Complete US Voter Registration statistics, End of 2013

[Statistikhengst]

Wrong.


You obvious didn't read the link I posted. The supposition I posted was not my analysis. Here is exactly what was said.


With 2004 Turnout Levels: Republicans win in 2012 but not 2016

To assess the impact of turnout alone on the 2012 election I assumed that the national electorate had the size and racial and ethnic composition of the new Census survey and applied to it the more “Republican favorable” turnout rates of 2004 for each racial and ethnic group, as shown in Figure 2. This of course resulted in more white voters and fewer minority voters than actually occurred in 2012. To these voter populations, I applied the actual 2012 voting margins as shown in Figure 3. The result of this exercise was a small 2012 Romney win of 9,000 votes—a virtual tossup. Thus it might be said that the high minority and low white turnout rates of 2012 were responsible for Obama taking the national vote, irrespective of the changing demography of the electorate.



Your second point is wrong as well. I already acknowledged the GOP cannot rely on old demographics and will need to pry away more minority voters. Please read more carefully. Thanks.

Wasn't trying to offend in any way. I read the link before I posted. I do think you did not mean VT as an overall statistic, but rather, the white component, which is actually what that article means (please see the red in the bolded above). So, I think we are squabbling over semantics. But a win of 9,000 votes nationally?? Horror, oh horror. Egads.... thank God that did not happen! Plus, 1876, 1884 and 2000 teach us that with such margins, an electoral backfire is very possible.

Imagine an election night where is it so close, that 35 states could not be called for 5 days or so.... igit...

Stat...I love analysis (you obviously do as well). I thought you were assuming I was pulling shit out of my ass. Not the case. I will go where the numbers take me. The Repubs have a major demographic challenge ahead of them. They will need to appeal to more minority voters. That is a fact...not opinion. I hate the Republican social issues crap. I have made that clear numerous times. Gay marriage...abortion rights....I have no problem with those things. I have enjoyed this thread because I think your intent was to look at these issues factually and analytically....not emotionally or in a partisan fashion. I think that's great. Carry on.

The bolded: you have no idea how many times I have said that statement myself.
Are you my long lost brother?

Yes, the GOP must retool for minorities. It is that simple. But I will say no more than that. The GOP is going to have to figure out how to do that.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Re: Romney

I am not just starting to input county data 2012-2008. It takes a while.

Romney scored some unbelievably high wins in a lot of red counties, naturally in UT and the big sky states, but also in Appalachia.. Unfortunately for him and the GOP, many of those counties are "empyting", meaning quite literally that people are moving away from those counties. Now, there are a couple of those unbelievably small counties that are blue. There is one in Texas, where Obama got 8 of 8 votes in 2008 and 7 of 7 votes in 2012!!!

 

[WelfareQueen]

Virginia was solidly Democrat in Presidential politics until the 1970's. The State has always voted fairly equally for both Republicans and Democrats in Statewide office. None of this is a big deal.

Democrats are trying to make the last two Presidential elections cycles and the McAuliffe win mean more than it does. The State has not changed demographically like the rest of the nation. Virginia has always been a purple state.

People here tend to vote very pragmatically. A good candidate will win regardless of party affiliation. I always vote for who I think is the best candidate...regardless of party affiliation. That has always been very Virginian. This State does not register people by party affiliation, and any voter can vote in any type of primary. All of this is very healthy in my opinion.

Virginia is solely reflective of Virginia. It really means very little in terms of National politics. Just my opinion.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe,

The only one trolling here is you. I think Stat's intent in this thread and basically present factual information and be non-partisan. The only person I have seen be overtly partisan is you. I will not engage in that. Period. This is the main point I posted. I will repeat it. It is as objective as I can make it.

"I think the key two variables in the 2014 and 2016 will be overall turnout and voter motivation by party affiliation. I have no idea how this will turn out. If minority voting patterns return to historic norms then I think Republicans are okay, depending on how they do in key battleground States. That is how I see it. Turnout....voter motivation by party affiliation...and how Obama's minority coalition turns out."

Right. It's all them minorities that put Obama in office. And them whores.

Seriously, do you rednecks even hear yourselves half the time.

Merry Christmas, Joe. I'm done. Read this and let us know what you think. Happy holidays one and all.

Minority Turnout Determined the 2012 Election | Brookings Institution

I don't links from wingnuts....

Guy, here's the thing.

Minorities are going to keep coming out to vote for Democrats long after Obama is gone.

Just like they were voting for Democrats before obama got there.

Dubya Bush tried to do some outreach, but the stupid wing of your party was having none of it.

And when you have to praise Dubya Bush as being the sensible guy in the room, there's your problem right there.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Virginia was solidly Democrat in Presidential politics until the 1970's. The State has always voted fairly equally for both Republicans and Democrats in Statewide office. None of this is a big deal.

