Unusual state election results and vote patterns
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:55:00 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Unusual state election results and vote patterns
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Unusual state election results and vote patterns  (Read 4132 times)
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 27, 2019, 02:19:18 PM »
« edited: November 27, 2019, 02:29:52 PM by mathstatman »

I didn't see a thread for this so I created one. The idea is that the results are unusual for the standards of the day, not merely by today's standards.

MI-GOV-1978: Gov. William Milliken (R) defeats challenger Bill Fitzgerald (D), 56.8% - 43.2%.

The two counties William Milliken carried strongest were Washtenaw and Ingham, university counties, which by the mid-1980s were among the most Democratic at the state and federal level. Milliken even won Wayne County, and did slightly worse in Macomb than his statewide total. Milliken's worst county was tiny, rural Oscoda County, then and now one of the most Republican counties.

One possible explanation: Milliken was pro-choice; Fitzgerald pro-life.

MA-GOV-1978: Edward King (D) defeats Francis Hatch (R), 52.5-47.2.

Hatch carried Cambridge, Brookline, and Amherst decisively, while King carried Boston and Lowell decisively. Again, King was pro-life and Hatch pro-choice.

MI-GOV-1986: Gov. Jim Blanchard (D) won every county except Ottawa against a Black Republican, William Lucas; Blanchard decisively won normally Republican Lapeer, Missaukee, and Oscoda Counties.

MA-Question 5-1986: The state's secondary seat belt law was overturned, No-53.5% Yes-46.5% (polls a week earlier showed the law winning "Yes" by 7). The vote occurred a mere week after the Mets' much-publicized comeback against the Red Sox in Game 6 of the World Series, which the Mets would ultimately win. Boston talk show hosts railed against the law (I know; every day that summer I rode in a van from MIT to Middleton for particle accelerator research and could hear the radio). In the end, every county in the Boston area voted to overturn the law; only Barnstable, Dukes, Hampden, Hampshire, and Nantucket counties-- all well outside the Boston media market-- voted to retain it. Even Boston proper voted No, 47-53, and Cambridge voted Yes by just 63-37.

MI-GOV-1990: Gov. Blanchard (D) narrowly loses to John Engler (R) 49.1% - 49.8%. All age groups under 40 vote Engler; all age groups over 40 vote Blanchard.

MA-GOV-1990: William Weld (R) defeats John Silber (D), 49.9% - 47.2%. Returns were remarkably uniform, with Weld winning Cambridge 54-42 and Brookline 54-44, while losing Boston 57-40 and Somerville 49-46.

Please add your own!
Logged
DINGO Joe
dingojoe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,700
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2019, 01:13:39 PM »

The Kansas Gov races in 1930 and 1932 which both featured an independent candidate, John R. Brinkley, the famed "goat-gland" doctor (he surgically installed goat testicles into men to improve their chances of conceiving--spoiler, did not work) 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Brinkley

He was a write-in candidate in 1930 and may have won (ballots that weren't filled out as J.R. Brinkley weren't counted) and ran again in 1932.  Both times Brinkley got about 30% of the vote while the swing between the D-R was only 1 point.  So, you might think the vote pattern would be nearly identical in both elections.  Nope.

 



Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2019, 01:59:21 PM »

A few more pro-life Democrats running against pro-choice Republicans would go a long way toward improving civility again, IMO.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 28, 2019, 02:27:45 PM »

A few more pro-life Democrats running against pro-choice Republicans would go a long way toward improving civility again, IMO.

One of us!  One of us!  We accept you!  One of us!  One of Us!  One of Us!  RINO Tom will soon be one of us!
Logged
TrendsareUsuallyReal
TrendsareReal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,098
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 28, 2019, 03:40:07 PM »

John Silber was basically present-day Trump in 1990 with a D next to his name while Weld was for all intents and purposes a liberal. It’s not that shocking that Weld won Cambridge and Amherst in light of that.

