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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 08:02:37 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: 100% pro-life no matter what)
  If Bush had focused on the pacific northwest in 2000, would they be less Democratic? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: If Bush had focused on the pacific northwest in 2000, would they be less Democratic?  (Read 1838 times)
Left Wing
FalterinArc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,526
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -8.26, S: -6.09


« 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
Left Wing
FalterinArc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,526
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -8.26, S: -6.09


« Reply #1 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
Pages: [1]  
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 0.022 seconds with 10 queries.