« Support the Troops - Veterans Day Edition | Main | It's Your World... »

Friday, November 12, 2004

Election Post-Mortem. Inside the Numbers

Posted by Tim Tagaris

Pew Research released a study yesterday on the Presidential Election that allows us to go deep inside the numbers.  So without further ado, I am going to dive right in.

Moral Values

Once again, Pew finds that moral issues were the biggest factor in determining an individuals selection for President.  Compared to the 22% who cited moral issues on the exit polls, 27% cited them with Pew.  This might be a reflection of more Bush voters included than the exit polls, which were obviously skewed toward Kerry respondents.   What makes this study interesting, as it goes in-depth to potentially define what moral issues constitutes.

Under the umbrella of "moral values:"  29% Gay Marriage - 28% Abortion - 4% Stem Cell Research.  A very underwhelming amount of people named issues like poverty and economic inequality as moral issues.


If you consider yourself a liberal, and you are depressed, you can take comfort that 47% of people would place themselves in the same category.  By contrast, 93% of Conservatives say they are "relieved" by the results, and 91% also claim they feel "safer because of them election as well.

But, people still hold out hope for the future of the country overall.  61% of those surveyed think a second Bush term will be successful.  29% do not.

Also of interest, in respect to the what should the Democrats do next question, 52% of Democrats think we should stand up to The President; only 42% believe that we need to make an effort to reach across the aisle and work with him.

Some other interesting notes (I urge you to read the entire thing, its not long at all):

20% of voters cast ballots before election day

Waiting in Line to Vote: 42% didn't wait in line at all. 13% waited about 15 minutes. 10% waited up to an hour.  8% waited more than hour.

41% of people said they used the net to get news about the election, up from 30% in 2000.

84% of people said they followed the results on Election Day.  51% stayed up after midnight.  1/3 of "young people" followed Election results on the net, but most did in conjunction with the television on as well.


Tons of detailed charts available on Pew website.

Citation: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2004). "Voters liked campaign 2004, but too much mud-slinging." http://people-press.org/reports/display.html3?ReportID=233

Posted at 03:54 PM in General | Technorati


Not sure if I posted this before, but my analysis of urban voters' high majority for Kerry, even in "red states, is posted on this page:


Also, I recommend reading Thomas Frank's "What's the Mater with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America" for a detailed example of the recent cultural trends in Middle America that drive the lower middle class to vote overwhelmingly against their own interests, while keeping the corporations rich and immune to heavy legislation.

Posted by: pwoodson at November 12, 2004 06:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Sorry, screwed up the link. It's


Posted by: pwoodson at November 12, 2004 06:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


"Also of interest, in respect to the what should the Democrats do next question, 52% of Democrats think we should stand up to The President; only 42% believe that we need to make an effort to reach across the aisle and work with him."

Maybe this IS what's wrong with the Democratic Party. This question isn't worded in such a way as to know for sure...but almost half of your party seems prepared to continue obstructionist tactics, rather than trying to find common ground for good legislation. To blockade for the sake of blockading is complete bulls--- it is precisely what is wrong in Washington...and I am not insulating the Republicans from that statement.

However, going into a new administration pre-disposed to the idea that you are not going to "reach across the aisle" is defeatist. What ever happened to working out differences to pass good legislation? It is still possible. As long as people are willing...and to think that Democrats claim to have the market cornered on having "open minds."

Sounds pretty closed minded and petty to me.

Posted by: John at November 12, 2004 08:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


I don't really see the point in picking which cities voted which way...it doesn't really make much sense to me.

Especially when you consider most of your elitists and most of your minorities are concentrated in the larger cities...two blocks of voters that would normally favor the Democrat.

I have also said that the Urban areas lean D, while the Rural areas lean R. Part of it is the demographics of those areas, respectively. I think a lot of people might even say that the CAPITALIZED cities on your list don't represent the average American...even though large populations live there. And if you ask the elitists...well...we already know that they speak for everyone else.

