Presidential election maps relative to the national margin
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:50:13 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Presidential election maps relative to the national margin
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Presidential election maps relative to the national margin  (Read 6826 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 14, 2005, 04:54:38 PM »

The Republican candidate got a larger percentage of the vote. I don't have to 'account' for that; it's a fact.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 20, 2005, 01:56:22 PM »

Once you take out the 13 southern states, the other 37 states will have a default Democratic trend "bonus" compared to the national average, because the South affects the national average by so much. So even if they aren't trending Democrat, they'll appear to be trending Democrat compared to the national average--what's really happening is the South trending Republican. Call it the theory of relativity applied to politics.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 21, 2005, 09:13:17 AM »

The Republican candidate got a larger percentage of the vote. I don't have to 'account' for that; it's a fact.

You said that the increase in the Democratic vote share didn't count because it was the result of "reduced vote splitting". So...how do you account for the increase in Republican votes, since that apparently qualifies as a trend?
Logged
dougrhess
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 442


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 22, 2005, 11:37:40 AM »

It would be interesting to see how the demographics of NV, CO and AZ change by 2008 or 2012. I think AZ is probably the fastest growing of the three, but not sure which is the fastest "changing" of the three.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 22, 2005, 11:39:24 AM »

By percentage, Nevada is the fastest-growing. Absolute figures...different story.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 26, 2005, 11:05:55 AM »

The Republican candidate got a larger percentage of the vote. I don't have to 'account' for that; it's a fact.

You said that the increase in the Democratic vote share didn't count because it was the result of "reduced vote splitting". So...how do you account for the increase in Republican votes, since that apparently qualifies as a trend?

I don't think I called it a trend, just movement. If I called it a trend, I meant only in the most limited sense of the word.

The increase in Republican votes would presumably be Gore voters switching to Bush. Unlikely that a Nader voter would vote Bush, but I'm sure there are some out there. The point is that there are actually enough votes from Democrats for the GOP to significantly increase its percentage of the vote by taking from those voters, whereas the same can not be said of Naderites.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: June 26, 2005, 11:18:10 AM »

There you go with assumptions that may or may not be correct. The point is that the Democrats gained more votes in Nevada and Colorado than Bush did. How is that a positive trend for Republicans? And if you're assuming that there was a left-winged majority in 2000 that wasn't there before and then disappeared in this election in those states, please deevlop this theory further...
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 26, 2005, 11:22:54 AM »

Assumption that Nader voters are mostly left-wing? Um, okay. Develop what theory?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 27, 2005, 01:41:59 PM »

Your theory that there was a swing to the left in 2000 breaking a conservative trend and then reversing back to conservative. Why did this happen?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2005, 07:20:49 AM »

No, that wasn't my theory.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 29, 2005, 09:30:10 AM »

You said that the Nader votes should be seen as Democrats. I assume that we can view Buchanan voters as republicans? If you lump together libertarian reform and Republican candidates v Democratic and green for Colorado you get:

2004: Left 47.62%, Right 52.05%
2000: Left 47.65%, Right 52.04%
1996: Left 46.09%, Right 53.21%
1992: Left 40.13%, Right 56.74%
1988: Left 45.28%, Right 54.53%

For Nevada:
2004: Left 48.46%, Right 50.85%
2000: Left 48.44%, Right 50.84%
1996: Left 44.95%, Right 53.34%
1992: Left 37.36%, Right 61.28%
1988: Left 37.92%, Right 59.87%

This is definitely not a Republican trend, IMHO.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: June 29, 2005, 09:38:00 AM »

Perot 92 as right wing? Yeah well whatever. Might make more sense to disregard 1992 alltogether.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: June 29, 2005, 09:59:51 AM »

The results of 1992 and 1996 are worthless because of Perot, a tax-hiking wing-nut. Nice try counting him as a right winger, though.

Remove them, and you have one landslide election, and then 2000 followed by 2004.

I said movement, not trend. You're the one trying to show a Demcoratic 'trend.'
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: June 29, 2005, 12:01:21 PM »

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


PA went to Kerry by a lesser margin than Bush won in Ohio.  The least you can do is try to be objective.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: June 30, 2005, 09:50:14 AM »

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


PA went to Kerry by a lesser margin than Bush won in Ohio.  The least you can do is try to be objective.
No. Bush won in Ohio by a margin of 2.10%. Kerry won in Pennsylvania by a margin of 2.50%. I'll admit that's pretty close, but your statement is factually untrue.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: June 30, 2005, 03:44:24 PM »

The results of 1992 and 1996 are worthless because of Perot, a tax-hiking wing-nut. Nice try counting him as a right winger, though.

Remove them, and you have one landslide election, and then 2000 followed by 2004.

I said movement, not trend. You're the one trying to show a Demcoratic 'trend.'

I'm using another model. But what does the landslide mean? I thought you WANTED absolute numbers, and not relative ones?

I'll make one more attempt at explaining the point of using the national margin as a reference point. Just for you.

There are certain inherent gographic factors. Such as the people of Utah being Mormons or the coal mines in West Virginia, the Catholics in RHode Island and so on. This creates leans to one side or the other. So Utah will pick a GENERIC Republican over a GENERIC Democrat and so on. But candidates aren't generic. So in an actual campaign other things decide. Such as Reagan being so charming or Bush sr. raising taxes, etc, etc. This creates a national result. Those, however are not trends.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: June 30, 2005, 03:58:39 PM »

I am using absolute numbers. You have a landslide election, and then you have 2000 and 2004.

You are a ing idiot. I've already said about 6 million times that one election is not a trend, or even several.
Logged
tarheel-leftist85
krustytheklown
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,274
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 02, 2005, 11:48:38 AM »


x = |Margin of state| - 2.46
x < 0 = Gray
0 < x < 2.46 = 30% Red/Blue
2.47 < x < 4.92 = 40% Red/Blue
4.93 < x < 7.38 = 50% Red/Blue
7.39 < x < 9.84 = 60% Red/Blue
9.84 < x < 12.2 = 70% Red/Blue
12.2 < x < 14.66 = 80% Red/Blue
x > 14.67 = 90% Red/Blue
Every state may not be exactly correct, but it's close enough to make the pt.:  If Dems. want to win, they have to fight on Republican territory.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.039 seconds with 11 queries.