|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 30, 2020, 09:50:01 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, ON Progressive)
  New Hampshire 1988-1992
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: New Hampshire 1988-1992  (Read 1580 times)
Arbitrage1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 693
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 21, 2016, 10:02:25 pm »

Amazing how big the swing was.  In 1988, HW Bush won New Hampshire by a whopping 26 points over Dukakis; his second best state after Utah.  Just 4 years later, Bill Clinton won the state by 1.2%. Yes, I'm aware of the Perot effect, but that alone doesn't explain such a big swing. And demographically, I imagine the state didn't change too much in 4 years.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,336
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2016, 10:20:03 pm »

Thats about the time everyone there started becoming angrier.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2016, 12:48:16 am »

Thats about the time everyone there started becoming angrier.
Is the state as a whole angry?
Logged
catographer
Megameow
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,170
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.19, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2016, 04:08:21 am »

The whole Northeast swung dramatically to Clinton. It was because Clinton's 1992 coalition, mostly in tact as the new Democratic coalition of '08 and '12, encompassed suburban and college-educated whites in areas of the Northeast, Midwest and West coast that were Republican in the 70's and 80's.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2016, 10:54:53 am »

New Hampshire's economy was hit especially hard by the early 90's recession.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2016, 02:09:46 pm »

New Hampshire's economy was hit especially hard by the early 90's recession.

Oh look, an ACTUAL answer!
Logged
heatcharger
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,346
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -1.04, S: -0.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 22, 2016, 03:37:32 pm »

New Hampshire's economy was hit especially hard by the early 90's recession.

Oh look, an ACTUAL answer!

That doesn't explain why the state remained Democratic after that, though.

In case you didn't know, the economy was good under the Clinton Administration.
Logged
heatcharger
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,346
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -1.04, S: -0.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2016, 03:48:30 pm »

New Hampshire's economy was hit especially hard by the early 90's recession.

Oh look, an ACTUAL answer!

That doesn't explain why the state remained Democratic after that, though.

In case you didn't know, the economy was good under the Clinton Administration.

That doesn't explain why the state remained Democratic after 2000.

Perhaps because the unemployment rate in NH nearly doubled from 2000 to 2002, and barely came back down by 2004. Maybe they decided after that they trust Democrats more on the economy than Republicans.

Who knew you could explain electoral trends with facts rather than baseless misogyny.
Logged
heatcharger
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,346
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -1.04, S: -0.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2016, 04:07:57 pm »

It's not misogyny to point out that a state is solidly Democratic at the federal level (which is what you say about basically every swing state, btw). And in the case of NH, that is clearly the case.

I never said Arizona or Georgia were solidly Democratic. As for PA, WI, and MI, I never thought those were swing states to begin with.

Perhaps because the unemployment rate in NH nearly doubled from 2000 to 2002, and barely came back down by 2004. Maybe they decided after that they trust Democrats more on the economy than Republicans.

Who knew you could explain electoral trends with facts rather than baseless misogyny.

Well then...

I was clearly talking about the employment statistics.

Also, New England is extremely secular compared to the nation. Over the past 35 years or so, the GOP has made it a point to consolidate the Evangelicals as a voting bloc, which possibly alienated the traditional Republican base in states like Vermont and New Hampshire. Have you ever thought about that?
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,411


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2016, 04:28:07 pm »

It's not misogyny to point out that a state is solidly Democratic at the federal level (which is what you say about basically every swing state, btw). And in the case of NH, that is clearly the case.

I never said Arizona or Georgia were solidly Democratic. As for PA, WI, and MI, I never thought those were swing states to begin with.

Perhaps because the unemployment rate in NH nearly doubled from 2000 to 2002, and barely came back down by 2004. Maybe they decided after that they trust Democrats more on the economy than Republicans.

Who knew you could explain electoral trends with facts rather than baseless misogyny.

Well then...

I was clearly talking about the employment statistics.

Also, New England is extremely secular compared to the nation. Over the past 35 years or so, the GOP has made it a point to consolidate the Evangelicals as a voting bloc, which possibly alienated the traditional Republican base in states like Vermont and New Hampshire. Have you ever thought about that?

Except TN is not a republican he thinks Carter is better then Reagan and Bush Sr , and maybe even with Obama . TN probably is never Clinton democrat
Logged
Make America Malarkey Free Again
xingkerui
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,319
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.63, S: -6.13

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 22, 2016, 05:31:21 pm »

Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine all used to be reliably Republican, but that very quickly changed in the 90s.
Logged
Heisenberg
SecureAmerica
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,096
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 22, 2016, 08:20:30 pm »

Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine all used to be reliably Republican, but that very quickly changed in the 90s.
ME-02 is returning to swing district status.... and that's it! I'd say the women in the state got REALLY angry after the 2002 and 2004 Senate elections, when two Democratic women lost to two Republican men. Then it really started to change.
Logged
catographer
Megameow
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,170
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.19, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 22, 2016, 10:03:52 pm »

Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine all used to be reliably Republican, but that very quickly changed in the 90s.
ME-02 is returning to swing district status.... and that's it! I'd say the women in the state got REALLY angry after the 2002 and 2004 Senate elections, when two Democratic women lost to two Republican men. Then it really started to change.

