Results! Election night'04 ... your armchair expert analysis

Vitriolic? Why blast what I write with that label?

I am taken aback that you think what *I* wrote was abusive, scathing or anything more than mildly chiding, if that. Those very real questions I asked and were based on a long-time and deep understanding of Christianity. There is nothing there you wouldn't discuss in Bible class. I didn't mock Bush or his supporters. I pointed out the answer to your question about the youth vote and why there were so many conservatives. Any conservative should be proud at how well they have passed on the conservative mantle.

Fox -- I don't see that you have offered anything more than election rhetoric in response to my concerns. However, I do see that this is the wrong place for this discussion. My apologies, Nimh.

0 Replies

Agh! I've never seen Pifka write anything vitriolic, and looked back a couple of pages to be sure. My apologies, too, but I did want to get that in there.

0 Replies

Pffka writes

Quote:

Vitriolic? Why blast what I write with that label?

Apologies Piffka. I took your post as another (of many posted by others) 'proof' that Bush supporters are mostly wild eyed religious fanatics determined to evoke divine retribution or some such on the rest of the world. I probably overreacted and I am sorry.

And I don't know what else to say. You asked what Bush policies you should support along with what is important to you, and I answered. Pro environment coupled with pro people, pro national and international cooperation but not at the expense of capitulation to policies that we do not believe are productive, and pro business as it is not presidents but business that produces jobs for all. If you see that as a rehash of campaign rhetoric, then good. At least we know our candidate wasn't stating a lot of empty platitudes but stated the policy and waht we want to accomplish.

0 Replies

Okay and to Piffka, here's a point by point:
What does Bush stand for that we should support?

Quote:

Should we get behind giving more money to the wealthiest?

As it is the wealthiest who pay the bulk of the taxes, it is difficult to give tax relief without benefiting all those who pay them. And as it is the wealthy who provide the jobs and opportunties for the rest of us, it isn't that bad a policy.

Quote:

Should we help to strip away protections from the workers?

When so-called 'protections' become counter productive and reach the point of diminishing returns, some policies have to be retooled. I would rather have a job at wages that allow me to buy what I need for myself than have a job at subsistant wages but that provides a lot of benefits.

Quote:

Should we continue the pillage of Social Security?

Social Security has always been pillaged but the Bush plan gives us the best chance to save it more than anything else that has been suggested yet. I started a thread on this very issue, but unfortunately it was moved to a forum that few of us visit and will probably die on the vine.

Quote:

Should we support a fight he picked in Iraq while backtracking on the go-it-alone war against terrorism that we cannot afford?

I do not agree we have gone it alone and yes, we should win the fight. It is the only rational option for us.

Quote:

Should we agree that homosexuals are against God's word?

No and neither does Bush nor do any more of Bush supporters than Kerry supporters believe that.

Quote:

Should we agree to plunder Alaskan oil, despite the costs?

Yes so long as it continues to be done with environmental sensitivity as it has thus far been done.

Quote:

Should we keep gerry-mandering legislative districts with the hope that eventually every one of them is a guaranteed lock for one incumbent or another of his ilk?

I submit Bush has no power to gerrymander anything. This is something you need to take up with your more local elected people.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I am impressed that such a large percentage of the new young voters voted for Bush. I think usually the young are more liberal, idealistic, and find the more liberal candidate to be more appealing.

Yes, though he did worse than last time. In 2000, Bush actually lost the youth vote by just two percent (G48, B46), while he lost it this time by nine percent (K54, B45).

Truth be said, the difference as you can see is not that he got any fewer votes (they both got more votes, thanks to the increased turnout), or even that his percentage was any worse than in 2000 (it wasn't) - it's just that Kerry did a lot better than Gore (who in 2000 had to yield a lot of the youth vote to Nader).

0 Replies

Well, so much for John Edwards.

That he wouldnt succeed in winning North-Carolina for Kerry was expected. But that he wouldn't make any difference whatsoever should be quite dissapointing.

North Carolina results:
2000: Bush 56%, Gore 43%
2004: Bush 56%, Kerry 44%

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Depends how how you define "west" I guess Nimh. Kerry won on the Pacific corridor but only by winning the huge metroplitan areas that were his base everywhere. I think of "west" as either west of the middle or west of the Mississippi depending on what I'm talking about. Overwhelmingly, the majority of those states, counties, towns, acreage, etc. went to Bush.

Yes, of course, you're right. What I was getting at was that although Kerry lost percentage points compared to Gore pretty much across the South, he increased the Dem presidential vote share in much of the West - mountains and all. That is, I was thinking of this map. It shows Kerry doing better than Gore in most of Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa.

But yeah, whatever, forget it. Because first off: so what if Kerry did better than Gore in Idaho. At this pace, it'll still take the Democrat another 76 years to win the state. And two, the map looks better than things actually are, because when it comes to the state vote totals, Kerry didnt do better at all in Wyoming, Iowa or North or South Dakota. If the map looks like that I guess its because Kerry gained ground in the rural areas there, but lost extra points still in the cities.

Still. New Mexico remained close, and Colorado and Nevada should remain on the Dem hit list. In both those states Kerry did better than any Democrat in the last 16 years, and judging by the progress he made they should be feasible targets for 2008 or 2012.

Arizona was a wipe-out though. I understand that turnout there was remarkably high, up 35%, because of some attention-grabbing proposition - one that pushed for a tightening of rules on illegal immigrants. Guess that brought a lot of extra Reps to the vote.

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

Have you ever heard of "Young Life" Foxfyre? It is a huge evangelical force for teens & twenty-somethings, offering a Godly mix of big fun at twice weekly fellowships and extraordinary & exclusively YL summer camps *bank-rolled by conservative Christians.* It was a major force in developing "Youth for Bush" and youth "value voters" here.

Here's an example of the strength of that Christian commitment. This was said as a "novena" nine times each Sunday prior to the election. Those willing to do so in their parish signed on -- more than 10,000 and this was just the small segment who are Catholics.:

So what. Don't you accept the right of free association? The novena piece you found so offensive ventured no farther than to affirm the belief if practicing Catholics that (1) Life begins at conception, and that (2) Families are (or should be) the fundamental social unit of the society. Do you find these to be dangerous or radical views? I have attended meetings of the Sierra Club that I assure you ventured much farther into the political and public policy arena than this.

Quote:

What does Bush stand for that we should support?

Should we get behind giving more money to the wealthiest?
Should we help to strip away protections from the workers?
Should we continue the pillage of Social Security?
Should we support a fight he picked in Iraq while backtracking on the go-it-alone war against terrorism that we cannot afford?
Should we agree that homosexuals are against God's word?
Should we agree to plunder Alaskan oil, despite the costs?
Should we keep gerry-mandering legislative districts with the hope that eventually every one of them is a guaranteed lock for one incumbent or another of his ilk?

I think you are the victim of some imprecise thinking and expressions of ideas that have led you to unsupportable conclusions and implications.

No one is "giving" anything to the wealthy. We are merely taking less from them and from all other taxpayers in order to stimulate the economy and to create conditions that will limit the growth of the government. The income tax table after the cuts is slightly more progressive that before.

To what worker "protections do you refer? What exactly has been "stripped from whom?

Who in "pillaging Social Security? We (and every other developed nation) are faced with changing demographics which fundamentally undermine the ASSUMPTIONS built in to the SS system - namely that successive generations of workers would be substantially larger than those that preceded them and that life expectancy was in the mid 60s. Things change - birth rates are down and we live longer. To adapt we must either limit benefits by raising the retirement age or some other device, or restructure the system to get more out of the monies invested. This is a fact - not a partisan issue.

What do you mean by the phrase that "homosexuals are against God's word"? Not only don't agree, I don't know what the phrase means. Do you mean homosexuals oppose God's word? I don't buy that. Do you mean the existence of homosexuals violates God's word? That is a concept that flies in the face of the Christian concept of God. Some may believe it, but we are free to believe what we wish in this country.

The extraction of Alaskan oil is not "plundering"..That is a value-laden appellation that evades the rational arguments. Alaska wants it drilled, and our economy needs it. Where's the beef? It has already been demonstrated that such extraction can be done without great impact on that environment.
The gerrymandering of congressional districts was a direct result of Democrat affirmative action programs and liberal court interpretations of voting rights legislation also sponsored by Democrats. It was also aided by a silent conspiracy of incumbents of both parties. The manifestation in Texas to which you are evidently referring is merely the most recent of a series of such things mostly benefiting Democrats.

Too many vague references; too many pejorative labels attached to things without supporting argument; too many instances of ignoring conflicting facts; too much hyperbole; ---- , not much left after all that.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

So what. Don't you accept the right of free association?

The novena piece you found so offensive ventured no farther than to affirm the belief if practicing Catholics that (1) Life begins at conception, and that (2) Families are (or should be) the fundamental social unit of the society. Do you find these to be dangerous or radical views? I have attended meetings of the Sierra Club that I assure you ventured much farther into the political and public policy arena than this.

I have no idea what you are trying to say by free association, George. I provided FoxFyre with a reason why teens & young adults would be less liberal. If you don't agree with me, then say so and explain what you know about Young Life, teens and the fundamentalist wave sweeping this country.

As for the novena -- it is a prayer not a piece -- I didn't find it offensive. I found it ridiculous. I assume Catholics can think for themselves, I know many who do. For an entire church to urge a "correct vote" is absurd. This demonizing of the democrats with the implication that God wants religious folk to vote a particular way is ridiculous. It is extraordinary that a church tells its parishioners how to vote, especially when the church doesn't have to pay taxes and all donations are tax-deductible.

I imagine you know donations to the Sierra Club are not tax-deductible... just so that they can legally push their agenda.

Quote:

I think you are the victim of some imprecise thinking and expressions of ideas that have led you to unsupportable conclusions and implications.

No one is "giving" anything to the wealthy. We are merely taking less from them and from all other taxpayers in order to stimulate the economy and to create conditions that will limit the growth of the government. The income tax table after the cuts is slightly more progressive that before.

And it is obvious to me that you are the victim of your own hubris. You won't grant that the wealthy have received large tax cuts? How interesting.

Quote:

To what worker "protections do you refer? What exactly has been "stripped from whom?

I was referring to the protections of wage, health and safety for the service and blue-collar workers, for the teachers, and the LPNs, and all the minimum wage-earners. Those are the people who provide you with services every day. I was referring to the inability for the Republican party to consider the worker as anything other than a cog in the wheel. When there are such crummy jobs in the United States that American workers won't do them at the wage scale... what does the Bush Administration suggest? Raise the wage? No... let's bring in foreign workers who will work.

Whenever has a Republican offered to provide workers with a higher minimum wage, encourage stronger unions, lobby for workers rights, increase the need for safety inspections? Those are protections that workers hope for. The real dollars that are given to workers has steadily decreased while their executives receive higher benefits, most engineered in ways that find loopholes in tax laws.

Quote:

Who in "pillaging Social Security? We (and every other developed nation) are faced with changing demographics which fundamentally undermine the ASSUMPTIONS built in to the SS system - namely that successive generations of workers would be substantially larger than those that preceded them and that life expectancy was in the mid 60s. Things change - birth rates are down and we live longer. To adapt we must either limit benefits by raising the retirement age* or some other device, or restructure the system to get more out of the monies invested. This is a fact - not a partisan issue.

* this has already been done... are you trying to fool with me?

Social Security was meant to use the earnings of the current workers to pay the benefits of the retirees, with the idea that there would be a continual growth of workers and that some that money would be carefully invested by the system for the future. The Bush administration wants to create individual accounts; using the money to pay for those already receiving benefits from the current system would have to come from borrowing money. We are already in debt up to our eyebrows and the only ones who win are those who have put up the money. It is amazing to me that a Republican would be so willing to further increase the national debt and with it create a long-term budget deficit.

Quote:

What do you mean by the phrase that "homosexuals are against God's word"? Not only don't agree, I don't know what the phrase means. Do you mean homosexuals oppose God's word? I don't buy that. Do you mean the existence of homosexuals violates God's word? That is a concept that flies in the face of the Christian concept of God. Some may believe it, but we are free to believe what we wish in this country.

You've never heard that phrase? Lucky you... must not spend much time in churches. Yes, I also think it flies in the face of the second commandment that Jesus offered. Funny how Christians uses the N.T. for some things, and the O.T. for others.

Quote:

The extraction of Alaskan oil is not "plundering"... It has already been demonstrated that such extraction can be done without great impact on that environment.

Too bad no one has taken into account Global Warming. (It really isn't happening is it?) There won't be a chance for any drilling to be cost-effective. Rollagons can only drive on the tundra for 100 days a year now... when the pipeline was built it was 200 days. Yep, twice as much. The tundra is melting and it is a morass two-thirds of the year. Meanwhile, the pipeline was only built to last 25 years and it is in a constant state of repair.

Quote:

The gerrymandering of congressional districts was a direct result of Democrat affirmative action programs and liberal court interpretations of voting rights legislation also sponsored by Democrats. It was also aided by a silent conspiracy of incumbents of both parties. The manifestation in Texas to which you are evidently referring is merely the most recent of a series of such things mostly benefiting Democrats.

Gerrymandering from any source is ridiculous. You are trying to prove your position, apparently the position that gerrymandering is OK, by attacking me on partisanship. Do you think that makes gerrymandering right?

Quote:

Too many vague references; too many pejorative labels attached to things without supporting argument; too many instances of ignoring conflicting facts; too much hyperbole; ---- , not much left after all that.

<shrug> I wasn't vague and had no reason to provide supporting argument. You haven't given any facts at all... just more rhetoric, yet you are disingenuous enough to offer that the wealthy haven't received huge benefits under Bush, while posturing that the reason Fundamentalist Christians don't like the gay lifestyle has nothing to do with the Bible.

http://www.kolardesign.com/cards/200hand1.jpg

Once again, I'd like to say that I realize this was the wrong thread. Sorry Nimh.

0 Replies

No problem, Piffka. On the count of global warming, I read a report today about a new research that just came out and showed ice bears will be extinct within a few decades if current trends continue ...

Meanwhile, a state-by-state update for the purpose of practical comparison of the 2004 election results with those of 2000 and with what the last opinion polls (on average) had said:

By ranking, from the most Democratic to the most Republican state (2000 ranking between brackets)

1.(1.) DC
2000: B9 G85 / Gore +76%
Average last polls*: Kerry +65%
2004: B9 K90 / Kerry +81%

2. (3.) MASSACHUSETTS
2000: B33 G60 / Gore +27%
Average last polls: Kerry +35%
2004: B37 K62 / Kerry +25%

3. (2.) RHODE ISLAND
2000: B32 G61 / Gore +29%
Average last polls: Kerry +16%
2004: B39 K60 / Kerry +21%

4. (12.) VERMONT
2000: B41 G51 / Gore +10%
Average last polls: Kerry +10%
2004: B39 K59 / Kerry +20%

5. (4.) NEW YORK
2000: B35 G60 / Gore +25%
Average last polls: Kerry +18%
2004: B40 K58 / Kerry +18%
99% of precincts reporting

6. (7.) MARYLAND
2000: B40 G57 / Gore +16%
Average last polls: Kerry +13%
2004: B43 K56 / Kerry +13%

7. (11.) CALIFORNIA
2000: B42 G53 / Gore +12%
Average last polls: Kerry +12%
2004: B44 K55 / Kerry +11%

8. (6.) CONNECTICUT
2000: B38 G56 / Gore +17%
Average last polls: Kerry +8%
2004: B44 K54 / Kerry +10%

9. (10.) ILLINOIS
2000: B43 G55 / Gore +12%
Average last polls: Kerry +11%
2004: B45 K55 / Kerry +10%

10. (5.) HAWAII
2000: B37 G56 / Gore +18%
Average last polls: Kerry +1%
2004: B45 K54 / Kerry +9%

11. (15.) MAINE
2000: B44 G49 / Gore +5%
Average last polls: Kerry +8%
2004: B45 K53 / Kerry +8%

12. (9.) DELAWARE
2000: B42 G55 / Gore +13%
Average last polls: Kerry +6%
2004: B46 K53 / Kerry +7%

13. (13.) WASHINGTON
2000: B45 G50 / Gore +6%
Average last polls: Kerry +8%
2004: B46 K53 / Kerry +7%

14. (8.) NEW JERSEY
2000: B40 G56 / Gore +16%
Average last polls: Kerry +7%
2004: B46 K53 / Kerry +7%

15. (14.) MICHIGAN
2000: B46 G51 / Gore +5%
Average last polls: Kerry +4%
2004: B48 K51 / Kerry +3%

16. (18.) OREGON
2000: B47 G47 / Gore +0%
Average last polls: Kerry +7%
2004: B48 K51 / Kerry +3%

17. (17.) MINNESOTA
2000: B46 G48 / Gore +2%
Average last polls: Kerry +2%
2004: B48 K51 / Kerry +3%

18. (16.) PENNSYLVANIA
2000: B46 G51 / Gore +4%
Average last polls: Kerry +2%
2004: B49 K51 / Kerry +2%
99% of precincts reporting

19. (23.) NEW HAMPSHIRE
2000: B48 G47 / Bush +1%
Average last polls: Kerry +2%
2004: B49 K50 / Kerry +1%

20. (20.) WISCONSIN
2000: B48 G48 / Gore +0%
Average last polls: Bush +1%
2004: B49 K50 / Kerry +1%

21. (19.) IOWA
2000: B48 G49 / Gore +0%
Average last polls: Bush +1%
2004: B50 K49 / Bush +1%

22. (21.) NEW MEXICO
2000: B48 G48 / Gore +0%
Average last polls: Bush +2%
2004: B50 K49 / Bush +1%
99% of precincts reporting

23. (26.) OHIO
2000: B50 G46 / Bush +4%
Average last polls: Bush +1%
2004: B51 K49 / Bush +2%

24. (27.) NEVADA
2000: B50 G46 / Bush +4%
Average last polls: Bush +5%
2004: B50 K48 / Bush +2%

25. (22.) FLORIDA
2000: B49 G49 / Gore +0%
Average last polls: Bush +2%
2004: B52 K47 / Bush +5%

26. (33.) COLORADO
2000: B51 G42 / Bush +8%
Average last polls: Bush +4%
2004: B52 K47 / Bush +5%

27. (24.) MISSOURI
2000: B50 G47 / Bush +3%
Average last polls: Bush +4%
2004: B53 K46 / Bush +7%

28. (32.) VIRGINIA
2000: B52 G44 / Bush +8%
Average last polls: Bush +4%
2004: B54 K45 / Bush +9%

29. (28.) ARKANSAS
2000: B51 G46 / Bush +5%
Average last polls: Bush +4%
2004: B54 K45 / Bush +9%

30. (29.) ARIZONA
2000: B51 G45 / Bush +6%
Average last polls: Bush +11%
2004: B55 K44 / Bush +11%

31. (35.) NORTH CAROLINA
2000: B56 G43 / Bush +13%
Average last polls: Bush +8%
2004: B56 K44 / Bush +12%

32. (30.) WEST-VIRGINIA
2000: B52 G46 / Bush +6%
Average last polls: Bush +7%
2004: B56 K43 / Bush +13%

33. (25.) TENNESSEE
2000: B51 G47 / Bush +4%
Average last polls: Bush +13%
2004: B57 K42 / Bush +15%

34. (31.) LOUISIANA
2000: B53 G45 / Bush +8%
Average last polls: Bush +12%
2004: B57 K42 / Bush +15%

35. (34.) GEORGIA
2000: B55 G43 / Bush +12%
Average last polls: Bush +13%
2004: B58 K41 / Bush +17%

36. (39.) SOUTH CAROLINA
2000: B57 G41 / Bush +16%
Average last polls: Bush +13%
2004: B58 K41 / Bush +17%

37. (37.) KENTUCKY
2000: B57 G41 / Bush +15%
Average last polls: Bush +19%
2004: B60 K40 / Bush +20%

38. (40.) MISSISSIPPI
2000: B58 G41 / Bush +17%
Average last polls: Bush +11%
2004: B60 K40 / Bush +20%

39. (45.) MONTANA
2000: B58 G33 / Bush +25%
Average last polls: Bush +19%
2004: B59 K39 / Bush +20%

40. (38.) INDIANA
2000: B57 G41 / Bush +16%
Average last polls: Bush +19%
2004: B60 K39 / Bush +21%
99% of precincts reporting

41. (44.) SOUTH DAKOTA
2000: B60 G38 / Bush +23%
Average last polls: Bush +15%
2004: B60 K38 / Bush +22%

42. (42.) TEXAS
2000: B59 G38 / Bush +21%
Average last polls: Bush +22%
2004: B61 K38 / Bush +23%

43. (36.) ALABAMA
2000: B56 G42 / Bush +15%
Average last polls: Bush +19%
2004: B63 K37 / Bush +26%

44. (41.) KANSAS
2000: B58 G37 / Bush +21%
Average last polls: Bush +24%
2004: B62 K36 / Bush +26%

45. (48.) ALASKA
2000: B59 G28 / Bush +31%
Average last polls: Bush +29%
2004: B62 K35 / Bush +27%

46. (46.) NORTH DAKOTA
2000: B61 G33 / Bush +28%
Average last polls: Bush +31%
2004: B63 K35 / Bush +28%

47. (43.) OKLAHOMA
2000: B60 G38 / Bush +22%
Average last polls: Bush +29%
2004: B66 K34 / Bush +32%

48. (47.) NEBRASKA
2000: B62 G33 / Bush +29%
Average last polls: Bush +31%
2004: B67 K32 / Bush +35%

49. (49.) IDAHO
2000: B67 G28 / Bush +40%
Average last polls: Bush +28%
2004: B68 K30 / Bush +38%

50. (50.) WYOMING
2000: B68 G28 / Bush +40%
Average last polls: Bush +38%
2004: B69 K29 / Bush +40%

51. (51.) UTAH
2000: B67 G26 / Bush +40%
Average last polls: Bush +43%
2004: B71 K26 / Bush +45%
99% of precincts reporting

*"Average last polls" numbers derived from http://secureliberty.org/Polls/Polls%2011-2.htm ; partisan site but trustworthy-seeming numbers.

2000 ranking based on official results. 2004 ranking based on NYTimes data

0 Replies

I haven't been able to find the stats on line, but CNN tonight was reporting that virtually all the states with the lowest per capita income went for Bush which pretty well dispels the myth that this was a 'rich man's election'.

0 Replies

<shrugs>

Most of the poor voted for Kerry.

That and your assertion (that virtually all the states with the lowest per capita income went for Bush) can well both be true at the same time.

(Ie, West-Virginia and Mississippi are Republican and among the poorest states, but together probably have less poor inhabitants than the state of New York alone).

0 Replies

Nation's Poor Win Election for Nation's Rich

0 Replies

Based on the state-by-state list posted above, the following, probably rawther surprising top-10 lists (OK, top-15 lists):

Where did Bush increase his share of the vote most?

1. Hawaii +8%
2. Rhode Island +7%
-. Alabama +7%
4. Connecticut +6%
-. New Jersey +6%
-. Tennessee +6%
-. Oklahama +6%
8. New York +5%
-. Nebraska +5%
10. Massachusetts +4%
-. Delaware +4%
-. Arizona +4%
-. West-Virginia +4%
-. Louisiana +4%
-. Kansas +4%
-. Utah +4%

Where did Bush lose or least increase his share of the vote?

1. Vermont -2%
2. DC 0%
-. Nevada 0%
-. North-Carolina 0%
-. South Dakota 0%
6. Maine +1%
-. Washington +1%
-. Oregon +1%
-. Wisconsin +1%
-. New Hampshire +1%
-. Ohio +1%
-. Colorado +1%
-. South Carolina +1%
-. Montana +1%
-. Idaho +1%
-. Wyoming +1%

Here's a little map to go with it ... red is for states where Bush most increased his share of the vote, blue is for where he failed to win significant extra support:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/anepiphany/images/bush2004-biggestandsmallest-gains.gif

No gains for Bush in New England, but much won in the plains and some of the Deep South - no surprise there. And Edwards may not have won the Dems more than a single extra percent in North-Carolina, but at least he may have prevented Bush from expanding his lead in NC and SC.

But what strikes me most is how Bush gained significant ground all around New York. The 9/11 effect, I presume.

That might also explain a bit about how the exit polls showed Bush making considerable gains among the urban population, even while Kerry gained ground among rural voters.

0 Replies

Link to more follow-up analysis.

(I add such cross-links as much for myself, to better keep track of what I've put where, as to alert any of you by the way -- just in case you were beginning to suspect rampant vanity ... ;-))

0 Replies

OK, now why did I only "do" the map and table of where Bush had his biggest and smallest gains? Why not do one on Kerry?

Well, I did one, but there was a reason I didn't do it straight away. Below you'll find a list of the states where Kerry most increased on Gore's share of the vote, resp. most lost on Gore's percentage. But one thing you need to keep in mind is the effect of the third-party candidates in 2000, Nader foremost. There is almost a one-on-one relation between where Kerry increased the Dem vote and where the third-party vote fell.

