Bush's vote rise in Massachusetts and Rhode Island?

[minionofmidas]

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 ) 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".

Erm...even within that statement the first half is much more obviously correct than the second half.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

Then who voted for her? Look at the results from the last primary. She won on the first round and was far ahead of all her opponents.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Erm...even within that statement the first half is much more obviously correct than the second half.

Re-reading it, I see that you're right

Wasn't in a good or logical mood...

[TeePee4Prez]

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.

there are jokers in the massachusetts legislature with a (d) next to their name that are much more conservative than me,.

Why am I not surprised?  I can say the same with some Pennsylvanians as well.  I'm not gonna say names, but I know who they are. 

[Alcon]

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.

Then who voted for her? Look at the results from the last primary. She won on the first round and was far ahead of all her opponents.

Blacks in urban Atlanta are not necessarily representative of blacks as a whole either.

Besides, primary voters oftentimes vote incumbent .  Blacks are willing to vote for liberals; that is why they vote Democratic in droves.  Voting patterns and personal political opinions do not always correlate.

[Cubby]

Funny how Winfield and Mitty say its gay marriage and all the red avatars say its something else like a 9/11 bump.

In Connecticut, Bush's rise was because Lieberman wasn't on the Democrat ticket. He would have won Litchfield County last time otherwise (Not that its especially conservative, it just doesn't have any urban areas).

The areas that Nader did strongest in in 2000, such as Hampshire County, MA (home to U Mass-Amherst, Smith College, etc.) swung extremely to the Dems in 2004, so we can discount Nader as a factor for Bush's increase.

I was more surprised by Rhode Island's swing than MA's. RI's Democrat percentage actually declined, while MA's still rose slightly. And Rhode Island didn't have gay marriage as a factor. Any thoughts Winfield?

[Lincoln Republican]

Funny how Winfield and Mitty say its gay marriage and all the red avatars say its something else like a 9/11 bump.

In Connecticut, Bush's rise was because Lieberman wasn't on the Democrat ticket. He would have won Litchfield County last time otherwise (Not that its especially conservative, it just doesn't have any urban areas).

The areas that Nader did strongest in in 2000, such as Hampshire County, MA (home to U Mass-Amherst, Smith College, etc.) swung extremely to the Dems in 2004, so we can discount Nader as a factor for Bush's increase.

I was more surprised by Rhode Island's swing than MA's. RI's Democrat percentage actually declined, while MA's still rose slightly. And Rhode Island didn't have gay marriage as a factor. Any thoughts Winfield?

You have raised some very valid points.

Along with the other reasons mentioned for Bush's vote rise in 2004, all good reasons by the way, to expand briefly on my previous entry, RI does have a large percentage of Catholics, over 50%.  Some of these are certainly socially conservative.  I reason Bush likely received a slightly higher percentage of these more socially conservative Catholic votes than he did in 2000, due to his overall more conservative social views, not just based on the same sex marriage issue, but social issues in general.  After all, both John Kerry and John Edwards were publicly opposed to same sex marriage.  At least, that is my reasoning for Bush's vote rise, for what it's worth.

By the way, at this rate of increase for the GOP, presuming it holds steady, the Republican Presidential nominee should win Rhode Island in 2016.

By the way, why the name change? Any significance to the new name?  Just wondering.

Thanks.         

[Alcon]

Kerry and Edwards may have been against gay marriage, but whether the voters in Rhode Island knew that is a different matter entirely.  Out of curiosity, do you think it was increased turnout among working-class, socially conservative Catholics or were they previously voting more Democratic (or both)?

[Lincoln Republican]

Referring to RI, my own view, not having seen any detailed demographics of the vote break down, is that many socially conservative working class Catholics were motivated by social issues overall, not just same sex marriage, in 2004, thus resulting in a higher turnout amongst this group, and Bush was able to capitalize on this fact, by drawing a higher percentage, and by this I mean a slightly higher percentage, of these particular voters to his cause.

 

[Cubby]

Funny how Winfield and Mitty say its gay marriage and all the red avatars say its something else like a 9/11 bump.

In Connecticut, Bush's rise was because Lieberman wasn't on the Democrat ticket. He would have won Litchfield County last time otherwise (Not that its especially conservative, it just doesn't have any urban areas).

The areas that Nader did strongest in in 2000, such as Hampshire County, MA (home to U Mass-Amherst, Smith College, etc.) swung extremely to the Dems in 2004, so we can discount Nader as a factor for Bush's increase.

I was more surprised by Rhode Island's swing than MA's. RI's Democrat percentage actually declined, while MA's still rose slightly. And Rhode Island didn't have gay marriage as a factor. Any thoughts Winfield?

You have raised some very valid points.

Along with the other reasons mentioned for Bush's vote rise in 2004, all good reasons by the way, to expand briefly on my previous entry, RI does have a large percentage of Catholics, over 50%.  Some of these are certainly socially conservative.  I reason Bush likely received a slightly higher percentage of these more socially conservative Catholic votes than he did in 2000, due to his overall more conservative social views, not just based on the same sex marriage issue, but social issues in general.  After all, both John Kerry and John Edwards were publicly opposed to same sex marriage.  At least, that is my reasoning for Bush's vote rise, for what it's worth.

By the way, at this rate of increase for the GOP, presuming it holds steady, the Republican Presidential nominee should win Rhode Island in 2016.

By the way, why the name change? Any significance to the new name?  Just wondering.

Thanks.         

I had been wanting to change it for a while to something more personal. Cubby is my dog's name. He's adorable

I noticed Washington County and Newport Counties trended slightly Democrat while the other 3 went strongly in Bush's direction. How are the first 2 different? I've been to Block Island (New Shoreham) but I doubt thats a good representation of Washington County.   

[Smash255]

Part of the reason I think it has more to do with a 9/11 suburban security bump, rather than social conservatives, is the fact that while Bush's #'s have taken a dive nationwide, they have really been hit hard in Rhode Island.  While, social conservatives in some cases might not be all that happy with Bush, a major factor in Bush's declining #'s is due to the Iraq situation, the aftermah of Katrina, and then the Dubai debacle, and the major hit he has taken in regards to security issues.   

[jacob_101]

A likely combination of factors, including that by 2004 people knew Bush and where he stood and were unsure of or just didn't care for Kerry.

[Lincoln Republican]

I noticed Washington County and Newport Counties trended slightly Democrat while the other 3 went strongly in Bush's direction. How are the first 2 different? I've been to Block Island (New Shoreham) but I doubt thats a good representation of Washington County.   
[/quote]

Cubby

Demographically, the only county markedly different from the other four counties is Providence County.

Providence County has a lower white population, higher black population, and higher hispanic population than any of the other four counties, by a considerable margin. 

Providence County has the lowest percentage of high school graduates and the lowest percentage of university graduates of any county.

Providence County has the lowest median household income, the lowest per capita income, and the highest percentage of persons below the poverty line, by a fair margin.

For the most part, the other four counties, Bristol, Kent, Newport, Washington, are much closer demographically.

These are simply statistics, and are not necessarily reflective of voting trends. 

[minionofmidas]

What follows is highly impressionistic (and from someone who hasn't even been to the state) and not backed by any statistics, but Bristol would strike me as the most working-class suburban of these counties ... Kent and Washington both have suburban and rural (of the New England kind) areas, Kent's suburbs would obviously have to be further in than Washington's, though by no means necessarily less affluent. Newport should be insanely rich in parts, but only in parts. And highly tourist industry driven.

[12th Doctor]

Gay marriage and the Catholic Working Class (esspecially in South Boston) have been mentioned as factors, and both of these are quite accurate.  I would also add that home state advantage does mean quite as much as it used to.  If you look at trends for Pres and VP since the 1980's, the advantage received in a home state or "area" has dwindled a bit.  The exception would be Clinton and Arkansas... but here we see a small, tightly knit state that is relatively homogeneous voting for the first serious Presidential contender they have ever had.

[sethm0]

 As born and raised Rhode Islander (and child of working class Catholics) who also lived in Mass for several years, I'm going to disagree with Walter and Lewis. I think the bump did have more to do with the war and 9/11 than gay marriage and social issues.

 The polls I have seen not only show that majorities in both states approve gay marriage, but also that a majority of catholics in each state do. More importantly, very few people on either side in these states list gay marriage as an issue of high importance. Unlike in more conservative parts of the country, I don't think that many people in RI or Mass determined their votes  gay marriage or similar issues.
 
 Think of everything else that has happened since 2000. Not only 9/11 but the Iraq war - thousands of people from Mass and RI have loved ones serving in Iraq and they may have trusted Bush's leadership of the tropps over Kerry's.

 Regardless, I think we can all agree that this does not signal any major electoral trend, and that both states will probably remain blue in close Presidential elections for years to come.

 ps: On the quesiton of Rhode Island counties, I think the blue trend in Kent and Washington correlates mostly with the development of those counties from farmland to suburbs and the resulting migration of more new/young people to the southern half of the state. It could also partially be the result of a higher percentage of URI students voting in 2004 (URI is near the Kent/Washington border and I know that several thousand more of its students voted in 04 than 00).
 It's difficult to generalize about the five counties, besides to say that Providence is the most urban and Newport/Washington/Kent the most rural. But there are all sorts of excpetions- rural towns in Providence country, urban in Newport, etc.
 Bristol is interesintg. It's made up of just three towns - Barrington (very wealthy), Warren working class) and Bristol (a little of both). It's a reliable bellweather in almost all state elections.

[Cubby]

Thanks for the insight Seth

I went to Block Island in 2004 and I remember seeing Kerry bumper stickers on the cars and thinking it was a good sign.

One thing common to CT/RI/MA is that Bush did better in what I'll generalize as "working class towns". Although the region as a whole is among the wealthiest in the country, it seemed that the less well off places increased the most for Bush. Like in Litchfield County, all the tiny villages have Manhattan liberals and they swung to Kerry more, but towns where the middle class live and work like Watertown, Torrington and New Milford have a larger populations and they were the cause of Litchfield's switch to blue.