Do states usally vote for the president if he is from there

[Frigidus]

It seems that OP might be trolling us, but just in case he isn't I'd like to point this part out again.

As a quick nod towards OPs question, yes, a very heavy percentage of blacks voted for Obama, but a very heavy percentage of blacks also vote Democrat. If I remember correctly it was only about 5% more for Obama than your average Democratic president.

Were there people that voted for Obama because he's black? Yes. There were also those that voted against him because he's black. That sort of thing will happen when a minority is on the ballot. That said, the recent trend is that about 90% of blacks vote Democrat.

[PLAYER57832]

can people tell me the percentage of times if the canidate is from there if the state usally votes for him

Probably. A person usually gains popularity within their state/region before going national. Someone who cannot win their state is unlikely to gain national attention.

Add in the fact that having a president does tend to translate into many things moving to that state, and many "on the fence" otherwise might let that sway their vote to one side. I doubt it would convince anyone with strong opinions, though.

If so isn't that like 98% or 96% of black people voting for obama

Only if you think all blacks have the same interests or even vote as a block, which they don't.

Also, while having a president hail from a state is going to provide some benefits. This is less about pure cronism and more to do with people tend to hire those they know, tend to have more ties to places they have lived and so forth. For example, whne Reagan was in office, B of A, then largely out west, got a big boost. Also, just the fact of having the "official residence" in a particular state can be a minor benefit.

However, you would have a hard time showing how race would have that same kind of impact, at least in modern times.

[demonfork]

There has never been a US President that did not win his home state.

If Al Gore would have won his home state he would have not needed FL and he would have been President instead of Bush Jr.

[Frigidus]

There has never been a US President that did not win his home state.

If Al Gore would have won his home state he would have not needed FL and he would have been President instead of Bush Jr.

Actually, if you check the link that was given earlier, Polk, Wilson, and Nixon lost their home states and were elected. It is exceedingly rare though.

[hecter]

But apart from questions of black and white: How often does the state a presidential candidate is from vote for that candidate?

Texas normally goes democrat, but since the bush's were from there it went republican.
Massachusetts normally goes republican, but since kerry was from there it went democrat.

Is this a joke?

Texas normally goes democrat, but since the bush's were from there it went republican.

WTF? All but 1 county in Texas normally goes Republican.The last time Texas voted democrat was in 1976.

Edit: and keep in mind, that means voting for Carter after the Watergate scandal.

I'm pretty sure he was just making stuff up in order to make an analogy, and actually knew full well that he was presenting no real facts.

[Serbia]

If so isn't that like 98% or 96% of black people voting for obama

Only if you think all blacks have the same interests or even vote as a block, which they don't.

Come on player. While I don't agree with monster's racist views at all, you can not deny that blacks traditionally do vote Democrat, and have been doing since Roosevelt. Not all of them, certainly, but a large percentage do.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/when_did_blacks_start_voting_democratic.html

But apart from questions of black and white: How often does the state a presidential candidate is from vote for that candidate?

Texas normally goes democrat, but since the bush's were from there it went republican.
Massachusetts normally goes republican, but since kerry was from there it went democrat.

Texas normally goes democrat, but since the bush's were from there it went republican.

WTF? All but 1 county in Texas normally goes Republican.The last time Texas voted democrat was in 1976.

I'm pretty sure he was just making stuff up in order to make an analogy, and actually knew full well that he was presenting no real facts.

About time someone was smart enough to realize that.

[PLAYER57832]

If so isn't that like 98% or 96% of black people voting for obama

Only if you think all blacks have the same interests or even vote as a block, which they don't.

Come on player. While I don't agree with monster's racist views at all, you can not deny that blacks traditionally do vote Democrat, and have been doing since Roosevelt. Not all of them, certainly, but a large percentage do.

I don't deny it. I just think the tie-in to region is more direct.

[GabonX]

As a quick nod towards OPs question, yes, a very heavy percentage of blacks voted for Obama, but a very heavy percentage of blacks also vote Democrat. If I remember correctly it was only about 5% more for Obama than your average Democratic president.

exactly what I was getting at. It's only the delta, or change, that is important. If obama was a republican, and 98% of blacks voted for obama, now THAT would be a stat of interest

The real question is what percentage voted for him in the primaries...

[bradleybadly]

to[sic] bad now they will "get the idea" that black people screw up countrys[sic]"lol's"

Monster, who did you learn your history from? David Duke, or Joseph Goebbels?

You know, I actually had a conversation like this with one of my co-workers. He was saying something like, "America was unjust towards blacks so it's poetic justice that a black man would be used to destroy the country". I'm paraphrasing his thoughts, but that was the main point of his argument. He thinks that America deserves judgment because of our past with slavery and that we haven't fully paid the price for what we did to them. Enter Obama and you've got payback time. Not my beliefs but this guy was dead serious.

