Primary bellwether states

[Nym90]

These states have voted for every Democratic nominee in the party's primaries since 1992:

Conversely, the anti-bellwether state for the Dems has been Oklahoma, which was the only state that the party's nominee failed to carry in both 2004 and 2008 (and looks as though it will again in 2016).

Going back to 1988 narrows the map down to these states:

Going back to 1984 leaves us with only two states:

And Minnesota didn't vote for Carter in 1976, so Kansas has the streak of having voted for the Democratic nominee in the most consecutive primaries, a streak that will end in 2016 if Clinton is the nominee. I wasn't able to find any Kansas data for 1972 to determine if the streak extends further back.

For the Republicans, these states have backed the winner in each primary since 1992:

Going back to 1988 narrows the map thusly:

To 1980 takes one more state off:

And finally, to 1976.

Nixon won every state in 1972, and from 1968 and prior, primaries weren't the main determinants of the nominee. If someone wants to extend the list further back, though, feel free.

As for the GOP anti-bellwethers, these states failed to vote for the nominee in either 2012 or 2008, but all did in 2000.

Dole lost the Louisiana caucus in 1996, but won the primary, as well as the rest of the states above.

Going back to 1988, these states also didn't vote for the nominee that year:

And extending to 1980, Iowa was the only of the above to once again not vote for the nominee. So Iowa holds the title (in my opinion) as the anti-bellwether for the GOP.

[/]

Fun stuff!

[sportydude]

Michigan is the anti-bellwether state no. 1.
Seen from this angle, it isn't even surprising that Bernie won Michigan. That voting pattern was actually very consistent in fact.

[Nym90]

Michigan is the anti-bellwether state no. 1.
Seen from this angle, it isn't even surprising that Bernie won Michigan. That voting pattern was actually very consistent in fact.

It does have a contrarian history for both parties. 2008 perhaps deserves an asterisk since Obama wasn't on the ballot, but it also voted for Jackson in 1988.

[Nym90]

If Clinton is the nominee, Kansas, Nebraska, and Minnesota will see their streaks of voting for the Dem nominee come to an end, and the rest of the states that have backed the winner since 1988 all might as well, as Sanders seems likely to do well in Wisconsin, North Dakota, Montana, Oregon, and Hawaii.

On the GOP side, looking at the states that have backed the nominee every time since at least 1972: if Trump is the nominee, it will extend the streaks of Florida, Kentucky, and Illinois, while New York, New Jersey, and West Virginia all seem like good Trump states, too. Maryland, Oregon, and Wisconsin are more difficult to predict. Ohio's streak seems very likely to end unless Kasich can somehow prevail at a contested convention.

Iowa, meanwhile, will continue to be the anti-bellwether if Cruz isn't the nominee.

[Nym90]

And I decided for kicks to look before 1972 for the GOP primaries. Most states didn't hold primaries in 1968, but Nixon won New Jersey, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon that year (he lost Ohio, and the rest of the states that have backed every GOP nominee since 1972 didn't have primaries in 1968).

Then going back to 1964, we find that Illinois was the only one of the four above to vote for Goldwater, and thus it wins the title of the longest GOP primary bellwether. It also voted for Nixon in 1960 and Eisenhower in 1956; the last time the winner of the Illinois primary didn't win the GOP nomination was when it voted for Robert Taft in 1952.

[sportydude]

Michigan is the anti-bellwether state no. 1.
Seen from this angle, it isn't even surprising that Bernie won Michigan. That voting pattern was actually very consistent in fact.

It does have a contrarian history for both parties. 2008 perhaps deserves an asterisk since Obama wasn't on the ballot, but it also voted for Jackson in 1988.

They voted for Wallace in 1972, for Jackson in 1988 and now for Sanders. Okay ...
Either the Michigan Democrats despise their national party (like the Oklahomans do) or they just love trolling around. (Aren't Michiganians even called trolls?)

[LLR]

http://web.archive.org/web/20091026141033/http://geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8088/Dem1972.html

McGovern did indeed win Kansas

[Kingpoleon]

And I decided for kicks to look before 1972 for the GOP primaries. Most states didn't hold primaries in 1968, but Nixon won New Jersey, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon that year (he lost Ohio, and the rest of the states that have backed every GOP nominee since 1972 didn't have primaries in 1968).

