Here we can contrast elections

[pbrower2a]

At this point I can "retrodict" (yes, I coined that word for my use here) an election that once had a chance of happening and now seems unlikely. This is how the 2020 election looked in contrast to those of Eisenhower and Obama based on match-ups in the middle of May 2020. Since then the news for President Trump has all been bad due to his bungling of COVID-19 and of mass protests involving dissent at police brutality. Polling was stable in the first part of 2020, but it is not now in early June. I do not see things getting better for the President. Things are spiraling away from his best hopes.

This may be relevant to 2024 or 2028 -- but no longer 2020. It did not look good for Trump this year. Trump was going to lose his three barest wins of 2020, gain nothing that he lost in 2016, and lose Arizona. Anything shaky would be assigned to Trump, but I saw Biden winning 289 electoral votes and the election.

This map is not as neat as that of the original Eisenhower-Obama overlay.

Electoral votes can be ignored, as those are for 2008.    

 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice, Biden 2020
red -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice, Trump 2020
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once, Trump 2020
orange -- Eisenhower twice, Obama never, Biden 2020
deep blue -- Republican all five elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never, Trump 2020
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once, Trump 2020

    

[SingingAnalyst]

The Eisenhower - Obama analogy holds up even if we extend our analysis to young voters and minority groups--provided we focus on 1956 rather than 1952. In 1956 Ike was popular among voters under 30 and Black voters, as was, of course, Obama. In 1952 however, at the height of the Red Scare, most of the pro-Eisenhower (or perhaps anti-Stevenson) vote was older and white, like McCain's in 2008.

Eisenhower lost the black vote in 1956 by a substantial margin, he didn't even crack 40% despite winning the NPV by 57%. Also, do you have any data showing Eisenhower's relative popularity amongst young voters, or is this just an assumption based off "Youth for Eisenhower" or something of the sort?

All I have to go by is Gallup.

In 1956, Ike won 39% of "nonwhite" voters, up from 21% in 1952. In 1956, Ike won 57% of voters under 30, up from 49% in 1952.

[SingingAnalyst]

At this point I can "retrodict" (yes, I coined that word for my use here) an election that once had a chance of happening and now seems unlikely. This is how the 2020 election looked in contrast to those of Eisenhower and Obama based on match-ups in the middle of May 2020. Since then the news for President Trump has all been bad due to his bungling of COVID-19 and of mass protests involving dissent at police brutality. Polling was stable in the first part of 2020, but it is not now in early June. I do not see things getting better for the President. Things are spiraling away from his best hopes.

This may be relevant to 2024 or 2028 -- but no longer 2020. It did not look good for Trump this year. Trump was going to lose his three barest wins of 2020, gain nothing that he lost in 2016, and lose Arizona. Anything shaky would be assigned to Trump, but I saw Biden winning 289 electoral votes and the election.

This map is not as neat as that of the original Eisenhower-Obama overlay.

Electoral votes can be ignored, as those are for 2008.   

 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice, Biden 2020
red -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice, Trump 2020
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once, Trump 2020
orange -- Eisenhower twice, Obama never, Biden 2020
deep blue -- Republican all five elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never, Trump 2020
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once, Trump 2020

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.
 

[/quote]
All those colors! I'm curious, do you still think a 289-249 Biden win (2016+AZ+MI+PA+WI) is likely? Because I do. In that case, we would have, comparing 2012 to 2020:

Obama - Trump states: FL, IA, ME-2, OH
Romney - Biden states: AZ

[pbrower2a]

That was a possible 2020 election, one that Trump was likely to lose, but still close.  This is how I might have seen 2020 had it remained close. The Trump effort seems to be in collapse. Nothing goes right, and he is becoming increasingly offensive. For 2020 in contrast to the Eisenhower and Obama elections I showed an election that was possible in 2020 until it no longer was possible.

This could be relevant to a bare Democratic win in 2024... but the candidates for such are not obvious.

Based on polls in the last couple of days, I now see Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio (barely), going to Biden. Iowa and Texas are toss-ups.

Electoral reality is dynamic -- except when it isn't. I'm not making a comparison of the 2020 Presidential election until it has happened; I have simply shown one that was possible until recently.

Originally I compared Obama to Eisenhower, figuring that the two won to a considerable extent the same states even though in different Parties. This suggests not so much that the political cultures have changed as that the partisan loyalties within the two Parties have changed. As a salient feature I showed that some tough states for Republican Presidential candidates since the Ike and before (from 1928 to now) -- Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island, that no Republican nominee for President has won together since 1956 -- voted for Eisenhower twice. Ike must have been an unusually-good fit for those states. Hoover lost two of those states in 1928 in a blowout outside the South; Nixon won everything but Massachusetts and Dee Cee in 1972; Reagan won everything but Minnesota and Dee Cee in 1984.

It is four months and eight days before the 2020 election... and I predict that I will have something to add to this thread about the real Presidential election of 2020. At this point a Biden win could look more like an Eisenhower win than either Obama win.

...I make one prediction on the future: Time Magazine's equivalent of the Man of the Year will be the virus behind COVID-19. 

 

[pbrower2a]

It could be less than a month before I get to show a comparison between the 2020 election and some other election. I post this so that I will be able to find this thread easily when the time comes.

[pbrower2a]

At this point I can "retrodict" (yes, I coined that word for my use here) an election that once had a chance of happening and now seems unlikely. This is how the 2020 election looked in contrast to those of Eisenhower and Obama based on match-ups in the middle of May 2020. Since then the news for President Trump has all been bad due to his bungling of COVID-19 and of mass protests involving dissent at police brutality. Polling was stable in the first part of 2020, but it is not now in early June. I do not see things getting better for the President. Things are spiraling away from his best hopes.

This may be relevant to 2024 or 2028 -- but no longer 2020. It did not look good for Trump this year. Trump was going to lose his three barest wins of 2020, gain nothing that he lost in 2016, and lose Arizona. Anything shaky would be assigned to Trump, but I saw Biden winning 289 electoral votes and the election.

This map is not as neat as that of the original Eisenhower-Obama overlay.

Electoral votes can be ignored, as those are for 2008.   

 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice, Biden 2020
red -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice, Trump 2020
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once, Trump 2020
light orange -- Eisenhower twice, Obama never, Biden 2020
deep blue -- Republican all five elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never, Trump 2020
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once, Trump 2020

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

   

Well, well, well. It turns out that that "retrodiction" proved about as accurate as anyone could have expected of the result. Trump really did get more votes in 2020 than in 2016 in total, but not enough to offset new Democratic votes in 2020.  This "retrodiction" is almost as accurate as anyone could have predicted. I got 17 electoral votes 'wrong' (Georgia and NE-02) in this model of an election that I thought that Trump was going to lose in a landslide.

Electoral votes can be ignored, as those are for 2008.   

 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice, Biden 2020
yellow -- Eisenhower twice, Obama once, Biden 2020
red -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice, Trump 2020
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once, Trump 2020
light orange -- Eisenhower twice, Obama never, Biden 2020
medium orange -- Stevenson twice, Obama never, Biden 2020
deep blue -- Republican all five elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never, Trump 2020
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once, Trump 2020

No state voted Democratic all four five times, so no state is in deep red.

[MarkD]

Have you ever compared the presidential election of 2000 in New Hampshire to the election of 2016 in the same state? It's remarkable how similar most of the counties voted, with two exceptions, and those two exceptions show the reason the state voted Republican in 2000 but Democratic in 2016.

Statewide, Bush won 48.1% to 46.8% in 2000. But in 2016, Clinton won 46.8% to 46.5%.
Here is how each of the counties voted in the two elections.
       County                      2000                              2016
Belknap County -       55.2% R to 40.0% D       55.1% R to 38.6% D
Carroll  County -     52.8% R to 41.3% D     49.4% R to 43.9% D
Cheshire County -      41.3% R to 52.1% D       40.3% R to 52.7% D
Coos County -            50.2% R to 45.0% D       50.9% R to 42.0% D
Grafton County -      46.7% R to 47.3% D    37.1% R to 55.7% D
Hillsborough County - 48.7% R to 46.8% D       46.7% R to 46.5% D
Merrimack County -    47.2% R to 48.1% D       45.0% R to 48.1% D
Rockingham County -  49.1% R to 45.9% D       49.9% R to 44.1% D
Strafford County -       42.7% R to 51.4% D       42.1% R to 50.6% D
Sullivan County -        49.8% to 44.1% D          47.6% R to 45.0% D

Eight of the counties voted almost exactly the same way in 2016 as they had in 2000, but Carroll and Grafton Counties both shifted much more Democratic - Carroll County shifted 6.0 percentage points more Democratic and Grafton County shifted 18.0 percentage points more Democratic. Without those two counties shifting as great as they did, Trump would have won in 2016 and all of the counties would have voted almost exactly the same way in those two elections.

[pbrower2a]

Today I pay attention to one region: the part of America that went from Mexican rule to American rule in the 1840s  (Texas annexation and the American annexation of Alta California from Mexico in 1848, and the Gadsden Purchase of 1853. The states now in this territory include the whole of California, Nevada. Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, more than half of Colorado, and small parts of Wyoming (southwestern and south-central area south of the 42nd parallel of latitude),  southwestern Kansas, and the Oklahoma panhandle. I'm not going to concern myself with Kansas. Oklahoma, or Wyoming.

pink -- Truman 1948; Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956    

As late as 1948 every one of these states voted for Harry Truman (if you are looking for a portent of later elections in 1948, then think again: California was Truman's weakest win among those states in 1948). But that would be the second-to-last time in which a Democratic nominee for President would win either Arizona or Utah. In 1952 and 1956 every one of those states would vote for a Democratic nominee for President. (2020 projects as an election in which Trump has much more chance of losing Arizona than of winning it, but that is an extrapolation of a trend and not a set-in-stone reality yet.  I expect to update this in November 2020).

The elections that say the most about a state are the close ones. 1948 had a close result in the national election. It is safe to say that the New Deal era in American politics came to an end in 1952.

Now consider Kennedy versus Nixon in 1960. Kennedy somehow won Texas, Colorado, and Nevada.

 

Truman 48, Ike 52/56, Kennedy 60 pink,
Truman 48, Ike 52/56, Nixon 60 white

We can largely ignore the electoral disaster that was Barry Goldwater.

Texas is the only one of those states that went for a Democratic nominee for President in either 1968 (all of these states went for Nixon in  1972, for Reagan in 1980 and 1984, and for the elder Bush in 1988 -- all landslides for the Republican. But 1968 and 1976 would be the last times in which Texas would vote for the Democratic nominee for President.  If Texas, which has a large part of the state
similar in political and economic culture to Arkansas (Hope, Arkansas is really close to Texas), could never vote for Clinton, then it then had a strong R trend.  

 

Truman 48, Ike 52/56, Kennedy 60, Nixon 68, Ford 76 pink (R in 72/80/84/88 blowouts) white
Truman 48, Ike 52/56, Kennedy 60, HHH 68, Carter 76 red (R in 72/80/84/88 blowouts) red
Truman 48, Ike 52/56, Nixon 60 white, Ford 76 (R in 72/80/84/88 blowouts) pink

What -- no blue yet? Reagan and the elder Bush utterly wipe out the Democratic nominees in the southwestern United States (unless you want to call Hawaii "southwestern"). But in 1992, Bill Clinton wins California, Colorado, and New Mexico. In 1996 he wins California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Texas was close both times, so it goes white, suggesting a long-term party switch. Utah goes deep blue. Two Clinton wins make a state deep red for now.

 

In the closest election in American history, Gore wins only California and New Mexico among these states. Texas and Utah go to dark blue as Dubya wins the state twice.  Of these states, Kerry wins only California. Nevada goes pink, and New Mexico red.

Thus for 1992-2004

all four times D deep red
Clinton twice, Dubya once red
Clinton twice, Dubya twice pink
Clinton once, Dubya twice light blue

These states do not shift between Obama and Trump. Obama and Hillary Clinton win the same states in this group. Texas, Utah, and Arizona went for the Republican nominee all three times. . Arizona goes medium blue this time.  

Update for 2016 and 2020

 

all seven times D deep red
Clinton twice, Dubya once, Obama twice, H. Clinton Trump never red
Clinton twice, Dubya twice, Obama twice, H. Clinton Trump never pink
Clinton once, Dubya twice, Obama twice, H. Clinton Trump never light blue
Clinton once, Dubya twice, Obama never, Trump and Biden blue
Republican nominees all seven eight times, deep blue

[pbrower2a]

Updated for 2020:

When the state last voted for the losing nominee:

2020
2016
2012
2004
2000



Ohio hasn't voted for the loser of the Presidential election since 1960.lost its bellwether status in 2020.

With one twist: voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, but hasn't gone D since in a Presidential election. Such states are in green:

[pbrower2a]

Have you ever compared the presidential election of 2000 in New Hampshire to the election of 2016 in the same state? It's remarkable how similar most of the counties voted, with two exceptions, and those two exceptions show the reason the state voted Republican in 2000 but Democratic in 2016.