I pretended like I had to use the bathroom to get away from him.

[Metsfanmax]

About time someone was smart enough to realize that.

Your statement is nonsensical. The validity of the analogy is based on there being actual examples of states voting for a member of a party they don't traditionally vote for, so if his examples are incorrect, then so is his argument.

[Serbia]

About time someone was smart enough to realize that.

Your statement is nonsensical. The validity of the analogy is based on there being actual examples of states voting for a member of a party they don't traditionally vote for, so if his examples are incorrect, then so is his argument.

I'm not validating his argument. He was attempting to make a point. His analogy was totally flawed, and not worth even discussing.

Welcome to the internet, where people can simply make up anything they want, and cause people to argue over it, while they sit back and forget.

Oh and also, I heard Obama was born in Zacatecas, Mexico. He also inhaled.

[notyou2]

But apart from questions of black and white: How often does the state a presidential candidate is from vote for that candidate?

Texas normally goes democrat, but since the bush's were from there it went republican.
Massachusetts normally goes republican, but since kerry was from there it went democrat.

Is this a joke?

Struck me as a joke too.

[Metsfanmax]

About time someone was smart enough to realize that.

Your statement is nonsensical. The validity of the analogy is based on there being actual examples of states voting for a member of a party they don't traditionally vote for, so if his examples are incorrect, then so is his argument.

I'm not validating his argument. He was attempting to make a point. His analogy was totally flawed, and not worth even discussing.

Welcome to the internet, where people can simply make up anything they want, and cause people to argue over it, while they sit back and forget.

Oh and also, I heard Obama was born in Zacatecas, Mexico. He also inhaled.

But you're just wrong, because he had to have been using those as an actual justification for his post to even be meaningful. If those were, in fact, made up without any reference to reality, then his post was useless, so it is not the case that we "aren't smart enough" to get it, because he wouldn't even be making a point, so there would be nothing to get.

[Serbia]

But you're just wrong, because he had to have been using those as an actual justification for his post to even be meaningful. If those were, in fact, made up without any reference to reality, then his post was useless, so it is not the case that we "aren't smart enough" to get it, because he wouldn't even be making a point, so there would be nothing to get.

EXACTLY GENIUS.
In other words, ignore the ignoramus, and move on!!! It's not that difficult people! Instead, you allow yourselves to be trolled by arguing against someone who's not interested in winning the argument anyway, which means you automatically lose AND are made to look foolish. SO IGNORE AND MOVE ON!!

Again, welcome to the internet, hope you learn to enjoy your time here.

[Metsfanmax]

But you're just wrong, because he had to have been using those as an actual justification for his post to even be meaningful. If those were, in fact, made up without any reference to reality, then his post was useless, so it is not the case that we "aren't smart enough" to get it, because he wouldn't even be making a point, so there would be nothing to get.

EXACTLY GENIUS.
In other words, ignore the ignoramus, and move on!!! It's not that difficult people! Instead, you allow yourselves to be trolled by arguing against someone who's not interested in winning the argument anyway, which means you automatically lose AND are made to look foolish. SO IGNORE AND MOVE ON!!

Again, welcome to the internet, hope you learn to enjoy your time here.

You still don't understand it. He wasn't trolling us. He was either making a joke (unlikely), or he actually believed those "facts." The only alternative is that he was making up examples to validate the analogy, but we can reject that hypothesis because he gave six specific examples, which just makes no sense if all he was trying to do was explain the simple idea that a state could vote for someone from a party they don't normally learn toward. That's why I asked if it was a joke, because if it's not, it means he actually believes the statements he listed, which are factually incorrect.

[hecter]

Holy crap, you people are dense. Let's spell this out for you...

First, somebody makes a post: Do states normally vote for a candidate if he is from there?

Then bedub steps in with what is actual a valid point (after a few posts): That it doesn't matter if states normally vote for a candidate if he is from there. But, rather, what is important, is the change in voting patterns. He then provides an analogy (not an example, you guys are getting them confused) to illustrate his point. In a nutshell, it said "If a state normally votes for party A, would they vote for a candidate that is from there even if he's a member of party B."

Lastly, you guys go and make a bunch of stupid posts about how his facts are all wrong.

[Metsfanmax]

Holy crap, you people are dense. Let's spell this out for you...

First, somebody makes a post: Do states normally vote for a candidate if he is from there?