What is kind of shocking is that all of the towns he lost in 1994 were towns that he won in 1990 against Silber despite his winning margin being 40% higher.

Another interesting one is that in the close-ish Missouri senate race of 1998, Kit Bond won St. Louis County, Boone County, and Jackson County despite only winning statewide by single digits. That’s an unthinkable prospect nowadays.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,348


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 28, 2019, 03:50:57 PM »

A few more pro-life Democrats running against pro-choice Republicans would go a long way toward improving civility again, IMO.

One of us!  One of us!  We accept you!  One of us!  One of Us!  One of Us!  RINO Tom will soon be one of us!

Not with the direction the Democratic Party is going and there if you ran for office you would stand to have a much better chance in a Republican primary than a Democratic one.


On immigration, you are right of almost every Democrat and even some Republicans and on economic issues lol, you are far to the right of the entire Democratic party and since you dont have incumbency like   Lipinski you would lose badly in a Dem party


In a Republican party you could easily win as long as you get backing by the establishment and the race isnt nationalized
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,348


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 28, 2019, 03:54:04 PM »




Fulton County going Republican was very rare even then as even in the post solid south era only Nixon in 1972 has won the county and even then it was by less of a margin then Mattingly and Nixon won GA by over 50 points while Mattingly only won GA by 1.74 points
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 28, 2019, 04:15:49 PM »

A few more pro-life Democrats running against pro-choice Republicans would go a long way toward improving civility again, IMO.

One of us!  One of us!  We accept you!  One of us!  One of Us!  One of Us!  RINO Tom will soon be one of us!

Not with the direction the Democratic Party is going and there if you ran for office you would stand to have a much better chance in a Republican primary than a Democratic one.


On immigration, you are right of almost every Democrat and even some Republicans and on economic issues lol, you are far to the right of the entire Democratic party and since you dont have incumbency like   Lipinski you would lose badly in a Dem party


In a Republican party you could easily win as long as you get backing by the establishment and the race isnt nationalized

You know that I support full amnesty and an expedited path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants who haven't been convicted of a non-immigration related offense and dramatically increasing immigration quotas for all countries, right? Tongue  I also want to sack the entire leadership (mid-level on up) of ICE and the other two immigration agencies and replace them all with a new agency that focuses on border security geared toward looking for national security threats and keeping out drugs/gang members rather than immigrants in general.  I mean, yes, I oppose open borders for national security reasons and think some of the stuff I want to shouldn't be attempted b/c they're political non-starters (and I don't like Julian Castro's dumb demagoguery about decriminalizing illegal immigration), but I'm pretty liberal on immigration. 

Also, while I'm certainly to the right on economics of certain factions of the Democratic primary, I'm still well to the left of say, Obama, on most economic issues (especially when taxes, unions, and education spending are involved).  And even if that all weren't true, we can't forget about social issues.  For example, I don't think there is any individual right to own guns under the second amendment, period.  It's an invented right created when a rogue SCOTUS majority decided to abuse its power by legislating from the bench in 2008 (DC v. Heller). 

Username aside, I fit in well in my current party.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,348


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 28, 2019, 04:33:23 PM »

A few more pro-life Democrats running against pro-choice Republicans would go a long way toward improving civility again, IMO.

One of us!  One of us!  We accept you!  One of us!  One of Us!  One of Us!  RINO Tom will soon be one of us!

Not with the direction the Democratic Party is going and there if you ran for office you would stand to have a much better chance in a Republican primary than a Democratic one.


