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

[A18]

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

[A18]

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

[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.

[A18]

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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[A18]

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

Reduced vote splitting does not qualify as a trend either.

[A18]

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

[A18]

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.

[A18]

Assumption that Nader voters are mostly left-wing? Um, okay. Develop what theory?

[A18]

No, that wasn't my theory.

[A18]

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.'

[A18]

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.