If Bush had focused on the pacific northwest in 2000, would they be less Democratic?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:22:27 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)
  If Bush had focused on the pacific northwest in 2000, would they be less Democratic?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: If Bush had focused on the pacific northwest in 2000, would they be less Democratic?  (Read 1793 times)
Left Wing
FalterinArc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,512
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -8.26, S: -6.09


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 04, 2020, 10:11:30 AM »

Both states had close popular vote margins. If Bush had targeted them more, would they have trended less Democratic?
Logged
Alben Barkley
KYWildman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,282
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.97, S: -5.74

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2020, 01:55:47 PM »

I think he did make a play for them, especially Oregon. He just couldn’t get over the top. And demographic changes have made the states more Democratic than ever since then, which likely would have happened regardless. We’re talking about Seattle and Portland here. These urban areas have become flooded with young people and liberals and Californians. Much of the more rural areas already are pretty solid R, but that can’t overcome the strong D lean of these urban areas:
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,755
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2020, 04:08:27 PM »

OR trended Dem in 2008, due to Gordan Smith voting for Tarp which in turn turned OR into a blue state, barring that the NW are environmental freedom states and dont allow oil drilling off coast of Cali
Logged
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,802


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2020, 10:29:00 PM »

I think that would be missing the point. The Pacific Northwest already started turning against the Republicans on their economic and social policies during the Reagan years, and urbanization would only increase Democratic gains later on. If Bush had won Oregon outright in 2000, yeah, I'm sure Republicans would target the area a little more and the margins might be thinner, but it would be negligible. Eventually, the 2000 results would be chalked up to the Nader effect. The state would be abandoned by the GOP and the numbers would resemble ours.
Logged
Left Wing
FalterinArc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,512
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -8.26, S: -6.09


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2020, 10:52:01 PM »

I think that would be missing the point. The Pacific Northwest already started turning against the Republicans on their economic and social policies during the Reagan years, and urbanization would only increase Democratic gains later on. If Bush had won Oregon outright in 2000, yeah, I'm sure Republicans would target the area a little more and the margins might be thinner, but it would be negligible. Eventually, the 2000 results would be chalked up to the Nader effect. The state would be abandoned by the GOP and the numbers would resemble ours.
Could Mannix or Rossi have won in this case?
Logged
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,802


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2020, 08:14:10 AM »

I think that would be missing the point. The Pacific Northwest already started turning against the Republicans on their economic and social policies during the Reagan years, and urbanization would only increase Democratic gains later on. If Bush had won Oregon outright in 2000, yeah, I'm sure Republicans would target the area a little more and the margins might be thinner, but it would be negligible. Eventually, the 2000 results would be chalked up to the Nader effect. The state would be abandoned by the GOP and the numbers would resemble ours.
Could Mannix or Rossi have won in this case?

For Mannix, it depends on how much additional campaign funding and attention he gets and how much that effects the race. Who's to say? For Rossi, maybe the GOP would fund his court expenses and make a bigger deal out of the electoral sabotage claims. If he takes his case to the Washington State Supreme Court and wins, you have a Republican governor.
Logged
morgankingsley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,018
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2020, 12:38:42 AM »

Maybe slightly but not enough to change the overall path
Logged
King of Kensington
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,068


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2020, 02:45:45 PM »

Neither GW Bush or Trump were good fits for the region.
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2020, 08:48:20 PM »

Probably not, I'm rather skeptical of the idea that ground investment actually has that much effect.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,755
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2020, 10:29:16 PM »

Oil drilling isnt allowed off the Pacific anywhere near Cali, along with WA and OR, they are environmentally friendly states, that even Gordon Smith voted against ANWR, Rs would not have won OR
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2020, 10:30:21 PM »

Probably not, I'm rather skeptical of the idea that ground investment actually has that much effect.

Explain.
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2020, 12:00:46 AM »

Probably not, I'm rather skeptical of the idea that ground investment actually has that much effect.

Explain.

We are all relatively well informed voters, so I'll try to separate my own experiences from the matter. Still, I've met a lot of people. I've seen folks be convinced by campaign ads, and posters, and opinion pieces (very common actually, and very annoying). And yes, I've seen an occasional person be turned out to vote by canvassers. But in general? Canvassing/phone banking tends to have little effect at changing voters minds, and while I can't say it has no electoral effects, I can't say it has any major ones either. Furthermore, even things like registration have been shown to have relatively limited effects: the kinds of voters who need to be registered by political organizations are unlikely to actually head out to the polls all that much. Finally, even the small kind of effects a 2000 surge in spending could have had would have relatively little long term effects: voter identity changes and new arrivals would have already massively outpaced such spending on each one's own.
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,248
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2020, 12:10:55 AM »

Oregon was one of the closest states in 2000 and Washington was also targeted, but in 2004, both became much more Democratic, so no I don't think there would be a long term change.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2020, 12:18:28 AM »

Probably not, I'm rather skeptical of the idea that ground investment actually has that much effect.

Explain.

We are all relatively well informed voters, so I'll try to separate my own experiences from the matter. Still, I've met a lot of people. I've seen folks be convinced by campaign ads, and posters, and opinion pieces (very common actually, and very annoying). And yes, I've seen an occasional person be turned out to vote by canvassers. But in general? Canvassing/phone banking tends to have little effect at changing voters minds, and while I can't say it has no electoral effects, I can't say it has any major ones either. Furthermore, even things like registration have been shown to have relatively limited effects: the kinds of voters who need to be registered by political organizations are unlikely to actually head out to the polls all that much. Finally, even the small kind of effects a 2000 surge in spending could have had would have relatively little long term effects: voter identity changes and new arrivals would have already massively outpaced such spending on each one's own.

https://books.google.com/books?id=452gCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=mark+warner+amherst+virginia&source=bl&ots=wpoJ0BDEmX&sig=ACfU3U3Gb7NlwgEAARPUDXbW7qDaRDfX-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwje09aNvc3pAhXYZs0KHbt5C9gQ6AEwGnoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=mark%20warner%20amherst%20virginia&f=false

I know I tell you to read a book almost everytime but seriously.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2020, 12:22:45 AM »

Oregon was one of the closest states in 2000 and Washington was also targeted, but in 2004, both became much more Democratic, so no I don't think there would be a long term change.

See this is where you guys are so clueless. Bush did better in Oregon in 2004 than he did in 2000.

Let's call it Minnesota syndrome. Trump did worse than Romney in Minnesota. Don't look at the margin, look at the raw numbers.
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2020, 12:23:40 AM »

Probably not, I'm rather skeptical of the idea that ground investment actually has that much effect.

Explain.

We are all relatively well informed voters, so I'll try to separate my own experiences from the matter. Still, I've met a lot of people. I've seen folks be convinced by campaign ads, and posters, and opinion pieces (very common actually, and very annoying). And yes, I've seen an occasional person be turned out to vote by canvassers. But in general? Canvassing/phone banking tends to have little effect at changing voters minds, and while I can't say it has no electoral effects, I can't say it has any major ones either. Furthermore, even things like registration have been shown to have relatively limited effects: the kinds of voters who need to be registered by political organizations are unlikely to actually head out to the polls all that much. Finally, even the small kind of effects a 2000 surge in spending could have had would have relatively little long term effects: voter identity changes and new arrivals would have already massively outpaced such spending on each one's own.

https://books.google.com/books?id=452gCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=mark+warner+amherst+virginia&source=bl&ots=wpoJ0BDEmX&sig=ACfU3U3Gb7NlwgEAARPUDXbW7qDaRDfX-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwje09aNvc3pAhXYZs0KHbt5C9gQ6AEwGnoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=mark%20warner%20amherst%20virginia&f=false

I know I tell you to read a book almost everytime but seriously.

And Mark Warner lost those NASCAR voters in 2014, and will do so again in 2020
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2020, 12:25:01 AM »

Probably not, I'm rather skeptical of the idea that ground investment actually has that much effect.

Explain.