On immigration, you are right of almost every Democrat and even some Republicans and on economic issues lol, you are far to the right of the entire Democratic party and since you dont have incumbency like   Lipinski you would lose badly in a Dem party


In a Republican party you could easily win as long as you get backing by the establishment and the race isnt nationalized

You know that I support full amnesty and an expedited path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants who haven't been convicted of a non-immigration related offense and dramatically increasing immigration quotas for all countries, right? Tongue  I also want to sack the entire leadership (mid-level on up) of ICE and the other two immigration agencies and replace them all with a new agency that focuses on border security geared toward looking for national security threats and keeping out drugs/gang members rather than immigrants in general.  I mean, yes, I oppose open borders for national security reasons and think some of the stuff I want to shouldn't be attempted b/c they're political non-starters (and I don't like Julian Castro's dumb demagoguery about decriminalizing illegal immigration), but I'm pretty liberal on immigration. 

Also, while I'm certainly to the right on economics of certain factions of the Democratic primary, I'm still well to the left of say, Obama, on most economic issues (especially when taxes, unions, and education spending are involved).  And even if that all weren't true, we can't forget about social issues.  For example, I don't think there is any individual right to own guns under the second amendment, period.  It's an invented right created when a rogue SCOTUS majority decided to abuse its power by legislating from the bench in 2008 (DC v. Heller). 

Username aside, I fit in well in my current party.

I thought I was responding to Green Line for a second lol sorry because hes replied to RINO Tom the same way before
Logged
Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese
JOHN91043353
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,569
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 28, 2019, 06:02:18 PM »


Is this the electoral equivalent to an acid trip?
Logged
DINGO Joe
dingojoe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,700
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 28, 2019, 07:28:12 PM »


Especially when you realize that one of the candidates was trying to cure erectile dysfunction.
Logged
Bojack Horseman
Wolverine22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,368
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 28, 2019, 11:57:26 PM »

I didn't see a thread for this so I created one. The idea is that the results are unusual for the standards of the day, not merely by today's standards.

MI-GOV-1978: Gov. William Milliken (R) defeats challenger Bill Fitzgerald (D), 56.8% - 43.2%.

The two counties William Milliken carried strongest were Washtenaw and Ingham, university counties, which by the mid-1980s were among the most Democratic at the state and federal level. Milliken even won Wayne County, and did slightly worse in Macomb than his statewide total. Milliken's worst county was tiny, rural Oscoda County, then and now one of the most Republican counties.

One possible explanation: Milliken was pro-choice; Fitzgerald pro-life.

MA-GOV-1978: Edward King (D) defeats Francis Hatch (R), 52.5-47.2.

Hatch carried Cambridge, Brookline, and Amherst decisively, while King carried Boston and Lowell decisively. Again, King was pro-life and Hatch pro-choice.

MI-GOV-1986: Gov. Jim Blanchard (D) won every county except Ottawa against a Black Republican, William Lucas; Blanchard decisively won normally Republican Lapeer, Missaukee, and Oscoda Counties.

MA-Question 5-1986: The state's secondary seat belt law was overturned, No-53.5% Yes-46.5% (polls a week earlier showed the law winning "Yes" by 7). The vote occurred a mere week after the Mets' much-publicized comeback against the Red Sox in Game 6 of the World Series, which the Mets would ultimately win. Boston talk show hosts railed against the law (I know; every day that summer I rode in a van from MIT to Middleton for particle accelerator research and could hear the radio). In the end, every county in the Boston area voted to overturn the law; only Barnstable, Dukes, Hampden, Hampshire, and Nantucket counties-- all well outside the Boston media market-- voted to retain it. Even Boston proper voted No, 47-53, and Cambridge voted Yes by just 63-37.

MI-GOV-1990: Gov. Blanchard (D) narrowly loses to John Engler (R) 49.1% - 49.8%. All age groups under 40 vote Engler; all age groups over 40 vote Blanchard.

MA-GOV-1990: William Weld (R) defeats John Silber (D), 49.9% - 47.2%. Returns were remarkably uniform, with Weld winning Cambridge 54-42 and Brookline 54-44, while losing Boston 57-40 and Somerville 49-46.

Please add your own!

One major fact about 1978 that you left out is that the Democrat carried Missaukee County, which has never voted Democratic at the presidential level and only a handful of times at the state level in its entire history.
Logged
Orwell
JacksonHitchcock
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,413
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 01, 2019, 01:01:12 AM »

I didn't see a thread for this so I created one. The idea is that the results are unusual for the standards of the day, not merely by today's standards.

MI-GOV-1978: Gov. William Milliken (R) defeats challenger Bill Fitzgerald (D), 56.8% - 43.2%.

The two counties William Milliken carried strongest were Washtenaw and Ingham, university counties, which by the mid-1980s were among the most Democratic at the state and federal level. Milliken even won Wayne County, and did slightly worse in Macomb than his statewide total. Milliken's worst county was tiny, rural Oscoda County, then and now one of the most Republican counties.

One possible explanation: Milliken was pro-choice; Fitzgerald pro-life.

MA-GOV-1978: Edward King (D) defeats Francis Hatch (R), 52.5-47.2.

Hatch carried Cambridge, Brookline, and Amherst decisively, while King carried Boston and Lowell decisively. Again, King was pro-life and Hatch pro-choice.

MI-GOV-1986: Gov. Jim Blanchard (D) won every county except Ottawa against a Black Republican, William Lucas; Blanchard decisively won normally Republican Lapeer, Missaukee, and Oscoda Counties.

MA-Question 5-1986: The state's secondary seat belt law was overturned, No-53.5% Yes-46.5% (polls a week earlier showed the law winning "Yes" by 7). The vote occurred a mere week after the Mets' much-publicized comeback against the Red Sox in Game 6 of the World Series, which the Mets would ultimately win. Boston talk show hosts railed against the law (I know; every day that summer I rode in a van from MIT to Middleton for particle accelerator research and could hear the radio). In the end, every county in the Boston area voted to overturn the law; only Barnstable, Dukes, Hampden, Hampshire, and Nantucket counties-- all well outside the Boston media market-- voted to retain it. Even Boston proper voted No, 47-53, and Cambridge voted Yes by just 63-37.

MI-GOV-1990: Gov. Blanchard (D) narrowly loses to John Engler (R) 49.1% - 49.8%. All age groups under 40 vote Engler; all age groups over 40 vote Blanchard.

MA-GOV-1990: William Weld (R) defeats John Silber (D), 49.9% - 47.2%. Returns were remarkably uniform, with Weld winning Cambridge 54-42 and Brookline 54-44, while losing Boston 57-40 and Somerville 49-46.

Please add your own!

One major fact about 1978 that you left out is that the Democrat carried Missaukee County, which has never voted Democratic at the presidential level and only a handful of times at the state level in its entire history.

Why did Blanchard lose in 1990?
Logged
Gracile
gracile
Moderator
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,043


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 01, 2019, 11:58:47 PM »

Maine has several of these due to its unusually strong performances from independent/third party candidates. My favorite is this very interesting pattern which shows the three-way contest between Angus King (I), Joe Brennan (D), and Susan Collins (R):

Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2019, 12:10:34 AM »
« Edited: December 02, 2019, 12:16:21 AM by Eastern Kentucky Demosaur fighting the long defeat »

The election was recent enough and high-profile enough that this one is sort of hiding in plain sight, but the 2016 Democratic primary in Massachusetts yielded a pretty weird pattern:



I can't figure out how to insert the town map into this post but I highly recommend looking over that one as well; it has even stranger stuff in it, like Bernie cleaning up in all the Pioneer Valley ALATT/hippie bastions (he didn't lose a single municipality in Franklin and Hampshire Counties, and might not have lost a single precinct in the former, which is culturally and economically closely tied to some of his home-state strongholds in Windham County) while Hillary easily wins not only Cambridge and Brookline but also Provincetown.
Logged
TrendsareUsuallyReal
TrendsareReal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,098
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2019, 12:33:37 AM »

