[skip2myloo]

How can New York elect Schumer/Clinton and also 60% for Bush.

How can we explain South Dakota and Daschle ??

[Neets]

ECB Installment FOUR Ping.

[not-alone]

great work

[tphil913]

Knowing how NY determines its electoral votes, I'd have to say that your analysis of how New is going to go in the presidential election somewhat meaningless, unfortunately.

In New York, our electors are determined by our Assembly. They pick one elector for each district, and then the electors get together and cast their vote. The one who gets the majority of the votes gets the entire state.

Now here's the kicker: The electors do not have to vote based on the vote of their district. They can look at the results and follow the popular vote, but they can also vote ofr the best dressed, or the biggest ears as far as our election laws care.

IOW New Yorkers, your vote really doesn't mean anything when it comes to a Presidential election.

What would be much more interesting and useful in your analysis would be how each state picks it's electors, how they vote (Must follow their district, free for all, etc), and if the state is a "winner take all" state or not.

You might even be able to tell from that data whether a single large population center might unduly shift a state towards one candidate or not (Eg: NYC determines who New York goes to; Upstate NY is pretty much useless for determining political leanings).

[prisoner6]

Thanks Dales! I've been busy and missed the earlier installements so I have to go back and check 'em out. When I was putting a newscast together the other day I ran across information from DE that indicated a >slight< lean to W. I'll look backa nd see if I can dig up the atribution.

Then there was that redstates/bluestates thing the other day as well. I dodn't look closely but it seems to me flyover was pretty much W's with only the NE and NW for Kerry. I can't recal how they called DE but it seems to me it was a W state as well.

prisoner6

[The G Man]

Good stuff, Dales. Thanks for your efforts.

[commish]

Good work Dales. Don't listen to the perfectionists and what-ifers. This is a good starting point and will help indicate where we need to do the most work.

The cool thing is you have already shot the Dems biggest bullets and they still only lead by 5 with lots of Red states left to cover.

[ken5050]

Hey, guy...you da man..as always....please put me on you ping list....

[Chances Are]

Is it just me, or is Delaware not on your summary table??? Just want to know...

CA....

[AuH2ORepublican]

Nice job, as usual, but I have one major complaint. NO WAY should Delaware be "Strong for Dems." Delaware moved towards the Dems in the 1990s, as did most suburban areas in the NE, because (i) national security was not deemed to be important anymore because the Cold War ended, (ii) after a decade of tax cuts by Republicans, taxes were low by historical standards and Democrats were running on keeping taxes about the same (and Clinton even promised a middle class tax cut), and (iii) the vacuum created by the absense of these two important issues from the national radar led to voters focusing on social issues such as abortion, guns and the environment, and in Delaware (at least in the heavily populated northern part, which are Philly suburbs) this moved voters to the Democrats. In 2004, national security is again a major issue, with the War on Terror being as prominent as the Cold War once was. John Kerry is promising to roll back the Bush tax cuts and, even more importantly, Bush is wisely framing the issue as "unless Congress makes the tax cuts permanent, your taxes will be raised automatically." And not only have the War on Terror and Kerry's promise to raise taxes made social issues less important in 2004 than they were in 1992, 1996 or 2000, but for once the prevailing social issue---gay marriage---is one where suburban voters in the NE agree with the GOP. So I would make Delaware "slight Democrat" for now, although I have a feeling that it may move into the "toss-up" category during the race.

[Dan from Michigan]

Utah and Wyoming are obvious. I think Bush will cut the margins in New York, it still will be a solid democrat win there. I think at best, he cuts the margin of loss from 24% to 12%. I think 55% democrat. Somewhat like California - simply a numbers game.

I think Delaware is going more and more dem, much like the Philly burbs. Wilmington is solid Dem as well. The GOP'ers that win there seem to be more liberal too.(Mike Castle)

As for Virginia, I expect this to be tougher and tougher as the years go on with the beltway growth, as well as some regional public infighting within the party over tax issues. Still a GOP leaning area though since the Tidewater and rural areas still blocks out Arlington and Alexandria. Bush won Fairfax County as well.

[Delphinium]

I was hoping things would be different in New York after 911?

[Clintonfatigued]

About Delaware: starting in 1996, there has been a growing urban-'Rat/rural-Republican split in the nation. The state of Delaware is dominated by Wilmington and its suburbs. In 1996, all major metropolitan areas in the northeast (New England/Middle Atlantic states) had a negative reaction to Newt Gingrich and a pronounced trend to the 'Rats. Even though Gingrich has faded away, there is no sign of this abating.

[Clintonfatigued]

The closeness of Virginia recently is that it's becoming Florida-ized. The suburbs of Washington D.C., collectively known as Northern Virginia, are filled up with government workers and northern migrants and rapidly growing. Clinton and Gore comfortably won that part of the state. The rest of the state (like northern Florida) is still recognizeable southern in character, and (sans black voters) gave Bush a large majority. Look for a repeat of that pattern in 2004.