Democrats are trying to make the last two Presidential elections cycles and the McAuliffe win mean more than it does. The State has not changed demographically like the rest of the nation. Virginia has always been a purple state.

People here tend to vote very pragmatically. A good candidate will win regardless of party affiliation. I always vote for who I think is the best candidate...regardless of party affiliation. That has always been very Virginian. This State does not register people by party affiliation, and any voter can vote in any type of primary. All of this is very healthy in my opinion.

Virginia is solely reflective of Virginia. It really means very little in terms of National politics. Just my opinion.

The bolded: you are off by about 20 years, but your intention of showing that GOP dominance in this state is a relatively new phenomenon is indeed correct and I concur:

Virginia:

1952 - Eisenhower (R) +12.97
1956 - Eisenhower (R) +17.01
1960 - Nixon (R) +5.47
1964 - LBJ (D) +7.36 (well under his +24 national average)
1968 - Nixon (R) +10.87
1972 - Nixon (R) +37.72
1976 - Ford (R) +1.34
1980 - Reagan (R) +12.72

And in the ten year time frame from 1970-1980, two records were established:

Richard M. Nixon was the second Republican ever to win this state twice and the only Republican ever to win it three times.

Jimmy Carter was the first Democratic President to lose Virginia twice. Bill Clinton was the second Democrat to never win Virginia. And Barack Obama is the first Democrat since FDR to win Virginia more than once.

So, we are really looking at a period of GOP dominance in Virginia from 1952-2004, 52 years, excluding the LBJ blowout of 1964. The shift in Virginia was one of the more dramatic turnarounds in a state from the South. Herbert Hoover took your state in 1928 by +8.01% - mostly due to the "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion" thing, with Virginia only being about 25% Catholic. The only other Republican between 1856-1952 to win Virginia was Ulysses S. Grant, in his re-election of 1872, but barely, by +0.98%.

So, Republicans who have carried Virginia:

Grant (1)
Hoover (2)
Eisenhower (2)
Nixon (3)
Ford (1)
Reagan (2)
Bush 41 (2)
Dole (1)
Bush 43 (2)

Also, in 1948 (D) , Truman carried the Old Dominion by only +6.85 in a state that was usually a D +30 state. You have to go back to 1896 to find a DEM winning margin in VA that was smaller than this. The writing was on the wall about this state already in 1948.


Now, you have an opinion about whether VA is a bellwether or not. I contend that 2016 will prove whether or not. I am more than confident that Hillary will landslide in VA. And statistically, VA is definitely a presidential bellwether at this point, much more than Missouri, which missed it twice in a row now.

Your info about voter registration is spot-on, btw. And I like the open primary attitude of Virginians, I too consider it to be very healthy.

Hope that information helps.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Does it make me a nerd if I confess that I had most of those Virginia margins memorized, firmly in my head and only had to look up Hoover and Grant?

 

[JoeB131]

Does it make me a nerd if I confess that I had most of those Virginia margins memorized, firmly in my head and only had to look up Hoover and Grant?

Probably... But excellent work, however.

As I've stated, on the Presidential level, the GOP should be worried. the 17 states that Democrats have carried six of the last six elections total 242 electoral votes, and the 3 states they've carried 5 out of six times are another 15 electoral votes.

Which leaves them only 13 votes shorts of sure-fire wins.

And Virginia, which they were able to win all three statewide offices in with a severely flawed gubenetorial candidate, has 13 electoral votes. Forget FL, NV,CO, NC or OH.... Just that one states gets them where they want to go.

All the progostinating, Romney had to conceded at 11:30 PM on election night. It wasn't even close.

 

[Statistikhengst]

BTW, [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION],

these two reports could very much interest you:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Virginia - a county by county in-depth analysis

(very long)

-and-

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Rank 25 / 27: Virginia

(State bio from 2011)

 

[Statistikhengst]

Does it make me a nerd if I confess that I had most of those Virginia margins memorized, firmly in my head and only had to look up Hoover and Grant?

Probably... But excellent work, however.

As I've stated, on the Presidential level, the GOP should be worried. the 17 states that the GOP has carried six of the last six elections total 242 electoral votes, and the 3 states they've carried 5 out of six times are another 15 electoral votes.

Which leaves them only 13 votes shorts of sure-fire wins.

And Virginia, which they were able to win all three statewide offices in with a severely flawed gubenetorial candidate, has 13 electoral votes. Forget FL, NV,CO, NC or OH.... Just that one states gets them where they want to go.

All the progostinating, Romney had to conceded at 11:30 PM on election night. It wasn't even close.

The bolded: by GOP, I think you mean DEM. Right?