We are all relatively well informed voters, so I'll try to separate my own experiences from the matter. Still, I've met a lot of people. I've seen folks be convinced by campaign ads, and posters, and opinion pieces (very common actually, and very annoying). And yes, I've seen an occasional person be turned out to vote by canvassers. But in general? Canvassing/phone banking tends to have little effect at changing voters minds, and while I can't say it has no electoral effects, I can't say it has any major ones either. Furthermore, even things like registration have been shown to have relatively limited effects: the kinds of voters who need to be registered by political organizations are unlikely to actually head out to the polls all that much. Finally, even the small kind of effects a 2000 surge in spending could have had would have relatively little long term effects: voter identity changes and new arrivals would have already massively outpaced such spending on each one's own.

https://books.google.com/books?id=452gCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=mark+warner+amherst+virginia&source=bl&ots=wpoJ0BDEmX&sig=ACfU3U3Gb7NlwgEAARPUDXbW7qDaRDfX-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwje09aNvc3pAhXYZs0KHbt5C9gQ6AEwGnoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=mark%20warner%20amherst%20virginia&f=false

I know I tell you to read a book almost everytime but seriously.

And Mark Warner lost those NASCAR voters in 2014, and will do so again in 2020

Good thing NASCAR voters are irrelevant in 2020
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2020, 01:20:18 AM »

Oregon was one of the closest states in 2000 and Washington was also targeted, but in 2004, both became much more Democratic, so no I don't think there would be a long term change.

See this is where you guys are so clueless. Bush did better in Oregon in 2004 than he did in 2000.

Let's call it Minnesota syndrome. Trump did worse than Romney in Minnesota. Don't look at the margin, look at the raw numbers.

That's not how elections work.

Probably not, I'm rather skeptical of the idea that ground investment actually has that much effect.

Explain.

We are all relatively well informed voters, so I'll try to separate my own experiences from the matter. Still, I've met a lot of people. I've seen folks be convinced by campaign ads, and posters, and opinion pieces (very common actually, and very annoying). And yes, I've seen an occasional person be turned out to vote by canvassers. But in general? Canvassing/phone banking tends to have little effect at changing voters minds, and while I can't say it has no electoral effects, I can't say it has any major ones either. Furthermore, even things like registration have been shown to have relatively limited effects: the kinds of voters who need to be registered by political organizations are unlikely to actually head out to the polls all that much. Finally, even the small kind of effects a 2000 surge in spending could have had would have relatively little long term effects: voter identity changes and new arrivals would have already massively outpaced such spending on each one's own.

https://books.google.com/books?id=452gCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=mark+warner+amherst+virginia&source=bl&ots=wpoJ0BDEmX&sig=ACfU3U3Gb7NlwgEAARPUDXbW7qDaRDfX-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwje09aNvc3pAhXYZs0KHbt5C9gQ6AEwGnoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=mark%20warner%20amherst%20virginia&f=false

I know I tell you to read a book almost everytime but seriously.

And Mark Warner lost those NASCAR voters in 2014, and will do so again in 2020

Good thing NASCAR voters are irrelevant in 2020

Way to shift the goalposts. The point is that his door to door campaigning had no long term effect.
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,248
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2020, 01:22:01 AM »

Oregon was one of the closest states in 2000 and Washington was also targeted, but in 2004, both became much more Democratic, so no I don't think there would be a long term change.

See this is where you guys are so clueless. Bush did better in Oregon in 2004 than he did in 2000.

Let's call it Minnesota syndrome. Trump did worse than Romney in Minnesota. Don't look at the margin, look at the raw numbers.

I was referring to margin, and anyways, both states clearly swung D in 2004 and never looked back, them going D was inevitable.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2020, 01:22:51 AM »

Oregon was one of the closest states in 2000 and Washington was also targeted, but in 2004, both became much more Democratic, so no I don't think there would be a long term change.

See this is where you guys are so clueless. Bush did better in Oregon in 2004 than he did in 2000.

Let's call it Minnesota syndrome. Trump did worse than Romney in Minnesota. Don't look at the margin, look at the raw numbers.

That's not how elections work.

Lol, that's exactly how elections work. If you can't win, you lose

Quote
Probably not, I'm rather skeptical of the idea that ground investment actually has that much effect.

Explain.

