Polarization in the Presidency: has it peaked?

[pbrower2a]

For all practical purposes, 140 electoral votes decided the 2008 Presidential election -- those states in gray and NE-02 (which voted very differently from its state).

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia  have not voted for any Republican nominee for President since at least 1988. In 2008 those states and the District of Columbia all gave Obama margins of victory in excess of 10%. Three states (Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) have voted only once (barely) for the Republican nominee for President in the last five Presidential elections, and in each of them Obama won by at least 9%.  Those states and Dee Cee accounted for 264 electoral votes in 2008.

Nine states (I exclude NE-02) with a combined 41 electoral votes haven't voted for any Democratic nominee for President since 1964; four with a combined 55 electoral votes haven't voted for any Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter in 1976 -- a very different political era. No Democrat had an appreciable chance in any of those states, which showed in some huge margins of McCain victories.

Partisan history little explains the states that Bill Clinton won in both 1992 and 1996 but Obama lost by huge margins. They comprised 39 electoral votes, and Obama came to an early recognition that he could not win them. Maybe he was the wrong Democrat to win those states. If 264 electoral votes were essentially off-limits for McCain (and his quixotic effort in Pennsylvania was a sure failure), 135 electoral votes seemed off limits to Obama.

The rest proved potential swing states. Two (Florida and Ohio) are the classic swing states that had decided close elections, including 2000 and 2004. One, Missouri, had voted "right" in every Presidential election since 1956 but in the end got this one wrong, barely.  Neither Indiana nor Virginia had voted for the Democratic  nominee since 1964, and NE-02 had never voted differently from Nebraska; North Carolina had not voted for a Democratic nominee for President since Carter in 1976. Arizona, Colorado, (and) Montana, and Nevada had voted for Clinton once... 

If I raise more questions than I answer with this introduction, then such is my intention. 

 (Note correction).

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Nevada voted for Clinton twice.

[DS0816]

Look at every state that has voted Democratic in two decades' worth of elections (1990s, 2000s). Adds up to 248 electoral votes (for Elections 2004 and 2008).

These states are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Don't forget District of Columbia.

Consider the following states: Calif., Conn., Ill., Me., Mich., N.Y., Ore., Pa., R.I., Vt., Wash., and Wis. (Vt. voted Republican in every election from 1856 to 1988, save for the uncommon 1964 dominance of winning Democrat and 36th president of the United States Lyndon Johnson over Republican challenger Barry Goldwater.)

What do they have in common?

43rd president of the United States George W. Bush became the first winning Republican with two terms never to have once carried any of these states.

You look at maps of the second half of the 1800s, as well as the first third of the 1900s, and the GOP used to rock these states' votes. (Dwight Eisenhower still had them in the 1950s!)

My take: Losing these states (sans R.I. but quite clear with, say, Vt.), via the election in 1992 of 42nd president of the United States Bill Clinton, is evidence that the Republican Party is being rejected by the electorate that finds the GOP less in touch than that of the Democratic Party.

[pbrower2a]

Thirteen months after Election 2008 and nearly eleven after the inauguration of Barack Obama, we see much the same pattern of swing states. The only surprise since Election 2008 is that South Carolina seems to have become a swing state according to two different polls that give the President very close to a 50% approval rating. South Carolina has two very right-wing Republican Senators -- maybe not as blatant as the two of Oklahoma. but still...

 

[pbrower2a]

Look at every state that has voted Democratic in two decades' worth of elections (1990s, 2000s). Adds up to 248 electoral votes (for Elections 2004 and 2008).

These states are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Don't forget District of Columbia.

Consider the following states: Calif., Conn., Ill., Me., Mich., N.Y., Ore., Pa., R.I., Vt., Wash., and Wis. (Vt. voted Republican in every election from 1856 to 1988, save for the uncommon 1964 dominance of winning Democrat and 36th president of the United States Lyndon Johnson over Republican challenger Barry Goldwater.)

What do they have in common?

43rd president of the United States George W. Bush became the first winning Republican with two terms never to have once carried any of these states.

You look at maps of the second half of the 1800s, as well as the first third of the 1900s, and the GOP used to rock these states' votes. (Dwight Eisenhower still had them in the 1950s!)

My take: Losing these states (sans R.I. but quite clear with, say, Vt.), via the election in 1992 of 42nd president of the United States Bill Clinton, is evidence that the Republican Party is being rejected by the electorate that finds the GOP less in touch than that of the Democratic Party.

Does anyone realize that had Obama not won a state that Eisenhower won in 1952 and 1956 he would have lost the Electoral College 516-22 if he had not won any of the states that he in fact lost? That's right! He would have won only North Carolina (barely), Hawaii, and the District of Columbia.

It could be that in the 1950s the GOP was the Party of the educated and the Democrats the Party of the under-educated. Stevenson was crushed outside the South and its fringe. In 2008, that could be almost reversed, the polarization between those who are pro-education and the anti-intellectual. The GOP seems to be very well in touch with people who consider faith more precious than reason.  Even at that I can't figure the Dakotas or Nebraska. Where and when the Religious Right (if one considers Mormons part of the "Religious Right") does well, the GOP does well, as in the elections of 2000 and 2004, and the states in which Obama lost badly.

The Religious Right is shrinking. It has little appeal to youth, so it can't replenish its losses to the Grim Reaper. Because the Religious Right is the most reliable conduit for huge numbers of votes for the GOP, the GOP will do worse every further election unless the Democrats much up badly.