Which State results do you find the most surprising ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Of every presidential election, what are the States which voted in a way that surprised you ?

Maybe this thread will manage to replace all the "[insert State], [insert election year]"  we have there.

As for me, I already mentioned Iowa in 1988 (I know about the farm crisis, but it was literally the second best democratic State !). I still have to think for other States, but there are certainly plenty of surprising results.

[tpfkaw]

Massachusetts voting for Reagan both times.

[memphis]

Indiana for Obama

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh, I knew I had another one in mind : Louisiana 1996.

Why the hell this democratic trend ? Whereas the entire South was trending republican, Louisiana went from Rep+1 to Dem+4 compared to the national margin...

[Hash]

I can explain why most of these results happened, but I still find them surprising in the larger context

Indiana, 2008
New York and New Jersey, 2000 (I know *why*, but I still find it surprising)
Kansas and Wyoming, 1992
Virginia and Mississippi, 1976
Texas, 1968
Georgia, 1964 (wasn't LBJ certain to win there?)
Missouri and Louisiana, 1956

[Vepres]

Mississippi in 1976

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Indiana in 2008 makes perfect sense and was part of a wider pattern; Obama did stunningly well in traditionally prosperous (and traditionally Republican) small manufacturing centres in the Midwest that had been hit by mass unemployment for the first time since the Depression.

[nclib]

Indiana in 2008 makes perfect sense and was part of a wider pattern; Obama did stunningly well in traditionally prosperous (and traditionally Republican) small manufacturing centres in the Midwest that had been hit by mass unemployment for the first time since the Depression.

Where else fits that description, Al?

[minionofmidas]

Lots of counties in Ohio and Michigan. Apart from the "small" bit, NE-2.

[Bo]

I found NH in 1916 and LA in 1956 pretty surprising.

[DS0816]

1940 Michigan: voting for Wendell Wilkie, instead of a 3rd term, for Franklin Roosevelt

2008 Arkansas: shifting 10 points Republican (while the nation shifted 10 points Democratic), thanks to Barack Obama getting 39% of female vote (compared to John Kerry being one point within winning them, 49% in 2004).

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Nevada 2008.  I expected Obama to carry the state, but I wasn't expecting an epic 12% blowout.  And I was very surprised to see him break 70% in Hawaii.  I thought he'd just be in the 60% range.

[Bo]

NV 1880 and VA in 1976 were also kinda surprising, considering that Nevada was typically a GOP state in the Gilded Age and considering that Carter won every other Southern state (even Mississippi and Alabama).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also, why was Oregon so republican in 1996 and 2000 ? In a tied race, it would have gone for Dole and Bush...

[Bo]

I find the Democrats' margins in VA in 1884 and 1888 to be very surprising. That also applies to some other upper South states during the Gilded Age. I mean, Harrison came within 0.5% of winning VA in 1888 despite losing the PV. Had it been a tied election that year, Harrison would have won VA, and to think this was just a little over 20 years after the Civil War ended.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Arizona 1952 seems pretty surprising.  It went to Truman by roughly 10%, but it went to Eisenhower by roughly 17%.  

Swing 1948-1952 (National):  15% to the GOP

Swing 1948-1952 (Arizona):  27% to the GOP



Thus the state trended 12% GOP from '48 to '52.

[rbt48]

Already been mentioned, but Missouri in 1956.  

How did Ike go from a 29,599 win in 1952 to a 3,984 vote loss in 1956?  Also, there were five minor parties on the ballot in 1952, but only Eisenhower and Stevenson on the ballot in 1956.

Certainly, the farm crisis hurt Ike in '56 in the plains states, which I guess is the only plausible explanation.  He was weaker in Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa in '56, but stronger in Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee (slightly).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also, why was Texas so close in 1988 and 1992 when Bush was running, and then trended solidly rep in 1996 when he wasn't ?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Also, why was Texas so close in 1988 and 1992 when Bush was running, and then trended solidly rep in 1996 when he wasn't ?

Bentsen and Perot?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also, why was Texas so close in 1988 and 1992 when Bush was running, and then trended solidly rep in 1996 when he wasn't ?

Bentsen and Perot?

True, you must be right. Still, a rather counter-intuitive trend.

[nclib]

Also, why was Texas so close in 1988 and 1992 when Bush was running, and then trended solidly rep in 1996 when he wasn't ?

Bentsen and Perot?

True, you must be right. Still, a rather counter-intuitive trend.

Also, most of the South trended GOP in 1996, and the Northeast Dem in 1996.

[Nym90]

George HW Bush was much less identified with Texas than George W Bush was, having only been a Representative in the House instead of Governor, and having spent a good deal bit less of a percentage of his life there.

Plus obviously stylistically and culturally he was probably more in tune with Northeastern Republicans than Texas Republicans, unlike his son.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Image frequently being the same thing as reality in Presidential elections.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also, what's the matter with Tennessee in 1984 ? Reagan carried it by only 16 points (against 21 in KY, 22 in AL, 24 in MS, 24 in NC, etc...). Excluding WV, it was the only Southern State Mondale would have carried in a tied election. How comes ?
Also, it's not for nothing that it was the only State to swing rep in 1988.

[Sasquatch]

The last 3 elections

2008 - Nevada (Polls showed it close even after the Wall St. collapse, then election night +12...wow)

2004 - West Virginia (It was in the bag the whole time for Bush, but maybe by +5-7%, but election night +13. Everyone should have went to bed after that call.)

2000 - Oregon (Yes, there was a "Nader effect", but it didn't effect Washington like it did Oregon. IIRC, people expected Oregon to be called before Washington.)