Then going back to 1964, we find that Illinois was the only one of the four above to vote for Goldwater, and thus it wins the title of the longest GOP primary bellwether. It also voted for Nixon in 1960 and Eisenhower in 1956; the last time the winner of the Illinois primary didn't win the GOP nomination was when it voted for Robert Taft in 1952.

In 1964 and 1968, OH had a placeholder favorite son for the eventual nominee. WI arguably had a favorite son in 1964.

[Nym90]

http://web.archive.org/web/20091026141033/http://geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8088/Dem1972.html

McGovern did indeed win Kansas

Thanks. So Kansas has voted for the nominee every time from 1972 to 2012, the only state to have such a perfect record for the Dems (Kansas didn't have primaries or caucauses before 1972).

[sportydude]

So, if I'm not mistaken, the only Democratic primary bellwethers (going back to '88) are Wisconsin, North Dakota, Montana, Oregon and Hawaii, each of which is likely to vote for Bernie. lol.

If they really do, the remaining bellwether states would be Illinois, Missouri, Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.

[Nym90]

So, if I'm not mistaken, the only Democratic primary bellwethers (going back to '88) are Wisconsin, North Dakota, Montana, Oregon and Hawaii, each of which is likely to vote for Bernie. lol.

If they really do, the remaining bellwether states would be Illinois, Missouri, Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.

If Clinton is the nominee, that is true. Hawaii is probably the state of the above that she has the best chance of winning.

[sportydude]

Goodbye, Hawaii, goodbye! 👋

[sportydude]

And we have another traitor: Wisconsin...  😫

[Nym90]

And we have another traitor: Wisconsin...  😫

Yes, for both parties if the New Yorkers win the nominations.

[catographer]

I'm a bit skeptical of how much looking at bellwether states helps us predict or learn about nominees. If you look at general election bellwethers, they are pretty consistent in certain party system eras, but if you go back far enough there won't be a single state or county left that's voted for every future President. The same applies even more to primaries, since the voting coalitions within parties don't vote very consistently and that we have very few samples to pick from since the creation of party primary elections.

[sportydude]

Bernie seems to have disturbed the whole bellwether system.
There was a sliiiight chance of Hillary winning Oregon, but since she blew it, there aren't any 1988 bellwether states left anymore. (Montana and North Dakota are unconquerable Bernie territory, of course.)
The most "senior" primary bellwether states began their streak back in 1992:

[sportydude]

On the Republican side, Kasich and Rafael switched off Ohio and Wisconsin:

[sportydude]

And the super bellwether state is: ILLINOIS
It's the only state that belongs to the most "senior" primary bellwether states on both sides.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Is Oklahoma the most anti-bellwether state for both parties?

[Boston Bread]

Is Oklahoma the most anti-bellwether state for both parties?

It's probably NH or IA. Being an early state gives a lot higher chance of being able to choose the "wrong" candidate.

[sportydude]

Is Oklahoma the most anti-bellwether state for both parties?

Going back to 1992, there are five states sharing the prize as the super anti-bellwether state for either party's primaries: Alaska, Colorado, Michigan, New Hampshire, Oklahoma. Each of them were five times off the mark.

Several states were four times off the mark:
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont

Thrice:
Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wyoming

[IceSpear]

Is Oklahoma the most anti-bellwether state for both parties?

If you start from 2000, yes. It has a horrible 3/8 record, getting only Gore/Bush 2000 and McCain 2008 correctly.

On the Dem side, it voted for the winner only 4 times in the modern primary era. Carter in 1976/1980, Clinton in 1992, and Gore in 2000.

The country at least has the sense to look at what Oklahoma does and do the exact opposite.

[IceSpear]

Is Oklahoma the most anti-bellwether state for both parties?

It's probably NH or IA. Being an early state gives a lot higher chance of being able to choose the "wrong" candidate.

I find it quite funny that IA is the anti-bellwether for the R side considering all the hype. It has an astonishingly bad 3/8 success rate, only correctly going with Ford in 1976, Dole in 1996, and Bush in 2000.

Also, it's quite telling that the Deep South is the main bellwether for the Dem side now...

[DS0816]

If you take 1976, the year all states voted in presidential primaries (with Iowa having joined that year), the one state every eventual Democratic presidential nominee had carried has been Kansas. It's the only state which backed first-term-seeking eventual nominees Jimmy Carter (1976), Walter Mondale (1984), Michael Dukakis (1988), Bill Clinton (1992), Al Gore (2000), John Kerry (2004), and Barack Obama (2008). Bernie Sanders carried it in 2016.