It doesn't seem likely or logical to me that female voters in these states felt personally offended by electoral losses by female Democratic senators and thus are angry at the GOP because of it. Women support Democrats by larger margins than men in every state in the country; your explanation doesn't make sense.
Logged
Make America Malarkey Free Again
xingkerui
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,319
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.63, S: -6.13

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 22, 2016, 10:45:09 pm »

Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine all used to be reliably Republican, but that very quickly changed in the 90s.
ME-02 is returning to swing district status.... and that's it! I'd say the women in the state got REALLY angry after the 2002 and 2004 Senate elections, when two Democratic women lost to two Republican men. Then it really started to change.

I'm not yet buying ME-02 trending Republican. It didn't show any kind of trend like that in recent elections. I guess we'll know more after this election. I think that part of the 1992 re-alignment was states with a lot of progressives (WA, OR, VT, NH, and ME) moving into the Democratic column. The flip side was states that are more socially conservative (AR, TN, KY, WV, and eventually MO) moved solidly into the Republican column starting in 2000.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,411


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 23, 2016, 02:10:13 am »

1992 was a Realigning election , where the Pacific States and New England, and most of the midwest go democratic, while the South , Mountain West go Republican, making the elections be decided by a few swing states
Logged
Arbitrage1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 693
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2016, 12:57:09 pm »

Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine all used to be reliably Republican, but that very quickly changed in the 90s.
ME-02 is returning to swing district status.... and that's it! I'd say the women in the state got REALLY angry after the 2002 and 2004 Senate elections, when two Democratic women lost to two Republican men. Then it really started to change.

I'm not yet buying ME-02 trending Republican. It didn't show any kind of trend like that in recent elections. I guess we'll know more after this election. I think that part of the 1992 re-alignment was states with a lot of progressives (WA, OR, VT, NH, and ME) moving into the Democratic column. The flip side was states that are more socially conservative (AR, TN, KY, WV, and eventually MO) moved solidly into the Republican column starting in 2000.

Obama's coalition is basically the Clinton coalition minus appalachian states (probably due to racism).  Knott County in KY voted for Democrats in EVERY single election from 1852 until 2008, when it swung decisively to McCain. 
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 23, 2016, 01:05:43 pm »

Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine all used to be reliably Republican, but that very quickly changed in the 90s.
ME-02 is returning to swing district status.... and that's it! I'd say the women in the state got REALLY angry after the 2002 and 2004 Senate elections, when two Democratic women lost to two Republican men. Then it really started to change.

I'm not yet buying ME-02 trending Republican. It didn't show any kind of trend like that in recent elections. I guess we'll know more after this election. I think that part of the 1992 re-alignment was states with a lot of progressives (WA, OR, VT, NH, and ME) moving into the Democratic column. The flip side was states that are more socially conservative (AR, TN, KY, WV, and eventually MO) moved solidly into the Republican column starting in 2000.

Obama's coalition is basically the Clinton coalition minus appalachian states (probably due to racism).  Knott County in KY voted for Democrats in EVERY single election from 1852 until 2008, when it swung decisively to McCain. 
Yeah but Gore and Kerry didn't win the Appalachin States though and Hillary isn't gonna win them either.
Logged
Arbitrage1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 693
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2016, 07:41:09 pm »

Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine all used to be reliably Republican, but that very quickly changed in the 90s.
ME-02 is returning to swing district status.... and that's it! I'd say the women in the state got REALLY angry after the 2002 and 2004 Senate elections, when two Democratic women lost to two Republican men. Then it really started to change.

I'm not yet buying ME-02 trending Republican. It didn't show any kind of trend like that in recent elections. I guess we'll know more after this election. I think that part of the 1992 re-alignment was states with a lot of progressives (WA, OR, VT, NH, and ME) moving into the Democratic column. The flip side was states that are more socially conservative (AR, TN, KY, WV, and eventually MO) moved solidly into the Republican column starting in 2000.

Obama's coalition is basically the Clinton coalition minus appalachian states (probably due to racism).  Knott County in KY voted for Democrats in EVERY single election from 1852 until 2008, when it swung decisively to McCain. 
Yeah but Gore and Kerry didn't win the Appalachin States though and Hillary isn't gonna win them either.

True; Gore and Kerry did lose those states.  I should've been more specific: the appalachian states were pretty much the only region where Obama did worse in 2008 than Gore/Kerry.  This is odd given that it was a very anti-GOP year. 
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines