Partisan Self-Identification Shifts, 2004 to 2006

by Chris Bowers, Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 10:54:21 PM EST

Using the information form a great diary by democraticavenger, here is the current percentage, and change since 2004, of partisan self-identification among the electorate in states where there were exit polls in 2006. I have grouped the states in ways they may be relevant to 2008.

Base States
  • MA: Dems 42%--19%. Shift: Even
  • NY: Dems 47%--25% Reps. Shift: Dems +6
  • RI: Dems 38%--18% Reps. Shift: Reps +3
  • MD: Dems 50%--31% Reps. Shift: Dems +10
  • HI: Dems 40%--23% Reps. Shift: Dems +1
  • IL: Dems 46%--31% Reps. Shift: Dems +10
  • CT: Dems 38%--26% Reps. Shift: Dems +5
  • CA: Dems 41%--35% Reps. Shift: Even
  • VT: Dems 29%--27% Reps. Shift: Reps +2
  • TN: Reps 38%--34% Dems. Shift: Dems +4
  • MT: Reps 39%--32% Dems. Shift: Even
  • ND: Reps 38%--29% Dems. Shift: Dems +5
  • TX: Reps 41%--31% Dems. Shift: Dems +1
  • NE: Reps 50%--27% Dems. Shift: Dems +6
  • WY: Reps 56%--27% Dems. Shift: Reps +1
  • UT: Reps 56%--20% Dems. Shift: Dems +3
Some blue states got a lot bluer: NY, MD, IL and CT in particular. New York is now just as bad for Republicans as Nebraska is for Democrats. Democrats made positive gains in North Dakota, Nebraska, and Tennessee, but those are all long-term projects. Color me a little concerned about California.

Outer Swing States
  • WV: Dems 51%--32% Reps. Shift: Dems +1
  • NJ: Dems 41%--28% Reps. Shift: Dems +5
  • WA: Dems 39%--29% Reps. Shift: Dems +6
  • ME: Dems 37%--29% Reps. Shift: Dems +7
  • VA: Reps 39%--36% Dems. Shift: Dems +1
  • AZ: Reps 41%--32% Dems. Shift: Dems +5
It looks like Washington, New Jersey and Maine have now all cemented their status as deep blue states. I also like the favorable trend in Arizona. Maybe it leaves this category in 2008, and becomes a true swing state. That would be huge, sine Arizona is one of the three states poised to gain large numbers of congressional districts in the next twenty-five years.

Inner Swing States
  • NM: Dems 41%--32% Reps. Shift: Dems +2
  • MI: Dems 40%--33% Reps. Shift: Dems +2
  • WI: Dems 39%--34% Reps. Shift: Dems +8
  • PA: Dems 43%--38% Reps. Shift: Dems +3
  • MN: Dems 40%--36% Reps. Shift: Dems +1
  • OH: Dems 40%--37% Reps. Shift: Dems +8
  • MO: Reps 39%--37% Dems. Shift: Reps +1
  • FL: Reps 39%--36% Dems. Shift: Dems +1
  • NV: Reps 40%--33% Dems. Shift: Reps +3
With the exception of Ohio and Wisconsin, Democrats did not make big gains here. The Nevada trend is worrying, while the Pennsylvania trend indicates that this may move to the "outer swing states" category in 2008. Pennsylvania really was the epicenter of the Democratic wave this year, which could mean very big things in future elections.

Of course, I am not convinced that 2008 will be as close a Presidential election as 2000 and 2004, making the concept of swing states less relevant. We are going to have a lot of trouble if McCain is nominated and, barring a right-wing third-party revolt, if Giuliani gets nominated. On the other hand, I feel reasonably confident that any Democrat will mop the floor with any other Republican nominee. Then again, I think both McCain and Giuliani will have a surprisingly difficult go of it in 2007 with the lights blaring on them full-time. I am just not convinced they are good campaigners and able to deal with media scrutiny outside the comfy confines of Sunday morning talk shows




Tags: Partisan self-identification, 2006 elections, swing states (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 30 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Partisan Self-Identification Shifts, 2004 to 2 (none / 0)

Looks pretty good,
but I wonder how much of that is an actual realignment of political identity -- I've got a feeling it's more of the weather vain effect.

Realignment=Reason NOT to impeach Bush
He's a powerful political symbol for our side...


by mermzilla on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 10:56:57 PM EST

Re: Partisan Self-Identification Shifts, 2004 to 2 (none / 0)

I think it's going to be another extremely close election.  I still stand by my claim that there is no way Guilini gets the nomination.  A social liberal could never make it in the Republican primary, especially with the personal baggage he brings.  I do think McCain has the best shot of getting it though.  Normally i'd say the conservatives would revolt against him as well, but they just have nobody at this point.  Unless Romney or someone else gains some serious traction we're probably looking at facing McCain.  However, I don't think that spells doomsday for us.  If either:
a) We still have heavy troop levels in Iraq or
b) Iraq is a complete and utter mess
McCain's image will be seriously damaged.  As long as we don't nominate Hillary I think Edwards, Clark, Obama, or whoever we nominate will go down to the wire with McCain.
by blueryan on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 11:02:29 PM EST

agree with you about Rudy (none / 0)

No way does gay-friendly, pro-choice, philandering Rudy get anywhere in the GOP primaries.

I still think a social conservative like Huckabee has a shot. A lot of Republicans distrust McCain, although I am worried about the field clearing as more of the establishment and money guys go to his camp.

Agenda number one for Democrats has to be to stop praising McCain. Ever. Period. Never, never try to make yourself look good by associating with McCain. We need to take down this guy's image.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 11:22:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Partisan Self-Identification Shifts, 2004 to 2 (none / 0)

Don't count out Big Al!!   If the blogs were running a Dem campaign for Prez, both Rudy & McCain would be toast.  The two of them would get exposed for the frauds they are.  I am hoping the MSM eventually gets on board with it though


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 11:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain (none / 0)

Dont start writing concession speaches to McCain yet, even if he gets through the primary (which is no given).
McCain's continued call to increase the troop level in Iraq in spite of popular opinion and conventional wisdom can and will hurt him in '08. Also, the more he panders to Jerry Falwell etc. the less "moderate" he appears to be, and he's gonna be doing a whole hell of a lot of pandering the next 12 months.
by AC4508 on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:49:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Partisan Self-Identification Shifts, 2004 to 2 (none / 0)

I'm actually surprised that Vermont is nearly 1/2 independent - Dems and Repubs both in the twenties.


by Karatist Preacher on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 11:15:01 PM EST

Re: Partisan Self-Identification Shifts, 2004 to 2 (none / 0)

That's why Jeffords wasn't worried about leaving the GOP, and why Sanders is so popular.  Vermonsters don't care for partisanship very much.


by RickD on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 02:40:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Partisan Self-Identification Shifts, 2004 to 2 (none / 0)

Odd... West Virginia, where 51 percent of the voters self-identify as Democrats, an outer swing state?

WV has puzzled me the past couple of cycles.  They literally vote Democratic for every office except President these days.


by Tom on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 11:16:17 PM EST

Losing our grip. (none / 0)

   I remember in 2000 when most everyone was flabbergasted that Gore lost West Virginia.  We have to work harder in West Virginia, because when the two Democratic senators (fossils) retire, we are going to have a hard time holding the seats.


Jim Oberweis
by cilerder86 on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 11:26:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

West Virginia is sliding (none / 0)

That's one of several states where the party ID is misleading in terms of the presidential vote. Oklahoma is another, with all the DINOs. Also Louisiana, which typically has a small net edge to Democrats in party ID but the liberal/conservative numbers are disastrous, more than a 2/1 deficit. And that was pre-Katrina.

I like the ideological numbers as more trend representative in terms of presidential likelihood. The lousy trend showed up again in West Virginia this year. It went from 17% liberals and 33% conservatives in 2004 to 16% liberals and 35% conservatives this year. That's straying from swing state percentages on either end, in a 50/50 national atmosphere.

Overall, the numbers were very promising this year. I was hoping for a better ideological split in Missouri, and like democraticavenger mentioned in his diary, some of the missing exit polls would have been valuable, specifically Colorado.

Nevada has been overhyped in terms of turning blue, but I wouldn't worry about the net party ID drop this year. That's a case of the standard very high turnout level in rural counties during Nevada midterms, in comparison to Clark County (Las Vegas). The 2002 exit polls were never made public. If they had been, I'm sure a similar trend would have been evident in Nevada, worse party ID and ideological numbers than 2000.


by Gary Kilbride on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:10:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: West Virginia is sliding (none / 0)

West Virginia is kind of like Arkansas... still heavily Democratic at the state level, and at least for awhile, that isn't going to change (Arkansas actually became MORE democratic at the state level... With current Rep Ross retaking the 4th in '00, Pryor in '02, retaking a supermajority of the legislature in '04, and now all statewide offices in '06). Pro-life, conservative democrats will win here for sure, as well as moderate-liberal institutions. Populism will take you far here (I mean, Dukakis won this state and Iowa... and Iowa by a larger percentage of any dem from '68-'04)


by KainIIIC on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:36:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

West Virginia has Coal (none / 0)

And coal pollutes. A bad energy alternative.

Coal is a red herring (ok, that was a play on words) of the GOP. The constant push for clean coal (which doesn't exist) is a major BANE to global warming especially in coal-fired plants.

Unless the WV economy can depend on something other than coal, that state will vote for that issue every damn time.

I know my family members that voted Dem this time did so ONLY because of the Dem candidate's support of the United Mine Workers. It was a one issue election to them.


Town Called Dobson - Daily Political Cartoon: Not all is red in rural America!
by stormbear on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 11:42:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Partisan Self-Identification Shifts, 2004 to 2 (none / 0)

With Frist dropping out today, aren't Huckabee and Brownback about the only real social conservatives left in the race?  My bet is that one of these guys gets the nomination, McCain will be close, though.  


by Jason B on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 11:28:13 PM EST

Re: Partisan Self-Identification Shifts, 2004 to 2 (none / 0)

I hope so... we'd cream either one of them in a general election.  There are probably some others in there... if Newt runs, yeah.


by Tom on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:40:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Partisan Self-Identification Shifts, 2004 to 2 (none / 0)

I'll admit to a bit of impatience regarding Nebraska, but that's only because we worked so hard and didn't get a whole lot of tangible reward - and the party didn't really concern itself with anyone outside of Nelson. So a 6% shift is good, but all we're doing is making up ground we lost by being complacent in the last ten years. We've got a lot more ground to make up, but our individual campaigns, particularly Jim Esch and Scott Kleeb, helped pave the way for a lot more grassroots action down the road.


Further Reading
by Dave Sund on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 11:44:25 PM EST

Re: Partisan Self-Identification Shifts, 2004 to 2 (none / 0)

If Hagel runs for Pres., wouldn't Kleeb have a pretty good shot at an open Senate seat?  It seems like he is probably well known statewide to the voters, more than Fahey at least, and I'm sure a couple thousand Reeps voted for him.    


by Jason B on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:41:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Partisan Self-Identification Shifts, 2004 to 2 (none / 0)

Definitely, Kleeb got more than a couple thousand Republicans to vote for him. 45% in the 3rd District would probably win him a close statewide election, because there are far more Republicans than Democrats in the 3rd District (it went nearly 70% for Bush in 2004).

Mike Fahey, the mayor of Omaha, also expressed interest in running for the seat. The presumptive Republican nominee would be State AG Jon Bruning, but Lee Terry (NE-02) might run as well.


Further Reading
by Dave Sund on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:46:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Partisan Self-Identification Shifts, 2004 to 2 (none / 0)

By the way Dave, I am actually from Omaha as well.  I live in Orange County, CA now but I like to be well informed about NE issues and races so I check up on the NE blogs, its definitely good to see a progressive presence in the state.  Keep up the good work there.    


by Jason B on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:57:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Partisan Self-Identification Shifts, 2004 to 2 (none / 0)

Think of California as a fluke, and Arnold is his name. Phil Angelides never managed to get his campaign for governor off the group either, which made Schwartzenegger's life a lot easier. Of course, Arnold's main success was moving to the left and cutting a lot of deals with the Democratic legislature. Arnold makes it possible to be a Republican in California without being totally ashamed of it (despite Cunningham, Pombo, and Doolittle). Only one other GOP nominee won statewide office (for Insurance Commissioner). Even the incumbent Republican Secretary of State was swept out. Arnold stands alone.

Another factor may be that the bipartisan agreement that governed the last redistricting has left us with very few inherently competitive congressional or legislative districts. Yes, the GOP was willing to cut a deal to settle for long-term minority status, as long as they didn't have to run too hard to keep the seats they were given. This has the natural effect of depressing interest in local campaigns whose outcomes are mostly foreordained. No legislative district changed hands in this year's general election. Only a couple were even close.


by Zeno on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 11:49:27 PM EST

Re: Partisan Self-Identification Shifts, 2004 to 2 (none / 0)

Yep, California is here to stay.  The R/D split there is misleading as it is in WV and AR.