Hillary did well in pretty much all the Ivy League towns except for Dartmouth and Ithaca, and even in Hanover (Dartmouth), she did much better there relative to the rest of the region.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2019, 01:51:04 AM »

Maine has several of these due to its unusually strong performances from independent/third party candidates. My favorite is this very interesting pattern which shows the three-way contest between Angus King (I), Joe Brennan (D), and Susan Collins (R):


My favorite maine map is the 2002 one.
Super #populist Purple heart
Logged
TrendsareUsuallyReal
TrendsareReal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,098
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2019, 07:49:26 AM »

Maine has several of these due to its unusually strong performances from independent/third party candidates. My favorite is this very interesting pattern which shows the three-way contest between Angus King (I), Joe Brennan (D), and Susan Collins (R):


My favorite maine map is the 2002 one.
Super #populist Purple heart

I guess the gubernatorial one where the Republican won all the counties in ME-01 but Baldacci crushes it in ME-02?
Logged
Bojack Horseman
Wolverine22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,368
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2019, 06:09:47 PM »
« Edited: December 02, 2019, 06:13:48 PM by Wolverine22 »

I didn't see a thread for this so I created one. The idea is that the results are unusual for the standards of the day, not merely by today's standards.

MI-GOV-1978: Gov. William Milliken (R) defeats challenger Bill Fitzgerald (D), 56.8% - 43.2%.

The two counties William Milliken carried strongest were Washtenaw and Ingham, university counties, which by the mid-1980s were among the most Democratic at the state and federal level. Milliken even won Wayne County, and did slightly worse in Macomb than his statewide total. Milliken's worst county was tiny, rural Oscoda County, then and now one of the most Republican counties.

One possible explanation: Milliken was pro-choice; Fitzgerald pro-life.

MA-GOV-1978: Edward King (D) defeats Francis Hatch (R), 52.5-47.2.

Hatch carried Cambridge, Brookline, and Amherst decisively, while King carried Boston and Lowell decisively. Again, King was pro-life and Hatch pro-choice.

MI-GOV-1986: Gov. Jim Blanchard (D) won every county except Ottawa against a Black Republican, William Lucas; Blanchard decisively won normally Republican Lapeer, Missaukee, and Oscoda Counties.

MA-Question 5-1986: The state's secondary seat belt law was overturned, No-53.5% Yes-46.5% (polls a week earlier showed the law winning "Yes" by 7). The vote occurred a mere week after the Mets' much-publicized comeback against the Red Sox in Game 6 of the World Series, which the Mets would ultimately win. Boston talk show hosts railed against the law (I know; every day that summer I rode in a van from MIT to Middleton for particle accelerator research and could hear the radio). In the end, every county in the Boston area voted to overturn the law; only Barnstable, Dukes, Hampden, Hampshire, and Nantucket counties-- all well outside the Boston media market-- voted to retain it. Even Boston proper voted No, 47-53, and Cambridge voted Yes by just 63-37.

MI-GOV-1990: Gov. Blanchard (D) narrowly loses to John Engler (R) 49.1% - 49.8%. All age groups under 40 vote Engler; all age groups over 40 vote Blanchard.

MA-GOV-1990: William Weld (R) defeats John Silber (D), 49.9% - 47.2%. Returns were remarkably uniform, with Weld winning Cambridge 54-42 and Brookline 54-44, while losing Boston 57-40 and Somerville 49-46.

Please add your own!

One major fact about 1978 that you left out is that the Democrat carried Missaukee County, which has never voted Democratic at the presidential level and only a handful of times at the state level in its entire history.

Why did Blanchard lose in 1990?