We are all relatively well informed voters, so I'll try to separate my own experiences from the matter. Still, I've met a lot of people. I've seen folks be convinced by campaign ads, and posters, and opinion pieces (very common actually, and very annoying). And yes, I've seen an occasional person be turned out to vote by canvassers. But in general? Canvassing/phone banking tends to have little effect at changing voters minds, and while I can't say it has no electoral effects, I can't say it has any major ones either. Furthermore, even things like registration have been shown to have relatively limited effects: the kinds of voters who need to be registered by political organizations are unlikely to actually head out to the polls all that much. Finally, even the small kind of effects a 2000 surge in spending could have had would have relatively little long term effects: voter identity changes and new arrivals would have already massively outpaced such spending on each one's own.

https://books.google.com/books?id=452gCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=mark+warner+amherst+virginia&source=bl&ots=wpoJ0BDEmX&sig=ACfU3U3Gb7NlwgEAARPUDXbW7qDaRDfX-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwje09aNvc3pAhXYZs0KHbt5C9gQ6AEwGnoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=mark%20warner%20amherst%20virginia&f=false

I know I tell you to read a book almost everytime but seriously.

And Mark Warner lost those NASCAR voters in 2014, and will do so again in 2020

Good thing NASCAR voters are irrelevant in 2020

Way to shift the goalposts. The point is that his door to door campaigning had no long term effect.

The long term effect is that Virginia has two Dem senators instead of two GOP senators. Nice try, buddy.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 25, 2020, 01:23:18 AM »

Oregon was one of the closest states in 2000 and Washington was also targeted, but in 2004, both became much more Democratic, so no I don't think there would be a long term change.

See this is where you guys are so clueless. Bush did better in Oregon in 2004 than he did in 2000.

Let's call it Minnesota syndrome. Trump did worse than Romney in Minnesota. Don't look at the margin, look at the raw numbers.

I was referring to margin, and anyways, both states clearly swung D in 2004 and never looked back, them going D was inevitable.

Margin doesn't matter unless you actually win.
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2020, 01:24:28 AM »

Oregon was one of the closest states in 2000 and Washington was also targeted, but in 2004, both became much more Democratic, so no I don't think there would be a long term change.

See this is where you guys are so clueless. Bush did better in Oregon in 2004 than he did in 2000.

Let's call it Minnesota syndrome. Trump did worse than Romney in Minnesota. Don't look at the margin, look at the raw numbers.

That's not how elections work.

Lol, that's exactly how elections work. If you can't win, you lose

Quote
Probably not, I'm rather skeptical of the idea that ground investment actually has that much effect.

Explain.

We are all relatively well informed voters, so I'll try to separate my own experiences from the matter. Still, I've met a lot of people. I've seen folks be convinced by campaign ads, and posters, and opinion pieces (very common actually, and very annoying). And yes, I've seen an occasional person be turned out to vote by canvassers. But in general? Canvassing/phone banking tends to have little effect at changing voters minds, and while I can't say it has no electoral effects, I can't say it has any major ones either. Furthermore, even things like registration have been shown to have relatively limited effects: the kinds of voters who need to be registered by political organizations are unlikely to actually head out to the polls all that much. Finally, even the small kind of effects a 2000 surge in spending could have had would have relatively little long term effects: voter identity changes and new arrivals would have already massively outpaced such spending on each one's own.

https://books.google.com/books?id=452gCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=mark+warner+amherst+virginia&source=bl&ots=wpoJ0BDEmX&sig=ACfU3U3Gb7NlwgEAARPUDXbW7qDaRDfX-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwje09aNvc3pAhXYZs0KHbt5C9gQ6AEwGnoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=mark%20warner%20amherst%20virginia&f=false

I know I tell you to read a book almost everytime but seriously.

And Mark Warner lost those NASCAR voters in 2014, and will do so again in 2020

Good thing NASCAR voters are irrelevant in 2020

Way to shift the goalposts. The point is that his door to door campaigning had no long term effect.

The long term effect is that Virginia has two Dem senators instead of two GOP senators. Nice try, buddy.

1. YES! You're finally getting close to getting it. If I win 46% and you win 45%, that's better for me than if I win 49% and you win 50%. Margins > percentages.

2. But not because of the NASCAR voters, proving that your theory of groundwork wrong. Why do you always have to be so contemptous?
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 25, 2020, 01:28:35 AM »

Oregon was one of the closest states in 2000 and Washington was also targeted, but in 2004, both became much more Democratic, so no I don't think there would be a long term change.

See this is where you guys are so clueless. Bush did better in Oregon in 2004 than he did in 2000.

Let's call it Minnesota syndrome. Trump did worse than Romney in Minnesota. Don't look at the margin, look at the raw numbers.

