While the overall results themselves were not in the least bit suprising, as always the results become more interesting when looked at at town level:

Note the similarities with the pattern of the 2002 primary:

In general Patrick did best in the towns that Reich had done well in four years earlier, while his worst results generally came in towns that had been won by Birmingham that year.

A more detailed look at the results is likely soon.

Hi,
I’ve renamed the members’ weblog to the community weblog. In addition, the software was upgraded to version 2.0.1 today. Please let me know if you encounter any issues.
Thanks,
Dave

As part of a fifty day series on the Atlas Forum, members took a look at each state by state, analysing electoral trends. The first state we looked at, alphabetically, was Alabama. Kudos to WalterMitty, who started the trend as well as the first topic. To the best of my ability, I will communicate the main points of discussion. The original topic for Alabama can be found here. I hope everyone enjoys this series. Comments are welcome.

A 2004 map, as well as other supplemental information, is available here. Sign up for a membership to view an assortment of great information, including precinct returns for every Alabama county dating back to 2000 and improved charts and graphs.

Trending
All but two of Alabama’s 67 counties gave a higher margin to the Republicans (or lower margin to the Democrats) in 2004 than in 2000. Alabama constituted George W. Bush’s largest gain in percentage margin between these two years, as well. In 2000, he won by 14.88 points, while in 2004, he led by 25.62.

Regional polarisation
Paraphrased from a post by Al:

Kerry did extremely badly in northern Alabama, an area that’s very working class, votes Democratic (often pretty strongly) at state level, and has the strongest unions in the Deep South (although it isn’t really part of the Deep South - it’s Appalachin). Historically, the economy was based around coal and textiles (both have declined in recent years), although since the 1930s the Tennessee Valley Authority has been very important as well.

Indeed, Kerry struggled to break 40 percent in Alabama’s northern fifth congressional district. He performed even more poorly in the north-central fourth district, where Bush broke seventy percent.

Racial polarisation
Although minorities generally vote Democratic and whites vote Republican in most states, Alabama ranks among the states where the discrepency is the most extreme. Most polls and exit polls show Bush receiving about eighty percent of the white vote, and Kerry receiving about ninety percent of the black vote. In a state where white poverty rates are above average, this is a testament to the level at which social issues now affect the political landscape. In the 2004 CNN exit poll (available here, 43 percent of voters identified themselves as white evangelicals, and 95 percent of those cast their votes for George W. Bush

Conclusion
Alabama is, like most southern states, heavily defined by race. Economics, which formerly drew southern whites to the Democratic Party, have virtually disappeared as a force, replaced by social issues. Although black Christians still vote heavily Democratic, they too are socially conservative. Bush’s biggest improvement in 2004, Alabama exemplifies the success of the Republican strategy of attracting the vote of the religious, as well as the Democrats’ slow death in the Deep South.

Links

Political Parties

After the wordpress update, the cookie management changed slightly. In order for you to directly post to the members’ weblog, go to the login page and log in again. This will set the proper cookies. Alternatively, if you click on “post” below, just enter your standard atlas username/password in the login dialog to post.

Additional Update: user levels needed to be changed with the version 1.5 upgrade in order to allow for posts to be published. I upgraded all users to level 2 in order to allow this capability.

Introduction

The other day I was looking a some religion figures by county and I had an idea.

I will list which way all the counties where Church X or Church Y is the largest denomination and list who they voted for. I might get round to doing a more detailed version and maybe one using the same methods, but for ancestory instead.
Put simply, this will just be a scorecard (or dataset or list or whatever you feel like calling it) that will hopefully give some indication of how different religious groups voted in the 2004 election. It isn’t going to be precise and probably won’t be especially accurate in places becuase of the methodology used, but I hope it’ll be interesting anyway. This should be covered by a couple of posts over a few days…
It is possible that I’ve made a few mistakes along the way

Northeast

Maine

Catholics are the largest denomination in all counties. Kerry took 13 and Bush 2.

New Hampshire

Catholics are the largest denomination in all counties. Kerry took 6 and Bush 4.