Posted by: John at November 12, 2004 08:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

What is "elitist" about cities and the coasts in particular? I've lived in the northeast and I can tell you, people are very down-to-earth and decent people. Based on historical factors they do tend to have higher levels of education (either in years or simply in people of the same education -- ie high school grads-- being more literate) but that's nothing to be ashamed of -- that's what drives this country forward. Yes they tend to care about the environment and take care of their health more in the "blue" areas. But so what. I sure won't appologize for getting regular exercisze and eating well. I can tell you, the Christian radical right snobs in suburban Texas, where I also lived, are pretty elitist themselves. My HIGH SCHOOL in Texas had fraternities and sororities. Remember words like "redneck" and "white trash" come from the south and are used by the southern (conservative) elite to describe the southern (conservative) common people in the south. Aren't the right-wing the ones who say you aren't American if you're from north of the mason-dixon line?

Pro-labor stances are not elitist. Protecting the air we all breath and our water is not elitist -- you can live in Texas City if you want, but not me. We hear this refrain again and again -- saying "we need a cowboy, not a wind surfer" or whatever. Ok, what is your (fake) cowboy (who barely can use a chainsaw -- let a New Englander show him how its done) going to do for the common folks? Where was he when the common folks went to Vietnam?

As for morality, again Chistian fundamentalists have the highest divorce rate in the U.S. Solid blue (even in rural areas) New England has the lowest. It's interesting that things like poverty, crime, and the condition of our children are not considered "moral" issues to the right-wing. Isn't something said about faith without deeds?

I will never appologize for who I am.

Posted by: Marc at November 12, 2004 09:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


I didn't say that everyone that lives in the big cities is an elitist...what I said was that the cities tend to be where they live...along with other core Democratic demographics.

As far as right-wingers saying you are not an American if you live North of the Mason-Dixon...I can't say that I've ever heard that one.

As far as the term "redneck...." one of the liberals on this board used that exact term to describe me...a guy born in Boston and raised in Detroit. I have worked in the capitalized cities my whole career, and was born and bred in them. I only escaped a year ago to a red city in a red state, where I can stop and smell the roses.

As far as the blue cities...they HAVE to protect the environment...all the bleeding hearts are driving SUVs around polluting the air and complaining about foreign wars and foreign oil. Just like John Kerry...who owns (or doesn't) an SUV...depending which audience he is addressing.

I'm getting off point, though. My point simply (and somewhat in agreement with pwoodson) was that the demographics that agree with Democratic principles tends to be more concentrated in Urban areas, while the demographics that agree with Republican principles tend to be found more in Rural (and sometimes suburban) areas.

Posted by: John at November 12, 2004 09:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

But just what is an "elitist"? If you're talking about the high-powered money-chugging businessmen of New York and their offspring, they're Republicans. If you're talking about the stereotypical cultural elite who look down on others, well they're such a small group anyway and probably vote in both parties. Environmentalists who drive SUV's are a pretty small demographic. To pigeonhole the vast majority of working-, middle-, and upper-middle-class democrats in this stereotype is simply deceptive -- it would be equally deceptive to say all Republicans are top-hat capitalists or good' ol' boys who celebrate killing "sand n__gers" (I lived in Kentucky, too, by the way, that's a real quote). Or does "elitist" means anyone who has a decent education and a decent job, and moderate-to-left political views? My point is this whole thing about "elitists" is ridiculous. The Republicans have been harping on the steretype of "elitism" because it sells in certain areas and because it's a smokescreen for the real issues. And btw, Texas could sure use some environmental protection. The air was pretty nasty in Galveston on those days it came from the north.

My comment wasn't directed at your demographic analysis, sorry if it came off that way; but at the whole ridiculousness of this label.

Posted by: Marc at November 12, 2004 10:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


You can take whatever you like from my list of cities... I admit, my comments on that page are opinion, but the data itself is fact. People on both sides of the divide could take the data and use it to justify their own opinions. Many rural Americans don't care much for city life; they can feel justified knowing they didn't vote the way the urban areas did.

As for the point of why I did it, it was just something I felt like doing. I agree that it didn't really prove anything new; the figures showed what I already suspected anyway. But I hadn't seen a website that had broken it down in that particular way, so I thought I'd do it myself.

The capitalized cities were meant to designate population and political significance, not average America. They were not adhering to a strict "size" rule, nor were the very cities that made the list. I may have been generous in capitalizing places like Raleigh and Hartford--some other "lowercase" places like Billings and Greenville I almost left off, since they're quite small. There are suburban cities all over the USA that are larger than these little places, but the little cities are significant within their state. And I completely left out counties that were entirely suburban, which would have included huge Democratic and Republican populations. But in other cases, the county encompasses many suburbs. The focus was simply on the county in which the city was located.

I would agree with Marc here, and would venture to say that in most cities (as opposed to rural/suburban America), the rich businessmen are the Republicans and much of the working class are the Democrats. It's generally when you get out of most of the central cities that the paradigm flips around (and everyone is Republican).

(BTW, Rich actors & musicians don't count-- they really are an absurdly small part of the population; they just get more exposure. I'm one of the thousands of average-salary non-famous performers, and we're almost all liberal. So when an actor rises from nothingness to celebrity, they're taking their politics with them and using their stature to have a mouthpiece for it. I don't think it helped the Democrats this time, to be honest, but I know why they do it: I'd probably do the same if I had a guaranteed audience and thought I could do some good by speaking out for my side.)

I don't want to get into an "elitism" discussion either, but I agree with Marc again: it's a ploy to convince the large working class that city liberals look down on them, when ironically, the Democratic platform and its programs most benefit the average working man... It's easy to get wealthier people to vote for business expansion, deregulation and juicy tax breaks, but getting the poor and lower middle class is difficult without a divisive issue... like "elitism"-- one of many divisive issues-- tell them there are "cultural elites" out there-- people who think they're better than you and know what's best for you, people who sip cappuccinos, who are friends with or (gasp!) ARE homosexuals, who want to raise your taxes, etc.

Whoops, didn't want to elaborate, but did. Anyway, example: My income last year was probably below the poverty level, yet because of my college education, liberal views, city residence, and attention to world affairs I'd probably be considered an "elitist" by "average America". And if not now, then I definitely would if I had a career upswing and suddenly had millions.

And BTW, if "elitism" really exists, wouldn't they have to really be "elite", i.e. the top 2% of some demographic? The "elitist" label gets spread so wide that elitists would seem to be a larger portion of the population than is applicable to the term.

Ultimately, I have no real disagreement here--except about elitism-- just wanted to clarify my motives. I was trying to stay very neutral in this post, but got worked up. Oh, well.

Posted by: pwoodson at November 13, 2004 12:41 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I live in Utah a very red state. In Utah the church state and republican party are one in the same. There patronizing belief is you won't mind how we rule once we convert you. If your black republican and mormon you can get get elected to mayor of South Ogden If your black, Democrat and nonmormon you can't get elected to anything. Personal state tax burden is second only to California. On election day the complaint of the evening was that Utahs Catholics voted 69% against the gay marrige admendment thus they didn't get the high pecentage points. So they could claim Utah was number 1 state against gay marriage. By the way Catholic authorities stated the admendment goes far beyond marriage and violates civil and human rights. Also protestants voted 56% against admendment. The only protection we as racial, religious, women, and gays have is the federal courts. If Bush and his Evangelicals get there way our life will be hell on earth or at least here in Utah. Allthough the Utah State Surpreme court as of late has had little problem stricking down unfair laws. There are 5 living generations of my family here in Utah. All democrat and all liberal. I could have left but I choose to stay close to my family. Gee I think thats called family values. My point is that elitisum is not confined to one party or state, urban, rural, suburban, exurban. So please stop broad brushing us with the word elitist. Without takeing a look at your own party first. John Kerry lost Utah not Just because he was a Democrat, liberal, and from New England. He also lost because he was Roman Catholic. How more elitist can you get than that.

Posted by: Greg at November 13, 2004 01:53 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


Wasn't trying to get you worked up...I was just trying to understand what your breakdown meant. I actually agree with you, and would have suspected the same results, without the analysis. I was just wondering if you were "going somewhere" with that breakdown.

