voting patterns in each state since 1984

[justfollowingtheelections]

I made a map with the voting patterns in each state since 1984.  The colors indicate:

90% Has voted for this party since 1984
80% Has voted for this party since 1988
70% Has voted for this party since 1992
60% Has voted for this party since 1996
50% Has voted for this party since 2000
40% Has voted for this party since 2004
30% Voted for this party in 2008, but voted for the other party in 2004
What was most interesting was that Alaska, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma have been voting Republican since 1968.  Can someone attempt to explain this?

[Meeker]

What was most interesting was that Alaska, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma have been voting Republican since 1968.  Can someone attempt to explain this?

Rural, Western hinterlands and Mormons have been reliably Republican since 1968 (with obvious exceptions).

[justfollowingtheelections]

What was most interesting was that Alaska, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma have been voting Republican since 1968.  Can someone attempt to explain this?

Rural, Western hinterlands and Mormons have been reliably Republican since 1968 (with obvious exceptions).

But why?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Because Republican states are less likely to go Democrat than Democratic states are to go Republican.

For example, in the past ten elections (1968 to 2004 inclusively), not one state voted Democrat all ten times, but eleven states voted Republican all ten times (Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming).

[justfollowingtheelections]

No my question is why are those particular states always voting republicans.  What are the specific characteristics of those states that make them choose that party instead of the other one.

[Smash255]

No my question is why are those particular states always voting republicans.  What are the specific characteristics of those states that make them choose that party instead of the other one.

They are generally conservative states.

[muon2]

No my question is why are those particular states always voting republicans.  What are the specific characteristics of those states that make them choose that party instead of the other one.

The Great Plains have a long history of Republicanism. Kansas was the site of battles over slavery years before the Civil War. Free-staters eventually won and that led to early Republican dominance. The plains were also socially quite conservative from the time of their settlement. Prohibition began on the Plains in the 1880's, and none of the states from the Dakotas to Oklahoma ever ratified the repeal amendment. That social conservatism on the Plains has remained to this day.

In presidential voting, the Republican trend goes back to statehood for ND, SD, NE and KS. The first non-GOP electoral votes were by ND and KS in 1892 for Populist candidate Weaver (Cleveland wasn't on their ballots!) All but ND voted for Byran in 1896, but he largely ran as a Populist and prohibitionist and still got no more than 51% in any of those states. From 1900-1908 they were back to the GOP except for NE in 1908 again for Byran. 1912 was a split election with Wilson winning all but SD on the split vote between TR and Taft, and he got the same three in 1916. The states returned to the GOP in 1920 and only crossed over for FDRs sweeps in 1932 and 1936. All four voted against FDR in 1940 and 1944. Since 1936, only in 1964 did any of the four Plains states vote for a Democrat.

[hcallega]

Basically there are three trends going on in the western states:

• Social Conservatism: WASPS and Mormons, as well as a lack of diversity in lifestyles and an emphasis on god and self-reliance
• Low Poverty: Thus no mandate for big government programs
• Progressive/Populist vs. Conservative/Libertarian: A Dynamic that plays out quite often. Someone like Truman did well out west, whereas someone like Clinton struggled. Bush and McCain also fit well as conservatives and somewhat as populists. If you look at the congressional makeup you see this too.
  

[Husker]

The Plains states aren't as monolithic as you might think. The western parts of the plains states have cultural similarities from north to south (not accents) but the eastern parts of the Plains states tend to be more like states to their east. For example, eastern Nebraska is very similar to Iowa and rural central and northern IL.  Eastern OK and east TX tend to be pretty southern. In other words, Minot and Amarillo won't have vast differences in culture but Fargo and Texarkana might as well be on different planets. There is potential for democrats to do better in the eastern part of the northern plains states (ND, SD, NE) and we do elect moderate democrats to the Senate. I do attribute some of the lack of democratic success at the presidential level in these areas to the democratic party essentially ignoring us. Obama is the first presidential democrat in four decades to acknowledge that Nebraska exists and guess what, he won an EV here!

