1916 and 2004

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I was just looking around Wikipedia, and it struck me that the electoral maps of 1916 and 2004 are almost the inverse of each other:





Is this just a coincidence, or is the Democratic/Republican coalition of 1916 almost completely the opposite of the one in 2004?

[Clark Kent]

I've noticed it, too, but it seems to resemble 2000 more. 1896 also isn't that different from 2000/2004.

[Nyvin]

Seems kinda crazy how much electoral clout those plains states had back then....

[Rockefeller GOP]

I mean, if you transported William McKinley to the 2012 election, he'd function pretty much as Mitt Romney, yet they won almost opposite states.  States change, demographic groups switch allegiances over one event or the other, parties emphasize different aspects of their platforms, etc.  It's never as simple as "opposite," but it is fascinating how things work out.

[Thunderbird is the word]

I mean, if you transported William McKinley to the 2012 election, he'd function pretty much as Mitt Romney, yet they won almost opposite states.  States change, demographic groups switch allegiances over one event or the other, parties emphasize different aspects of their platforms, etc.  It's never as simple as "opposite," but it is fascinating how things work out.

I think that in some respects it might come down to different political platforms appealing to different parts of the country at different times. William Jennings Bryan, when he attacked northeastern elitism associated economic elitism with cultural elitism yet in today's political climate the two are distinct. I was reading the John Milton Cooper biography of Woodrow Wilson and he talks about how Democrats were afraid to advocate raising taxes in the 1910s because they would be accused of trying to soak the more prosperous northeastern states at the expense of the impoverished south.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Seems kinda crazy how much electoral clout those plains states had back then....

I made the same observation. 8 electoral votes for Nebraska?? But then of course the dustbowl decimated the population of the Great Plains during the 30's and the region has never really recovered.

[Bismarck]

Indiana is pretty consistent. Sorry about 2008.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Indiana is pretty consistent. Sorry about 2008.

You're not forgiven.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Indiana is pretty consistent. Sorry about 2008.

Also 1932, 1936 and 1964.

[mianfei]

I've noticed it, too, but it seems to resemble 2000 more. 1896 also isn't that different from 2000/2004.

I’ve noticed the almost opposite vote in the two extremely close elections of 1916 and 2000. Not only were both very close, but between them they had eight of the fifty closest statewide races since the Civil War, viz:

• Florida in 2000 (closest)
• New Hampshire in 1916 (fifth-closest)
• New Mexico in 2000 (sixth-closest)
• Minnesota in 1916 (eleventh-closest)
• Wisconsin in 2000 (twentieth-closest)
• Iowa in 2000 (thirtieth-closest)
• California in 1916 (36th closest)
• Oregon in 2000 (39th closest)

What’s notable is that, comparing the statewide results in the 1916 and 2000 elections, all but seven states voted for the opposite party! California, Washington, New Mexico and Maryland voted Democratic in both elections, whilst West Virginia, Indiana and South Dakota voted Republican in both elections. Except for Maryland, however, all those states were very close in 1916, and what’s perhaps more noteworthy is that Wilson at the county level won Republican bastions that were never won by FDR or LBJ like Kane County, Utah and Lawrence County, South Dakota. It would be interesting to have a comparative county level map and see how much changed between the two elections!