Elections Shuffler
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:40:59 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  2024 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, GeorgiaModerate, KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸)
  Elections Shuffler
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Elections Shuffler  (Read 5710 times)
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 07, 2021, 10:23:36 PM »

This shows why Nevada will be no easy feat for Republicans. Even if they improve more in the rurals and flip Washoe, they pretty much need to bring Clark within 8.5% to have a chance at winning the state, and within 6.5% if Washoe keeps voting Democratic by a few points. And that's assuming that rural turnout stays high and Republicans don't lose ground there.

By improving by 10 points or so in rural counties, the Dems could win Washoe by under a point and win Clark by 9 points and the GOP could still eek out a narrow win.

A 10-point improvement throughout the rurals is also a very heavy lift, especially in counties where Republicans are already over 80%. It just shows that the path is very narrow, and many things have to go just right for them.
Logged
Chips
Those Chips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,245
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 07, 2021, 10:28:34 PM »

This shows why Nevada will be no easy feat for Republicans. Even if they improve more in the rurals and flip Washoe, they pretty much need to bring Clark within 8.5% to have a chance at winning the state, and within 6.5% if Washoe keeps voting Democratic by a few points. And that's assuming that rural turnout stays high and Republicans don't lose ground there.

By improving by 10 points or so in rural counties, the Dems could win Washoe by under a point and win Clark by 9 points and the GOP could still eek out a narrow win.

A 10-point improvement throughout the rurals is also a very heavy lift, especially in counties where Republicans are already over 80%. It just shows that the path is very narrow, and many things have to go just right for them.

True but nowhere near impossible. I do suspect Clark County will slowly grow more GOP over time. Trump did improve in the county by a couple points compared to his 2016 margin. 1% in Clark County is equal to about 9,500 votes. If the margin in Clark drops down to exactly six points and nothing else changes, the GOP wins the state by 160 votes.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 08, 2021, 09:25:18 AM »

This shows why Nevada will be no easy feat for Republicans. Even if they improve more in the rurals and flip Washoe, they pretty much need to bring Clark within 8.5% to have a chance at winning the state, and within 6.5% if Washoe keeps voting Democratic by a few points. And that's assuming that rural turnout stays high and Republicans don't lose ground there.

By improving by 10 points or so in rural counties, the Dems could win Washoe by under a point and win Clark by 9 points and the GOP could still eek out a narrow win.

A 10-point improvement throughout the rurals is also a very heavy lift, especially in counties where Republicans are already over 80%. It just shows that the path is very narrow, and many things have to go just right for them.

True but nowhere near impossible. I do suspect Clark County will slowly grow more GOP over time. Trump did improve in the county by a couple points compared to his 2016 margin. 1% in Clark County is equal to about 9,500 votes. If the margin in Clark drops down to exactly six points and nothing else changes, the GOP wins the state by 160 votes.

I think that Trump came pretty close to the Republican ceiling in Clark, and given how young and diverse it is, it’s not going to keep trending Republican.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 08, 2021, 02:01:03 PM »

This shows why Nevada will be no easy feat for Republicans. Even if they improve more in the rurals and flip Washoe, they pretty much need to bring Clark within 8.5% to have a chance at winning the state, and within 6.5% if Washoe keeps voting Democratic by a few points. And that's assuming that rural turnout stays high and Republicans don't lose ground there.

By improving by 10 points or so in rural counties, the Dems could win Washoe by under a point and win Clark by 9 points and the GOP could still eek out a narrow win.

A 10-point improvement throughout the rurals is also a very heavy lift, especially in counties where Republicans are already over 80%. It just shows that the path is very narrow, and many things have to go just right for them.

True but nowhere near impossible. I do suspect Clark County will slowly grow more GOP over time. Trump did improve in the county by a couple points compared to his 2016 margin. 1% in Clark County is equal to about 9,500 votes. If the margin in Clark drops down to exactly six points and nothing else changes, the GOP wins the state by 160 votes.

I think that Trump came pretty close to the Republican ceiling in Clark, and given how young and diverse it is, it’s not going to keep trending Republican.

Similar things were said about Miami-Dade before 2020. It’s foolish to assume that a county can’t possibly trend R just because it’s populous, diverse, and unionized, and the very few people on this forum who assume that Nevada's R trend will continue this decade largely expect R inroads into Clark (more so than further gains in the rural/small-town areas or even significant R gains in Washoe County) to constitute the foundation/prerequisite for any Republican statewide victory.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 08, 2021, 02:20:53 PM »

This shows why Nevada will be no easy feat for Republicans. Even if they improve more in the rurals and flip Washoe, they pretty much need to bring Clark within 8.5% to have a chance at winning the state, and within 6.5% if Washoe keeps voting Democratic by a few points. And that's assuming that rural turnout stays high and Republicans don't lose ground there.