That's not how elections work.

Lol, that's exactly how elections work. If you can't win, you lose

Quote
Probably not, I'm rather skeptical of the idea that ground investment actually has that much effect.

Explain.

We are all relatively well informed voters, so I'll try to separate my own experiences from the matter. Still, I've met a lot of people. I've seen folks be convinced by campaign ads, and posters, and opinion pieces (very common actually, and very annoying). And yes, I've seen an occasional person be turned out to vote by canvassers. But in general? Canvassing/phone banking tends to have little effect at changing voters minds, and while I can't say it has no electoral effects, I can't say it has any major ones either. Furthermore, even things like registration have been shown to have relatively limited effects: the kinds of voters who need to be registered by political organizations are unlikely to actually head out to the polls all that much. Finally, even the small kind of effects a 2000 surge in spending could have had would have relatively little long term effects: voter identity changes and new arrivals would have already massively outpaced such spending on each one's own.

https://books.google.com/books?id=452gCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=mark+warner+amherst+virginia&source=bl&ots=wpoJ0BDEmX&sig=ACfU3U3Gb7NlwgEAARPUDXbW7qDaRDfX-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwje09aNvc3pAhXYZs0KHbt5C9gQ6AEwGnoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=mark%20warner%20amherst%20virginia&f=false

I know I tell you to read a book almost everytime but seriously.

And Mark Warner lost those NASCAR voters in 2014, and will do so again in 2020

Good thing NASCAR voters are irrelevant in 2020

Way to shift the goalposts. The point is that his door to door campaigning had no long term effect.

The long term effect is that Virginia has two Dem senators instead of two GOP senators. Nice try, buddy.

1. YES! You're finally getting close to getting it. If I win 46% and you win 45%, that's better for me than if I win 49% and you win 50%. Margins > percentages.

Lol, what. In this case, you're losing with 46% either way.

Quote
2. But not because of the NASCAR voters, proving that your theory of groundwork wrong. Why do you always have to be so contemptous?

It's not my theory, it's the actual campaign and you didn't read it anyway, you glanced for the first thing you could latch on to. Mark Warner getting elected made Democrats as a brand more palatable to Virginia, leading to Tim Kaine, and to what we see now. You can move to NC but the same thing will happen because your party doesn't even try to broaden it's base.
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 25, 2020, 01:59:54 AM »

Oregon was one of the closest states in 2000 and Washington was also targeted, but in 2004, both became much more Democratic, so no I don't think there would be a long term change.

See this is where you guys are so clueless. Bush did better in Oregon in 2004 than he did in 2000.

Let's call it Minnesota syndrome. Trump did worse than Romney in Minnesota. Don't look at the margin, look at the raw numbers.

That's not how elections work.

Lol, that's exactly how elections work. If you can't win, you lose

Quote
Probably not, I'm rather skeptical of the idea that ground investment actually has that much effect.

Explain.

We are all relatively well informed voters, so I'll try to separate my own experiences from the matter. Still, I've met a lot of people. I've seen folks be convinced by campaign ads, and posters, and opinion pieces (very common actually, and very annoying). And yes, I've seen an occasional person be turned out to vote by canvassers. But in general? Canvassing/phone banking tends to have little effect at changing voters minds, and while I can't say it has no electoral effects, I can't say it has any major ones either. Furthermore, even things like registration have been shown to have relatively limited effects: the kinds of voters who need to be registered by political organizations are unlikely to actually head out to the polls all that much. Finally, even the small kind of effects a 2000 surge in spending could have had would have relatively little long term effects: voter identity changes and new arrivals would have already massively outpaced such spending on each one's own.

https://books.google.com/books?id=452gCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=mark+warner+amherst+virginia&source=bl&ots=wpoJ0BDEmX&sig=ACfU3U3Gb7NlwgEAARPUDXbW7qDaRDfX-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwje09aNvc3pAhXYZs0KHbt5C9gQ6AEwGnoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=mark%20warner%20amherst%20virginia&f=false

I know I tell you to read a book almost everytime but seriously.

And Mark Warner lost those NASCAR voters in 2014, and will do so again in 2020

Good thing NASCAR voters are irrelevant in 2020

Way to shift the goalposts. The point is that his door to door campaigning had no long term effect.

The long term effect is that Virginia has two Dem senators instead of two GOP senators. Nice try, buddy.

1. YES! You're finally getting close to getting it. If I win 46% and you win 45%, that's better for me than if I win 49% and you win 50%. Margins > percentages.

Lol, what. In this case, you're losing with 46% either way.

Quote
2. But not because of the NASCAR voters, proving that your theory of groundwork wrong. Why do you always have to be so contemptous?

It's not my theory, it's the actual campaign and you didn't read it anyway, you glanced for the first thing you could latch on to. Mark Warner getting elected made Democrats as a brand more palatable to Virginia, leading to Tim Kaine, and to what we see now. You can move to NC but the same thing will happen because your party doesn't even try to broaden it's base.

1. I know math is hard, but 46 > 45

2. Lol. It is a massive stretch to say that Dem growth failing to happen in one part of a state is what caused another part of the state to swing left. In fact, VA is a perfect case study to what I'm saying here -- the DC area swung left for the same reason as suburbs across the country left, not because of local politiking.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 25, 2020, 02:01:49 AM »

Oregon was one of the closest states in 2000 and Washington was also targeted, but in 2004, both became much more Democratic, so no I don't think there would be a long term change.

See this is where you guys are so clueless. Bush did better in Oregon in 2004 than he did in 2000.

Let's call it Minnesota syndrome. Trump did worse than Romney in Minnesota. Don't look at the margin, look at the raw numbers.

That's not how elections work.

Lol, that's exactly how elections work. If you can't win, you lose

Quote
Probably not, I'm rather skeptical of the idea that ground investment actually has that much effect.

Explain.

We are all relatively well informed voters, so I'll try to separate my own experiences from the matter. Still, I've met a lot of people. I've seen folks be convinced by campaign ads, and posters, and opinion pieces (very common actually, and very annoying). And yes, I've seen an occasional person be turned out to vote by canvassers. But in general? Canvassing/phone banking tends to have little effect at changing voters minds, and while I can't say it has no electoral effects, I can't say it has any major ones either. Furthermore, even things like registration have been shown to have relatively limited effects: the kinds of voters who need to be registered by political organizations are unlikely to actually head out to the polls all that much. Finally, even the small kind of effects a 2000 surge in spending could have had would have relatively little long term effects: voter identity changes and new arrivals would have already massively outpaced such spending on each one's own.

https://books.google.com/books?id=452gCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=mark+warner+amherst+virginia&source=bl&ots=wpoJ0BDEmX&sig=ACfU3U3Gb7NlwgEAARPUDXbW7qDaRDfX-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwje09aNvc3pAhXYZs0KHbt5C9gQ6AEwGnoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=mark%20warner%20amherst%20virginia&f=false

I know I tell you to read a book almost everytime but seriously.

And Mark Warner lost those NASCAR voters in 2014, and will do so again in 2020

Good thing NASCAR voters are irrelevant in 2020

Way to shift the goalposts. The point is that his door to door campaigning had no long term effect.

The long term effect is that Virginia has two Dem senators instead of two GOP senators. Nice try, buddy.

1. YES! You're finally getting close to getting it. If I win 46% and you win 45%, that's better for me than if I win 49% and you win 50%. Margins > percentages.

Lol, what. In this case, you're losing with 46% either way.

Quote
2. But not because of the NASCAR voters, proving that your theory of groundwork wrong. Why do you always have to be so contemptous?

It's not my theory, it's the actual campaign and you didn't read it anyway, you glanced for the first thing you could latch on to. Mark Warner getting elected made Democrats as a brand more palatable to Virginia, leading to Tim Kaine, and to what we see now. You can move to NC but the same thing will happen because your party doesn't even try to broaden it's base.

1. I know math is hard, but 46 > 45

2. Lol. It is a massive stretch to say that Dem growth failing to happen in one part of a state is what caused another part of the state to swing left. In fact, VA is a perfect case study to what I'm saying here -- the DC area swung left for the same reason as suburbs across the country left, not because of local politiking.

1. Republicans can't win Minnesota or Oregon. Even when they do better than normal or Dems do worse than normal, they still lose.

2. Bernie Sanders became a national phenomenon based off of his successful retail politics. That's just one example.
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 0.08 seconds with 12 queries.