Gallup State of the States 2012 vs 2008: Partisanship & Ideological Affiliation

[eric82oslo]

By an error, I managed to erase the initial post.

Maybe I'll have time to "get it back" in a day or two. :/

[eric82oslo]

Here are the numbers by state of the electorate calling themselves conservatives in 2012:

1. Alabama 50.6
2. Wyoming 48.6
3. North Dakota 48.6
4. Mississippi 48.2
5. Utah 48.0
6. Oklahoma 47.3
7. Idaho 47.1
8. Louisiana 45.6
9. Nebraska 45.3
10. Arkansas 45.3
11. Tennessee 44.2
12. West Virginia 43.9
13. Georgia 43.8
14. South Carolina 43.7
15. Montana 43.6
16. Indiana 43.4
17. Texas 42.6
18. Kansas 41.7
19. South Dakota 41.6
20. Missouri 41.5
21. North Carolina 41.2
22. Kentucky 41.0
23. Wisconsin 40.6
24. Iowa 40.3
25. Arizona 39.4
26. Colorado 39.2
27. Florida 38.8
28. Virginia 38.8
29. New Mexico 38.8

National average: 38.4%

30. Pennsylvania 38.1
31. Ohio 37.7
32. Alaska 37.4
33. Nevada 37.1
34. New Hampshire 36.4
35. Maine 36.3
36. Minnesota 35.7
37. Michigan 35.7
38. Illinois 35.1
39. Delaware 34.7
40. California 33.2
41. Oregon 33.0
42. Washington 32.9
43. Maryland 32.1
44. New Jersey 32.0
45. Hawaii 31.9
46. New York 31.7
47. Vermont 31.0
48. Connecticut 30.2
49. Massachusetts 28.3
50. Rhode Island 27.8
51. District of Columbia 20.5


And now the increase between 2008 and 2012 in the number of voters calling themselves conservative, by state:

1. Washington D.C +11.8% (that's way more than a doubling, insane, isn't it?!)
2. West Virginia +8.9% (that's a steep increase in 4 years only!)
3. North Dakota +7.5%
4. Louisiana +6.5%
5. Wisconsin +6.1%
6. Alabama +5.9%
7. Iowa +5.9%
8. Hawaii +5.7%
9. Indiana +5.5%
10. Vermont +4.8%
11. Mississippi +4.2%
12. Rhode Island +4.0%
13. Missouri +3.6%
14. Tennessee +3.5%
15. Illinois +3.5%
16. Montana +3.1%
17. Kentucky +2.9%
18. North Carolina +2.7%
19. Ohio +2.7%
20. New Mexico +2.7%
21. Maine +2.6%
22. Georgia +2.0%
23. Massachusetts +2.0%
24. Delaware +1.9%
25. Michigan +1.7%
26. Texas +1.6%
27. New York +1.5%

National average: +1.2%

28. Colorado +1.0%
29. Pennsylvania +1.0%
30. California +0.4%
31. South Carolina +0.3%
32. Virginia +0.3%
33. New Hampshire +0.3%
34. Maryland +0.2%
35. Minnesota: No change
36. Florida -0.2%
37. Connecticut -0.2%
38. Nevada -0.7%
39. Washington -1.2%
40. Arkansas -1.3%
41. Kansas -1.7%
42. Nebraska -2.0%
43. New Jersey -2.1%
44. Oregon -2.2%
45. South Dakota -2.4%
46. Idaho -2.8%
47. Arizona -3.8%
48. Oklahoma -5.4%
49. Wyoming -5.9%
50. Utah -7.1%
51. Alaska -9.8%

Only 16 states became less conservative between 2008 and 2012, while a whole 34 states became more conservative. Or that is at least what the voters thought of themselves. However, most polls have shown that voters in general have become a lot more liberal in this 4 year period, especially on social issues like gay marriage and cannabis legalization. It's truely interesting to see that among the 16 states becoming less conservative, we find no less than 11 traditionally Republican states, including the five most conservative states by far in 2008: Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska and Alaska! At the same time, almost all of the most liberal states (or actually the least conservative), became more conservative by 2012. In other words we're seeing a smoothing out of classical differences in America, the so-called red/blue divide: The conservative states (at least most of them, although some, like Alabama, Mississippi, North Dakota and West Virginia, are going in the opposite direction) are becoming less so, while the traditionally liberal states are becoming more conservative.