As far as "elitists" go, I do not infer that a majority of Democrats are elitist. They ARE a small group, albeit, generally a very vocal group. When I use the term elitist, I am generally referring to Media and Educators (Graduate) who DO look down on pastoral people (which does not include MY demographic). I am newly converted to rural living...a good change for me, having lived in the majorist of major cities my whole life. (and normally a minority in both race and politics in most of the circles I traveled in).

As far as Greg's comments about the courts...I somewhat disagree. The courts are not designed to legislate, they are there to interpret the law and to act as the neutral forum for the trial by opposing parties. There has been a shift in our national system, that has witnessed an increasing propensity of the courts to legislate from the bench, or to tell the legislature how to enact laws...I don't think that is a good trend.

Whether you agree with the marriage amendment (state legislated) or not, the bottom line is that an extremely large majority of voters chose to keep the definition of marriage intact. The courts are not supposed to interfere with Democracy...the people have spoken in several states. I personally have no probelm with civil unions, but I kind of like things the way they are. I guess that makes me narrow minded. A lot of Americans feel the same way as me on that issue, though. The surprising thing is that this includes a large number of Democrats (at least the way I interpret the election results).

Posted by: john at November 13, 2004 09:23 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I've ready your posts during the past few weeks and think you are a reasonable guy. However, I believe that your second post in this thread, that elitists and minorities are concentrated in cities is exactly the message the GOP sends to rural voters...that they are different from city dwellers who are either rich or of a different skin color or ethnic background so their interests must be different from theirs. Since I don't live in a rural area I could be wrong about this.

Posted by: Sue at November 13, 2004 10:00 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


I don't necessarily think that skin color is a big issue with the majority of rural voters (it certainly doesn't matter to me...I vote conservative, not party and not race....I would vote for JC Watts or some other minority that was conservative...or a conservative democrat running against a liberal republican).

My comment was actually geared towards the demographics...and those are the two that I chose to mention in the urban areas. There are other demographics as well...perhaps there is a greater propensity for urban women to vote, which would favor a democratic candidate. Again, I was referring to general demographics, and chose two that were readily available, without creating an exhaustive list. I think of the Democrats core constituency, these are two groups that overwhelmingly vote Democrat, even if they do not represent a majority of Democratic voters.

Another core constituency is the Unions, which are more prevalent up North, and especially around Urban areas like Detroit. I guess this could turn into a fairly extensive list with a little bit of picking.

Posted by: John at November 13, 2004 10:23 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Seems like all you people are doing is arguing and saying you're not. Why don't you just give each other your E-mail adressess so we don't have to listen to this drivel. Does anyone have anything important to say? We already KNOW everyone disagrees.

Posted by: Jason at November 13, 2004 12:41 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

New York times today ran a story about Massachussetts havign the lowest divorce rate. THis challenges the assertion that gay union or marriage will destroy traditional marriages. Christian right commentators responmded that people in blue America are better educated, more stable in family and financial life, get married later -- gee, sounds like the religious right is just complimenting blue America and denigrating their own. So what we Democrats need to do is claim the moral high ground on jobs, family, education and yes, foreign policy and the deficit, because moral people don't pass on debt to their children. See http://www.democracyforamerica.com/ for a great story. If someone wants to be a complete relativist and take morality out of politics, let them become a libertarian.

A second interesting fact is that those with college educations voted 49% for Bush, those without voted 53% for Bush We ask, why can't Dems do better among the working middle class? Less commonly pointed out: in the last 4 years a host of professionals in the state department and dept of defense, including diplomats, anti-terror professionals, and even generals, have been resigning or retiring in frustration. The Bush response? To use character assassination against them and completely ignore their constructive criticism. Bush is happy to sit and wait for the necxt major terror attack rather than prevent.

But again, I can't understand why Democrats chose to focus on Ashcroft's roving phone taps or library records searches -- big deal! Its not the start of oppression. What is astounding about Ashcroft is his incompetence in investigating terrorism.

I have felt for three years now that the Bush presidency represents the triumph of anti-intellectual, unprofessional people who feel they are finally getting their revenge. A president who was an alcoholic and unemployed thru age 40? A national security advisor whose understanding of foreign policy has been compared to a middle-school social studies curriculum? An attorney general who was lsitless and bored with his job, then made a big deal about rounding up hapless residents of Buffalo?

