Gustaf]

If I understood this correctly, here's 1996, using his system...

[opebo]

I would say the biggest battleground states for 08 are those in light blue & pink. with some changes possible to do depending on which states the candidates are from

Interestingly, if we assume the above, and I do, the Democrats are actually slightly ahead in the electoral game:
Democrat - 242
Republican - 213
Tossups   -  83

[A18]

Um, all of those states really lean GOP except Wisconsin right now. This is just relative to national margin, which is irrelevant in winning elections. It just shows where most of your support is.

[opebo]

Um, all of those states really lean GOP except Wisconsin right now. This is just relative to national margin, which is irrelevant in winning elections. It just shows where most of your support is.

You may be right about their current leanings - as for where they're headed:

NV, CO, OH moving Dem - 34 electoral votes
IA, FL(??) moving GOP - 34 electoral votes
NM, WS, neither -          15 electoral votes

[A18]

I don't see them moving Dem. What are you basing that on?

[opebo]

I don't see them moving Dem. What are you basing that on?

You don't see Nevada, Colorado, and Ohio moving Democrat?
Democrat percentages:
Colorado                                         Ohio                  Nevada
2004 - 47.02%                               48.71%               47.88%
2000 - 42.39% (5.25% Nadar)       46.46%               45.98%
1996 - 44.43%                                47.38%              43.93%
1992 - 40.13%                               40.18%               37.36%
1988 - 45.28%                                44.15%               37.92%
1984 - 35.12%                                40.14%              31.97%
1980 - 31.07%                                40.91%              26.89%

[A18]

Bush improved in all three of those states.

Yeah, the Dems have improved since the 80s, and there's no more Perot or Nader. So what?

[Gustaf]

Oh, come on...
Percent margin compared to national percent margin for the GOP:

Colorado:

2004: +2%

2000: +9%

1996: +10%

1992: +1.5%

1988: 0%

1984: +10%

1980: +14%

On average Colorado was roughly 7.5% more Republican than the national average during the period 1980-2000. And it was 2% more Republican this election. No trend here, none at all...

Nevada:

2004: +0%

2000: +4%

1996: +8%

1992: +2%

1988: +13%

1984: +16%

1980: +26%

Once again, ladies and gentlemen, no trend is evident...

Ohio:

2004: -0%

2000: +4%

1996: +2.5%

1992: +3.5%

1988: +3%

1984: +0%

1980: +1%

Here, I'm tempted to agree. There is no clear trend, Ohio remains slightly more GOP than the nation, just like Pennsylvania is a few points more Democratic than the average.

[A18]

The percent margin is not relevant at all. What changed in Colorado from 2000 to 2004 was that there is no Nader.

States reach an equilibrium. National swings will be heavier in some states than others.

As for comparing the margin to the national margin, that's an even bigger joke. It's good to hear, though, that you agree with Shira. Florida, anyone?

Maybe in 2094, Nevada will be 180% more Democratic than the national margin! No, the trend in those states as of late is toward the GOP, though it's hard to get a good look at it, because 1992 and 1996 had Perot to complicate matters, and 2000 had Nader.

Nevada, Colorado, and Ohio all became more Republican this election. That's a fact, not an opinion.

[Gustaf]

Percent margins are not relevant? So...since both the Democrats and the Republicans improved they're trending in all directions? Or are you saying that you know how the Nader voters and Perot voters would have voted.

Besides, I was one of Shira's critics, just so you know.

I'm not saying that the comparison I made is a perfect tool that provides the ultimate truth. But it's at least an indication. Please explain why your "analysis" is superior. (If I understand it, you're looking at the change in percentage for one side and disregarding national trends?)

[A18]

People vote for who they want to win, not how much more Republican or Democrat they want to be than the national margin.

A trend is a consistent movement within a given area. If a Democratic state suddenly starts electing more and more Republicans, and voting more and more GOP in presidential elections, it's trending Republican. Doesn't matter if other states are becoming even more Republican. According to your comparison, that state would be "trending Democrat," which I think you would concede is inaccurate.

You are effectively disregarding the actual opinions of people in a given area, and saying that because the nation moved Republican faster, they moved Democrat, when in reality, the opposite is true.

[Gustaf]

People vote for who they want to win, not how much more Republican or Democrat they want to be than the national margin.

A trend is a consistent movement within a given area. If a Democratic state suddenly starts electing more and more Republicans, and voting more and more GOP in presidential elections, it's trending Republican. Doesn't matter if other states are becoming even more Republican. According to your comparison, that state would be "trending Democrat," which I think you would concede is inaccurate.

You are effectively disregarding the actual opinions of people in a given area, and saying that because the nation moved Republican faster, they moved Democrat, when in reality, the opposite is true.

You have a point. Would you say that every state in the country was trending Republican in 1972? Or that Maine, for instance, was trending republican in 1968 since Nixon improved on GOldwater's result? You're ignoring the fact that candidates change and the results change with them.

In this case you're ignoring the fact that more and more people in these states vote Democrat. At a higher rate than more people are beginning to vote Republican.

[A18]

A trend is a consistent movement; not one or two election.

Reduced vote splitting does not qualify as a trend either.

[Gustaf]

So you account for the increased Republican margin how exactly?