Posted on 05/11/2006 5:09:42 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
True dat about Washington, though I don't think anyone saw the Republicans gaining 5 seats that year (especially Foley's, even though his seat was marginal), pushing their margin from 2-7 to 7-2.
That reminds me, Inslee (WA-01) was another one who won election in 1998 after being ousted in 1994.
Subtract the Bush margin from the partisan balance. If Bush 1988 won by 53%, subtract 3%.
Do you mean the Bush margin in the district's state, or the Bush margin nationally? It still seems to me that would skew the results. For instance, in IL-05 again, the GOP performance collapsed between 1988 and 1996. Dole took only 29%.
Did it have the same lines in 1988 as in 1994? Do you have data for CD's as drawn in 1988 as they voted in 1994? But yes, I would suspect Rosty's district was around a 45% GOP district back then, in national elections, generically, as a wild guess. It had all those bungalow ethnics worried about crime and race, and such. Today, the district does not exist, and if it did, it would have a substantial Hispanic componet, with some metrosexuals chewing into some neighborhoods.
Ya, the national margin. 1996 is irrelevant to 1994. 1994 is more akin to Bush 1988.
I have the 1988 presidential results for the districts as they were drawn in 1994 (well, technically I'm looking at tables for the 1992 districts, but they were the same in 1994).
Cool.
What is the link to your treasure trove by the way?
OK, if you think 1988's the way to go, then let's do that! Should I subtract the margin between Bush I and 50%, which would be minus 3.37% or should I subtract half the margin between Bush I and Dukakis, which would be minus 3.86%?
OK, if you think 1988's the way to go, then let's do that! Should I subtract the margin between Bush I and 50%, which would be minus 3.37% or should I subtract half the margin between Bush I and Dukakis, which would be minus 3.86%?
I don't know who the third party kooks were in 1988, but just use minus 4%, to make it fair.
LOL. The guy who controls the data base is the man, and the guy who doesn't, is a nebbish.
Rats dressed up as Republicans are acceptable?
Bloomberg, Specter, Snowe, Collins, Chafee, Graham.....
What is the GOP doing to prevent illegal immigrants from voting in this election for Busby and what can it do under California law?
Thanks FairOpinion. It is, indeed the truth. The idea of wanting Democrats to win to "send a message" to Republicans is totally unconservative.
OK, here's the new 1994 breakdown. This defines the 1994 GOP baseline for each district as the 1988 Bush percentage minus 4%.
Of the 34 DEM incumbents defeated by the GOP:
2 were in 60%+ GOP districts
9 were in 55-60% GOP districts
12 were in 50-55% GOP districts
6 were in 45-50% GOP districts
5 were in 40-45% GOP districts
Of the 22 open DEM seats picked up by the GOP:
5 were in 60%+ GOP districts
5 were in 55-60% GOP districts
7 were in 50-55% GOP districts
4 were in 45-50% GOP districts
1 was in a 40-45% GOP district
I'd say this baseline mainly had the effect of blunting the extremes. The number of Dem-leaning seats picked up by the GOP drops from 23 (17 + 6) to 16 (11 + 5), although it's worth noting that three districts are right on the cusp: 50.1% or 50.2% GOP.
Yah, that's what I'm thinking.
I hope the RNC and the House dump money to him. We really can't lose this.
Excellent, and I think a much better baseline. The only correction is that in the South the baseline moved move GOP from 1988-1994 in more rural based areas, so seats gained by the GOP in the South were more predictable than the baseline. But I think your numbers overall ring true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.