which is more likely to happen?

[WalterMitty]

tough choice.

who has their thinking cap on?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

#2 obviously. See 1980 and 1972.

[dazzleman]

I voted Massachusetts voting differently than Rhode Island, but only because it has happened in the relatively recent past, not because I think it is likely to happen in the forseeable future.

In 1980, Massachusetts voted for Ronald Reagan by a razor-thin margin in a 3-way race, while Rhode Island went for Jimmy Carter.

In 1972, the roles were reversed, when Massachusetts went for McGovern, while Rhode Island went for Nixon.

I can't think of a case when Alabama voted differently than Mississippi.

[Akno21]

I can't think of a case when Alabama voted differently than Mississippi.

Very nearly 1976, Carter only won AL by 15,000 or so.

[WalterMitty]

reagan won massachusetts in 80 only because of anderson splitting the liberal vote. 

so i guess i should have made clear  in the poll that i was thinking of a 2 way race.

[dazzleman]

reagan won massachusetts in 80 only because of anderson splitting the liberal vote. 

so i guess i should have made clear  in the poll that i was thinking of a 2 way race.

True about 1980, but what about 1972?  That was a 2-way race.

[WalterMitty]

reagan won massachusetts in 80 only because of anderson splitting the liberal vote. 

so i guess i should have made clear  in the poll that i was thinking of a 2 way race.

True about 1980, but what about 1972?  That was a 2-way race.

im guessing that the anti-war sentiment was particularly high in massachusetts?

[phk]

#2 obviously. See 1980 and 1972.

[Gabu]

#2.  The last time Alabama and Mississippi voted for different candidates was in 1840.  They've never voted differently once since that election.

[dazzleman]

reagan won massachusetts in 80 only because of anderson splitting the liberal vote. 

so i guess i should have made clear  in the poll that i was thinking of a 2 way race.

True about 1980, but what about 1972?  That was a 2-way race.

im guessing that the anti-war sentiment was particularly high in massachusetts?

I think you're right.  Massachusetts and Rhode Island are quite similar, but there are subtle differences.  Rhode Island is largely without the intellectual/university component that Massachusetts has in fairly large numbers.  Rhode Island is largely a traditional Democratic blue collar state, that in conditions like 1972, in which Nixon was appealing to lunch pail Democrats, would lean to the right of Massachusetts, where the intellectual elites were burning hot in their opposition to the Vietnam War.

In 1980, with Vietnam no longer an issue, and a liberal third party candidate, the academic/university types were more likely to defect to Anderson than the blue collar Rhode Island Democrats, thereby tipping the state to Reagan while Rhode Island Democrats stuck with Carter in larger numbers, allowing Carter to carry the state.

That's my explanation, in any case.  I am a lot less well-versed in segregation-era southern politics, but I have noticed some substantial differences in election results among southern states and wondered about them.

[opebo]

Alabama and Mississippi obviously, due to a third party.  If by some freak chance the Republicans nominated someone who was not a religious right, or god forbid was a black, then one or the other (or both) of these two benighted backwaters could vote for the christian/racist third party candidate.

[Ebowed]

I can't think of a case when Alabama voted differently than Mississippi.

Very nearly 1976, Carter only won AL by 15,000 or so.

You mean Mississippi.  Alabama was one of Carter's best states.

[Ebowed]

Alabama and Mississippi obviously, due to a third party.  If by some freak chance the Republicans nominated someone who was not a religious right, or god forbid was a black, then one or the other (or both) of these two benighted backwaters could vote for the christian/racist third party candidate.

How can someone be a "religious right"?  By the way, I don't see why you're criticizing Alabama or Mississippi for being "backwaters" that will only vote for racists, and equating Christiantiy with racism.  You live in Missouri for God's sake, if you're about to call states primitive you have no place to do so.  Move to Vermont.

[dazzleman]

I can't think of a case when Alabama voted differently than Mississippi.

Very nearly 1976, Carter only won AL by 15,000 or so.

You mean Mississippi.  Alabama was one of Carter's best states.

That's an interesting one.  I had forgotten about that.  I have analyzed voting patterns in the segregation-era south, and there are major differences in results among the different states, or groups of states.  The results we get from these states today, percentage-wise, are more uniform than they were in the segregation era.  However, because they are not as extreme now, it is easier for the states to flip parties, especially when there is a 3rd party candidate.  Before, the result was almost always invariably that the Democrat won, but in some states it was with 90% while in others it was 65%.  Third party candidates like Thurmond and Wallace also produced wildly divergent results.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Interestingly, Alabama has a lot more swing voters (in Presidential elections) than Mississippi does

[ian]

Option #1.  Maybe we'll get Ronnie Musgrove to take the Senate seat of Lott if he retires this year, becomes incredibly popular, and wins MS in an election landslide.