Vermont

Catholic: Kerry 12 out of 13, Bush 1 out of 13
United Church of Christ: Kerry 1 out of 1

Massachusetts

Catholics are the largest denomination in all counties. Kerry won all counties (14)

Rhode Island

Catholics are the largest denomination in all counties. Kerry won all counties (5)

Connecticut

Catholics are the largest denomination in all counties. Kerry took 7, Bush took 1

New York

Catholics are the largest denomination in all counties. Kerry took 22, Bush took 41

New Jersey

Catholics are the largest denomination in all counties. Kerry took 12, Bush took 9

Next: PA to VA

I have performed the upgrade to WordPress to version 1.5.2. Among other upgrades, the newer version claims to have comment spam protection. Enjoy!

As most of you know, the other day a group of sadistic serial killers set off a load of bombs along London’s public transport system. As things stand right now, it seems that over 50 people were killed and over 700 injured.
One of the bombs (Edgeware Road) went off in the centre of the U.K’s largest Arab community. One (Aldgate East) at the centre of the U.K’s largest Bangladeshi community.
The people who commited these atrocities would have known that they were going to kill plenty of Muslims. It didn’t stop them.
Remember that when people try to put the blame either on Islam as a religion or on the U.K’s foriegn policy. “Little details” like that make such arguements look… somewhat contrived don’t they?
Trying to justify these attacks is like trying to justify the crimes of any serial killer; it can’t be done and should not be attempted.
But above all remember those who died and pray for them and their families.

NEW MEXICO
The Basics

2004 Presidential Results

2002 Gubernatorial Results

Household Income & Cities

Race

44.7% White
42.1% Hispanic
9.2% Native American

Party Registration

50% Democratic
32% Republican
15% Independent

Congressional Delagation

Senate

Republican: 1
Democratic: 1

House

Republican: 2
Democratic: 1

Party Registration by Congressional District

NM-1: D 46%, R 35%, I 17%
NM-2: D 49%, R 35%, I 14%
NM-3: D 56%, R 27%, I 14%

State Legislature

Senate

Democratic: 23
Republican: 19

House

Democratic: 42
Republican: 28

Key Issues

Growth, Corruption, Enviroment, Immigration, Defense, Water

Major Resources

Energy

Oil, Gas, Coal

Mineral

Copper, Uranium, Potash, Gold, Silver, Lead, Iron, Zinc, Others

Agricultural

Cattle, Dairy Products, Hay, Chiles

I’ve decided I’ll post some of my longer analysis stuff here; it’s more suited to that kind of thing than the forum I think.

Just a little test:

When I click on the “counties” map button on the main 2004 election results page, I get an error message. Does this happen to anyone else? When clicked this option used to show a national county map on a much larger scale. When I put the cursor on the “counties” button w/o clicking, I get the same map but the larger one is much better for detail. Is there anyway this can be fixed?

Dave posed a very interesting idea on the Red/Blue States dilemma: green and orange. I like the idea! Any test maps coming soon with those colors?
Semper fi….
Philip

Can anyone explain the woeful turn-out in California?

Willacy County, TX gave incorrect vote totals on election night, and Kerry actually got only 55%, not 61%, of the vote (and turnout was actually a lot lower). See http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/ts_comments.php?id=P62089_0_10_0

The defining feature of this election has and will probably continue to be uncertainty; the polls are jumping about more than an atheist walking on hot coals, both campaigns seem visibly nervous, the list of battleground states appears to be growing and partisan idiots are acting in more idiotically partisan ways than normal (which, judging from past form, indicates that they are very worried indeed). I’ll go as far as saying that the only certain thing about the election is that the outcome is uncertain.
It shouldn’t have been this way.

Both sides were sure that after the Conventions/Debates/”Big Story x”/”Big Story y” their candidate was going to pull away leaving the “enemy” howling in their victorius wake.
So much for theory.
Unless something changes (and folks I mean really changes… we’re not talking Bush/Kerry gaining 3pts in some dodgy tracking poll here…) exactly who the man sitting in the Oval Office in January is will remain uncertain until Election Night… and judging by the armies of lawyers (and what a frightening concept an army of lawyers is) there’s a good chance that it will remain uncertain for a while afrerwards.
Uncertain doesn’t mean Close; it’s possible that the bulk of the undecided voters (and there’s a lot more of them than anyone seems to have banked on) will swing behind one candidate; it’s also possible that they won’t and it’s even possible that undecideds will break differently in different states. Maybe even in different parts of the same state. But all of that is uncertain.
While uncertainty is a pain for pundits, partisans and political journalists, I think most people will agree that all three are due a come-uppance.
Besides, uncertainty means that watching the election results live on the telly will be that more enjoyable.

