|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 03, 2020, 10:50:18 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginiá)
  Analysis of Party voting trends by state
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Analysis of Party voting trends by state  (Read 4549 times)
Fritz
JLD
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 25, 2007, 01:10:00 pm »
« edited: February 25, 2007, 01:13:08 pm by Fritz »

This is a mathematical analysis based on how each state voted in the 2004 election, and current makeup of congressional delegations, and governors.  To calculate this in Excel, I have assigned negative point values to the Republican party, and positive point values to the Democratic party.

First, each party is awarded a point for each state depending on how the state voted in the 2004 Presidential election.

Next, each party is awarded a point if both of the state’s senators belong to the same party.

For house majority and governorship, I am assigning less value.  Each of these is worth half a point.  Total possible: 3 points per state.

Here are the results:

-2.5 to –3 (Safe Republican): Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Utah.  92 electoral votes.

-2 (Strong Republican):  Florida, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, Wyoming.  58 electoral votes.

-1.5 to –1 (Lean Republican):  Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia.  103 electoral votes.

0 (True Tossups):  Colorado, Iowa, Montana, North Dakota.  22 electoral votes.

1 (Lean Democrat):  Arkansas, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, West Virginia.  29 electoral votes.

2 (Strong Democrat):  California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont.  121 electoral votes.

3 (Safe Democrat):  Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Washington, Wisconsin.  110 electoral votes (113 if we add D.C.).


Here is the map:



Comments?

(Please let me know if you notice any mistakes.)

Logged
Fritz
JLD
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2007, 01:48:29 pm »

I find it interesting that Arkansas and West Virginia, both of which voted for Bush in 2004, end up in the Lean Democrat group here.  Also, all of the Tossup states were Bush states.  Could North Dakota and Montana go to the Democrat in 2008?
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2007, 04:02:43 pm »

I find it interesting that Arkansas and West Virginia, both of which voted for Bush in 2004, end up in the Lean Democrat group here.  Also, all of the Tossup states were Bush states.  Could North Dakota and Montana go to the Democrat in 2008?

Could they?  Maybe.  But not in a race that wasn't an absolute landslide.  The Democrats also had the triects in North Dakota in 2004, and it didn't get them anywhere.  In Montana, Democrats can thank their lucky stars for a) a terrible state GOP in 2004, b) a terrible national GOP in 2006.

As interesting as it turns out, this measure doesn't mean much for federal politics.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,509


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2007, 04:04:39 pm »

What i find to be interesting is that none of the kerry 04 states and only New Mexico of the Gore 00 states have a Republican value.

Would not seem to bode well.
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2007, 06:13:38 pm »

Could they?  Maybe.  But not in a race that wasn't an absolute landslide.  The Democrats also had the triects in North Dakota in 2004, and it didn't get them anywhere.  In Montana, Democrats can thank their lucky stars for a) a terrible state GOP in 2004, b) a terrible national GOP in 2006.

As interesting as it turns out, this measure doesn't mean much for federal politics.

Okay, my map is based solely on raw data.  Subjective considerations, such as those pointed out by Nighthawk, are not taken into account.  I get the impression from the forum that, for example, most of you don't consider Wisconsin to be Safe Democrat- it is viewed as more of a swing state, despite having a Democrat Governor, two Democrat Senators, a Democrat majority in the House, and voting for Kerry.

So, here is my challenge to you all.  I have divided the states into 7 groups, based on raw data.  What states are not, in your opinion, placed in the correct group?  Please support your opinions with convincing arguments.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2007, 06:42:45 pm »

Before I try to do that, what are we basing this on?  Presidential/federal voting?  Or general?  Because they're quite different questions.
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2007, 06:45:25 pm »

2008 Presidential race.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,670


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2007, 12:13:50 pm »

What i find to be interesting is that none of the kerry 04 states and only New Mexico of the Gore 00 states have a Republican value.

Would not seem to bode well.

New Mexico would have had the same value in 2000 anyway. Arkansas would have been a toss-up in 2004 and 2000 (GOP governor, Huckabee), but West Virginia would also have had an incorrect value in both 2000 and 2004.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,509


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2007, 06:51:19 pm »

What i find to be interesting is that none of the kerry 04 states and only New Mexico of the Gore 00 states have a Republican value.

Would not seem to bode well.

New Mexico would have had the same value in 2000 anyway. Arkansas would have been a toss-up in 2004 and 2000 (GOP governor, Huckabee), but West Virginia would also have had an incorrect value in both 2000 and 2004.
Still seems like 08 will be on the GOP's turf.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,602


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2007, 05:01:14 pm »

It's misleading because presidential voting has never mirrored local voting. Neither Arkansas nor West Virginia were close to being won by Democrats in 2004 or 2000. So the analysis is interesting, but not a useful tool when it comes to analysing the presidential race next year. Some of it is probably purely random chance (Wisconsin I think is an example of this).
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2007, 07:27:17 pm »

Okay, well, I had fun putting it together anyways.  If I had the time (I definitely don't), I'd try to put this map together for past election years, and compare it to the Presidential election results map, to see how close it came.

Most people I know, who care about voting at all, tend to vote a straight party line, or at least have a strong leaning towards a particular party.  So I have a little trouble understanding this concept of local vs. national politics having different trends in the same locality.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,670


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2007, 08:47:27 pm »

I think it's primarily a Southern phenomenon. The Democrats still dominate the state politics of many Southern states merely by virtue of having powerful and ancient infrastructures, but both they and their voters have little love for the national party.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,602


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2007, 04:41:53 pm »

Peopel obviously vote differently. Otherwise the Dakotas wouldn't have Democratic delegations, Maine GOP senators, etc. 
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines