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, 07:54:17 PM
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 1794 times)
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 #25 on: May 25, 2020, 02:18:00 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.

1. One of these states went for Clinton by 10 points, the other by 2. They are not the same.

2. No, he went nationwide through social media and online communication. I promise you, most Bernie supporters did not learn about him through a canvasser at the door.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 25, 2020, 02:21:35 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.

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.

1. One of these states went for Clinton by 10 points, the other by 2. They are not the same.

2. No, he went nationwide through social media and online communication. I promise you, most Bernie supporters did not learn about him through a canvasser at the door.

You're totally right. Bernie got elected to Congress because of the internet. (Read a book, again)

The only compelling argument you're making is for a 100% estate tax.
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 #27 on: May 25, 2020, 03:04:28 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.

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.

1. One of these states went for Clinton by 10 points, the other by 2. They are not the same.

2. No, he went nationwide through social media and online communication. I promise you, most Bernie supporters did not learn about him through a canvasser at the door.

You're totally right. Bernie got elected to Congress because of the internet. (Read a book, again)

The only compelling argument you're making is for a 100% estate tax.

1. Dude, freaking stop shifting the goalposts. You asked how he became a national phenomenon, not how he was elected for Congress

2. What? Do you...think I'm some kind of billionaire?
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 #28 on: May 25, 2020, 03:06:55 AM »

It's actually kinda funny

"Bernie Sanders became a national phenomenon based off of his successful retail politics. That's just one example."

"No, he went nationwide through social media and online communication."

"You're totally right. Bernie got elected to Congress because of the internet. (Read a book, again)"

And then he resorts to personal insults lol, it's like a playbook.
Logged
morgankingsley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,018
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2020, 03:27:08 PM »


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



If somebody has 46 percent, but another person has 44, and third parties combine ten percent, then 46 percent wins because they have the most votes. If you have 46 percent, and your opponent had 49, and third parties make 5, then you lose because your opponent has the most votes. Wilson won Idaho with only 32 percent because he had the most votes in Idaho. So it is possible to win with 46 percent
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 0.038 seconds with 13 queries.