From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: A guess at the electoral votes (was Re: Some state polls)
Keywords: electoral college, electoral votes, poll, polls, states
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:15:09 GMT

king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:


>>That's how I think TN will work. In general TN is more conservative 
>>than Arkansas, and if Clinton is painted as a Yale-type liberal, rather 
>>than as a Dixiecrat, then TN will not be drawn to Clinton. 

>"Yale-type liberal"...an interesting turn of phrase. :-) 

>I do see your point, but it's not that Democrats never win or come
>close in TN.  Since 1940, Roosevelt won twice, and Truman beat Dewey.
>While Eisenhower beat Stevenson twice, he did it by a comined total of
>less than 10,000 votes.  Nixon took the state a total of 3 times, but
>Carter won it 1976 and lost it by only 4700 votes in 1980.  This
>certainly won't be a Clinton walk-over, but I wouldn't be shocked to
>see him carry it by 100,000 votes barring some weird mishap.

>>Democrat. I guess that TN will be more affected by negative attacks on
>>Clinton than most states.

>Maybe, but by the same token people in TN already have some
>familiarity with the governor-next-door and thus might discount some
>of the more random mud-slinging.  I think this argument might work better
>for states like Georgia and North Carolina.

You could be right...people do tend to know the governors of neighboring
states, and tend to like them a little more just through that familiarity.
Also, regarding a state going Democrat or Republican, I don't think we
can really go back before 1968. The historical shift of the South from
the Democrats which took place in the 1960's has changed the South
forever. In 1968, most of the South voted for Wallace, and from then on,
it's been Republican and "law-and-order" all the way. Except for the
Carter anomaly in 1976, due to Watergate, the South has never strayed.
Nowhere is distrust of the Democrats stronger than in the South, and
they'll only vote for one if he is perceived to be "one of their own."
I don't believe Clinton garners this kind of support at all, unlike
Carter.


>>So, just as in NJ, the voters voted in "fiscal restraint" with Republican
>>governors. 

>Was Florio defeated this year when I wasn't looking?  As far as MA goes,
>I'm not sure Weld was elected more for "fiscal restraint" than for "not
>being incredibly annoying". :-)  

No, Florio still has another year before New Jersey gives him the big
sendoff! As for Weld, you're probably right. Silber was a
bit grating, and actually was the more conservative of the two in many
ways.

>>I'd like comments as well, but I'd really enjoy seeing poll results from
>>certain states, including MO, IL, PA, MI, OH, NY, MA, RI, NJ and CT.

>The NYT reports that the Chicago Tribune Poll found that IL was 51-32
>Clinton.  That was last week, but that *still* has to be very
>discouraging for the Bush camp.

>>>Definitely.  As well as TN, GA, LA, OK, and NC.  And FL, just for kicks.
>>
>>Hell, why not a comprehensive state by state list of polls? 
>>That's what we'd all like to see, I think.

>Maybe the recent Field poll will help in this regard; and maybe
>somebody besides me will be able to type it in. :-)

Hey, don't look at me! :)



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc