Bellwether states

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Several of the major bellwether states of the 20th century included Nevada, Ohio, Missouri, New Mexico, and Delaware.
Delaware lost bellwether status after 2000 and 2004, when it went reliably D. In 2012, its PVI was D+8.
New Mexico arguably lost bellwether status after 2008. It was not considered a swing state at all in 2012.
Missouri narrowly went McCain in 2008, breaking a perfect streak of 48 years. It went for Romney by a considerable margin, and is not considered a major swing state anymore.
Nevada is trending D fast, and many do not consider it to be a major swing state.

Of these five major bellwether states only Ohio is considered to be a true swing state. What other states might possibly stay close to the national center for the next few decades?

I would say Florida is one. It hasn't trended much at all, and sticks close to the national average, with a slight R tilt. With its huge electoral vote count and close to even PVI could it possibly be this century's Missouri? Or is the concept of a bellwether state dying off as the country grows more polarized?

[Person Man]

Which brings up an even interested question: If things truly are that polarized, how do you campaign for president anymore? Does it all just come about getting everyone to vote?  Then again, I just see other places becoming big bellwethers. Colorado and Virginia definitely have promise as does Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Missouri actually had a perfect streak for 48 years, starting in 1960 and ending in 2008.  I would say Ohio is the only real bellwether now, and possibly Virginia or Florida.  However, if the current trends continue, I expect Virginia to become as strongly Dem leaning in presidential politics as Illinois or most of the Northeast is now.

I don't think Nevada will be out of reach for the GOP in the near future, even with the growth of Latinos.  Some better Latino outreach and assimilation may help Republicans stay competitive there.  The swing states rarely change much barring a major realignment (a la 1932, 1980, or 1992,)  so I would still consider NV and NM to be swing states, even despite the strength Pres. Obama displayed there with Latinos.  BTW: Illinois was a major bellwether for most of the 20th century as well; It only voted for the loser twice in the 20th century (1916 and 1976.)  New Mexico and Nevada also lost their bellwether status in 1976 and regained it in 1980.

[DS0816]

Latest bellwether states which aren't definitively a base state for either party:

Ohio—Unbroken streak since 1964; statewide margins within five points from national beginning with that election and including up to the most recent in 2012. It's voted for the winner in every election, except 1944 and 1960, since 1896.
Florida—Statewide margins within five points from national beginning in 1996. State has voted for the winner in all elections, minus the Democratic pickup winners of 1960 and 1992, since 1928.
Virginia—Its margins in 2008 and 2012, both in President Obama's column, came closest to the national numbers.
Colorado—Its margin in 2008 ranked it No. 2 in mirroring the national margin for Obama; in 2012, it came down to No. 3, with Ohio at No. 2, but since 1996 the spread between Colo. and Va. have been no greater than 3.53 percent (from 2004); they're commonly a point or two from each other in their margins.


I do want to note this: Go back to 1912, when bellwether New Mexico and Arizona (which voted for all winners in each cycle of its first five decades), and you have that year the established 48 contiguous United States. From 1912 to 100 years later in 2012, there have been 11 elections where the winner carried at least four of ever five states. (Prior to Alaska and Hawaii, in 1960, carriage of 39 states accounted for 81 percent.) During this period the following won landslides with carriage of at least 80 percent of the available states: Woodrow Wilson, 1912; Herbert Hoover, 1928; Franklin Roosevelt, 1932 and 1936; Dwight Eisenhower, 1952 and 1956; Lyndon Johnson, 1964; Richard Nixon, 1972; Ronald Reagan, 1980 and 1984; and George Bush, 1988.

Since 1992, no winner has carried more than the 32 states won with the first election that year of Bill Clinton. In so many of those other election cycles, there appeared to be a lot of states in the bellwether category. Nowadays, the two parties aren't trying to win landslides on this scale. So, the talk of bellwethers, with make them sound especially special, has become the norm.

[ElectionsGuy]

Bellwether states are still very much in effect, and right now the best bellwether is Virginia, but with the current trends Virginia is in danger of going into the Lean D column. Ohio has always been somewhat steady and republicans always need this state, so this is an infamous bellwether. Also Florida marks a point usually just slightly more republican than the popular vote, so if Republicans don't get Florida, that's a sign that not only will they not win, but the democrat will win by a comfortable margin. Right now Ohio and Virginia are the two best bellwethers, but as Virginia might slip away... Ohio seems more consistent and more everlasting. By the time Ohio slips away in the future (if it ever does) there should be another almost perfect bellwether as different states trend in different directions, so it's not exactly something to worry about.

[Space7]

Latest bellwether states which aren't definitively a base state for either party:

Ohio—Unbroken streak since 1964; statewide margins within five points from national beginning with that election and including up to the most recent in 2012. It's voted for the winner in every election, except 1944 and 1960, since 1896.
Florida—Statewide margins within five points from national beginning in 1996. State has voted for the winner in all elections, minus the Democratic pickup winners of 1960 and 1992, since 1928.
Virginia—Its margins in 2008 and 2012, both in President Obama's column, came closest to the national numbers.
Colorado—Its margin in 2008 ranked it No. 2 in mirroring the national margin for Obama; in 2012, it came down to No. 3, with Ohio at No. 2, but since 1996 the spread between Colo. and Va. have been no greater than 3.53 percent (from 2004); they're commonly a point or two from each other in their margins.


I do want to note this: Go back to 1912, when bellwether New Mexico and Arizona (which voted for all winners in each cycle of its first five decades), and you have that year the established 48 contiguous United States. From 1912 to 100 years later in 2012, there have been 11 elections where the winner carried at least four of ever five states. (Prior to Alaska and Hawaii, in 1960, carriage of 39 states accounted for 81 percent.) During this period the following won landslides with carriage of at least 80 percent of the available states: Woodrow Wilson, 1912; Herbert Hoover, 1928; Franklin Roosevelt, 1932 and 1936; Dwight Eisenhower, 1952 and 1956; Lyndon Johnson, 1964; Richard Nixon, 1972; Ronald Reagan, 1980 and 1984; and George Bush, 1988.

Since 1992, no winner has carried more than the 32 states won with the first election that year of Bill Clinton. In so many of those other election cycles, there appeared to be a lot of states in the bellwether category. Nowadays, the two parties aren't trying to win landslides on this scale. So, the talk of bellwethers, with make them sound especially special, has become the norm.

Basically this minus Florida, IMHO.

The "Tipping Point", which is basically the perfect bellwether point currently lies at about 1.6+D, the same as Colorado, which was the tipping point state in the 2012 and 2008 elections.

I think that Florida is a tad too far into the Republican column to be considered a bellwether state anymore. The Democrats could lose Florida and still win the election with relative ease as long as they take Colorado or Ohio, both of which are more Democratic than Florida.

Ohio is definitely a bellwether state.

Colorado was the tipping point for the last two elections, so currently it's the most obvious bellwether. It might lose it's status in the coming elections, though, if it continues to trend Democratic.

As Virginia moves closer and closer toward the tipping point it will become more and more of an important bellwether.

The only up-and-coming bellwether I can think of is maybe Pennsylvania if it continues to slide from the Democrats. Wisconsin or Michigan are dubious, I think there's a good chance their 2012 Republican trends were flukes, considering in 2004 and 2008 both were trending Democratic.

[DS0816]

Space7,

In a topic which could be (and has been) had about states which vote alike (long term): Ohio and Florida are companions.

As for Pennsylvania … the partisan-voting index in that state were sharply Democratic (in excess of national margins), but it's demonstrated the elasticity to stay with Team Blue. The state has, long term, voted like Michigan. With the Wolverine State the younger of the two, and having first voted in 1836, their disagreements number five: 1848, 1856, 1932, 1940, and 1976. And three of them had a native son who was a party nominee for the presidency who carried his home state while the other one said no.

[DS0816]

Note: I'm looking to North Carolina becoming the next bellwether state.

[barfbag]

Virginia
North Carolina
Florida
Colorado
Nevada
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Iowa
New Hampshire
Wisconsin
Minnesota

This is the short list. I wouldn't cross off New Mexico just yet. The Democrats did well there, but they won the elections. Let's see how we can recruit Hispanics and modernize our message. I'd like us to become a big tent party again.

[eric82oslo]

If we only take into account 2016, I think the closest bellwether state will be one of these six:

1. Pennsylvania
2. Florida
3. Wisconsin
4. Minnesota
5. Virginia
6. Colorado

Obviously other states could potentially be good bellwether candidates too, like Michigan, Iowa and Ohio.

[Non Swing Voter]

Several of the major bellwether states of the 20th century included Nevada, Ohio, Missouri, New Mexico, and Delaware.
Delaware lost bellwether status after 2000 and 2004, when it went reliably D. In 2012, its PVI was D+8.
New Mexico arguably lost bellwether status after 2008. It was not considered a swing state at all in 2012.
Missouri narrowly went McCain in 2008, breaking a perfect streak of 48 years. It went for Romney by a considerable margin, and is not considered a major swing state anymore.
Nevada is trending D fast, and many do not consider it to be a major swing state.

Of these five major bellwether states only Ohio is considered to be a true swing state. What other states might possibly stay close to the national center for the next few decades?

I would say Florida is one. It hasn't trended much at all, and sticks close to the national average, with a slight R tilt. With its huge electoral vote count and close to even PVI could it possibly be this century's Missouri? Or is the concept of a bellwether state dying off as the country grows more polarized?

Virginia should have been considered a bellwether in 2008/2012.  It shouldn't anymore because it's trending left hard and soon elections won't be that close except in Republican landslides.

I think Florida will be a good bellwether... collectively, the upper Midwest will also be a good bellwether (Minnesota/Wisconsin in particular). 

Democrats will win the Northeast, West and Southwest.  Republicans will win the South and Great Plains... so the upper-Midwest will decide elections.

[barfbag]

Several of the major bellwether states of the 20th century included Nevada, Ohio, Missouri, New Mexico, and Delaware.
Delaware lost bellwether status after 2000 and 2004, when it went reliably D. In 2012, its PVI was D+8.
New Mexico arguably lost bellwether status after 2008. It was not considered a swing state at all in 2012.
Missouri narrowly went McCain in 2008, breaking a perfect streak of 48 years. It went for Romney by a considerable margin, and is not considered a major swing state anymore.
Nevada is trending D fast, and many do not consider it to be a major swing state.

Of these five major bellwether states only Ohio is considered to be a true swing state. What other states might possibly stay close to the national center for the next few decades?

I would say Florida is one. It hasn't trended much at all, and sticks close to the national average, with a slight R tilt. With its huge electoral vote count and close to even PVI could it possibly be this century's Missouri? Or is the concept of a bellwether state dying off as the country grows more polarized?

Virginia should have been considered a bellwether in 2008/2012.  It shouldn't anymore because it's trending left hard and soon elections won't be that close except in Republican landslides.

I think Florida will be a good bellwether... collectively, the upper Midwest will also be a good bellwether (Minnesota/Wisconsin in particular). 

Democrats will win the Northeast, West and Southwest.  Republicans will win the South and Great Plains... so the upper-Midwest will decide elections.

I still think Obama over performed there so we won't be able to see it's trends for what they are until 2016.

[Non Swing Voter]

Several of the major bellwether states of the 20th century included Nevada, Ohio, Missouri, New Mexico, and Delaware.
Delaware lost bellwether status after 2000 and 2004, when it went reliably D. In 2012, its PVI was D+8.
New Mexico arguably lost bellwether status after 2008. It was not considered a swing state at all in 2012.
Missouri narrowly went McCain in 2008, breaking a perfect streak of 48 years. It went for Romney by a considerable margin, and is not considered a major swing state anymore.
Nevada is trending D fast, and many do not consider it to be a major swing state.

Of these five major bellwether states only Ohio is considered to be a true swing state. What other states might possibly stay close to the national center for the next few decades?