If you would like to see that in a much more vivid way:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: ELECTORAL COLUMNS - a map display

(what you described is in the "6ers" map, and more.. read it to the end)

(there is some information in there going back to 1880 that may blow your mind)

 

[Statistikhengst]

And both of you dudes may find this to be extremely helpful:


Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The Clinton 6 vs. The Obama 3


Statistkhengst is the fountain. You are the water. Let it flow.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Virginia is really four voting regions. Each is roughly equal in population. Northern Virginia is heavily Democrat (lots of Federal workers and rust belt escapees). The Western half is heavily Republican. Central Virginia and Tidewater lean Republican but are very pragmatic in their voting habits.

Clinton never won Virginia. Bush did both times...so go figure. The entire State really depends on how Central Virginia and Tidewater go. Both went for Obama by slim margins. That can change of a dime...trust me.

Again....if folks want to think of it as a bell weather....okay. It certainly was not as recently as the 1990's. And depending on her opponent....Hillary will have a tough time in this State everywhere outside of the D.C. suburbs.

And again, McAuliffle outspent Cuccinelli 3:1 and Cuccinelli was about as bad a candidate as you can get in a general election. Despite all of that McAuliffle barely won. I do not think this bodes well for Dems despite all the blather. This will continue to be a very tightly contested State imho.

 

[JoeB131]

Does it make me a nerd if I confess that I had most of those Virginia margins memorized, firmly in my head and only had to look up Hoover and Grant?

Probably... But excellent work, however.

As I've stated, on the Presidential level, the GOP should be worried. the 17 states that the GOP has carried six of the last six elections total 242 electoral votes, and the 3 states they've carried 5 out of six times are another 15 electoral votes.

Which leaves them only 13 votes shorts of sure-fire wins.

And Virginia, which they were able to win all three statewide offices in with a severely flawed gubenetorial candidate, has 13 electoral votes. Forget FL, NV,CO, NC or OH.... Just that one states gets them where they want to go.

All the progostinating, Romney had to conceded at 11:30 PM on election night. It wasn't even close.

The bolded: by GOP, I think you mean DEM. Right?


If you would like to see that in a much more vivid way:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: ELECTORAL COLUMNS - a map display

(what you described is in the "6ers" map, and more.. read it to the end)

(there is some information in there going back to 1880 that may blow your mind)

You are correct, and after I get back from my family thing, I'll give it a read.

Here's the thing, why I only consider the last six elections as germaine to the conversation.

I think that is when the Red State/Blue State divide became firmly established.

The end of the Cold War made the old political structure of "You can't trust the Democrats on Security after the Hippies took over" obsolete. So before then, you could have a Republican win 49 states and still not control Congress. Presidential Elections were decided on a very narrow issue and scope. People like my parents would vote for Nixon or Reagan nationally and then still vote for whoever the Chicago Machine put up to go to Congress.

If the GOP is to become viable, it has to change the demographic mix.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Probably... But excellent work, however.

As I've stated, on the Presidential level, the GOP should be worried. the 17 states that the GOP has carried six of the last six elections total 242 electoral votes, and the 3 states they've carried 5 out of six times are another 15 electoral votes.

Which leaves them only 13 votes shorts of sure-fire wins.

And Virginia, which they were able to win all three statewide offices in with a severely flawed gubenetorial candidate, has 13 electoral votes. Forget FL, NV,CO, NC or OH.... Just that one states gets them where they want to go.

All the progostinating, Romney had to conceded at 11:30 PM on election night. It wasn't even close.

The bolded: by GOP, I think you mean DEM. Right?


If you would like to see that in a much more vivid way:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: ELECTORAL COLUMNS - a map display

(what you described is in the "6ers" map, and more.. read it to the end)

(there is some information in there going back to 1880 that may blow your mind)

You are correct, and after I get back from my family thing, I'll give it a read.

Here's the thing, why I only consider the last six elections as germaine to the conversation.

I think that is when the Red State/Blue State divide became firmly established.

The end of the Cold War made the old political structure of "You can't trust the Democrats on Security after the Hippies took over" obsolete. So before then, you could have a Republican win 49 states and still not control Congress. Presidential Elections were decided on a very narrow issue and scope. People like my parents would vote for Nixon or Reagan nationally and then still vote for whoever the Chicago Machine put up to go to Congress.

If the GOP is to become viable, it has to change the demographic mix.

I concur: it started with the Clinton Revolution of 1992. All in the link. Merry Christmas!!

 

[Statistikhengst]

I promised in the OP that if the OHIO voter registration statistics came in , I would report them. I got an email from the OHIO SOS two days ago with three attachments containing the data.

So, I have updated the blog entry at blogspot, you can see the changes in OHIO VR there:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Complete Voter Registration Statistics (USA), End of 2013

 

[Statistikhengst]

*bump*