The surprising states ate AZ and CO.  I had though NV would be better but perhaps it was more the candidates' fault than the parties.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:48:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Partisan Self-Identification Shifts, 2004 to 2 (none / 0)

Even if CA is a fluke, the lingering incompetence of the Democrats in the state is troubling.  I mean - losing to Schwarzanegger, twice??


by RickD on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 02:42:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Woo! (none / 0)

Go Wisconsin! I'm part of that partisan trend! :)


The Stone of Tear
by Callandor on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 02:51:59 AM EST

MD an outlier (none / 0)

Democraticavenger states that the VNS data is the CNN exit polling data -- so I double-checked. The MD result is not consistent w/ what I know about MD.

2004:

D: 48
R: 30
I: 22

2006:

D: 50
R: 31
I: 19

I would essentially describe this as "no change," all things considered. Exit polling is not very reliable.

Voting by party id is now available for MD-2004, so we no longer need to rely on exit polling for party id.

This corresponds to 55.96% D and 30.62% R turnout in 2004, which is consistent with party registration figures in MD. The 2006 turnout numbers should be available soon -- I expect the numbers to be similar, with perhaps a minor boost in Democratic turnout, but certainly no +10 "shift".


by dblhelix on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 04:43:53 AM EST

Re: 2008 presidential race (none / 0)

My only worry about 2008 is that I don't think we have a deep enough roster of presidential candidates yet.

We have a couple people who are of presidential timber, but not as many as we should have.

I've no doubt we have a number of good candidates coming on line, especially with the 50-state strategy building our farm team.

I'm just not sure they'll be ready in 2008.

On the other hand, you only need one to win.


by Bush Bites on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 08:41:40 AM EST

Pres. candidate media scrutiny (none / 0)

I am just not convinced they are good campaigners and able to deal with media scrutiny outside the comfy confines of Sunday morning talk shows

You're making an awfully big assumption here: that there will be any media scrutiny of St. McCain or 9/11 Superhero Rudy.  The media couldn't muster serious scrutiny of a draft-dodging, coke-head cheerleader who couldn't manage to find oil in Texas.  If they wouldn't bother to ask hard questions or do serious investigation of even such a collosal moron as George W. Bush, what makes you think they'll go after one of their darlings?


by libdevil on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 10:31:52 AM EST

Re: Partisan Self-Identification Shifts, 2004 to 2 (none / 0)

I wouldn't put much stock in the 2006 partisan self-identification shift data. Its based on exit polling. As this is an atypical year, even for an off year election, with Democratic turnout heightened & conservative voing depressed, you're getting a distorted image of trends. Lets look at 2008 patterns & compare them with 2004 & 2000 for a better guage.


by carter1 on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 11:29:08 AM EST

I think Minnesota... (none / 0)

is moving to the outer swing state category as well.  Although there wasn't a big change in partisan affiliation, Minnesota Dems kicked ass this year.  We got one congressional seat (that no one thought we would win a few months ago)for Tim Walz, Klobuchar kicked Kennedy's ass, and Dems swept the state legislature and the constitutional offices here.

Pawlenty only won because Mike Hatch called some guy a Republican whore, so I don't think that example is too relevant to MN's political status.  

McCain or Giuliani (though I'm almost convinced the latter won't be the nominee) could win here, but I doubt it.


by Terryus on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 11:40:11 AM EST

Re: I think Minnesota... (none / 0)

Mike Hatch lost because for some reason, his Lt. Governor nominee didn't know what E85 was. In a farm state like Minnesota that killed Hatch's chances. I was hoping that Pawlenty would go down so we won't have to hear about him being on the Veep short list in 2008 and with him hosting the convention. blah!


by gomer on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:42:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No link (none / 0)

Sorry, I can't seem to find that article.


by Woody on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 06:22:48 PM EST

Re: Partisan Self-Identification Shifts, 2004 to 2 (none / 0)

77 62 63 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 106 78 79 80 81 82 83 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 1010 1011 84 85 86 87 88 89 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 90 91 92 100 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 832 831 833 834 835 836 837 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 1210 1211 1213 1212 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 nero gratuit 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 9 8 7 79 78 77 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 6 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 5 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 4 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 3 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 2 0 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
by polutukor on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 04:32:55 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: