Bush's vote rise in Massachusetts and Rhode Island?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:11:56 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)
  Bush's vote rise in Massachusetts and Rhode Island?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Bush's vote rise in Massachusetts and Rhode Island?  (Read 12279 times)
Adlai Stevenson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,403
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 10, 2006, 05:18:24 PM »

Why did Bush's vote in Massachusetts rise almost five percent (31% to 36%) and in Rhode Island by seven percent (31% to 38%)? 

If anything Kerry should have been winning these states by 2-1 margins over Bush, especially as the rest of the vote in 2000 went to Nader.

So why did Bush improve his margin in Massachusetts, in Kerry's home state and the most liberal in the nation, and in Rhode Island, where the Democratic share of the vote declined marginally?  Given that the remaining 5%-7% were Nader voters, did they back Bush?  If so, why? 
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2006, 06:23:22 PM »

gay marriage, and bush's success at eating into the working class catholic vote.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2006, 07:17:39 PM »

Possibly the decline of Nader.

In 2000, in both these states, Nader won 6-7% of the vote.

In 2004, he wasn't even on the ballot in Massachusetts, and he only got about 1% in Rhode Island.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2006, 08:36:18 PM »

Possibly the decline of Nader.

In 2000, in both these states, Nader won 6-7% of the vote.

In 2004, he wasn't even on the ballot in Massachusetts, and he only got about 1% in Rhode Island.

Would Nader voters have Bush as their second choice, though?

I suppose, given their stupidity for having earlier decided to vote for Nader, I wouldn't put it past them... Tongue
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2006, 09:56:32 PM »

possibly 9/11 bump related?  Bush tended to do better in some suburban areas of the Northeasr in 04 than 00.  It was mostly concentrated in suburban NY (Long island, jersey, and CT), but its not of the question that the 9/11 suburban bump spreaded to mass (which has many suburbs) and RI (in which most of the state is suburban).  Basically a group that was trending heavily Dem, and took a one election jump back due to 9/11 & security issues, but a group which more than likely will jump back further left in 08.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2006, 11:12:56 PM »

possibly 9/11 bump related?  Bush tended to do better in some suburban areas of the Northeasr in 04 than 00.  It was mostly concentrated in suburban NY (Long island, jersey, and CT), but its not of the question that the 9/11 suburban bump spreaded to mass (which has many suburbs) and RI (in which most of the state is suburban).  Basically a group that was trending heavily Dem, and took a one election jump back due to 9/11 & security issues, but a group which more than likely will jump back further left in 08.

I can understand why the New York suburbs trended Republican, but why would the 9/11 fear effect Boston all that much more than, say, the Democratic-trending D.C. 'burbs?  If there was a 9/11 bump, it should have been evident there, too, shouldn't it have been?
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 11, 2006, 12:18:41 AM »

possibly 9/11 bump related?  Bush tended to do better in some suburban areas of the Northeasr in 04 than 00.  It was mostly concentrated in suburban NY (Long island, jersey, and CT), but its not of the question that the 9/11 suburban bump spreaded to mass (which has many suburbs) and RI (in which most of the state is suburban).  Basically a group that was trending heavily Dem, and took a one election jump back due to 9/11 & security issues, but a group which more than likely will jump back further left in 08.

I can understand why the New York suburbs trended Republican, but why would the 9/11 fear effect Boston all that much more than, say, the Democratic-trending D.C. 'burbs?  If there was a 9/11 bump, it should have been evident there, too, shouldn't it have been?

Not exactly.  You have to take into consideration the strength of the overall leftward trending.  While still moving leftward suburban Boston's movement is more of a gradual leftward trend at the moment, after strong leftward trends during the 90's.  Meanwhile currently the D.C burbs are trending very strong to the left, basically at the pace of the Boston and NYC burbs did during the 90's.

Look at it this way you have the overall leftward trending of each region going up against what is a one time rightward trend of 9/11.  The one-time rightward 9/11 trend wins out in the Boston suburbs because it is stronger than the overall leftward trend of the region, which while still trending left pace has slowed from it was during the 90's and become more gradual.  However with the same two forces working against each other in suburban D.C the leftward trend wins out simply due to how heavy & hard the leftward trend is currently in suburban D.C.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 11, 2006, 12:57:06 PM »

the 9/11 bump is simplistic.  where was the 9/11 bump in manhattan?

gay marriage pissed off a lot of working class catholics in massachusetts.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 11, 2006, 07:13:34 PM »

the 9/11 bump is simplistic.  where was the 9/11 bump in manhattan?

gay marriage pissed off a lot of working class catholics in massachusetts.

I would say 9/11 and national security as a voting issue impacted those in the suburbs more than in Manhattan.  Not that National Security wasn't an issue in Manhattan, but as far as a voting issue I think it was a bigger voting issue in the subrubs than the city (and I know Staten island had a strong swing, but the southern 2/3 of Staten Island is pretty much suburban anyway, and probably more  suburban than portions of Long Island.
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,808
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 11, 2006, 07:43:26 PM »

Possibly the decline of Nader.

In 2000, in both these states, Nader won 6-7% of the vote.

In 2004, he wasn't even on the ballot in Massachusetts, and he only got about 1% in Rhode Island.

Would Nader voters have Bush as their second choice, though?

I suppose, given their stupidity for having earlier decided to vote for Nader, I wouldn't put it past them... Tongue
Stupidity?

I would have supported Nader had I been in an uncompetitive state.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 11, 2006, 08:04:52 PM »

WalterMitty's reasoning is accurate.

Bush's vote rise in MA and RI can be summed up in three words

socially conservative Catholics
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 12, 2006, 05:00:14 AM »

possibly 9/11 bump related?  Bush tended to do better in some suburban areas of the Northeasr in 04 than 00.  It was mostly concentrated in suburban NY (Long island, jersey, and CT), but its not of the question that the 9/11 suburban bump spreaded to mass (which has many suburbs) and RI (in which most of the state is suburban).  Basically a group that was trending heavily Dem, and took a one election jump back due to 9/11 & security issues, but a group which more than likely will jump back further left in 08.

I can understand why the New York suburbs trended Republican, but why would the 9/11 fear effect Boston all that much more than, say, the Democratic-trending D.C. 'burbs?  If there was a 9/11 bump, it should have been evident there, too, shouldn't it have been?
Because it's not directly 9/11 related at all. It's a general inner suburban concern for security that helped Bush in 2004 but - via the gun control issue - Gore in 2000.
Not sure if gay marriage mattered all that much.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 12, 2006, 09:06:48 AM »

possibly 9/11 bump related?  Bush tended to do better in some suburban areas of the Northeasr in 04 than 00.  It was mostly concentrated in suburban NY (Long island, jersey, and CT), but its not of the question that the 9/11 suburban bump spreaded to mass (which has many suburbs) and RI (in which most of the state is suburban).  Basically a group that was trending heavily Dem, and took a one election jump back due to 9/11 & security issues, but a group which more than likely will jump back further left in 08.

I can understand why the New York suburbs trended Republican, but why would the 9/11 fear effect Boston all that much more than, say, the Democratic-trending D.C. 'burbs?  If there was a 9/11 bump, it should have been evident there, too, shouldn't it have been?
Because it's not directly 9/11 related at all. It's a general inner suburban concern for security that helped Bush in 2004 but - via the gun control issue - Gore in 2000.
Not sure if gay marriage mattered all that much.

gay marriage is still a big issue in massachusetts, lewis.

there is a rather large section of mass democrats that are stongly opposed to gay marriage.

massachusetts is kind of similar to the south of 50 years ago.  it is a one party state, but there is a huge split between the conservative, blue collar, religious wing and the left wing.

there are jokers in the massachusetts legislature with a (d) next to their name that are much more conservative than me,.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 12, 2006, 10:55:39 PM »

Mitty, the South 50 years ago didn't have a left wing. In fact, there's not really one today either.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 13, 2006, 05:47:04 AM »

Mitty, the South 50 years ago didn't have a left wing. In fact, there's not really one today either.
It did have one, but it didn't have voting rights.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 13, 2006, 06:41:09 AM »

Mitty, the South 50 years ago didn't have a left wing. In fact, there's not really one today either.

well, of course, 'left wing' is relative.  the south certainly had a liberal wing of the democrat party, a small one at least.

what about terry sanford?  or even george wallace (as a young man before he turned into a segregationist)
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 13, 2006, 09:17:17 AM »

Mitty, the South 50 years ago didn't have a left wing. In fact, there's not really one today either.

well, of course, 'left wing' is relative.  the south certainly had a liberal wing of the democrat party, a small one at least.

what about terry sanford?  or even george wallace (as a young man before he turned into a segregationist)
Not to mention, it certainly had populists/new dealers and ultra-conservatives.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 13, 2006, 03:15:37 PM »

Mitty, the South 50 years ago didn't have a left wing. In fact, there's not really one today either.

well, of course, 'left wing' is relative.  the south certainly had a liberal wing of the democrat party, a small one at least.

what about terry sanford?  or even george wallace (as a young man before he turned into a segregationist)
As you say, left wing is relative. I wouldn't call these guys left wing, though Huey Long certainly was in the 1930s.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 14, 2006, 04:57:37 AM »

I thought most Southern Democrats today were Black Democrats, i.e. left-wingers? (talking about Congressmen, obviously).
Logged
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon
htmldon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,983
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 14, 2006, 09:18:18 AM »

The vast majority of blacks would not be considered "left-wingers".  As a general rule - Ideologically they have more in common with their former southern democratic oppressors.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,693
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 15, 2006, 03:38:06 PM »

What is Cynthia McKinney? A centrist? Conservative Democrat?
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 15, 2006, 05:08:25 PM »

What is Cynthia McKinney? A centrist? Conservative Democrat?

a moron?
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 15, 2006, 11:48:49 PM »

What is Cynthia McKinney? A centrist? Conservative Democrat?

BRTD,

I am going to link back to this post every time you commit this falacy.

Someone provides an example, such as:

The vast majority of blacks would not be considered "left-wingers".  As a general rule - Ideologically they have more in common with their former southern democratic oppressors.

Note "vast majority."

You reply:

What is Cynthia McKinney? A centrist? Conservative Democrat?

You give an example of one person.

You do not disapprove the larger statement, that the vast majority of blacks are not liberal.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2006, 08:22:37 AM »


bingo
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2006, 08:33:03 AM »

The vast majority of blacks would not be considered "left-wingers".  As a general rule - Ideologically they have more in common with their former southern democratic oppressors.

I think that depends entirely on what is meant by "left-winger"; within a traditional U.K context (which, sadly, the media doesn't like to use much these days...) most of them would be considered to be left wing. Within the usual U.S (and U.K media Roll Eyes ) context, which places a huge amount of emphasis upon what are usual labelled (here at least) as "social issues", then, no, the vast majority of blacks are very clearly not "left wingers".
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 0.063 seconds with 11 queries.