By improving by 10 points or so in rural counties, the Dems could win Washoe by under a point and win Clark by 9 points and the GOP could still eek out a narrow win.

A 10-point improvement throughout the rurals is also a very heavy lift, especially in counties where Republicans are already over 80%. It just shows that the path is very narrow, and many things have to go just right for them.

True but nowhere near impossible. I do suspect Clark County will slowly grow more GOP over time. Trump did improve in the county by a couple points compared to his 2016 margin. 1% in Clark County is equal to about 9,500 votes. If the margin in Clark drops down to exactly six points and nothing else changes, the GOP wins the state by 160 votes.

I think that Trump came pretty close to the Republican ceiling in Clark, and given how young and diverse it is, it’s not going to keep trending Republican.

Similar things were said about Miami-Dade before 2020. It’s foolish to assume that a county can’t possibly trend R just because it’s populous, diverse, and unionized, and the very few people on this forum who assume that Nevada's R trend will continue this decade largely expect R inroads into Clark (more so than further gains in the rural/small-town areas or even significant R gains in Washoe County) to constitute the foundation/prerequisite for any Republican statewide victory.

I hardly think that Clark is comparable to Miami-Dade, since we're talking about very different demographics beyond "large Latino population" (very different Latinos, in this case) and "diverse." Not to mention, Clark swung 1 point to the right, whereas Miami-Dade swung over 20 points. Even a 6-point win for the Democrats in Clark (which is a very big reach, since there's not much evidence that all groups in Clark are continuously trending Republican) might not be enough if Washoe continues trending Democratic. And it's not like Clark has had a massive Republican trend to the point where it's undeniable, like other counties which have swung 15+ points in one direction.
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,257
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 08, 2021, 09:56:52 PM »

So I used the Shuffler to shift the counties with the strongest Trump trends back to Hillary 2016 margins

So, some interesting results, first it only shaves around a point off of Trump's margin in Texas, more importantly, the vast majority of said shaving off comes from three counties: Cameron, Hidalgo, Webb, the rest of the counties only shave around 0.2 off of Trump's margin, Hidalgo is the largest of the bunch, shaving off 0.45 off of Trump's margin. Cameron is the next largest, shaving off around 0.2, and Webb is the smallest, shaving off around 0.17.

So, thus three conclusions:

1. The RGV is not going to stop Blexas, it may delay it, but it alone won't prevent it.

2. It is a waste to spend time anywhere in the RGV except Hidalgo, Cameron, or Webb, the other counties simply don't have enough people to matter.

3. In the long term, the only people the RGV trend should affect is Gonzales and Cuellar.

(and a bonus one)

4. People were too quick to doom and gloom on Blexas following the RGV trend, forgot that is mostly rural and has few urbanized parts (and unsurprisingly, said urbanized places still gave double digit margins to Biden).
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: June 08, 2021, 10:01:51 PM »

So I used the Shuffler to shift the counties with the strongest Trump trends back to Hillary 2016 margins

So, some interesting results, first it only shaves around a point off of Trump's margin in Texas, more importantly, the vast majority of said shaving off comes from three counties: Cameron, Hidalgo, Webb, the rest of the counties only shave around 0.2 off of Trump's margin, Hidalgo is the largest of the bunch, shaving off 0.45 off of Trump's margin. Cameron is the next largest, shaving off around 0.2, and Webb is the smallest, shaving off around 0.17.

So, thus three conclusions:

1. The RGV is not going to stop Blexas, it may delay it, but it alone won't prevent it.

2. It is a waste to spend time anywhere in the RGV except Hidalgo, Cameron, or Webb, the other counties simply don't have enough people to matter.

3. In the long term, the only people the RGV trend should affect is Gonzales and Cuellar.

(and a bonus one)

4. People were too quick to doom and gloom on Blexas following the RGV trend, forgot that is mostly rural and has few urbanized parts (and unsurprisingly, said urbanized places still gave double digit margins to Biden).


Texas only trended one point towards the democrats in the past 4 years
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,257
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 08, 2021, 10:10:57 PM »

So I used the Shuffler to shift the counties with the strongest Trump trends back to Hillary 2016 margins

So, some interesting results, first it only shaves around a point off of Trump's margin in Texas, more importantly, the vast majority of said shaving off comes from three counties: Cameron, Hidalgo, Webb, the rest of the counties only shave around 0.2 off of Trump's margin, Hidalgo is the largest of the bunch, shaving off 0.45 off of Trump's margin. Cameron is the next largest, shaving off around 0.2, and Webb is the smallest, shaving off around 0.17.

So, thus three conclusions:

1. The RGV is not going to stop Blexas, it may delay it, but it alone won't prevent it.

2. It is a waste to spend time anywhere in the RGV except Hidalgo, Cameron, or Webb, the other counties simply don't have enough people to matter.

3. In the long term, the only people the RGV trend should affect is Gonzales and Cuellar.

(and a bonus one)

4. People were too quick to doom and gloom on Blexas following the RGV trend, forgot that is mostly rural and has few urbanized parts (and unsurprisingly, said urbanized places still gave double digit margins to Biden).


Texas only trended one point towards the democrats in the past 4 years

that's why my first comment said "it alone won't prevent it" and sure there are valid reasons to be skeptical of a Blue Texas, such as Houston barely budging, but this shows that the takes about the RGV becoming reliably Republican dooming chances of Blue Texas are very overblown. Also I'll note Dem growth in the metros is pretty significant, even if the RGV doesn't revert to the norm, there is more upside for Democrats in the state, making inroads in once reliably Republican areas in the Metroplex, which shows no signs of stopping. Massive Dem swings in the Metroplex and I-35 are already occurring and show little signs of stopping, swings in Houston could be the final part of the recipe to Blue Texas. However, Houston is a place which rather than barely budging, budged in different directions in different places, which makes it hard to analyze. Analysis about Texas is much more complex than "it only trended one point," it is important to look at why that happened to see if that is a sustainable pattern long term, and as I noted earlier, urban Hispanics had much weaker swings to Republicans than rural Hispanics (well outside of Miami, but that's it's own monster due to the high Cuban population), also it seems pretty clear that urban Hispanics would be much easier to win back than rural ones, which makes me much more optimistic about growing in Houston than say Zapata or Starr.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 08, 2021, 10:14:30 PM »

I more or less agree on this.

Democrats aren't winning Ohio any time soon because its become too rural. Georgia is "there" and NC is going to be soon as they run out of potential extra Republicans. Florida isn't going Democratic anytime soon because the national messaging down there just doesn't work. Republicans are good at talking to Democratic groups by not vice versa. Texas just isn't "there" yet. It's still too undeveloped despite having a plurality of the top 10 cities there. It will be, though. Michigan is probably like NC in that's its close but changing slowly and probably won't even flip for the next GOP president unless they win by a historic margin. Wisconsin looks like it will probably vote for the next GOP president or go red even before then but it looks like Pennsylvania might not.
TBF Ohio is more urban than Wisconsin or Minnesota, but the rural areas are much redder in OH.

Minnesota DFL are largely the partisan opposite of Florida Republicans too, they're still very good at talking to otherwise Republican voters.
Logged
Biden his time
Abdullah
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,644
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 09, 2021, 01:02:01 PM »

This is what would happen if all county margins across Florida stayed the same between 2020 and 2024, and only population growth was taken into account (I did this by increasing turnout to fit the selected county's 2024 population, zero counties are expecting to see a population decline).

A much smaller swing than would be imagined, only R+0.13


Image Link

Population Projection Source Link

I took the percentage growth between 2020 and 2025, then multiplied by 0.8, then rounded.
Logged
neostassenite31
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 564
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 09, 2021, 02:22:50 PM »

I more or less agree on this.

Democrats aren't winning Ohio any time soon because its become too rural. Georgia is "there" and NC is going to be soon as they run out of potential extra Republicans. Florida isn't going Democratic anytime soon because the national messaging down there just doesn't work. Republicans are good at talking to Democratic groups by not vice versa. Texas just isn't "there" yet. It's still too undeveloped despite having a plurality of the top 10 cities there. It will be, though. Michigan is probably like NC in that's its close but changing slowly and probably won't even flip for the next GOP president unless they win by a historic margin. Wisconsin looks like it will probably vote for the next GOP president or go red even before then but it looks like Pennsylvania might not.
TBF Ohio is more urban than Wisconsin or Minnesota, but the rural areas are much redder in OH.

Indeed, by both 538's urbanization index and exit polls, Ohio is actually about as urbanized as Virginia and Oregon. While impressive, Trump's 30%+ margins in both rural and small town exurban areas of OH are about 10% weaker compared to MO/IN.

Republicans have a LOT of room for growth in the Midwest
Logged
neostassenite31
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 564
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: June 09, 2021, 02:33:39 PM »

I more or less agree on this.

Democrats aren't winning Ohio any time soon because its become too rural. Georgia is "there" and NC is going to be soon as they run out of potential extra Republicans. Florida isn't going Democratic anytime soon because the national messaging down there just doesn't work. Republicans are good at talking to Democratic groups by not vice versa. Texas just isn't "there" yet. It's still too undeveloped despite having a plurality of the top 10 cities there. It will be, though. Michigan is probably like NC in that's its close but changing slowly and probably won't even flip for the next GOP president unless they win by a historic margin. Wisconsin looks like it will probably vote for the next GOP president or go red even before then but it looks like Pennsylvania might not.
TBF Ohio is more urban than Wisconsin or Minnesota, but the rural areas are much redder in OH.

Minnesota DFL are largely the partisan opposite of Florida Republicans too, they're still very good at talking to otherwise Republican voters.

The DFL's rural outreach program is in complete shambles after 2016. The so-called "rural caucus" is now mostly a messaging vehicle because the composition of the state party's central committee has changed to closely resemble the DFL caucus's makeup in the state legislature: where 70-80% of the rank-and-file are from the Twin Cities metro, even if not everyone literally lives in Mpls or St. Paul.

There's a reason why many rural DFL county organizations now routinely deride the state party as a "metrocentric" club. The party still retains 30-35% support across large swabs of rural counties, which given the current trajectory is unlikely to be sustainable over the long-term.      
Logged
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,967
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: June 09, 2021, 05:43:45 PM »

So I used the Shuffler to shift the counties with the strongest Trump trends back to Hillary 2016 margins

So, some interesting results, first it only shaves around a point off of Trump's margin in Texas, more importantly, the vast majority of said shaving off comes from three counties: Cameron, Hidalgo, Webb, the rest of the counties only shave around 0.2 off of Trump's margin, Hidalgo is the largest of the bunch, shaving off 0.45 off of Trump's margin. Cameron is the next largest, shaving off around 0.2, and Webb is the smallest, shaving off around 0.17.

So, thus three conclusions:

1. The RGV is not going to stop Blexas, it may delay it, but it alone won't prevent it.

2. It is a waste to spend time anywhere in the RGV except Hidalgo, Cameron, or Webb, the other counties simply don't have enough people to matter.

3. In the long term, the only people the RGV trend should affect is Gonzales and Cuellar.

(and a bonus one)

4. People were too quick to doom and gloom on Blexas following the RGV trend, forgot that is mostly rural and has few urbanized parts (and unsurprisingly, said urbanized places still gave double digit margins to Biden).

Yep...Zapata and Starr counties are interesting on this board but they might look more like Buchanan and Dickenson counties in SW VA in the long run. If the 4 big metros start trending the same way as we've seen in Atlanta, DC, Denver the GOP is screwed.

For 2022 you wonder if the GOP will protect its incumbents or try to maximize. They probably should try to protect incumbents but they might see the Dems new maps in NY, IL, MD, NM and draw something that eventually becomes a dummymander. GOP should take 25-13, which will help them all decade but not eat into the Ds 5 seat House majority. A 28-10 map would probably leave Crenshaw, McCaul, Roy and Taylor in big trouble very soon.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: June 23, 2021, 06:38:27 AM »

Rural areas can go D. As corporate farmers squeeze out slightly-R family farmers, the corporate farmers will be the voters -- until many of their workers become US citizens and start voting. I see much of the agribusiness work (dairying, slaughtering) as prone to union organizing. The corporate farmers will still act like rural aristocrats elsewhere on politics -- very hard Right. It wouldn't take many votes by workers to offset the votes of the corporate farmers.

This will take time. When it does, conservatives will need some new alignment to avoid getting crushed in elections.
Logged
Chips
Those Chips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,245
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 23, 2021, 03:18:18 PM »

Looking at Virginia. Youngkin has two options. He either has to drastically cut some of the GOP losses in NOVA or he must have a monster showing in downstate VA. Do better than Trump by 20+ points in some of the counties down there and win Chesterfield, Virginia Beach and Chesapeake by double digits along with Montgomery and the state bellwether of Radford. No easy task but it's not completely outside the realm of possibility.
Logged
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,967
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 23, 2021, 04:55:32 PM »

Looking at Virginia. Youngkin has two options. He either has to drastically cut some of the GOP losses in NOVA or he must have a monster showing in downstate VA. Do better than Trump by 20+ points in some of the counties down there and win Chesterfield, Virginia Beach and Chesapeake by double digits along with Montgomery and the state bellwether of Radford. No easy task but it's not completely outside the realm of possibility.

The counties in SE VA are heavily African-American, not at all likely Youngkin runs better than Trump by 20%, much less 2-3%.
Logged
Schiff for Senate
CentristRepublican
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,133
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 24, 2021, 02:25:53 PM »
« Edited: July 28, 2021, 07:34:14 PM by CentristRepublican »

Minnesota's looking pretty tough for the GOP. The GOP could improve by five points in Hennepin, Ramsey and all the surrounding counties and still lose the state. The GOP really needs to get the rurals in the state to WI, MI, PA levels in order to have a real fighting shot.


I agree that rural Pennsylvania is very conservative, and much of rural Michigan is too - but rural Wisconsin isn't that conservative; several counties in the Southwest aren't nearly as Republican as they 'should' be given their demographics and rural character. In fact rural Minneosta (see Western Minnesota for just one example, as well as Colin Peterson's 2020 defeat) is arguably a lot more conservative than rural Wisconsin (excluding, obviously, the counties of Cook - which actually swung leftward from 2012 to 2020 - St. Louis, Carlton and Lake). In fact, of the 20 Mondale counties in Minnesota, just five voted against Trump in 2020 (Hennepin, Ramsey, St. Louis, Carlton and Lake Counties). Northern WI is pretty conservative (but similar to Northeast MN there are a few Democratic redoubts, in Douglas, Bayfield and Ashland Counties), but Southwest Wisconsin has a lot of room for GOP support to expand (although one could argue the same is true for Southern Minnesota).
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,066


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 27, 2021, 11:54:10 PM »

Pennsylvania seems harder for Republicans than I expected, since unlike Michigan and Wisconsn they already have landslide margins in most rural counties. While it doesn't look like they have a WOW type area ripe for a Dem trend, overall Michigan and Wisconsin are to the left of where they 'should' be so maybe over the next few elections Pennsylvania will stay where it is while the other two move away from pure tossup status.
Logged
Chips
Those Chips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,245
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 28, 2021, 07:28:26 PM »

Minnesota's looking pretty tough for the GOP. The GOP could improve by five points in Hennepin, Ramsey and all the surrounding counties and still lose the state. The GOP really needs to get the rurals in the state to WI, MI, PA levels in order to have a real fighting shot.


I agree that rural Pennsylvania is very conservative, and much of rural Michigan is too - but rural Wisconsin isn't that conservative; several counties in the Southwest aren't nearly as Republican as they 'should' be given their demographics and rural character. In fact rural Minneosta (see Western Minnesota for just one example, as well as Colin Peterson's 2020 defeat) is arguably a lot more conservative than rural Wisconsin (excluding, obviously, the counties of Cook - which actually swung leftward from 2012 to 2020 - St. Louis, Carlton and Lake). In fact, of the 20 Mondale counties in Minnesota, just five voted against Trump in 2020 (Hennepin, Ramsey, St. Louis, Carlton and Lake Counties). Northern WI is pretty conservative (but similar to Northeast MN there are a few Democratic redoubts, in Douglas, Bayfield and Ashland Counties), but Southwest Wisconsin has a lot of room for GOP support to expand (although one could argue the same is true for Southern Minnesota).

I changed the bolded to just MI and PA.
Logged
Chips
Those Chips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,245
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 03, 2021, 02:25:09 PM »
« Edited: August 03, 2021, 02:42:09 PM by Chips »

This won't happen in real life but you can get a Democratic win in FL even with losing every Trump 2016 county+Hillsborough and Miami-Dade simply by doubling the 2020 margins in every other Clinton county.
Logged
bagelman
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,602
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 10, 2022, 10:31:13 PM »

Here are most of the maps I've created with this tool. Most if not all use the multiselect tool to change the margins of whole states, watching counties flip based on how much.

1972 senate election margins merged into 2020

2020 as 1920 (but inverted)

2020 as 1932

2020 as 1936

2020 as 1940

2020 as 1944

2020 as 1948 (all Thurmond votes are given to the GOP)

2020 as 1964

2020 as 1976

2020 as 2008

2020 as 2012

2020 but gubernatorial statewide margins are swapped with presidential results for relevant states

2020 but senatorial statewide margins are swapped with presidential results for relevant states

2020 but statewide swings are doubled from 2016

2020 but gubernatorial results are swapped with 2019 and 2021 for relevant states

It would take a lot of work, but by adjusting both margin and turnout by county one can manually convert the shuffler into a decent approximation of any election from 1960 onward (excluding 1968 and maybe 1992). First adjust the margin, then adjust the turnout to get the closest raw vote margin from a county of the relevant election, do it for all of the counties of the country, and save as a .JSON file. I could do this if I wanted to but I don't think there's any demand for it.
Logged
Blow by blow, the passion dies
LeonelBrizola
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
Brazil


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 16, 2022, 03:14:22 AM »

Minnesota's looking pretty tough for the GOP. The GOP could improve by five points in Hennepin, Ramsey and all the surrounding counties and still lose the state. The GOP really needs to get the rurals in the state to WI, MI, PA levels in order to have a real fighting shot.


I agree that rural Pennsylvania is very conservative, and much of rural Michigan is too - but rural Wisconsin isn't that conservative; several counties in the Southwest aren't nearly as Republican as they 'should' be given their demographics and rural character. In fact rural Minneosta (see Western Minnesota for just one example, as well as Colin Peterson's 2020 defeat) is arguably a lot more conservative than rural Wisconsin (excluding, obviously, the counties of Cook - which actually swung leftward from 2012 to 2020 - St. Louis, Carlton and Lake). In fact, of the 20 Mondale counties in Minnesota, just five voted against Trump in 2020 (Hennepin, Ramsey, St. Louis, Carlton and Lake Counties). Northern WI is pretty conservative (but similar to Northeast MN there are a few Democratic redoubts, in Douglas, Bayfield and Ashland Counties), but Southwest Wisconsin has a lot of room for GOP support to expand (although one could argue the same is true for Southern Minnesota).
Collin Peterson was a staunch conservative, at least by democratic standards
Logged
Schiff for Senate
CentristRepublican
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,133
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 16, 2022, 11:07:58 AM »

Minnesota's looking pretty tough for the GOP. The GOP could improve by five points in Hennepin, Ramsey and all the surrounding counties and still lose the state. The GOP really needs to get the rurals in the state to WI, MI, PA levels in order to have a real fighting shot.


I agree that rural Pennsylvania is very conservative, and much of rural Michigan is too - but rural Wisconsin isn't that conservative; several counties in the Southwest aren't nearly as Republican as they 'should' be given their demographics and rural character. In fact rural Minneosta (see Western Minnesota for just one example, as well as Colin Peterson's 2020 defeat) is arguably a lot more conservative than rural Wisconsin (excluding, obviously, the counties of Cook - which actually swung leftward from 2012 to 2020 - St. Louis, Carlton and Lake). In fact, of the 20 Mondale counties in Minnesota, just five voted against Trump in 2020 (Hennepin, Ramsey, St. Louis, Carlton and Lake Counties). Northern WI is pretty conservative (but similar to Northeast MN there are a few Democratic redoubts, in Douglas, Bayfield and Ashland Counties), but Southwest Wisconsin has a lot of room for GOP support to expand (although one could argue the same is true for Southern Minnesota).
Collin Peterson was a staunch conservative, at least by democratic standards

Agreed.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 20, 2022, 12:44:04 PM »

Looking at Virginia. Youngkin has two options. He either has to drastically cut some of the GOP losses in NOVA or he must have a monster showing in downstate VA. Do better than Trump by 20+ points in some of the counties down there and win Chesterfield, Virginia Beach and Chesapeake by double digits along with Montgomery and the state bellwether of Radford. No easy task but it's not completely outside the realm of possibility.

Like most rural areas, rural Downstate Virginia isn't growing unless becoming urban, which would then favor Democrats. It has no economic attraction. Winning big in rural areas can win states hemorrhaging urban populations, like Ohio, but where the urban populations are growing, the rural areas might be becoming more R but with smaller populations of voters.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,575


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 21, 2022, 08:14:16 PM »

Minnesota's looking pretty tough for the GOP. The GOP could improve by five points in Hennepin, Ramsey and all the surrounding counties and still lose the state. The GOP really needs to get the rurals in the state to MI and PA levels in order to have a real fighting shot.

The problem for the GOP in MN is just that MSP seems to be taking over the state politically and their rural gains haven't been enough to offset it due to MN rurals being a lot less dense than many of the other midwestern states MN is often associated with. It's why MN shifted so left compared to WI, MI, PA, or OH.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« 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 0.072 seconds with 11 queries.