Then bedub steps in with what is actual a valid point (after a few posts): That it doesn't matter if states normally vote for a candidate if he is from there. But, rather, what is important, is the change in voting patterns. He then provides an analogy (not an example, you guys are getting them confused) to illustrate his point. In a nutshell, it said "If a state normally votes for party A, would they vote for a candidate that is from there even if he's a member of party B."

Lastly, you guys go and make a bunch of stupid posts about how his facts are all wrong.

What is confusing is that bedub seemingly answered his own question by providing examples of when this did actually happen, but these examples were simply factually incorrect. Also, what you are calling an "analogy" is not, in fact, an analogy, since it is directly answering the question at hand without making reference to some other type of situation.

[jonesthecurl]

i hated how they thought they were changing histroy

to bad now they will "get the idea" that black people screw up countrys"lol's"

Congratulations for totally derailing your own thread.

[jonesthecurl]

Oh, and I believe that the State of Kenya did in fact vote overwhelmingly for Obama, except perhaps for the Masai.

[bedub1]

Holy crap, you people are dense. Let's spell this out for you...

First, somebody makes a post: Do states normally vote for a candidate if he is from there?

Then bedub steps in with what is actual a valid point (after a few posts): That it doesn't matter if states normally vote for a candidate if he is from there. But, rather, what is important, is the change in voting patterns. He then provides an analogy (not an example, you guys are getting them confused) to illustrate his point. In a nutshell, it said "If a state normally votes for party A, would they vote for a candidate that is from there even if he's a member of party B."

Lastly, you guys go and make a bunch of stupid posts about how his facts are all wrong.

Hecter, I'm glad you are smart enough to understand this. I've always thought you were of the highest intelligence level with excellent reasoning/comprehension skills, and now you have proven it again.

Of course the statements I made weren't correct. They weren't meant to be correct. They were to show exactly what you just said above using party A and party B. Or, the other statement I made, where it would be more relevant if Obama was a Republican and 95% of blacks voted for him even though he was republican, when blacks typically vote democrat. Thus the delta, or change in vote, is whats important.

[Baron Von PWN]

I think there have been 56 Presidential elections in the US so far (At least that's what Wikipedia says) and according to the list bedub linked to, a presidential candidate has lost the state where they were born 33 times and their state of residence 25 times.

Those numbers suggest there's no home bonus.

Doesn't that suggest a slight advantage in the resident state? seeing as more times than not Presidential candidates have won their resident states.

[john9blue]

Keep in mind that candidates are more likely to come from a state that already supports their party (because they were probably a senator, governor, etc. before running), so we should only look at the cases where states that normally voted against that party decided to vote for that party because of the candidate.

[bedub1]

Keep in mind that candidates are more likely to come from a state that already supports their party (because they were probably a senator, governor, etc. before running), so we should only look at the cases where states that normally voted against that party decided to vote for that party because of the candidate.

The DELTA!!!

[PLAYER57832]

Keep in mind that candidates are more likely to come from a state that already supports their party (because they were probably a senator, governor, etc. before running), so we should only look at the cases where states that normally voted against that party decided to vote for that party because of the candidate.

This is part of what I was saying earlier.
A person doesn't become a candidate for president unless they already have power, and that power almost always comes from within their own state before they move out to the national level. The exceptions are pretty few, and cases where someone has either tried to side-step that process (Gore, coming back to Tennessee after being "just national" for so long) or where the power base was pretty spread out to begin. Nixon is perhaps an example of that. To contrast, Reagan definitely garnered a lot of fairly liberal votes from CA, as much as anything because "the devil we knew was better than the one we did not". (and I was not being facetious when I said Reagan would be called a liberal if he ran today -- though, in truth, he was too much the politician not to have "swayed" with the tide).

[bedub1]

Keep in mind that candidates are more likely to come from a state that already supports their party (because they were probably a senator, governor, etc. before running), so we should only look at the cases where states that normally voted against that party decided to vote for that party because of the candidate.

This is part of what I was saying earlier.
A person doesn't become a candidate for president unless they already have power, and that power almost always comes from within their own state before they move out to the national level. The exceptions are pretty few, and cases where someone has either tried to side-step that process (Gore, coming back to Tennessee after being "just national" for so long) or where the power base was pretty spread out to begin. Nixon is perhaps an example of that. To contrast, Reagan definitely garnered a lot of fairly liberal votes from CA, as much as anything because "the devil we knew was better than the one we did not". (and I was not being facetious when I said Reagan would be called a liberal if he ran today -- though, in truth, he was too much the politician not to have "swayed" with the tide).

What about Hillary Clinton and how she changed her Home State cause she wanted to go run in New York wasn't it? Do you think that is fair? Do you think her own home state would have elected her? Do you think it's okay for people to go state shopping until they find one that will elect them?