- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/16/14 at 4:47 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
NH, why is New Hampshire so much less democratic than the rest of New England?
The people of this state have long held a fierce anti-taxation position, whether Democrats or Republicans. Even the massive influx into southern NH of "Taxachusetts people" hasn't really changed things that much, because many of those came here to avoid ---- taxes like they had in MA. Dems do well in NH, but the ones that do get elected are generally the ones that buy into the anti-tax philosophy.
It's a state where gay marriage and abortion is no big deal, yet has no knife laws of any kind and gun laws that meet NRA approval - and oftentimes it's the same people that agree with both. The general attitude is "don't frick with me and I won't frick with you".
NH has neither an income tax nor a state sales tax.
Clean air and clean water.
But those damn winters !!!!!
-
"The Pledge: --
LINK /
This post was edited on 7/16/14 at 4:48 pm
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:04 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
quote:
92,855,000 - THAT'S where the 2016 electoral battleground is.
poli sci 101: higher turnout traditionally favors the democrats.
That boat don't float in the real world.
It depends WHERE that higher turnout is, WHO they are and what got them to the polls.
The 2010 midterms were a great victory for Republicans in a year with higher-than-usual midterm turnout (highest since 1994 when the GOP gained 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate).
The right candidate can get out a small chunk (and that's all it takes to swing an election) of those non-voters.
But there is one other thing that can get people to the polls even more effectively than the right candidate - the wrong candidate.
Wrong, as in Bary Goldwater and George McGovern. There were probably more anti-Goldwater votes than pro-LBJ votes, and probably more anti-McGovern votes than pro-Nixon votes.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:09 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
But there is one other thing that can get people to the polls even more effectively than the right candidate - the wrong candidate.
Truer words have rarely been spoken. But candidates today are vetted very thoroughly (not just for behavior, but for documented beliefs) so I don't see another dead duck making it all the way to nomination. The Dems were waiting for an opportunity to can Dean in 2004. They're also controlled pretty tightly, but media (including recording media) are too diffuse to prevent someone from catching them at an unflattering moment.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:21 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
It depends WHERE that higher turnout is, WHO they are and what got them to the polls.
Oh yes, its definitely variable. And 2010 was a banner year for the republicans. But turnout at mid years are ~20pts lower than election years. You get that extra 20pts and the democrats will fair better.
and btw, the difference between 2010 and 2006 was 700k voters. It wasn't that big of a turnout difference.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:26 pm to Navytiger74
Total shift in their economic policy is the only thing that can save them.
Said that before the last election as well.
Said that before the last election as well.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:33 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
When one looks at the 332-206 EV landslide win by Obama in 2012, it looks pretty bleak.
But when one realizes that just 396,807 votes, spread across 5 states, kept Romney out of the White House, the mountain becomes a hill.
Still looking for some response to the 396,807 votes that separated Romney from the Oval Office.
That number is very small, and that's with 2012 demographics.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:37 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
Still looking for some response to the 396,807 votes that separated Romney from the Oval Office.
You can win the popular vote and still lose. It's the way our system works. I think looking state by state though the road to the WH gets harder every year for the Rs.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:38 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
Still looking for some response to the 396,807 votes that separated Romney from the Oval Office.
Yes, and in 2000/2004 it was even smaller.
its way too early to really even guess on 2016 but its fun to try! if i had to wager, I would put my money on democrats keeping the whitehouse in 2016.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:40 pm to wfeliciana
quote:
You can win the popular vote and still lose
He wasn't referring to the popular vote
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:44 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
He wasn't referring to the popular vote
My assumption was he was referring to the difference of W or L in 5 states and that was the 390+K. My point was you can lose by small numbers in several states, win by big numbers in others, and end up winning the popular vote but not the EC.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:44 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
Still looking for some response to the 396,807 votes that separated Romney from the Oval Office. That number is very small, and that's with 2012 demographics.
I'm not arguing that that doesn't provide an important nuance to the discussion and indeed paints a more balanced picture, I just don't think that's a very "clean" metric. The demographics and turnout of every single one of those states matters more than the total of them all. I honestly haven't run a state by state breakdown of what we're considering battlegrounds.
Obviously VA, FL, OH, CO, + NC, PA, or IA?
More importantly (as I wrote) the trends aren't favorable--at least from the cynical point of demographics equaling destiny.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:45 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Total shift in their economic policy is the only thing that can save them.
Explain pls.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:47 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
He wasn't referring to the popular vote
i did some quick analysis, and the percentages for the "swing states" in 2012 that tilted towards obama were roughly in line with the national vote. the exception was FL, which was really close. Ohio was closer but only by a percentage point.
I think its a harder road ahead than just the 400k votes.
If you look at 2004 (I think 2008 is a bad year since it was such a beatdown), you will also notice that the delta on the swing states was very similar to the overall election.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:54 pm to Hawkeye95
LINK
Interesting article with projections/discussions of each state re electoral college. His take after examining each state (including their demographics changes in the last 4 years) :"The bad news for Republicans is that they start with a much smaller base even including Texas in their win column. As a result, Republicans will have to win almost all the swing states below to take back the White House in 2016."
Interesting article with projections/discussions of each state re electoral college. His take after examining each state (including their demographics changes in the last 4 years) :"The bad news for Republicans is that they start with a much smaller base even including Texas in their win column. As a result, Republicans will have to win almost all the swing states below to take back the White House in 2016."
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:56 pm to wfeliciana
quote:
Interesting article with projections/discussions of each state re electoral college. His take after examining each state (including their demographics changes in the last 4 years) :"The bad news for Republicans is that they start with a much smaller base even including Texas in their win column. As a result, Republicans will have to win almost all the swing states below to take back the White House in 2016."
Way to hijack my thread with a more comprehensive piece of analysis, a-hole.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:58 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
Way to hijack my thread with a more comprehensive piece of analysis, a-hole.
Sorry man. I thought I was adding to the discussion.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:58 pm to wfeliciana
quote:
Sorry man. I thought I was adding to the discussion.
I was joking, dude.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 6:00 pm to wfeliciana
quote:
Interesting article with projections/discussions of each state re electoral college. His take after examining each state (including their demographics changes in the last 4 years) :"The bad news for Republicans is that they start with a much smaller base even including Texas in their win column. As a result, Republicans will have to win almost all the swing states below to take back the White House in 2016."
Agree with that. It comes down to 8-10 States all of which are trending Democrat
Posted on 7/16/14 at 6:01 pm to wfeliciana
quote:
quote:
Still looking for some response to the 396,807 votes that separated Romney from the Oval Office.
You can win the popular vote and still lose. It's the way our system works.
You missed the point. With those additional votes, Romney would still have easily lost the popular vote, but he would have won the electoral vote and the election.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News