Interesting map of US Presidential Elections since 1960

[Non-consecutive Two Term Floridian]

Interesting.  We seem to be living in historically unusual times.  I wonder how long the North (R) vs. South (D) alignment will continue to dominate these maps?  MA, RI, CA and IL will very likely flip over the next 20 years, and I presume MO/TN/SC will as well.  How many more R wins are needed to flip Texas?  If it's more than 3, I think it's a true toss up on this map come 2060.    

The alignment will continue to dominate these maps for years to come, and the more I think about it, perhaps forever.  Take VA for example; it was a D state for most of history and has returned to being so.  So it's a R state only for the second half of the 20th century.. a map incorporating all of US history may never show it as a R state since it has returned to being D.

There are other signs of the map "reverting to form", so to speak.  GA is an example.  TX perhaps... as swami pointed out, the GOP needs to win it 14 more times, and demographics could have it flipping back to the Dems way before that ever happens.

It is also possible that New England reverts to form as well- ME is on the verge of flipping back, and if it does, it'll stay R on the "all-time" map.  While MA and RI are close to flipping on the "all-time" map, it may end up only being for a short time if they flip back R at some point in the next couple decades.  MA I'm not so sure about, but there's a point to be made that the trends we are seeing in ME are not necessarily localized just to that state- see, for example, RI's >10% R trend in '16.  Demographic trends are generally favorable for the GOP over the long term in this area of the country, so we'll just have to see.

The same goes for MN, which is close to flipping D on the all-time map, but just in time, the state appears to be trending R once again and is now seriously discussed as a possible counter to GA flipping.  So we may reverting back to form there too.

Some things may never revert to form though- such as CA, which is only 5 elections away from flipping on the all-time map, and I would suspect will remain D for the foreseeable future.

Great analysis. Agreed with all of the above

[R.P. McM]

Interesting.  We seem to be living in historically unusual times.  I wonder how long the North (R) vs. South (D) alignment will continue to dominate these maps?  MA, RI, CA and IL will very likely flip over the next 20 years, and I presume MO/TN/SC will as well.  How many more R wins are needed to flip Texas?  If it's more than 3, I think it's a true toss up on this map come 2060.    

Republicans have to win another 14 times on the top map and another 12 times to flip TX. This alignment is going to stay with us for a long time lol

The first set of states you mentioned should come around very soon but there's no way SC flips in our lifetime

Also interesting is will Democrats ever flip MN?

If Democrats win MN in both 2020 and 2024, they will flip it. Fun fact: FDR was the first Democrat to win the state in 1932. From 1860 to 1928, it voted Republican with the exception of TR when he ran as a Bull Moose in 1912. In fact, 1860 to 1908 is the longest one-party streak MN has held. For Democrats to beat this, they would need to carry the state up to the 2028 election.

Crazy how the state turned on a dime, eh? Nothing but Republican victories (and TR) until 1932, and then Democrats win 19 of the subsequent 22 elections.

Given that the GOP won 14/18 Presidential Elections from 1860-1928 with them utterly dominating the 2nd half of that run its not surprising many states went from Solid GOP to Solid Dem on a dime after 1932 given that Democrats have won the majority of Presidential Elections since then.

Yeah, I was more remarking on the severity of the swing. Lots of states swung left in the New Deal era, but very few had never supported a Democrat before. Likewise, very few have voted Republican only three times in the intervening 87 years. I guess if you make the pivot point 1928, MA evinces similar behavior. But that's about it.

[darklordoftech]

Interesting.  We seem to be living in historically unusual times.  I wonder how long the North (R) vs. South (D) alignment will continue to dominate these maps?  MA, RI, CA and IL will very likely flip over the next 20 years, and I presume MO/TN/SC will as well.  How many more R wins are needed to flip Texas?  If it's more than 3, I think it's a true toss up on this map come 2060.    

Republicans have to win another 14 times on the top map and another 12 times to flip TX. This alignment is going to stay with us for a long time lol

The first set of states you mentioned should come around very soon but there's no way SC flips in our lifetime

Also interesting is will Democrats ever flip MN?