He ran a Hillary-level bad campaign and didn’t take it as seriously as he should have because he’d won such a huge landslide 4 years earlier. Not to mention it’s extraordinarily difficult for a governor to win three terms in a row, as Mario Cuomo and Scott Walker found out. Engler was able to win three terms because his last election he got a dream opponent in Geoffrey Feiger who was way outside the mainstream in 1998. Sadly in that election we replaced one of this state’s best governors with one of its worst.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,521
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2019, 09:35:11 PM »

LA-GOV 2003 seems otherworldly today, but I don't think it was particularly unusual at the time?
Logged
Calthrina950
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,937
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2019, 11:28:19 PM »
« Edited: December 02, 2019, 11:41:12 PM by Calthrina950 »

LA-GOV 2003 seems otherworldly today, but I don't think it was particularly unusual at the time?

I would assume not, since downballot, Democrats still had considerable strength in the rural South throughout the 2000s, until the Tea Party wave of 2010. They were still winning statewide office in Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Arkansas, West Virginia, etc. throughout that entire decade, and some Democratic Southern Governors of the era (i.e. Phil Bredesen, Brad Henry, Steve Beshear, Joe Manchin) won crushing landslides in 2006, 2007, and 2008, right after George W. Bush had won their states handily against John Kerry. And of course, Louisiana still had two Democratic Senators through 2005 and a Democratic-controlled state legislature through the end of the decade.

What is interesting (but not surprising) about the race is how Blanco won notoriously racist and staunchly Republican LaSalle Parish against Jindal with over 60% of the vote. Jindal was clearly hurt by his race and his name throughout much of rural Louisiana, particularly since he was running against a Southern white woman. Even in 2007 and 2011, he underperformed in LaSalle Parish compared to the Republican baseline, getting 55% and 78% there in those two years-every Republican presidential candidate since 2004 has broken 80% there.
Logged
ChrisMcDanielWasRobbed
KYtrader
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 463


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 08, 2020, 03:05:41 PM »

I know this is old, but I think I found the epitome of this description, at least by modern standards. The 1926 Pennsylvania US senate election. All of the rural areas go democratic while Philadelphia and Pittsburgh go Republican. It may have been common at the time, but looking back it definitely isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1926_United_States_Senate_election_in_Pennsylvania
Logged
Calthrina950
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,937
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 08, 2020, 05:26:44 PM »

I know this is old, but I think I found the epitome of this description, at least by modern standards. The 1926 Pennsylvania US senate election. All of the rural areas go democratic while Philadelphia and Pittsburgh go Republican. It may have been common at the time, but looking back it definitely isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1926_United_States_Senate_election_in_Pennsylvania

This 1926 Senatorial election (which I've looked at on Atlas before) is very bizarre, and seems to be a reverse of what modern elections look like in the state. Back then, Republican machines dominated Philadelphia and Pittsburgh-Philadelphia, in fact, did not vote Democratic at the presidential level at all between 1860 and 1932. Conversely, Pennsylvania's rural areas-which are overpoweringly Republican today-were not so in those days, and many rural counties (i.e. Columbia, Monroe, Greene, Fulton, Fayette) were ancestrally Democratic, supporting the Party from the days of Jefferson and Jackson until the 1920s or later.

There are numerous other elections from the early 20th century in Pennsylvania in which the Democrats did exceptionally well in the rural areas and Republicans won by running up the margins in the metropolitan centers. And going farther back, Rutherford B. Hayes was saved from defeat in the state in 1876 by Philadelphia, as Samuel Tilden won the majority of the state's counties.
Logged
Samof94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,312
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 13, 2020, 07:02:39 AM »

Everything about Edwards v. Duke was just bizarre.
Logged
ChrisMcDanielWasRobbed
KYtrader
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 463


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 13, 2020, 08:36:18 AM »

Everything about Edwards v. Duke was just bizarre.

Not really actually. It followed the typical established patterns at the time of Northern Louisiana going heavily republican and southern Louisiana going heavily democratic. The only real notable difference was the suburbs like Lafayette and St. Tammany, which while typically republican were turned off by Duke.

A better comparison would be the 2003 election.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« 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 0.066 seconds with 11 queries.