Statewide, Bush won 48.1% to 46.8% in 2000. But in 2016, Clinton won 46.8% to 46.5%.
Here is how each of the counties voted in the two elections.
       County                      2000                              2016
Belknap County -       55.2% R to 40.0% D       55.1% R to 38.6% D
Carroll  County -     52.8% R to 41.3% D     49.4% R to 43.9% D
Cheshire County -      41.3% R to 52.1% D       40.3% R to 52.7% D
Coos County -            50.2% R to 45.0% D       50.9% R to 42.0% D
Grafton County -      46.7% R to 47.3% D    37.1% R to 55.7% D
Hillsborough County - 48.7% R to 46.8% D       46.7% R to 46.5% D
Merrimack County -    47.2% R to 48.1% D       45.0% R to 48.1% D
Rockingham County -  49.1% R to 45.9% D       49.9% R to 44.1% D
Strafford County -       42.7% R to 51.4% D       42.1% R to 50.6% D
Sullivan County -        49.8% to 44.1% D          47.6% R to 45.0% D

Eight of the counties voted almost exactly the same way in 2016 as they had in 2000, but Carroll and Grafton Counties both shifted much more Democratic - Carroll County shifted 6.0 percentage points more Democratic and Grafton County shifted 18.0 percentage points more Democratic. Without those two counties shifting as great as they did, Trump would have won in 2016 and all of the counties would have voted almost exactly the same way in those two elections.

In general I do not look at county-level voting, although this might be relevant in a state whose demographics are changing. This is definitely a legitimate study. It might explain the demise of a Party in a state. Let's see how that works with... well, Alabama is at the top of the list of states in alphabetical order.

1976:




Carter won 55-42, and he seemed an excellent match (being from rural Georgia) for Alabama, which is one of the most rural states in America. Carter lost Jefferson County, which contains Alabama's only near-giant city (Birmingham). 

2020:

 

Obviously the Democratic Party has long since lost the rural vote unless black. The "Black Belt" remains strongly D, but two counties went from Ford in 1976 to Biden in 2020. One of those counties is Jefferson, which contains Birmingham. But Birmingham isn't anywhere near the size of Atlanta, which is to Georgia almost what Chicago is to Illinois in politics.

[pbrower2a]

If anyone has any doubt that the Presidential Election of 1976 is ancient history for all practical purposes:

Carter 1976, Biden 2020  

Carter 1976, Biden  red
Carter 1976, Trump 2020 yellow
Ford 1976, Biden white
Ford 1976, Trump 2020 blue

[SingingAnalyst]

If anyone has any doubt that the Presidential Election of 1976 is ancient history for all practical purposes:

Carter 1976, Biden 2020  

Carter 1976, Biden  red
Carter 1976, Trump 2020 yellow
Ford 1976, Biden white
Ford 1976, Trump 2020 blue

Excellent map. The white and yellow states combined have a clear majority of the electoral votes. As for the blue states, except for Iowa (several times) and IN and MT (once each), none have voted Dem since 1964.

It becomes even more striking when one looks at the state in which Ford had his greatest numerical majority (MI, which voted Republican only once in the last 8 elections) and Carter had his (GA, which has voted Democratic only once in the last 7 elections). Ironically, GA may well vote left of MI in the near future-- but that's another story.

[darklordoftech]

Updated for 2020:

When the state last voted for the losing nominee:

2020
2016
2012
2004
2000

You used the same color for 2000 and 2012, making them impossible to distinguish.

[SingingAnalyst]

Revised 2012-2020 swing map:

Metric: Biden 2020 % minus Obama 2012 %
National swing: +0.33
Key:
+7 or more 90% Red
+1 30% Red
0 30% Ind.
-1 30% Blue
-7 or more 90% Blue
Observations: I am amazed how many states I did not need to recolor. That is, how many states won by Biden by 50-60% increased by 3, how many states won by Trump by 50-60% decreased by 3, etc. Also see clear regional patterns as well as a sharp divergence in ME and NE congressional districts.

[darklordoftech]

Updated for 2020 and corrected:

When the state last voted for the losing nominee:

2020
2016
2012
2004



With one twist: voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, but hasn't gone D since in a Presidential election. Such states are in green:

[pbrower2a]

As a general rule, I do not predict trends. Who would have thought after the 1996 Presidential election that that would be the last election in which a Democratic nominee would win any one of Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, or West Virginia?

Let's take a look at West Virginia. This is how the state looked in 1980... forty years ago...

 

West Virginia voted against Ronald Reagan by 4% in a year in which Reagan won 44 states. Voting on the losing side against a President who gets nearly 500 electoral votes is a strong indication that the state is extremely partisan in its orientation. That is when the United Mine Workers could reliably get out the vote for Democrats on 'labor' issues because high wages in jobs that don't require college degrees and long commutes. Democratic pols didn't have to spend much on public works, education, or even public health (the miners and their families had good insurance thanks to union contracts).

Those jobs are mostly gone. The coal seams are largely worked out, and the coal that can be minded from the surface requires far fewer workers. The United Mine Workers Union can no longer turn out the votes of coal miners and their families.  The state was never rich, but Democrats left the state with few opportunities other than mining... and bad roads, bad schools, and bad public health.

Here's the last election in which a Democratic nominee would win West Virginia:

 

... and 2020:



Back in 1996, if someone showed a map of West Virginia that looked like the last one as a prospect for 2020, you might be asking whether the Democratic Party were dying. It most certainly is.. in West Virginia.

It is West Virginia that has changed, and oh has it changed! 

[pbrower2a]

If anyone has any doubt that the Presidential Election of 1976 is ancient history for all practical purposes:

Carter 1976, Biden 2020  

Carter 1976, Biden  red
Carter 1976, Trump 2020 yellow
Ford 1976, Biden white
Ford 1976, Trump 2020 blue

...The white and yellow states combined have a clear majority of the electoral votes. As for the blue states, except for Iowa (several times) and IN and MT (once each), none have voted Dem since 1964.

Personalities and performance matter; the Favorite Son effect is real; demographic and cultural change happen. I could conceivably recognize Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin going to Donald Trump in 2016 or that Iowa and Ohio both went twice for Obama. More colors to account for such would make a messier map.  

I do not predict trends, but I can discuss those that already exist. I could do some seat-of-the-pants analysis that suggests that Iowa and Ohio are trending R because Iowa lacks the growing suburbs whose populations drift D and that Ohio (but see also Michigan and Pennsylvania) have so many dying cities and little real population growth. It could be that such states are now tending to hemorrhage away D-leaning voters to states (Colorado? Arizona? Texas? Virginia?) tending D. I can use such maps to explain how partisan loyalty can shift.
  

It becomes even more striking when one looks at the state in which Ford had his greatest numerical majority (MI, which voted Republican only once in the last 8 elections) and Carter had his (GA, which has voted Democratic only once in the last 7 elections). Ironically, GA may well vote left of MI in the near future-- but that's another story.

When was the last time that Texas was more D than Ohio? In an election that was not an electoral blowout? 1976. When the best career advice for many Ohioans is to head south on I-75 or southwest on i-71 and trend southwestward from Cincinnati to Texas, then you can see what happens with people who have career choices and mobility.

Trump winning Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by small margins  and winning Iowa and Ohio by what seem freakishly-large margins in 2016  may seem reversible as late as 2024, but I would not bet against such in 2028 or later. States losing their industrial base without gaining a huge number of jobs ib  high technology such as biotech or IT will become more rural, and I can expect Republicans to be more reliable (like Trump) in opening the spigot on farm subsidies. Add to this, poor white people with little skill or mobility are particularly vulnerable to a politicians who exploits ethnic and religious bigotry.  

I just watched videos on the worst places to live in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and the pattern is much the same: cities losing their industrial jobs become social nightmares.  

[pbrower2a]

So if I am to look at a state that is in the middle of the alphabet, almost exactly middle in its position of acquiring statehood, and generally close to the national average in voting.... you guessed it, Michigan.

1976, Ford winning. He was the Favorite Son, and either got little effect from such or Michigan would have otherwise gone to Carter by about 5%.



Carter still did well in the UP (there was still much mining). Ford apparently did well in counties from Grand Rapids to Lansing. The Republican proclivity to win in the suburbs remains strong, with Ford winning Oakland and Macomb counties.

1984: Reagan landslide. Mondale won three counties in the Upper Peninsula but only one (Wayne) in the Lower Peninsula.  This is what 59-40 looks like for a Republican in Michigan.



Close to the opposite of the 1984 shellacking of Mondale in Michigan was 2008. Michigan was freakishly good to Obama that year, in part because of an economic meltdown that reminded people of the Great Depression at its start.



It is hard to imagine Michigan going as sharply for Reagan in 1984 or for Obama in 2008... ever.

Now for two very close statewide votes for President: 2016 (slightly more than 10,000 votes)



and 2020 (over 150,000 votes, but less than 3%)



Kent (Grand Rapids), Leelanau (a county that even looks a lot like coastal California except in the winter), and Saginaw Counties suggest the difference.