The difference between the most conservative state - Utah - and Washington D.C. was a jaw dropping 46.4 percentage points in 2008. By 2012, the difference between the two states had been reduced to only 27.5 percentage points. What an enormous difference four years can make!

The seven states witnessing the biggest drop off of conservative voters were all Republican states, including the possible battleground state of 2016, Arizona.

Comments?

[Nichlemn]

VT and MA being among the top ten states in losing Democratic support is unexpected.

[Non Swing Voter]

Kentucky is more democratic than Virginia or Nevada???

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

It is, but it appears Republican due to the national Democratic Party being far to the left of Kentucky Democrats. That's how you end up seeing Democratic domination in the legislatures and a Democratic governor while sending two Republican senators, five Republican representatives and only one Democratic representative to Washington. This same is true with West Virginia, a more extreme case of separation between the state and national Democratic parties.
Both states are moving to the right fast though, the gap between state and national lessening.

[barfbag]

Kentucky is more democratic than Virginia or Nevada???

Only in numbers. When you look at real votes, then you'll see the real story. Numbers lie and it's as simple as that.

[ElectionsGuy]

Kentucky is more democratic than Virginia or Nevada???

Only in numbers. When you look at real votes, then you'll see the real story. Numbers lie and it's as simple as that.

No, its actually the fact that many democrats in Kentucky vote republican. Numbers don't lie.

[barfbag]

Kentucky is more democratic than Virginia or Nevada???

Only in numbers. When you look at real votes, then you'll see the real story. Numbers lie and it's as simple as that.

No, its actually the fact that many democrats in Kentucky vote republican. Numbers don't lie.

It depends on what you're looking for. For example, Kentucky has more Democrats than Virginia, therefore it should vote more in favor of the Democrats than Virginia. However, this is wrong. You're missing what I'm saying. I'm saying that numbers can be used to say paint pictures that aren't there.

[ElectionsGuy]

Kentucky is more democratic than Virginia or Nevada???

Only in numbers. When you look at real votes, then you'll see the real story. Numbers lie and it's as simple as that.

No, its actually the fact that many democrats in Kentucky vote republican. Numbers don't lie.

It depends on what you're looking for. For example, Kentucky has more Democrats than Virginia, therefore it should vote more in favor of the Democrats than Virginia. However, this is wrong. You're missing what I'm saying. I'm saying that numbers can be used to say paint pictures that aren't there.

Yes, that is true.

(Example of numbers painting pictures of deceptions): Virginia went 53% for Obama in 2008, while Kentucky went 57% for McCain. But Kentucky has more democrats than Virginia.

(Example of numbers not lying):

Kentucky

Democrat (47%): 69% Obama, 30% McCain
Republican (38%): 90% McCain, 10% Obama
Independent (15%): 58% McCain, 38% Obama

Virginia

Democrat (39%): 92% Obama, 8% McCain
Republican (33%): 92% McCain, 8% Obama
Independent (27%): 49% Obama, 48% McCain

The reason McCain won Kentucky and not Virginia is

1. McCain won lots of Kentucky Democrats
2. McCain won independents very efficiently in Kentucky
3. Virginia independents didn't go hard enough for McCain.

[eric82oslo]

Now, as I said, I would make a calculation of how each state will vote in 2016 if the rapid changes in partisanship between 2008 and 2012 continue at the same speed for four more years. So in that, imaginative and not too realistic case (for once because we will have two completely different candidates, with another two completely different vice presidential candidates, and we all know that Obama and Clinton appeal to wildly different segments of voters as well as to different states/regions), the outcome of the 2016 election could be something like this (PS: This is considering an outcome that is close to the Democratic victory in 2012, thus Democrats winning with close to 4%, not too unlike early polls in fact, although they show Hillary with an even bigger lead than that, ranging from 6%, on Christie, and up):

Washington D.C.: Clinton by 81.0%
Hawaii: Clinton by 41.6%
New York: Clinton by 33.0%
Maryland: Clinton by 31.6%
Vermont: Clinton by 28.5%
California: Clinton by 27.3%
Rhode Island: Clinton by 22.8%
New Jersey: Clinton by 20.5% (this outcome is of course not likely if Christie i fact will be the nominee)
Delaware: Clinton by 20.0%
Illinois: Clinton by 18.1%
Massachusetts: Clinton by 17.8%
Connecticut: Clinton by 16.7%
Washington: Clinton by 16.6%
Michigan: Clinton by 13.5%
Maine: Clinton by 12.8%
Minnesota: Clinton by 12.6%
New Mexico: Clinton by 12.1%
Oregon: Clinton by 11.2%
Florida: Clinton by 5.0%
Pennsylvania: Clinton by 4.5%
Virginia: Clinton by 2.2%
Nevada: Clinton by 2.1%
Wisconsin: Clinton by 1.9%
New Hampshire: Clinton by 1.5%
Colorado: Clinton by 1.0%
Iowa: Clinton by 0.7%

Ohio: Christie by 0.5%
North Carolina: Christie by 1.1%
Arizona: Christie by 3.5%
Alaska: Christie by 6.9%
Georgia: Christie by 7.5%
Mississippi: Christie by 9.1%
South Carolina: Christie by 9.3%
Texas: Christie by 13.9%
Indiana: Christie by 15.1%
Missouri: Christie by 15.2%
South Dakota: Christie by 15.5%
Louisiana: Christie by 19.2%
Tennessee: Christie by 21.5%
Montana: Christie by 22.2%
Nebraska: Christie by 23.4%
Kentucky: Christie by 26.0%
Kansas: Christie by 27.3%
Alabama: Christie by 27.3%
Arkansas: Christie by 28.9% (not very realistic with Hillary as the nominee)
North Dakota: Christie by 30.1%
West Virginia: Christie by 34.3%
Idaho: Christie by 35.5%
Oklahoma: Christie by 40.3%
Wyoming: Christie by 42.0%
Utah: Christie by 53.3% (with Mormon-Romney out of the ticket, Utah will almost certainly be closer than this)

Comments? Personally I think that some of these state projections are highly realistic, while others are not. I think that the Appalachian region will be closer than what is shown above, as will Utah and Texas. At the same time, I doubt that Hillary will be able to win Hawaii, New Jersey, Illinois and Minnesota by such huge margins.

Now, if this "map" above were to come true, it would be an extremely close election as the number of really close states would skyrocket from 2012. Both Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Nevada, Virginia, Arizona and perhaps even Pennsylvania would be true nailbiters. Do you find this likely? Early polls have in fact shown all of these states except Pennsylvania to be really close in match ups between Hillary and Christie. As is indicated above, Florida doesn't look to be close this time around at all. Polls at the moment show Hillary winning the state by anywhere from 9% and above, depending on the opponent.

[barfbag]

Now, as I said, I would make a calculation of how each state will vote in 2016 if the rapid changes in partisanship between 2008 and 2012 continue at the same speed for four more years. So in that, imaginative and not too realistic case (for once because we will have two completely different candidates, with another two completely different vice presidential candidates, and we all know that Obama and Clinton appeal to wildly different segments of voters as well as to different states/regions), the outcome of the 2016 election could be something like this (PS: This is considering an outcome that is close to the Democratic victory in 2012, thus Democrats winning with close to 4%, not too unlike early polls in fact, although they show Hillary with an even bigger lead than that, ranging from 6%, on Christie, and up):

Washington D.C.: Clinton by 81.0%
Hawaii: Clinton by 41.6%
New York: Clinton by 33.0%
Maryland: Clinton by 31.6%
Vermont: Clinton by 28.5%
California: Clinton by 27.3%
Rhode Island: Clinton by 22.8%
New Jersey: Clinton by 20.5% (this outcome is of course not likely if Christie i fact will be the nominee)
Delaware: Clinton by 20.0%
Illinois: Clinton by 18.1%
Massachusetts: Clinton by 17.8%
Connecticut: Clinton by 16.7%
Washington: Clinton by 16.6%
Michigan: Clinton by 13.5%
Maine: Clinton by 12.8%
Minnesota: Clinton by 12.6%
New Mexico: Clinton by 12.1%
Oregon: Clinton by 11.2%
Florida: Clinton by 5.0%
Pennsylvania: Clinton by 4.5%
Virginia: Clinton by 2.2%
Nevada: Clinton by 2.1%
Wisconsin: Clinton by 1.9%
New Hampshire: Clinton by 1.5%
Colorado: Clinton by 1.0%
Iowa: Clinton by 0.7%