Also, and this is big, the lack of labor unions in the Plains compared to points further east contributes to the republican domination. This pro-union/anti-union line is around I-35. East of here, unions are common and it is beneficial for candidates to be pro-union. West of here it is the opposite. As you get into the western part of the plains states, ranching becomes dominant and a democrat should be happy to get a quarter of the vote in many of these counties. Also, the plains states are much more thinly populated than states to the east. Yes, many of our counties were 60, 70, and 80% for McCain. But, when you have 500-1500 votes cast in a county, that percentage really isn't that impressive in the grand scheme of things.

Finally, the long history of the republican party in states KS, NE, and the Dakotas contributes to GOP domination. As someone pointed out earlier, FDR lost all of these states in the 1940's. Actually Obama outperformed FDR '44 in all of these states. OK and TX were strongly democratic back then but switched once oil men and then southern baptists became republican. Actually northern OK was republican in the 1940's as well, as the wheat farmers have long been republican.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Interesting analyses guys.  Thanks.  It's pretty obvious why the South with its long history of racial tension turned Republican after the Civil Rights Act was implemented, but I never understood why the West did after voting for Johnson in '64.  Your comments answered many of my questions.

[anvi]

Husker's analysis is right on.  I'm a native North Dakotan, and the eastern and western parts of North Dakota embody a political divide as Husker describes, partly due to economic differences ("urban" vs. rural).   But it's also the case that North Dakotans vote moderate Democrats into the Senate and sometimes the House, largely because they find Democrats to be more proactive on ag policy.  But North Dakotans vote for Republicans for executive office because they feel Republicans better represent their social values there.  I was overjoyed, personally, to see that Obama took the plains states seriously and run active campaigns there(he visited Grand Forks twice over the summer).  I think he could have pulled in more than the 45% that he did had he visited NoDak university towns in the West like Bismarck and Dickinson.  Two October polls in North Dakota had the state statistically tied, but there were 11% that were undecided in both, and they seem to have broke almost entirely for McCain at the end.  I don't necessarily think the Dakotas are winnable for Democrats right now because pro-life preferences are very strong there (very large German and Norwegian Catholic polulations).  And a Democrat would have to spend lots of time and resources to win the Dakotas, which together carry only as many electoral votes as Kansas, so...

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Because Republican states are less likely to go Democrat than Democratic states are to go Republican.

For example, in the past ten elections (1968 to 2004 inclusively), not one state voted Democrat all ten times, but eleven states voted Republican all ten times (Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming).

Well, sure, but if you exclude 1972 and 1984...

[Husker]

Husker's analysis is right on.  I'm a native North Dakotan, and the eastern and western parts of North Dakota embody a political divide as Husker describes, partly due to economic differences ("urban" vs. rural).   But it's also the case that North Dakotans vote moderate Democrats into the Senate and sometimes the House, largely because they find Democrats to be more proactive on ag policy.  But North Dakotans vote for Republicans for executive office because they feel Republicans better represent their social values there.  I was overjoyed, personally, to see that Obama took the plains states seriously and run active campaigns there(he visited Grand Forks twice over the summer).  I think he could have pulled in more than the 45% that he did had he visited NoDak university towns in the West like Bismarck and Dickinson.  Two October polls in North Dakota had the state statistically tied, but there were 11% that were undecided in both, and they seem to have broke almost entirely for McCain at the end.  I don't necessarily think the Dakotas are winnable for Democrats right now because pro-life preferences are very strong there (very large German and Norwegian Catholic polulations).  And a Democrat would have to spend lots of time and resources to win the Dakotas, which together carry only as many electoral votes as Kansas, so...

Democrats seem like they have been able to do a little better in ND than in NE, probably because of a stronger Farm Labor presence. Pro-life sentiments are strong in parts of the rural Plains states but those sentiments are not unique to that area. Catholic and other religious voters in rural and blue-collar households nationwide tend to be pro-life but the pro-life vote can often be overruled by their job and economic circumstances. In places where labor unions and other traditionally democratic jobs are found, pro-life voters will still often vote for the democrat.. especially in a year like 2008. In places where labor unions or farm labor are non-existent, then pro-life voters tend to be more republican on economic issues, and hence the really high republican percentages in many of these rural Plains counties.