I would say Florida is one. It hasn't trended much at all, and sticks close to the national average, with a slight R tilt. With its huge electoral vote count and close to even PVI could it possibly be this century's Missouri? Or is the concept of a bellwether state dying off as the country grows more polarized?

Virginia should have been considered a bellwether in 2008/2012.  It shouldn't anymore because it's trending left hard and soon elections won't be that close except in Republican landslides.

I think Florida will be a good bellwether... collectively, the upper Midwest will also be a good bellwether (Minnesota/Wisconsin in particular). 

Democrats will win the Northeast, West and Southwest.  Republicans will win the South and Great Plains... so the upper-Midwest will decide elections.

I still think Obama over performed there so we won't be able to see it's trends for what they are until 2016.

It's very easy to "see it's trends for what they are" right now.  Just log on to the US census website.  90% of population growth has been and is projected to continue being in regions that democrats usually win (not just Obama).  More than 50% of the population growth will be in Northern Virginia (even Kerry won this region by a healthy margin).  To say we don't know what the trend is now is ridiculous.  In 20 years 40% of the population of the state will live in Northern Virginia, add Richmond and the college towns to that and you already have a majority of the state population.  Yeah I guess it's possible that Republicans could start doing better in Northern Virginia even as those suburbs get filled with more and more ex-DC people, minorities, and young professionals.  Just like it's possible that Republicans will win NYC in the next Presidential election.

Fact is, for Presidential elections, the GOP is screwed in Virginia.

[stevekamp]

A different approach to "bellwether" is not whether the national PV or EV winner carried the state, but how often a state's two-party or all-party percentages come close to national.  Suspect Ohio and Virginia will top this list for recent elections. 

This can also be tried for counties, though most of the old "who won" standbys such as Palo Alto in Iowa and Crook in Oregon unrung their bell some time ago.

[barfbag]

Several of the major bellwether states of the 20th century included Nevada, Ohio, Missouri, New Mexico, and Delaware.
Delaware lost bellwether status after 2000 and 2004, when it went reliably D. In 2012, its PVI was D+8.
New Mexico arguably lost bellwether status after 2008. It was not considered a swing state at all in 2012.
Missouri narrowly went McCain in 2008, breaking a perfect streak of 48 years. It went for Romney by a considerable margin, and is not considered a major swing state anymore.
Nevada is trending D fast, and many do not consider it to be a major swing state.

Of these five major bellwether states only Ohio is considered to be a true swing state. What other states might possibly stay close to the national center for the next few decades?

I would say Florida is one. It hasn't trended much at all, and sticks close to the national average, with a slight R tilt. With its huge electoral vote count and close to even PVI could it possibly be this century's Missouri? Or is the concept of a bellwether state dying off as the country grows more polarized?

Virginia should have been considered a bellwether in 2008/2012.  It shouldn't anymore because it's trending left hard and soon elections won't be that close except in Republican landslides.

I think Florida will be a good bellwether... collectively, the upper Midwest will also be a good bellwether (Minnesota/Wisconsin in particular). 

Democrats will win the Northeast, West and Southwest.  Republicans will win the South and Great Plains... so the upper-Midwest will decide elections.

I still think Obama over performed there so we won't be able to see it's trends for what they are until 2016.

It's very easy to "see it's trends for what they are" right now.  Just log on to the US census website.  90% of population growth has been and is projected to continue being in regions that democrats usually win (not just Obama).  More than 50% of the population growth will be in Northern Virginia (even Kerry won this region by a healthy margin).  To say we don't know what the trend is now is ridiculous.  In 20 years 40% of the population of the state will live in Northern Virginia, add Richmond and the college towns to that and you already have a majority of the state population.  Yeah I guess it's possible that Republicans could start doing better in Northern Virginia even as those suburbs get filled with more and more ex-DC people, minorities, and young professionals.  Just like it's possible that Republicans will win NYC in the next Presidential election.

Fact is, for Presidential elections, the GOP is screwed in Virginia.

You're missing what I'm saying. I'm saying we won't have any future data to compare 2012 to until the 2016 election. Obama was a great candidate for Democrats in Virginia with a large black population. The state has been trending, but how much isn't clear until we no longer have Obama on the ticket. If the state trends back or stays the same as it's been for the Obama elections, then we'll know Obama played a huge factor in the trends. If Virginia is something like 55-44 in the next election for the Democratic nominee, then we'll know Obama simply benefited here as a result of the state's trends. No one is arguing that Virginia has been trending to the left. There is no comparison between Virginia and NYC though.

[ElectionsGuy]

Several of the major bellwether states of the 20th century included Nevada, Ohio, Missouri, New Mexico, and Delaware.
Delaware lost bellwether status after 2000 and 2004, when it went reliably D. In 2012, its PVI was D+8.
New Mexico arguably lost bellwether status after 2008. It was not considered a swing state at all in 2012.
Missouri narrowly went McCain in 2008, breaking a perfect streak of 48 years. It went for Romney by a considerable margin, and is not considered a major swing state anymore.
Nevada is trending D fast, and many do not consider it to be a major swing state.

Of these five major bellwether states only Ohio is considered to be a true swing state. What other states might possibly stay close to the national center for the next few decades?

I would say Florida is one. It hasn't trended much at all, and sticks close to the national average, with a slight R tilt. With its huge electoral vote count and close to even PVI could it possibly be this century's Missouri? Or is the concept of a bellwether state dying off as the country grows more polarized?

Virginia should have been considered a bellwether in 2008/2012.  It shouldn't anymore because it's trending left hard and soon elections won't be that close except in Republican landslides.

I think Florida will be a good bellwether... collectively, the upper Midwest will also be a good bellwether (Minnesota/Wisconsin in particular). 

Democrats will win the Northeast, West and Southwest.  Republicans will win the South and Great Plains... so the upper-Midwest will decide elections.

I still think Obama over performed there so we won't be able to see it's trends for what they are until 2016.

It's very easy to "see it's trends for what they are" right now.  Just log on to the US census website.  90% of population growth has been and is projected to continue being in regions that democrats usually win (not just Obama).  More than 50% of the population growth will be in Northern Virginia (even Kerry won this region by a healthy margin).  To say we don't know what the trend is now is ridiculous.  In 20 years 40% of the population of the state will live in Northern Virginia, add Richmond and the college towns to that and you already have a majority of the state population.  Yeah I guess it's possible that Republicans could start doing better in Northern Virginia even as those suburbs get filled with more and more ex-DC people, minorities, and young professionals.  Just like it's possible that Republicans will win NYC in the next Presidential election.

Fact is, for Presidential elections, the GOP is screwed in Virginia.

We'll see if the population there takes affect quickly or not, as of right now and 2016 GOP still is pretty competitive there, but later than that it will be like trying to get Wisconsin, a tough job that even George W. Bush in his second election couldn't do. Bottom line is we have to see what 2016 will bring us not speculate that the GOP is "screwed" even if its trending away from them. Just because Obama did bad in Missouri doesn't mean the Dems are completely screwed there. It happens to be trending away from democrats but they can still win in 2008 style blowouts.

[DS0816]

A different approach to "bellwether" is not whether the national PV or EV winner carried the state, but how often a state's two-party or all-party percentages come close to national.  Suspect Ohio and Virginia will top this list for recent elections.

I have looked at that. And I mentioned it earlier in this thread. Here is one more thing to address: the gender vote.

In 2008, Colorado matched the national gender support in electing Barack Obama the 44th president of the United States. Males were 49%. Females were 56%.

In 2012, Ohio matched the national gender support in re-electing Barack Obama the 44th president of the United States. Males were 45%. Females were 55%.


In 2008, Ohio was like Virginia: no gender gap and Obama carried both sexes. In 2012, Colorado was like the Ohio/Virginia combo where there was no gender gap and Obama carried both sexes.


I stick with my earlier assertion that four states are currently genuine bellwether states (and I note that it doesn't have to be limited to just these four)…

Ohio
Florida
Virginia
Colorado

[stevekamp]

Agreed -- FLA, OHIO, VA and Colo -- four states Rs need to win all to get past 270.  NH is another posibility.