Ohio: Christie by 0.5%
North Carolina: Christie by 1.1%
Arizona: Christie by 3.5%
Alaska: Christie by 6.9%
Georgia: Christie by 7.5%
Mississippi: Christie by 9.1%
South Carolina: Christie by 9.3%
Texas: Christie by 13.9%
Indiana: Christie by 15.1%
Missouri: Christie by 15.2%
South Dakota: Christie by 15.5%
Louisiana: Christie by 19.2%
Tennessee: Christie by 21.5%
Montana: Christie by 22.2%
Nebraska: Christie by 23.4%
Kentucky: Christie by 26.0%
Kansas: Christie by 27.3%
Alabama: Christie by 27.3%
Arkansas: Christie by 28.9% (not very realistic with Hillary as the nominee)
North Dakota: Christie by 30.1%
West Virginia: Christie by 34.3%
Idaho: Christie by 35.5%
Oklahoma: Christie by 40.3%
Wyoming: Christie by 42.0%
Utah: Christie by 53.3% (with Mormon-Romney out of the ticket, Utah will almost certainly be closer than this)

Comments? Personally I think that some of these state projections are highly realistic, while others are not. I think that the Appalachian region will be closer than what is shown above, as will Utah and Texas. At the same time, I doubt that Hillary will be able to win Hawaii, New Jersey, Illinois and Minnesota by such huge margins.

Now, if this "map" above were to come true, it would be an extremely close election as the number of really close states would skyrocket from 2012. Both Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Nevada, Virginia, Arizona and perhaps even Pennsylvania would be true nailbiters. Do you find this likely? Early polls have in fact shown all of these states except Pennsylvania to be really close in match ups between Hillary and Christie. As is indicated above, Florida doesn't look to be close this time around at all. Polls at the moment show Hillary winning the state by anywhere from 9% and above, depending on the opponent.

You're making predictions on such data? There's only one poll that matters and it's called Election Day.

[opebo]

Comments?

Looks absolutely realistic:

[eric82oslo]

You're making predictions on such data? There's only one poll that matters and it's called Election Day.

I'm not making any predictions. Projections and predictions are two very different things. Projections are based on numbers, while predictions is based on your personal thought, assumptions, feelings you name it. I'm sure I already noted that this was not likely to be a very assertive projection, for several reasons, the most important being that all four major candidates will be completely new compared to 2012. If you can't read, perhaps you should consider going back to school. Nowhere did I state that I was making predictions. I'm no number genius like Nate Silver and three years prior contains way too much sand with the potential of slipping into the ocean.

[barfbag]

You're making predictions on such data? There's only one poll that matters and it's called Election Day.

I'm not making any predictions. Projections and predictions are two very different things. Projections are based on numbers, while predictions is based on your personal thought, assumptions, feelings you name it. I'm sure I already noted that this was not likely to be a very assertive projection, for several reasons, the most important being that all four major candidates will be completely new compared to 2012. If you can't read, perhaps you should consider going back to school. Nowhere did I state that I was making predictions. I'm no number genius like Nate Silver and three years prior contains way too much sand with the potential of slipping into the ocean.

You couldn't be more right. I agree fully! Remember how well Clinton was expected to do in 2008.

[Flake]

Kentucky is more democratic than Virginia or Nevada???

Only in numbers. When you look at real votes, then you'll see the real story. Numbers lie and it's as simple as that.

No, its actually the fact that many democrats in Kentucky vote republican. Numbers don't lie.

It depends on what you're looking for. For example, Kentucky has more Democrats than Virginia, therefore it should vote more in favor of the Democrats than Virginia. However, this is wrong. You're missing what I'm saying. I'm saying that numbers can be used to say paint pictures that aren't there.

This is my hypothesis about Kentucky.

There are more registered Democrats in the state than Republicans and by a really large margin (54 to 38%% I believe), but because the national party has moved so far to the left of the average Democrat, they vote Republican in elections that are for federal offices, but the Kentucky Democratic Party is much farther to the right than the national Democratic Party. So, they obviously win more seats in local elections. Hence the reason for the Democratic Party controlling the legislature in Kentucky and most of the statewide offices.

[hopper]

Here are the numbers by state of the electorate calling themselves conservatives in 2012:

1. Alabama 50.6
2. Wyoming 48.6
3. North Dakota 48.6
4. Mississippi 48.2
5. Utah 48.0
6. Oklahoma 47.3
7. Idaho 47.1
8. Louisiana 45.6
9. Nebraska 45.3
10. Arkansas 45.3
11. Tennessee 44.2
12. West Virginia 43.9
13. Georgia 43.8
14. South Carolina 43.7
15. Montana 43.6
16. Indiana 43.4
17. Texas 42.6
18. Kansas 41.7
19. South Dakota 41.6
20. Missouri 41.5
21. North Carolina 41.2
22. Kentucky 41.0
23. Wisconsin 40.6
24. Iowa 40.3
25. Arizona 39.4
26. Colorado 39.2
27. Florida 38.8
28. Virginia 38.8
29. New Mexico 38.8

National average: 38.4%

30. Pennsylvania 38.1
31. Ohio 37.7
32. Alaska 37.4
33. Nevada 37.1
34. New Hampshire 36.4
35. Maine 36.3
36. Minnesota 35.7
37. Michigan 35.7
38. Illinois 35.1
39. Delaware 34.7
40. California 33.2
41. Oregon 33.0
42. Washington 32.9
43. Maryland 32.1
44. New Jersey 32.0
45. Hawaii 31.9
46. New York 31.7
47. Vermont 31.0
48. Connecticut 30.2
49. Massachusetts 28.3
50. Rhode Island 27.8
51. District of Columbia 20.5


And now the increase between 2008 and 2012 in the number of voters calling themselves conservative, by state:

1. Washington D.C +11.8% (that's way more than a doubling, insane, isn't it?!)
2. West Virginia +8.9% (that's a steep increase in 4 years only!)
3. North Dakota +7.5%
4. Louisiana +6.5%
5. Wisconsin +6.1%
6. Alabama +5.9%
7. Iowa +5.9%
8. Hawaii +5.7%
9. Indiana +5.5%
10. Vermont +4.8%
11. Mississippi +4.2%
12. Rhode Island +4.0%
13. Missouri +3.6%
14. Tennessee +3.5%
15. Illinois +3.5%
16. Montana +3.1%
17. Kentucky +2.9%
18. North Carolina +2.7%
19. Ohio +2.7%
20. New Mexico +2.7%
21. Maine +2.6%
22. Georgia +2.0%
23. Massachusetts +2.0%
24. Delaware +1.9%
25. Michigan +1.7%
26. Texas +1.6%
27. New York +1.5%

National average: +1.2%

28. Colorado +1.0%
29. Pennsylvania +1.0%
30. California +0.4%
31. South Carolina +0.3%
32. Virginia +0.3%
33. New Hampshire +0.3%
34. Maryland +0.2%
35. Minnesota: No change
36. Florida -0.2%
37. Connecticut -0.2%
38. Nevada -0.7%
39. Washington -1.2%
40. Arkansas -1.3%
41. Kansas -1.7%
42. Nebraska -2.0%
43. New Jersey -2.1%
44. Oregon -2.2%
45. South Dakota -2.4%
46. Idaho -2.8%
47. Arizona -3.8%
48. Oklahoma -5.4%
49. Wyoming -5.9%
50. Utah -7.1%
51. Alaska -9.8%

Only 16 states became less conservative between 2008 and 2012, while a whole 34 states became more conservative. Or that is at least what the voters thought of themselves. However, most polls have shown that voters in general have become a lot more liberal in this 4 year period, especially on social issues like gay marriage and cannabis legalization. It's truely interesting to see that among the 16 states becoming less conservative, we find no less than 11 traditionally Republican states, including the five most conservative states by far in 2008: Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska and Alaska! At the same time, almost all of the most liberal states (or actually the least conservative), became more conservative by 2012. In other words we're seeing a smoothing out of classical differences in America, the so-called red/blue divide: The conservative states (at least most of them, although some, like Alabama, Mississippi, North Dakota and West Virginia, are going in the opposite direction) are becoming less so, while the traditionally liberal states are becoming more conservative.
The difference between the most conservative state - Utah - and Washington D.C. was a jaw dropping 46.4 percentage points in 2008. By 2012, the difference between the two states had been reduced to only 27.5 percentage points. What an enormous difference four years can make!

The seven states witnessing the biggest drop off of conservative voters were all Republican states, including the possible battleground state of 2016, Arizona.

Comments?

Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and South Dakota did trend towards the Republicans in 2012. Alaska and Oklahoma did trend towards the Dems in 2012 so you have a point there.

As for Arizona being a battleground in 2016 its fools gold for the Dems unless Ted Cruz is the Republican Nominee. Its the same thing that  Minnesota has been for Republicans for years.

It is interesting to see as you say a smoothing out of classic political differences in America(except for 4 states) with the blue stare/red state divide and considering the partisan polarization factor in politics nowadays.

Its interesting to see Pennsylvania have the same exact number of conservatives (almost) as the nation as a whole considering the Obama-Romney popular vote was pretty close to PA's average popular vote in the last election.