(MAP) 2018 Primary Electorate by County (COMPLETE*)

[Adam Griffin]

A work in progress: just like I did this for the 2016 presidential primary, I'm going to compile a county-by-county map for 2018. For now, though, here's a partial map + the statewide two-way results:

Exceptions In Results Calculations:

NY & UT: no county-level data and/or extensive primary on GOP & DEM sides, respectively. Figures are based on most recent active voter registration statistics by county

SD: No contested DEM primary statewide or in most counties; statewide figures based on GOP voter turnout versus DEM & NPA turnout (NPA voters were only eligible to pull a DEM primary ballot, making GOP vs DEM/NPA voters the most realistic comparison)

VA: No DEM primary statewide and no local elections; projection made by analyzing contested primaries in both parties for applicable 7 CDs and then comparing to statewide share of both Trump and Clinton electorate in these 7 CDs; applied comparable swing to remainder of electorate for a projection of how electorate would have voted assuming contested primaries statewide for both parties

[Politician]

Not bad for Democrats.

[Adam Griffin]

Added 5 states' county results to the map.

[jamestroll]

See I told y'all Illinois is titanium Democratic.

[Adam Griffin]

IL & ID added.

[RINO Tom]

Cool, thank you!  Interesting to see some ancestrally Democratic areas of Southern Illinois stay mostly Democratic even with open primaries.

[jamestroll]

Cool, thank you!  Interesting to see some ancestrally Democratic areas of Southern Illinois stay mostly Democratic even with open primaries.

Yes!

And its so beautiful to see all the collars as Atlas red.

[Gass3268]

What are you using as your data source? I'm making a similar map myself that averages the statewide contests (expect North Carolina) totals, R vs D. I can see at least one different county from what you have.

[Adam Griffin]

What are you using as your data source? I'm making a similar map myself that averages the statewide contests (expect North Carolina) totals, R vs D. I can see at least one different county from what you have.

Complete NYT results in situations where possible (i.e. top-ballot contests where all candidates are shown) and state election data (whether it's top-ballot results or actual primary turnout figures; some don't offer the latter) in situations where NYT truncates the figures to the top three candidates. It's entirely possible that really close results could be diff depending on the exact ballot counted, and just as possible I flipped a result by accident.

[Adam Griffin]

Updated (sans NC/KY).

[VPH]

Good old Greely County, NE! Hasn't voted Democratic for President since 1976 yet still had more Dem primary voters. The weird thing is if we're talking about Central Nebraska, Sherman County tends to be more Democratic than Greely (in large part thanks to Sherman County being nearly 30% Polish).

[Adam Griffin]

Added several new states. Waiting on CA to fully finish and SD's results are weird because of the Democratic/Non-Partisan situation, but I'll get them added in the near future.

[DINGO Joe]

Virginia will be annoying because there is no statewide Dem primary.

[Adam Griffin]

Updated with last night's completed results.

As of now, 26 states have voted, with Democrats winning 13 and Republicans winning 13. Kentucky is almost certainly majority-D by this measurement (though we won't have breakdowns apparently for another 2 months).

And as far as Virginia's figures go, it's a projection built on last night's partial results and 2016 results. This explains how the figure was calculated.

[Arkansas Yankee]

A work in progress: just like I did this for the 2016 presidential primary, I'm going to compile a county-by-county map for 2018. For now, though, here's a partial map + the statewide two-way results:

Please explain how these map of partisan primaries are informative?

[OneJ]

Please explain how these map of partisan primaries are informative?

No one said that they were informative. They're just interesting ways of looking at the shares of how much one party turned out in contrast to the other

[StateBoiler]

Please explain how these map of partisan primaries are informative?

No one said that they were informative. They're just interesting ways of looking at the shares of how much one party turned out in contrast to the other

It's a good way of viewing long-term institutional strength. Especially since you have voters in both parties that are with the one party local and state level, but not federal. My rough estimate is 10% of the voters in North Carolina in the '80s, '90s, and '00s were "Democrats state and local, Republicans federal". That group pretty much decided who won every election.

[Gass3268]

Please explain how these map of partisan primaries are informative?

No one said that they were informative. They're just interesting ways of looking at the shares of how much one party turned out in contrast to the other

It's a good way of viewing long-term institutional strength. Especially since you have voters in both parties that are with the one party local and state level, but not federal. My rough estimate is 10% of the voters in North Carolina in the '80s, '90s, and '00s were "Democrats state and local, Republicans federal". That group pretty much decided who won every election.

Also seeing Democrats win some of those traditional down-ballot Republican suburban/urban counties like DuPage, IL, Chester, PA, Gwinnett, GA, Harris, TX, Hamilton, OH and Morris, NJ is striking.

[RINO Tom]

Please explain how these map of partisan primaries are informative?

No one said that they were informative. They're just interesting ways of looking at the shares of how much one party turned out in contrast to the other

It's a good way of viewing long-term institutional strength. Especially since you have voters in both parties that are with the one party local and state level, but not federal. My rough estimate is 10% of the voters in North Carolina in the '80s, '90s, and '00s were "Democrats state and local, Republicans federal". That group pretty much decided who won every election.

Especially in closed primary states.  Most people don't bother to change their registration, and they're at least SOMEWHAT more likely to vote for a moderate member of their non-preferred party in the general if they supported him or her in the primary.  A "Yellow Dog Dixiecrat" or whatever from Oklahoma is likely to vote Republican in the general no matter what ... they're at least a LITTLE more likely to vote for a moderate Democrat in the general if they voted for them in the primary, IMO.

[Adam Griffin]

With 90% of Maine's precincts now reporting, I've went ahead and hastily added the results to the map. There are many counties where the margins are close; it wouldn't surprise me if there are some D counties that ultimately go R and vice-versa. Once the results are complete, I'll update the map.

[Gass3268]

Democratic Gubernatorial nominees are only 536 votes away from toping the Republicans in Orange County. There is still 45,000 votes left uncounted, so I imagine Dems will easily take the lead here soon.

[Badger]

What's up with that  uber red Texas county just southeast of the panhandle? Thats a super Republican area.

[Gass3268]

What's up with that  uber red Texas county just southeast of the panhandle? Thats a super Republican area.

They didn't hold a Republican primary and I don't know if they ever have.

[Adam Griffin]

What's up with that  uber red Texas county just southeast of the panhandle? Thats a super Republican area.

Jimrtex has the explanation for it somewhere. Until recently, the parties held the primaries on their own behalf. If I recall correctly, now, it's because whoever holds the county elections office can (or could) choose which party primaries get to happen (because they're in charge of them).

EDIT: here's the explanation.

[Adam Griffin]

OK and CO county-level results added; MD statewide figures added.