Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Generational Dynamics World View
Now here is another model. I start with the Cook Partisan Voting Index (also known as Cook PVI) that predicts how states would vote for President in an election split 50-50 based upon electoral results of the last two Presidential elections. As in the source (same as above), red favors Democrats and  blue favors Republicans in accordance with the color scheme of a website that largely discuses the electoral history of America.


Color and intensity will indicate the variance from a tie (ties will be in white) with  in a 50-50 election with blue for an R lean and red for a D lean. Numbers will be shown except in individual districts, Cook PVI here:

int      var
2        1-4%
3        5-8%
5        9-12%
7        13-19%
9        20% or more

[Image: genusmap.php?year=2012&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...&NE3=2;1;9]

Cook PVI assumes a 50-50 Presidential election, reasonable since 2000 because except for the 2008 Presidential election all such exception, those five all were basically even for almost the entire electoral season. One can use polling to predict whether the next Presidential election will be a 50-50 proposition, and if not, how far the likely reality diverges from that assumption.

As examples, in a 50-50 Presidential race on average

California and New York would go 62-38 for the Democrat
Connecticut and Delaware would go 56-44 for the Democrat
New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are effective ties
Iowa and Ohio would go 53-47 for the Republican
Mississippi and Missouri would go 59-41 for the Republican
Oklahoma and Utah would go 70-30 for the Republican.

That is an estimate based upon the states. Favorite Son effects could play a role, as could such local conditions as recent events or promises to do things tha might specifically nelp an important industry for the state. 



For DC (not measured) and Congressional districts that vote independently of states, I have common sense for Dee Cee and the congressional votes for those districts.

DC -- way out of reach for any Republican.

ME-01 D+8
ME-02 R+2

NE-01 R+11
NE-02 R+4
NE-03 R+27

(data from Wikipedia, map mine)

............

Variation from PVI (polls from October 2017 and later):



[Image: genusmap.php?year=2012&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...NE3=0;99;6]


Orange implies that President Trump projects to do better than Cook PVI based on 100-DIS. In Minnesota I have a 49-47 poll with which to work, and people in that thread tell me that the pollster who got those results is suspect. So the President is doing 2% better in California in accordance with 100-DIS than Cook PVI suggests. Not significant, obviously, because that is the difference between losing the Golden State 60-40 instead of 62-38.

.......

Based upon my 100-DIS ceiling, Donald Trump seems to be doing better than the usual Republican in Minnesota. The poll that suggests such is one from the time in which the President was pushing infrastructure. That resonated well with iron miners in northern Minnesota who used to be reliable Democratic voters. More infrastructure spending implies more jobs, more hours, and more pay for people in the iron-mining industry. That proposal fizzled, and a new poll for Minnesota might have Trump doing badly as Republicans usually do in Minnesota. Otherwise, I look at the sea of green, darkest shades generally in states that Donald Trump won decisively. I am not predicting that he will lose such states as Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia in 2020. But he is down enough that he will have to spend time campaigning in states that have been safe for Republicans since at least 2004 in Presidential races. He will have to spend his biggest resource as a candidate (campaign time) for re-election defending states that Obama had no reasonable chance of winning. His advertising budget for campaign ads will likely be busted.

Such is what I now predict. If you want to argue against me by saying "Donald Trump really is a great President, and liberals don't realize that yet", then you introduce a conjecture with weak-to-non-existent evidence. At this point I see a rigged election that ensures the re-election of Donald Trump and the consolidation of Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress far more likely based upon the appearance of electoral shenanigans in 2016.

Do I see any good sign to this other than that a President that I despise seems nearly certain to be a one-term President? Yes. America seems to be becoming much less polarized, and that toward the end of the current Crisis Era, quality of political service will matter more than such issues as regional and ethnic identity. We Americans will be less amenable to demagogues of any kind, which means that we are approaching a time in which we prefer bland effectiveness to flamboyant huckstering in political life, basically Dwight Eisenhower instead of Huey Long.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by radind - 05-14-2016, 03:21 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by radind - 05-23-2016, 10:31 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by radind - 08-11-2016, 08:59 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by SomeGuy - 01-18-2017, 09:23 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 02-04-2017, 10:08 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 03-13-2017, 03:33 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by SomeGuy - 03-15-2017, 02:56 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by SomeGuy - 03-15-2017, 03:13 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 05-30-2017, 01:04 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 07-08-2017, 01:34 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 08-09-2017, 11:07 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 08-10-2017, 02:38 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 10-25-2017, 03:07 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by rds - 10-31-2017, 03:35 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by rds - 10-31-2017, 06:33 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by noway2 - 11-20-2017, 04:31 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 12-28-2017, 11:00 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 12-31-2017, 11:14 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by pbrower2a - 03-01-2018, 03:36 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 06-22-2018, 02:54 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-11-2018, 01:42 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-11-2018, 01:54 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-19-2018, 12:43 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-25-2018, 02:18 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-11-2018, 01:58 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 08-18-2018, 03:42 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 08-19-2018, 04:39 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 09-25-2019, 11:12 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 03-09-2020, 02:11 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Camz - 03-10-2020, 10:10 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 03-12-2020, 11:11 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 03-16-2020, 03:21 PM
RE: 58 year rule - by Tim Randal Walker - 04-01-2020, 11:17 AM
RE: 58 year rule - by John J. Xenakis - 04-02-2020, 12:25 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Isoko - 05-04-2020, 02:51 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 01-04-2021, 12:13 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by CH86 - 01-05-2021, 11:17 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-10-2021, 06:16 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-11-2021, 09:06 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-12-2021, 02:53 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-13-2021, 03:58 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-13-2021, 04:16 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-15-2021, 03:36 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 08-19-2021, 03:03 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 08-21-2021, 01:41 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 02-27-2022, 06:06 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 02-27-2022, 10:42 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 02-28-2022, 12:26 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 02-28-2022, 04:08 PM

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Why the social dynamics viewpoint to the Strauss-Howe generational theory is wrong Ldr 5 4,799 06-05-2020, 10:55 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Theory: cyclical generational hormone levels behind the four turnings and archetypes Ldr 2 3,386 03-16-2020, 06:17 AM
Last Post: Ldr
  The Fall of Cities of the Ancient World (42 Years) The Sacred Name of God 42 Letters Mark40 5 4,660 01-08-2020, 08:37 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  Generational cycle research Mikebert 15 16,218 02-08-2018, 10:06 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
Video Styxhexenhammer666 and his view of historical cycles. Kinser79 0 3,322 08-27-2017, 06:31 PM
Last Post: Kinser79

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 9 Guest(s)