If Democrats win MN in both 2020 and 2024, they will flip it. Fun fact: FDR was the first Democrat to win the state in 1932. From 1860 to 1928, it voted Republican with the exception of TR when he ran as a Bull Moose in 1912. In fact, 1860 to 1908 is the longest one-party streak MN has held. For Democrats to beat this, they would need to carry the state up to the 2028 election.

Crazy how the state turned on a dime, eh? Nothing but Republican victories (and TR) until 1932, and then Democrats win 19 of the subsequent 22 elections.

I think 1932 permanenty re-aligned Scandivian-Americans. Before the Depression, Scandivians voted for the GOP because the GOP was the party of prohibition and public education while the Democrats were the party of the freedom to drink alcohol education remaining private and non-compulsory. The Depression caused most, if not all, economically left voters to become Democrats.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Interesting.  We seem to be living in historically unusual times.  I wonder how long the North (R) vs. South (D) alignment will continue to dominate these maps?  MA, RI, CA and IL will very likely flip over the next 20 years, and I presume MO/TN/SC will as well.  How many more R wins are needed to flip Texas?  If it's more than 3, I think it's a true toss up on this map come 2060.    

Republicans have to win another 14 times on the top map and another 12 times to flip TX. This alignment is going to stay with us for a long time lol

The first set of states you mentioned should come around very soon but there's no way SC flips in our lifetime

Also interesting is will Democrats ever flip MN?

If Democrats win MN in both 2020 and 2024, they will flip it. Fun fact: FDR was the first Democrat to win the state in 1932. From 1860 to 1928, it voted Republican with the exception of TR when he ran as a Bull Moose in 1912. In fact, 1860 to 1908 is the longest one-party streak MN has held. For Democrats to beat this, they would need to carry the state up to the 2028 election.

Crazy how the state turned on a dime, eh? Nothing but Republican victories (and TR) until 1932, and then Democrats win 19 of the subsequent 22 elections.

I think 1932 permanenty re-aligned Scandivian-Americans. Before the Depression, Scandivians voted for the GOP because the GOP was the party of prohibition and public education while the Democrats were the party of the freedom to drink alcohol education remaining private and non-compulsory. The Depression caused most, if not all, economically left voters to become Democrats.

Its cause the Democrats, unlike the Republicans, really were not a national party before 1932. The Southern Wing of the Party was filled with politicians across the spectrum due to being a one party state, the Western Wing of the party being dominated by populist left-wingers , the Midwest and North East being all over the pace as well due to the region being so dominated by the GOP in those days.


The Republicans on the other hand with the exception like from 1902-1915 were pretty much united with them being a strongly Pro-Business party(So Classical Liberal on every issue but trade) and being the party of law and order as well.


1932 was just such a massive wave that it basically took the entire GOP down with it , and FDR was able to use that massive electoral win , the massive coatails that came with the win , and the economic crises to unite the party in his image.

[R.P. McM]

Interesting.  We seem to be living in historically unusual times.  I wonder how long the North (R) vs. South (D) alignment will continue to dominate these maps?  MA, RI, CA and IL will very likely flip over the next 20 years, and I presume MO/TN/SC will as well.  How many more R wins are needed to flip Texas?  If it's more than 3, I think it's a true toss up on this map come 2060.    

Republicans have to win another 14 times on the top map and another 12 times to flip TX. This alignment is going to stay with us for a long time lol

The first set of states you mentioned should come around very soon but there's no way SC flips in our lifetime

Also interesting is will Democrats ever flip MN?

If Democrats win MN in both 2020 and 2024, they will flip it. Fun fact: FDR was the first Democrat to win the state in 1932. From 1860 to 1928, it voted Republican with the exception of TR when he ran as a Bull Moose in 1912. In fact, 1860 to 1908 is the longest one-party streak MN has held. For Democrats to beat this, they would need to carry the state up to the 2028 election.

Crazy how the state turned on a dime, eh? Nothing but Republican victories (and TR) until 1932, and then Democrats win 19 of the subsequent 22 elections.

I think 1932 permanenty re-aligned Scandivian-Americans. Before the Depression, Scandivians voted for the GOP because the GOP was the party of prohibition and public education while the Democrats were the party of the freedom to drink alcohol education remaining private and non-compulsory. The Depression caused most, if not all, economically left voters to become Democrats.

Its cause the Democrats, unlike the Republicans, really were not a national party before 1932. The Southern Wing of the Party was filled with politicians across the spectrum due to being a one party state, the Western Wing of the party being dominated by populist left-wingers , the Midwest and North East being all over the pace as well due to the region being so dominated by the GOP in those days.


The Republicans on the other hand with the exception like from 1902-1915 were pretty much united with them being a strongly Pro-Business party(So Classical Liberal on every issue but trade) and being the party of law and order as well.

But against lynching? Sorry, I guess I just associate "law & order" with pro-lynching post-1964. Southern revanchism, essentially. Trump has certainly indicated his support for racist, extra-judicial violence. I suppose it's just not a term I associate with the North, even the Republican North of the 1920's.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Interesting.  We seem to be living in historically unusual times.  I wonder how long the North (R) vs. South (D) alignment will continue to dominate these maps?  MA, RI, CA and IL will very likely flip over the next 20 years, and I presume MO/TN/SC will as well.  How many more R wins are needed to flip Texas?  If it's more than 3, I think it's a true toss up on this map come 2060.    

Republicans have to win another 14 times on the top map and another 12 times to flip TX. This alignment is going to stay with us for a long time lol

The first set of states you mentioned should come around very soon but there's no way SC flips in our lifetime

Also interesting is will Democrats ever flip MN?

If Democrats win MN in both 2020 and 2024, they will flip it. Fun fact: FDR was the first Democrat to win the state in 1932. From 1860 to 1928, it voted Republican with the exception of TR when he ran as a Bull Moose in 1912. In fact, 1860 to 1908 is the longest one-party streak MN has held. For Democrats to beat this, they would need to carry the state up to the 2028 election.

Crazy how the state turned on a dime, eh? Nothing but Republican victories (and TR) until 1932, and then Democrats win 19 of the subsequent 22 elections.

I think 1932 permanenty re-aligned Scandivian-Americans. Before the Depression, Scandivians voted for the GOP because the GOP was the party of prohibition and public education while the Democrats were the party of the freedom to drink alcohol education remaining private and non-compulsory. The Depression caused most, if not all, economically left voters to become Democrats.

Its cause the Democrats, unlike the Republicans, really were not a national party before 1932. The Southern Wing of the Party was filled with politicians across the spectrum due to being a one party state, the Western Wing of the party being dominated by populist left-wingers , the Midwest and North East being all over the pace as well due to the region being so dominated by the GOP in those days.


The Republicans on the other hand with the exception like from 1902-1915 were pretty much united with them being a strongly Pro-Business party(So Classical Liberal on every issue but trade) and being the party of law and order as well.

But against lynching? Sorry, I guess I just associate "law & order" with pro-lynching post-1964. Southern recidivism, essentially. Trump has certainly indicated his support for racist, extra-judicial violence. I suppose it's just not a term I associate with the North, even the Republican North of the 1920's.

Being in support of Anti-Lynching Laws is a Pro Law and Order position

[R.P. McM]

Interesting.  We seem to be living in historically unusual times.  I wonder how long the North (R) vs. South (D) alignment will continue to dominate these maps?  MA, RI, CA and IL will very likely flip over the next 20 years, and I presume MO/TN/SC will as well.  How many more R wins are needed to flip Texas?  If it's more than 3, I think it's a true toss up on this map come 2060.    

Republicans have to win another 14 times on the top map and another 12 times to flip TX. This alignment is going to stay with us for a long time lol

The first set of states you mentioned should come around very soon but there's no way SC flips in our lifetime

Also interesting is will Democrats ever flip MN?

If Democrats win MN in both 2020 and 2024, they will flip it. Fun fact: FDR was the first Democrat to win the state in 1932. From 1860 to 1928, it voted Republican with the exception of TR when he ran as a Bull Moose in 1912. In fact, 1860 to 1908 is the longest one-party streak MN has held. For Democrats to beat this, they would need to carry the state up to the 2028 election.

Crazy how the state turned on a dime, eh? Nothing but Republican victories (and TR) until 1932, and then Democrats win 19 of the subsequent 22 elections.

I think 1932 permanenty re-aligned Scandivian-Americans. Before the Depression, Scandivians voted for the GOP because the GOP was the party of prohibition and public education while the Democrats were the party of the freedom to drink alcohol education remaining private and non-compulsory. The Depression caused most, if not all, economically left voters to become Democrats.

Its cause the Democrats, unlike the Republicans, really were not a national party before 1932. The Southern Wing of the Party was filled with politicians across the spectrum due to being a one party state, the Western Wing of the party being dominated by populist left-wingers , the Midwest and North East being all over the pace as well due to the region being so dominated by the GOP in those days.


The Republicans on the other hand with the exception like from 1902-1915 were pretty much united with them being a strongly Pro-Business party(So Classical Liberal on every issue but trade) and being the party of law and order as well.

But against lynching? Sorry, I guess I just associate "law & order" with pro-lynching post-1964. Southern recidivism, essentially. Trump has certainly indicated his support for racist, extra-judicial violence. I suppose it's just not a term I associate with the North, even the Republican North of the 1920's.

Being in support of Anti-Lynching Laws is a Pro Law and Order position

Post-1964? Nah. Today, "law & order" mostly means I pardon/excuse the criminal elements of my own tribe (Joe Arpaio, Dinesh D'Souza, Elliott Abrams, Richard Nixon, etc.), but come down hard on everyone else (non-whites). There's no genuine, ecumenical principles at work, just tribalism, racism, and authoritarianism.

[darklordoftech]

Interesting.  We seem to be living in historically unusual times.  I wonder how long the North (R) vs. South (D) alignment will continue to dominate these maps?  MA, RI, CA and IL will very likely flip over the next 20 years, and I presume MO/TN/SC will as well.  How many more R wins are needed to flip Texas?  If it's more than 3, I think it's a true toss up on this map come 2060.    

Republicans have to win another 14 times on the top map and another 12 times to flip TX. This alignment is going to stay with us for a long time lol

The first set of states you mentioned should come around very soon but there's no way SC flips in our lifetime

Also interesting is will Democrats ever flip MN?

If Democrats win MN in both 2020 and 2024, they will flip it. Fun fact: FDR was the first Democrat to win the state in 1932. From 1860 to 1928, it voted Republican with the exception of TR when he ran as a Bull Moose in 1912. In fact, 1860 to 1908 is the longest one-party streak MN has held. For Democrats to beat this, they would need to carry the state up to the 2028 election.

Crazy how the state turned on a dime, eh? Nothing but Republican victories (and TR) until 1932, and then Democrats win 19 of the subsequent 22 elections.

I think 1932 permanenty re-aligned Scandivian-Americans. Before the Depression, Scandivians voted for the GOP because the GOP was the party of prohibition and public education while the Democrats were the party of the freedom to drink alcohol education remaining private and non-compulsory. The Depression caused most, if not all, economically left voters to become Democrats.

Its cause the Democrats, unlike the Republicans, really were not a national party before 1932. The Southern Wing of the Party was filled with politicians across the spectrum due to being a one party state, the Western Wing of the party being dominated by populist left-wingers , the Midwest and North East being all over the pace as well due to the region being so dominated by the GOP in those days.


The Republicans on the other hand with the exception like from 1902-1915 were pretty much united with them being a strongly Pro-Business party(So Classical Liberal on every issue but trade) and being the party of law and order as well.

But against lynching? Sorry, I guess I just associate "law & order" with pro-lynching post-1964. Southern recidivism, essentially. Trump has certainly indicated his support for racist, extra-judicial violence. I suppose it's just not a term I associate with the North, even the Republican North of the 1920's.

In the 1920s and earlier, "law and order", if advocated by a Republican, was anti-Mafia, anti-Italian, anti-Irish, and anti-alcohol, not anti-black. The GOP of the 1920s and earlier saw lynching as a crime.

[R.P. McM]

Interesting.  We seem to be living in historically unusual times.  I wonder how long the North (R) vs. South (D) alignment will continue to dominate these maps?  MA, RI, CA and IL will very likely flip over the next 20 years, and I presume MO/TN/SC will as well.  How many more R wins are needed to flip Texas?  If it's more than 3, I think it's a true toss up on this map come 2060.    

Republicans have to win another 14 times on the top map and another 12 times to flip TX. This alignment is going to stay with us for a long time lol

The first set of states you mentioned should come around very soon but there's no way SC flips in our lifetime

Also interesting is will Democrats ever flip MN?

If Democrats win MN in both 2020 and 2024, they will flip it. Fun fact: FDR was the first Democrat to win the state in 1932. From 1860 to 1928, it voted Republican with the exception of TR when he ran as a Bull Moose in 1912. In fact, 1860 to 1908 is the longest one-party streak MN has held. For Democrats to beat this, they would need to carry the state up to the 2028 election.

Crazy how the state turned on a dime, eh? Nothing but Republican victories (and TR) until 1932, and then Democrats win 19 of the subsequent 22 elections.

I think 1932 permanenty re-aligned Scandivian-Americans. Before the Depression, Scandivians voted for the GOP because the GOP was the party of prohibition and public education while the Democrats were the party of the freedom to drink alcohol education remaining private and non-compulsory. The Depression caused most, if not all, economically left voters to become Democrats.

Its cause the Democrats, unlike the Republicans, really were not a national party before 1932. The Southern Wing of the Party was filled with politicians across the spectrum due to being a one party state, the Western Wing of the party being dominated by populist left-wingers , the Midwest and North East being all over the pace as well due to the region being so dominated by the GOP in those days.


The Republicans on the other hand with the exception like from 1902-1915 were pretty much united with them being a strongly Pro-Business party(So Classical Liberal on every issue but trade) and being the party of law and order as well.

But against lynching? Sorry, I guess I just associate "law & order" with pro-lynching post-1964. Southern recidivism, essentially. Trump has certainly indicated his support for racist, extra-judicial violence. I suppose it's just not a term I associate with the North, even the Republican North of the 1920's.

In the 1920s and earlier, "law and order", if advocated by a Republican, was anti-Mafia, anti-Italian, anti-Irish, and anti-alcohol, not anti-black. The GOP of the 1920s and earlier saw lynching as a crime.

Yeah, that's basically what I'm suggesting. The "law & order" of Calvin Coolidge reflected a Northern WASP sensibility. Which I can somewhat respect. But the modern version, the Nixon-Trump version, is just thinly veiled Southern revanchism. Distinctly different, and not nearly as defensible.

[darklordoftech]

I wonder if Minnesota was pro-tariff before the Great Depression.

[R.P. McM]

I wonder if Minnesota was pro-tariff before the Great Depression.

Smoot-Hawley is probably the best indicator. I know the timing isn't ideal, but the majority of MN's heavily Republican congressional delegation was either opposed or unwilling to vote. A few years later, they were massacred. So the statewide sentiment seems pretty clear. And not all that surprising — protectionism has often been favored by manufacturing interests, but opposed by agriculture.  

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Realignment of 2006 has made this map

2012
Barack Obama/Joe Biden 304
Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan 234

2020 predicted map
Joe Biden/Tim Ryan or Steve Bullock 304
Trump/Pence 234

[Non-consecutive Two Term Floridian]

Realignment of 2006 has made this map

2012
Barack Obama/Joe Biden 304
Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan 234

2020 predicted map
Joe Biden/Tim Ryan or Steve Bullock 304
Trump/Pence 234

It's not 2012 anymore. If Dems are winning OH, they're going to be ahead in more states like AZ, NC, FL, GA and maybe even TX

[RINO Tom]

It's kind of funny that we have posters here talking about 2012 like it happened 100 years ago yet are convinced that 2016 can be used to predict a map decades from now, haha.

[Politician]

It's kind of funny that we have posters here talking about 2012 like it happened 100 years ago yet are convinced that 2016 can be used to predict a map decades from now, haha.

Interestingly enough, if you extrapolate 2012 trends for the next 5 cycles, the 2032 election would look like this:

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's kind of funny that we have posters here talking about 2012 like it happened 100 years ago yet are convinced that 2016 can be used to predict a map decades from now, haha.

Interestingly enough, if you extrapolate 2012 trends for the next 5 cycles, the 2032 election would look like this:

How did PA trend R while OH trended D lol

[Mr. Smith]

Speaking of 100 years ago, this is what the left/right of vote would look like if averaged out from 1920-2016.

No wonder the GOP have won so many Presidencies...the narrative is too focused on Ohio.