Thomas Jefferson, whatever his failings, believed in a democracy of meritocracy. Bush is more like an Andrew Jackson.

Posted by: Marc at November 14, 2004 01:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


You cover quite a bit of ground...most of it complete bulls---. Just a few rebuttal points...Condi Rice is far more suited for her position than middle-school social studies...considering she was the resident expert on the Soviet Union during the time frame that we brought the Berlin Wall down....she was also Brent Scowcroft's Assistant...I would say she was qualified. As far as mass resignations...I don't think your facts are very accurate...why don't you offer proof. Part of the problem is that Bush kept some of Clinton's people in key positions....like the head of CIA.

Also...You can not blame bush for 9/11...you just can't. Clinton had a full eight years to deal with Bin Laden and missed several opportunities to do it. He was well aware of who Bin Laden was well before the presidency changed hands. It was also cuts that happened during his presidency, executive orders HE signed, and opportunities HE missed that contributed to 9/11. There is certainly plenty of blame to go around.

I'm going to use my word one more time...these attacks on Bush supporters as uneducated smacks of elitism. I have a college degree that doesn't make me one iota smarter than I was before I went to college. Maybe more well-rounded...but certainly not smarter.

Posted by: John at November 14, 2004 02:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


On MSN or Fox, I hear how democrats are out of touch with "working class" and "mainstream" America and this is why Bush won. I never once said Republicans are less educated (53% vs 49% is hardly a big difference) but that this is quite an interesting trend because if you look historically, the numbers have been reversed. I think you'll agree that the working-class vote has moved to Bush and didn't go for Kerry. Likewise, those who make over 100 or 200k per year went STRONGLY for Bush but this is a fact, not an attack on us poor democrats. I am not attackign anyone -- in fact I recall making the opposite argument, that most democrats are from working class to upper-middle class professionals, yet Republicans try to paint them as some sort of elite.

I never said Bush let 9-11 happen, but that we are not adequately prepared 3 years later with some basics like more special forces (to catch terrorists "where they are"), a national terror watch list, etc. The 9-11 commission had plenty of blame to lay around, yet you say its all Clinton's fault.

Nor did I say "mass" resignations but enough Reagan-Bush I-Clinton people (not just Clinton people) have expressed a good bit of legit frustration. I can't believe Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, Joe Biden and John McCain are all full of (your word) when they say we need to improve. The whole problem is that now any criticism of the course is called bulls**t rather than listened to.

Posted by: Marc at November 14, 2004 05:41 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


When I referred to your assumption that Republicans are uneducated, I wasn't looking at the statistics, I was looking at your statement...
"I have felt for three years now that the Bush presidency represents the triumph of anti-intellectual, unprofessional people who feel they are finally getting their revenge."

Also, I did not say it was all Clinton's fault, what I said was Clinton "CONTRIBUTED" to 9/11. I also said there was plenty blame to go around.

When I referred to "mass resignations" I was referring to your statement "a HOST of professionals in the state department and dept of defense, including diplomats, anti-terror professionals, and even generals, have been resigning or retiring in frustration." I added the emphasis to "host."

Also, I did not say we did not need to improve. I was just responding to your sweeping indictment of the Bush Administration...it sounded to me like you were suggesting that 9/11 was Bush's fault, and that he has done nothing to respond to 9/11. I agree that there is room for improvement...I must also say that a tremendous amount of improvement has already been made. I acutally agree with Kerry that we need to figure out a way to check our Cargo Containers before they come into our ports...although it seems there would still be loopholes, it would eliminate some of the threat. I also agree that an increase in Special Forces would be a nice benefit...if it is feasible. At some point Special Forces stop being so special. You can't water down the training just to increase numbers....in other words, it's gonna take some time to increase the numbers.

On the other hand, Kerry's indication that he was going to increase the military by 40,000 troops is a little extreme. I am certainly not against increasing the troop strength that Clinton cut so sharply. However, that is also going to take time. Retention is the best way to increase the troop numbers, and you have to make it attractive. Bringing in more at the bottom will probably continue at the same rate, since recruiters have been barely meeting recruitment goals for the past several years.

There are lots of areas to improve, and Bush is shaking up his cabinet to that end. I think you will see many new faces...I'm personally not sad to see Ashcroft go....however, I still think Condoleeza Rice should stick around. Mayve even Joe Lieberman will get a spot in Bush's new cabinet...?

Posted by: John at November 14, 2004 06:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


Points taken. Let me clarify -- I am talking about the Bush presidency and administration here, not Republicans. Just as when I point out the hypocritical moral failings of Christian fundameltists, which I've seen first-hand, I am talking about fundamentalists, not Republicans. I do believe his administration has been incompetent and anti-intellectual and I stand by that. His jokes about WMD,a nd the fact that he had Saddam's pistol mounted in a trophy case, are poor indicators of character. Yes, I'll admit he gives a good prepared speech. And anti-intellectualism does have a certain appeal that Bush's campaign aids recognize, no denying that. It's all politics.

As an MA student, I had the mixed experience of working with PhD's. I have no inherent respect for Ms. Rice or Mr. Wolfowitz just b/c of their credentials because I think one (Rice) is unqualified for her post and another (Wolfowitz) is a blind ideologue. It would be nice to have a bi-partisan cabinet -- I remember this came up in 2001 when 51.5% voted AGAINST Bush, but the idea was rejected flat-out. I doubt it'll happen, and I hope Democrats would accept it if it did.


Posted by: Marc at November 14, 2004 07:08 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Sorry, that is, to Jason who is tired of people arguing on this post.

Posted by: Marc at November 14, 2004 07:41 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone far more qualified than Condi...maybe equal or slightly more qualified...but she definitely has the credentials...


Whether you respect her or not...she is qualified.

Posted by: John at November 14, 2004 07:52 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I know the comments were geared TOWARDS Rice, but I can't resist the opportunity for comparison. Here is what Sandy Berger had on his resume:


Not nearly as impressive as Condi...and Condi didn't steal documents from the National Archives.

Posted by: John at November 14, 2004 08:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I hope these two boring folks with no life gives this post five minutes of their precious time.

To the rest of you here: Read on, gentle reader, and hear what I have to say. Recently at different points in time these two boring folks with no lives claimed that they never engage in fatuitous, intellectually challenged, or stubborn politics. I would have found this comment hilarious had I not heard similar blatherings from them both a hundred times before. Boring folks like these two wish to glorify the things that everyone else rarely gives one big whoop about. Personally, I don't want to be the slave of politically driven drivil. Personally, I prefer freedom. If you also prefer freedom, then you should be working to make this world a better place in which to live.Did you here what I said? WORK! As creating something of industry. Not mindless word plays and writings. If you wonder why I take the stance that I do, it's because if a cogent, logical argument entered either one of the two's brains of these two Einsteins, no doubt a concussion would result. Finally, to those of you who are faithfully helping to maintain social tranquillity, let me extend, as always, my deepest gratitude and my most affectionate regards.

As Lawrence Ferlinghetti was once overheard to say about the Clinton-Dole debates:

"Never have so few talked about so little for so long..."

Now give it a rest... it's time to go howl...

Posted by: Run with the Coyote at November 14, 2004 11:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

IT tears me aopart guys! Kerry won every major city in Ohio except for Cinncinnati and steal lost the state! THis sucks guys!

Posted by: godfrey at November 15, 2004 03:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

godfrey, Clinton won Ohio twice, so it can be won, even without Cincinnati (or in Clinton's case the first time, even without Columbus). However, Democrats need to win small cities like Bowling Green and Springfield if they're gonna prevail statewide. They also need to do better than 52% in Steubenville and 50% in Dayton to win. It's not a matter of which cities Kerry won, but by what margin. Ohio is clearly winnable if Columbus' blue trendline continues and if Hamilton County (Cincy) continues to soften.

Posted by: Mark at November 15, 2004 04:46 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Mark -- CLinton might have had trouble winning Ohio without Perot, especially in 1992 when Perot took 21% of the vote and Clinton won by a whisker.

In 1996, Perot's candidacy might not have been decisive.

Posted by: erg at November 15, 2004 05:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment