Successive/subsequent/coherent/consecutive state trends

[Space7]

I see that I, a Canadian, and you, a Scandinavian, are the ones doing the data crunching for the American trends.

Obviously though, the first chart shows a Democratic trend for states like Louisiana, which is sort of misleading because if you disregard what seemed to be an upset in 2012, Louisiana has a Republican consecutive trend of over R+20.

You know what would be useful? A weighted map of the State trends, so you would value the 2012 trend at 50% of the general trend, 2008 at 25%, 2004 at 12.5%, 200 at 6.25%, etc., or something like that. Then make a map of it. That would kind of be useful for negating upsets.

It would also be nice to find a way to measure state elasticity, because that is an annoying factor when trying to figure out where a state is trending.

For example, low elasticity states will remain more stable despite whoever is winning the election, and as a result they will appear to move towards their favored candidate in an election where their favored party lost, and move away from their favored candidate if that party won the election.

High-elasticity states are the opposite, they will move towards their favored party if their party won, and they will move away if it lost.

Good work though, it's funny how the northern Rockies are blue in the first map and red in the second.

[Space7]

You know what would be useful? A weighted map of the State trends, so you would value the 2012 trend at 50% of the general trend, 2008 at 25%, 2004 at 12.5%, 200 at 6.25%, etc., or something like that. Then make a map of it. That would kind of be useful for negating upsets.

Good idea actually, and so I did. Just tweaked your idea slightly, or rather the weighting of each election cycle. I decided to go back 20 years, starting with the 1992 election, since that was the year when several prominent political trends started, at least in the Appalachian region. Since then we've had 5 cycles. My weighting goes like this:

1992-1996: 1 weight
1996-2000: 2 weights (double the significance)
2000-2004: 3 weights (triple the significance)
2004-2008: 4 weights (quadruple the significance)
2008-2012: 5 weights

Finally adding them all together and then divide by 3 (since there are 15 weights added - meaning that the most recent cycle adds 33% to the total - and 5 cycles [15:5=3]).

So here is my Ultimate Trendline List of all 50 states + D.C. (1992-2012):

Now let's create a trend map based on the groupings above. Meaning the following:

0-2%: Partisan trend of 30%
2-5%: Partisan trend of 40%
5-8%: Partisan trend of 50%
8-12%: Partisan trend of 60%
12-20%: Partisan trend of 70%
20-30%: Partisan trend of 80%
Above 30%: Partisan trend of 90%

And here is the Ultimate Trend Map (1992-2012):

This gives us a trend map of 329-209 EVs, favoring Democrats.

We see that more states are trending Democratic (29) than Republican (22). Yet those which are trending Republican, are trending much harder than the average trend for Democratic-leaning states.

How many of these states are likely to change partisan trends over the next election or two? I would say at least three; Texas, Arizona and Georgia. Probably Massachusetts too, although that is not certain. A few of those which right now are slightly trending Democratic might also turn around; Ohio, Nebraska, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Mississippi, maybe Iowa.

Excellent map!

Almost deserves a thread to itself.

This map would probably be cause for worry for the Republicans, even if some trends turn around. The only thing on the map which might concern the Democrats is Pennsylvania.

A bunch of weak Democratic trends in important swing states (Florida, Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, and North Carolina) is infinitely more useful than a couple extremely strong trends in safe states (e.g. Kentucky, Tennessee). You'd think more Republicans would support Proportional Representation, judging by the way things are going here.

[Space7]

Yes, it seems states are settling into place. They are less volatile than they were 20 or so years ago. Not many states seem to cross over ground zero any more.

An interesting point, your list shows Minnesota and Wisconsin in the same place in 2016. Funny, because far more people are paying attention to Wisconsin than Minnesota.

We continue to see where the Democrat's advantage comes from: the massive swath of weak Democratic states, which the Republicans, on the other side, severely lack (they only have Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina).

Just a small mistake. In the map you have put Vermont as a super strong Republican state, rather than a Democratic one.