[pbrower2a]

I have a pattern beginning with 1992, which excludes the bungled campaign of Mike Dukakis:

In the five most recent Presidential elections, deep red indicates a State that has never voted for the Republican nominee for President; those in deep blue have never voted for the Democratic nominee. In 2008, all of the states in deep red voted for Obama by margins greater than 10%; most of the states in deep blue voted for McCain by similar margins (although the Dakotas went for McCain by about a 5% margin and South Carolina went for McCain by a large single-digit margin). With the arguable exceptions of the Dakotas and NE-01 (eastern Nebraska outside of greater Omaha but including Lincoln), none of these states or districts will be easy pick-ups for either Party.  If the Republicans pick up any state in Deep Red, then that almost certainly indicates an Obama loss.

Medium-red indicates a State that voted for the Democratic nominee for President four times and the Republican nominee once; medium blue indicates a state that went for the Republican nominee four times but  for the Democratic nominee once (but not by a 10%+ margin against Obama).  Note well that I make this distinction; what sort of candidate runs might be the distinction between a Democrat and a Republican winning.

Yellow indicates the states that voted three times for the Democrats -- and all three of these states voted "right" in the last five elections -- Colorado, Nevada, and Ohio.

Pale blue indicates states that voted twice for the Democratic nominee and three times for the Republican nominee, but not by a 10+% margin for John McCain.

I don't make a distinction between voting once for Bill Clinton or voting twice for Bill Clinton if the state voted 10% or more against Obama. That Arkansas and Tennessee voted twice for Clinton does not make that state likely to vote for Obama than that  Virginia and Indiana (or NE-02) voted once for Obama does not indicate that Arkansas or Tennessee are more likely  to vote for the Democratic nominee for President in 2012. That candidate is almost certain to be Obama. Missouri was close, and Arizona was close enough that it would have gone for Obama had anyone other than John McCain been the GOP presidential nominee (the Favorite Son effect is good for about ten points for someone well-known and respected in his own State. McCain carried Texas in 2009 by about 13% less than did Dubya in 2004, and even George McGovern did about ten points better in South Dakota than nationwide in his catastrophic 1972 campaign).

States in pale green can apparently vote for Democrats -- but only Southern moderate populists. Somehow Al Gore didn't qualify. Obama certainly doesn't. Of course, if Obama should win any one of the states in green, then such indicates that he has found a way in which to reach people in a sizable region of America and has probably had an exceptional first term as President. Obama is not a Southern moderate populist, and will never be. Northerners could vote for a Southern moderate populist in 1992 and 1996 but did not do so in 1976 or especially 1980. Southerners on the whole do not vote for Northern liberals. Maybe it's religion. (Note also that in 1976 many of the deep-red states voted for a northern moderate Republican, Gerald R. Ford. How times have changed!)

I pay little attention to blowout elections for indications of how states vote except in extremes. Blowouts indicate either an unusually effective or ineffective incumbent, a powerful challenger (Reagan 1980), or an inept campaign (Dukakis 1988). Such says more about the candidates than about the states. Should Obama win Alabama in 2012, then that will say less about Alabama than about Obama.

Let's remember that the last close election before 1980 was fairly close, and one can look at the states whose last votes for a Democratic presidential nominee was Jimmy Carter:

 

Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina all voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976. Was Carter in 1976 that much different from Bill Clinton in 1992? It is conceivable that the states in dark green could vote for a Democratic nominee -- so long as he is a Southern moderate populist. (note that in 1976 a bunch of states in Deep Red voted for Gerald Ford!) Obama does not fit the pattern of a Southern moderate populist, of course, and should he win any of these states (or those in light green) then that will say more about Obama's Presidency (that it will have been highly successful in convincing people through actions instead of campaign promises) that he is the right candidate).  One thing is certain: Obama will not be a Southern moderate populist in 2012.

It is possible, of course, that the "deep red" states would vote for a conservative Northerner with a populist streak -- like Ronald Reagan -- or a moderate Northern Republican (Lugar or Voinovich in their primes, maybe John Warner about twelve years ago) who is in a close election. But those sorts of Republicans are vanishing from the political scene or are too old to have a reasonable chance for winning. Maybe McCain (who isn't easy to tie to any region) would have picked off a few states from among the Deep Red in 2000 or 2004 -- but not after two terms of George W. Bush.

... Now what makes the Deep Red area on these maps so well defined? Karl Rove's "majority of a majority" practice, I believed, established a method of getting and (it was then perceived) holding power. The winning coalition would get a core of supporters who got the goodies, attached to itself people who would vote against their economic interests so long as they got promises of school prayer, an abortion ban, and creationism while the administration ramped up the patriotic rhetoric; the rest would be $crewed -- taxed but not served.  States unlikely to vote for a Rove-backed coalition would be cheated -- and their citizens did not forget. Over a couple of decades the Republicans might be forgiven in parts of the north... bit it will take a very strong Republican candidate to make Northerners forget  what "majority of a majority" means.   



   

 

[Nym90]

Not to sound overly critical, but you seem to be doing old maps off of memory; Clinton lost Colorado in 1996.

But yes, otherwise your analysis is spot on. Though I think when attempting to predict 2012, since Obama will be the nominee again, the 2008 results matter more than the 1992-2004 results.

[pbrower2a]

Not to sound overly critical, but you seem to be doing old maps off of memory; Clinton lost Colorado in 1996.

But yes, otherwise your analysis is spot on. Though I think when attempting to predict 2012, since Obama will be the nominee again, the 2008 results matter more than the 1992-2004 results.

I checked, and you are right.  At this time I am more handicapping than predicting the 2012 Presidential election. It is more relevant to a prediction of 2012 that Obama won Virginia by 6% or barely won Indiana and North Carolina than that Clinton never won either state, and of little relevance that Clinton won Arkansas and Tennessee twice if Obama is very different from Clinton and can't reach those states effectively. That may be very relevant in 2016 when the Democratic nominee for President won't be Barack Obama. Seat-of-the-pants predictions have some validity in some extreme cases: Vermont and Rhode Island aren't going to vote for any Republican nominee in 2012, and Utah isn't going to vote for any Democrat in 2012. Some Republican candidates will win some of the states that McCain won and lose others, and it will matter greatly whether Huckabee or Romney (as obvious examples) win the Republican nomination for President. Besides, nothing says that there won't be some third-party challenge that picks off some electoral votes from one or the other main party. 

Corrections noted:

I have a pattern beginning with 1992, which excludes the bungled campaign of Mike Dukakis:

In the five most recent Presidential elections, deep red indicates a State that has never voted for the Republican nominee for President; those in deep blue have never voted for the Democratic nominee. In 2008, all of the states in deep red voted for Obama by margins greater than 10%; most of the states in deep blue voted for McCain by similar margins (although the Dakotas went for McCain by about a 5% margin and South Carolina went for McCain by a large single-digit margin). With the arguable exceptions of the Dakotas and NE-01 (eastern Nebraska outside of greater Omaha but including Lincoln), none of these states or districts will be easy pick-ups for either Party.  If the Republicans pick up any state in Deep Red, then that almost certainly indicates an Obama loss.

Medium-red indicates a State that voted for the Democratic nominee for President four times and the Republican nominee once; medium blue indicates a state that went for the Republican nominee four times but  for the Democratic nominee once (but not by a 10%+ margin against Obama).  Note well that I make this distinction; what sort of candidate runs might be the distinction between a Democrat and a Republican winning.

Yellow indicates the states that voted three times for the Democrats -- and both of these states voted "right" in the last five elections -- Nevada and Ohio.

Pale blue indicates states that voted twice for the Democratic nominee and three times for the Republican nominee, but not by a 10+% margin for John McCain.

I don't make a distinction between voting once for Bill Clinton or voting twice for Bill Clinton if the state voted 10% or more against Obama. That Arkansas and Tennessee voted twice for Clinton does not make that state likely to vote for Obama than that  Virginia, North Carolina,  and Indiana (or NE-02) voted once for Obama does not indicate that Arkansas or Tennessee are more likely  to vote for the Democratic nominee for President in 2012 than, for example, Virginia. That candidate is almost certain to be Obama. Missouri was close, and Arizona was close enough that it would have gone for Obama had anyone other than John McCain been the GOP presidential nominee (the Favorite Son effect is good for about ten points for someone well-known and respected in his own State. McCain carried Texas in 2009 by about 13% less than did Dubya in 2004, and even George McGovern did about ten points better in South Dakota than nationwide in his catastrophic 1972 campaign).

States in pale green can apparently vote for Democrats -- but only Southern moderate populists. Somehow Al Gore didn't qualify. Obama certainly doesn't. Of course, if Obama should win any one of the states in green, then such indicates that he has found a way in which to reach people in a sizable region of America and has probably had an exceptional first term as President. Obama is not a Southern moderate populist, and will never be. Northerners could vote for a Southern moderate populist in 1992 and 1996 but did not do so in 1976 or especially 1980. Southerners on the whole do not vote for Northern liberals. Maybe it's religion. (Note also that in 1976 many of the deep-red states voted for a northern moderate Republican, Gerald R. Ford. How times have changed!)

I pay little attention to blowout elections for indications of how states vote except in extremes. Blowouts indicate either an unusually effective or ineffective incumbent, a powerful challenger (Reagan 1980), or an inept campaign (Dukakis 1988). Such says more about the candidates than about the states. Should Obama win Alabama in 2012, then that will say less about Alabama than about Obama.

Let's remember that the last close election before 1980 was fairly close, and one can look at the states whose last votes for a Democratic presidential nominee was Jimmy Carter:

 

Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina, and South Carolina all voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976. Was Carter in 1976 that much different from Bill Clinton in 1992? It is conceivable that the states in dark green could vote for a Democratic nominee -- so long as he is a Southern moderate populist. (Note that in 1976 a bunch of states in Deep Red voted for Gerald Ford!) Obama does not fit the pattern of a Southern moderate populist, of course, and should he win any of these states (or those in light green) then that will say more about Obama's Presidency (that it will have been highly successful in convincing people through actions instead of campaign promises) that he is the right candidate).  One thing is certain: Obama will not be a Southern moderate populist in 2012.

[pbrower2a]

OK: Here's my handicapping of the 2012 Presidential election. Assumptions: Obama's mental and physical health not compromised; no assassination; honest elections on schedule; no military coup; no nuclear war; no gigantic environmental catastrophe such as a supervolcano eruption, collision with a giant meteorite/asteroid, or nearby supernova eruption; event of Divine prophecy...

Deep reed: Obama 90+% chance of winning:

Obvious Democratic victories. No battleground states. Obama loses any of these only in an electoral catastrophe resulting from a catastrophic Presidency.


anything that Obama won by a margin of 12% or more except MI (Romney), MN (Pawlenty),  WI, NV, and NM. If Obama is behind in any of these states at any time in 2012 he is in deep trouble.

Medium red: Obama 60%-90% chance of winning:

anything that Obama won by 6% or more not colored in deep red:

MI, MN, WI, PA, IA, VA, NH, NM, NV, CO.

Potential battleground states, but not all of them at once.

Contingencies apply: economic distress (MI, PA), possible GOP Favorite Son (MN), potential for an ethanol crash (IA).



Pink: Obama 40-59% chance of winning :

FL, OH, NC, IN, NE-02 (bare Obama wins); MO, MT (bare Obama losses); AZ (McCain won't be the GOP nominee) Florida drops into a much lower category of chance if Charlie Crist is the GOP nominee for President.

I have placed the Dakotas and NE-01 in this group even if they have a slightly-lower chance of going for Obama because they are unlikely to go with those in light green. You will see why, and they comprise only seven electoral votes.   

Battlegrounds -- definitely, even in a close election.

Light green: Obama 20%-39% chance of winning.

It largely depends upon who the opponent is. Cultural affiliations matter greatly in Presidential elections. Any Obama pick-ups of these states suggests a landslide. Some could also go for third parties, mostly to the detriment of the GOP candidate. These states are all in the South or in Appalachia, and they are likely to move together.

Obama was absolutely crushed in these states in 2008; that may be irrelevant in 2012 should he succeed in getting economic benefits to people who voted against him because they thought he had terrorist ties or was a secret Muslim.

An Eisenhower-scale landslide happens if Obama reaches these states in 2012 as he didn't in 2008.

Blue: Obama 10-19% chance[/b]. Much must go wrong for the Republican candidate to lose any one of these states to Obama. Some could go third-party in some circumstances, and that is not to be ruled out. Even Alaska is in this category (in case some Republican candidate does something nasty to Sarah Palin, and Alaskans get angry)

Dark blue: Obama 0-9% chance of winning .

No way does Obama win any of these states or NE-03.  Getting these and only electoral votes will be the achievement of the 2012 equivalent of Alf Landon in 1936, George McGovern in 1972, or Walter Mondale in 1984.