And that's what makes these tables less relevant than the Bush ones. After all, what has decided these elections was how Bush upped his own score and achieved a majority. How Kerry won back the votes that went to Nader in 2000 within the now-minority "left"-wing camp then does not make much of a difference anymore.

Here goes, though:

Where Kerry most increased the Democrat share of the vote in comparison with Gore in 2000

1. Vermont +8
2. Alaska +7
3. Montana +6
4. DC +5
-. Colorado +5
6. Maine +4
-. Oregon +4
8. Washington +3
-. Minnesota +3
-. New Hampshire +3
-. Ohio +3
12. Idaho +2
-. North-Dakota +2
-. Nevada +2
-. Wisconsin +2
-. California +2
-. Massachusetts +2

Where Kerry most lost compared to the percentage Gore got in 2000

1. Tennessee -5
-. Alabama -5
3. Oklahoma -4
4. NJ -3
-. West-Virgina -3
-. Louisiana -3
7. Indiana -2
-. Georgia -2
-. Florida -2
-. Delaware -2
-. Hawaii -2
-. Connecticut -2
-. New York -2

Map: red is for where Kerry did worse than Gore, blue is for where he did better.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/anepiphany/images/kerry2004-biggestandsmallest-gains.gif

0 Replies

Looking at the Kerry map, you can clearly see the two main places where he lost ground. Four states around New York where Kerry lost ground are states where Bush gained percentage points. Five states in the greater South (counting WV and OK) where Kerry lost ground are states where Bush gained points. And you can add Hawaii to that list of overlaps. (In all but two of these states, btw, Kerry still got more actual votes than Gore - increased turnout and all - its just that Bush got many more still).

When it comes to the states where Kerry increased the Dem score however, there may indeed be an overlap with the states where Bush failed to win extra percentage points, but another overlap is probably more meaningful. Namely, that with the states where the third party candidates lost votes. Because on state level that really made a difference in some places. Third party candidates were good for 3,7% in total in 2000; now they're down to less than a percent.

States where third-party candidates have lost most:

Alaska -10%
Montana -7%
Colorado -6%
Massachusetts -6%
Rhode Island -6%
Vermont -6%
Hawaii -6%
DC -5%
Maine -5%
Oregon -5%
Minnesota -5%
New Hampshire -4%
Ohio -4%
Washington -4%
California -4%
Connecticut -4%
North-Dakota -4%
Nebraska -4%
Utah -4%

Here's the map of states where third party candidates lost most votes:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/anepiphany/images/3rdparty2004-biggest-losses.gif

0 Replies

So here's those three maps in a row ...

Biggest and smallest gains in % points for Bush:

Biggest gains and losses in % points for Kerry:

Biggest losses for third-party candidates:

Can we arrive at some sort of typology here? Only if we approach the elections as a zero-sum game, and ignore turnout for a second ...

A. "Indies choose Kerry": Third parties lose, Kerry profits, Bush doesn't (much), or even loses
Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, DC, Ohio, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Alaska (and to a lesser extent Wisconsin, Idaho and Nevada)

B. "Plus ca change...": Nothing much changes, or it should be that third party voters divide themselves up
North-Carolina, South-Carolina, Minnesota, South-Dakota, North-Dakota, Wyoming, California

C. "Advantage Bush": just two or three percent won here or lost there - but generally towards Bush
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia

D. "Indies choose Bush": Third parties lose, Bush profits, Kerry doesn't (much), or even loses
Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Hawaii, Utah, Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska (and to a lesser extent Massachusetts)

E. "It's a rout": Democrats lose, Bush wins, third parties don't even come into it
West-Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, Oklahoma (and to a lesser extent Georgia, Florida and Indiana)

(Fuzzy) map:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/anepiphany/images/2004-typologies.gif

0 Replies

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm

0 Replies

According to the handy table in that article, which lists how far off the preliminary 4 PM exit poll data was off from the actual results, the greatest shift towards Bush in the actual results was in Delaware, Vermont, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nebraska, Alabama, Alaska, New York and North Carolina.

So much for the theory that the discrepancies clearly showed a focused push in Bush's numbers in the most contested battleground states.

If there was some kind of risk-fraught attempt at fraud going on to twist numbers in Bush's direction, why would it have been focused on states like Alaska and Alabama, Vermont and New York?

0 Replies

Results! Election night'04 ... your armchair expert analysis

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know