Why wasn’t ME closer?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 07, 2025, 11:29:43 AM
News: Election Calculator 3.0 with county/house maps is now live. For more info, click here

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  2024 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: muon2, GeorgiaModerate, Spiral, 100% pro-life no matter what, Crumpets)
  Why wasn’t ME closer?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Why wasn’t ME closer?  (Read 1324 times)
TheReckoning
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,415
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2024, 04:46:09 PM »

Some of it, I presume, is because the overall nationwide swing came from a handful of big states - the Big 4, NJ, etc - that swung disproportionately rightward. So most states "trended" a little Democratic purely as a result of that.

The other reason, of course, has to do with ME being racially homogenous. Overwhelmingly white states held up better for Dems bc white voters held up relatively well for Dems - this is also why WI was within a point even under such a brutal national environment.
I thought that too initially, but in New England Trump got pretty decent shifts in both Vermont (4 points), and New Hampshire (4.5) and they are very white states. If you applied those to Maine it should have run around Harris 5ish. Both of those states are also more educated than Maine is too.

What if VT is just maxxed out and/or Biden was just the best fit for the state?


And NH has swung against the incumbent party in every election since 2000 and swung against the incumbent party in every election since 1988 Except for 1996 so you can make the argument that NH is an anti incumbent state

Maine has done the same thing.
Logged
TheReckoning
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,415
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2024, 04:47:01 PM »

Trump ran an abnormally secular campaign in 2016 compared to every other R campaign this century.

How was his 2024 campaign more religious coded than his 2016 one?
Logged
Rhode Islander First, American Second
freethinkingindy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,921
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2024, 07:06:19 PM »

Trump ran an abnormally secular campaign in 2016 compared to every other R campaign this century.

How was his 2024 campaign more religious coded than his 2016 one?

Trump wasn't selling Bibles with his name on them, for one.
Logged
Aurelius2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,791
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: December 08, 2024, 09:55:39 PM »

Trump ran an abnormally secular campaign in 2016 compared to every other R campaign this century.

How was his 2024 campaign more religious coded than his 2016 one?

Trump wasn't selling Bibles with his name on them, for one.
Or posting happy birthday messages to Christian saints on Twitter.
Logged
Reactionary Libertarian
ReactionaryLibertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,490
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: December 12, 2024, 09:08:37 PM »

Some of it, I presume, is because the overall nationwide swing came from a handful of big states - the Big 4, NJ, etc - that swung disproportionately rightward. So most states "trended" a little Democratic purely as a result of that.

The other reason, of course, has to do with ME being racially homogenous. Overwhelmingly white states held up better for Dems bc white voters held up relatively well for Dems - this is also why WI was within a point even under such a brutal national environment.
I thought that too initially, but in New England Trump got pretty decent shifts in both Vermont (4 points), and New Hampshire (4.5) and they are very white states. If you applied those to Maine it should have run around Harris 5ish. Both of those states are also more educated than Maine is too.

Maine one of the oldest states tho (I think only Florida is older) and Harris did relatively well with seniors.
Logged
Voice of low info America
Santander
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,414
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.52, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: December 13, 2024, 08:34:20 AM »

I would say that it's for the same reasons as Harris doing better than Clinton in Colorado, Delaware, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington too. White educated voters having a bigger presence.

Plus most (if not all) of these states seem to be seeing D-friendly in-migration.
Idaho is sucking the R voters out of OR/WA.

I really do wonder if in 10 or 20 years, if all this self-sorting will lead to a good handful of states that vote like D/R+40 relative to the nation or something crazy.

Self-sorting is fantastic. We can finally have the national divorce I would've supported since the 1850s.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,493
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: December 15, 2024, 03:27:42 PM »

Maine was 1 point to the left of the country in 2016, 6 in 2020, and 9 in 2024. What’s the reason behind this big shift since 2016?

According to Wikipedia, it turns out Maine’s 1st Congressional District ranked between No. 4 Hawaii and No. 5 California for 2024 Democrats.

The 2024 margins in Maine’s 1st Congressional District were D+90,111 (raw votes) and D+25.2 (percentage points)

Also according to Wikipedia, it turns out Maine’s 2nd Congressional District ranked between No. 23 Florida and No. 24 Ohio for 2024 Republicans.

The 2024 margins in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District were R+33,297 (raw votes) and R+8.3 (percentage points).

The Democrats haves the advantage, statewide, with this outcome … and, if this continues, they would continue to have a firm hold with carrying statewide Maine.
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 0.033 seconds with 7 queries.