In case anyone’s interested, I’ll start that up again (on the Forum) after this election.
I might finish MS off before then though

Dave,

I just saw the template for the 2004 Election Timeline…wow!

YOU ARE THE MAN!

Your site just gets more fantastic every time I log on. Wow!

Thanks for doing a GREAT service for all of us political junkies!!!

Semper fi,

Philip

GySgt Philip L. Fowler, USMC(Retired)
FowlerUSMC@yahoo.com

I have upgraded the members’ weblog to WordPress version 1.2. The cookies management of this version have changed. You will likely need to delete the old cookies and log in again (from the homepage or the login page) Test

Hi all,

This is an edited version of a post to my blog, but since visits my weblog are sparse, I thought I would repost an edited version here, as I’m intersted in hearing the thoughts of others.

It seems likely that the 2004 presidential election will hinge on Ohio; if Bush can’t win the Buckeye State, he won’t win the Electoral College. And, even if he does take Ohio, he will have problems if he doesn’t carry Florida as well. On the other hand, if he wins these two states, Kerry will find it difficult to garner the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. I base this opinion on a cursory analysis of recent “swing state” polls and state level popular vote data from the last four presidential elections as well as a hunch that Bush will struggle in the Midwest unless the job market improves drastically.

When Friday’s (8/6) meager Job report (stories here and here) surprised Wall Street analysts — who were expecting 240,000 new jobs, not 32,000 — and undermined a Bush Campaign slogan — “we’ve turned the corner” — many journalists (here and here) looked to Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, claiming that the incumbent would have trouble in these Midwest swing states if the economy continued to produce so few new jobs. Further, as the Times points out, without a drastic change in job growth, Kerry is likely to be the first presidential candidate since FDR to be able to claim that his opponent has produced a net job loss since taking office.

So, why is Ohio Pivotal?
Over the last four elections, Ohio has proved to be a Republican stronghold in the Midwest. When ranking the 9 Midwest states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Missouri) based on the vote margins between the Republican and Democratic candidate, Ohio is 2nd to Indiana in three of the last four elections (in 1996, when Clinton won Ohio by 6.36 percent and Missouri by 6.30, Ohio was the third most Republican of these nine).

Recent state polls seem to confirm that this trend will continue to hold in 2004 unless something drastically changes the electoral landscape. Generally, Indiana is not polled, as it is considered safely in the Bush column, and I am willing to conceed this. Among the other 8, since July, Bush has only pulled ahead in two. In Ohio, the polls find: Bush leads 47 to 44 (aug 8, Columbus Dispatch); Kerry leads 47 to 45 (July 22, ARG); and Bush leads 46 to 42 (July 9, Rasmussen) . [Update: Rasm. now shows a dead heat: Kerry up by 1 point]. In Missiouri, Bush leads 50 to 46 (Aug. 3, Rasmussen) and 48 to 44 (July 8, Rasmussen). Here’s a list of polls in the other 6 States, in which Kerry leads:

Pennsylvania: 46 to 43 (Rasm. 8/3), 51 to 43 (SV 8/6)
Michigan: 50 to 44 (Rasm. 8/6), 50 to 43 (ARG 7/9)
Illinios: 54 to 39 (Rasmussen 8/4)
Minnesota: 49 to 42 (Rasmussen 8/4),
Wisconsin: 49 to 46 (SV 8/4) 48 to 42 (ARG 7/15)
Iowa: 48 to 45 (Rasm. 8/4), 46 to 46 (ARG 7/28)

(I’m not arguing that these polls are acurate, just internally consistant and suggest that the rank order of Republican support among these states hasn’t changed much in the last 12 years.)

Given the thrend in recent electoral history and these state polls, which indicate that the trend still holds, it seems unlikely that a Republican candidate (e.g., Bush) will win any Midwestern state other than Indiana and possibly Missiouri without first winning Ohio. Stated differently, I’m assuming if Bush fails to carry Ohio, he won’t win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinios, Minnesota, Wisconsin or Iowa. Based on this assumption, Bush would need to win the “strongly for Bush” states plus Florida, Missiouri, West Virginia, Oregon, New Mexico, and New Hampshire (or some other arrangement of 59 EVs) to reach the needed 270 electoral votes. It seems unlikely that he would trail so severely in the Midwest and still carry these states.

Similarly, if he fails to pick up Florida’s 27 electoral votes, he needs to do much better in the midwest. For Instance, even if Bush wins two of these three: (West Virginia, Nevada, or New Mexico) he still needs to take Missiouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, and even then he is one electoral vote short, which he could pick up by winning one of Maine’s Congressional districts or by winning Minnisota or sweeping the three states mentioned above. Such a scenerio seems more probable than the one above, but still unlikely.

If Bush wins these two states, Kerry needs to carry all the Gore states and pick up 9 additional Electoral votes. It seems that the most likely outcome in this scenerio is for the Senator to win Missiouri (11 EVs). But given the likely role of the economy in the up comming election, and recent state polls, it would probably be easier for Kerry to win Ohio than Missiouri. Therefore, in the 2004 election, Ohio looks to be pivatol and Florida a wild card.

Nearly 1.5 million Missourians made it to the polls for the state’s August 3rd primary. In this state without party registration, 57% of those who voted selected a Democrat ballot, 42% a Republican one, and less than 1% opted to vote in the hotly contested race to be the Libertarian nominee for Governor (undoubtedly akin to the honor of being chosen “best Klingon” at a “Star Trek” convention). In the primary, this state became the first to vote on an amendment banning gay marriage since a Massachusetts court made the recognition of same-sex unions legal in that commonwealth. If the results of this vote turn out to be a precursor of the effect of this issue on the electorate, those elected officials against such amendments had better take cover.

71% of the primary participants voted to amend Missouri’s constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. This result came about even though the proponents of the amendment were outspent $400,000 to $10,000. And in what may have been the greatest price paid to date by any politician in support of the Kerry-Edwards ticket, Governor Bob Holden’s decision to hold the vote on the amendment on Primary Day instead of Election Day (the Governor got to choose in which election the vote could be held) likely contributed to his defeat. [The Kerry campaign did not want the amendment on the November 2 ballot, as it is likely to be in eleven other states (it already is on in eight, including the battleground states of Arkansas and Oregon).] Turnout in rural areas set records for a Missouri primary, and Holden’s opponent, State Auditor Claire McCaskill, racked up huge margins over the Governor in rural areas of the state. I’ll bet Holden is rethinking the wisdom of his sacrifice.

Other aspects of this vote on the gay marriage issue are also instructive. Contrary to the usual drop-off in voting on ballot measures (as opposed to contested races for offices), more Missourians voted on this amendment than expressed a preference in any other contest. The proposed amendment also handily bested its performance in the pre-election polls, where it was running between 56% and 62%. And although the primary did not feature any high profile races for Republicans (Senator Kit Bond and Secretary of State Matt Blunt, the GOP nominee for Governor, faced only token opposition), 42% of those voting selected a Republican ballot. Clearly, the Kerry campaign was wise to get Holden to hold this vote in August. Now, he had better pray they win, enabling them to repay the favor.

This is the ballot measure to watch this fall. In addition to the two aforementioned battleground states, it will be on the ballot in Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, and Utah. Signatures to place the issue on the November 2 ballot in Michigan, North Dakota, and Ohio have already been turned in. Assuming those signatures are verified, it will end up on the general election ballot in those states as well. It will also be on the ballot in the September 18 primary in Louisiana.

If Missouri’s results are any indication, expect a larger-than-usual turnout in conservative, rural areas in the four battleground states where the issue is contested this fall. The resounding margin in the Show Me State might also embolden the Bush campaign to make more of this issue than they have so far. Now, the debate is likely to move beyond the philosophical discussions of what is and is not an appropriate matter for a constitution. This issue has a lot more “oomph” to it than either the national media has acknowledged or the Democrat Party has been willing to admit. We may learn just how much saliency it has on November 2.