Which fact is weirdest?

[TDAS04]

What say you?

[Xing]

ND, though NV having a Republican governor from 1999-2019 is another odd one.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

ND, though NV having a Republican governor from 1999-2019 is another odd one.

I agree with ND, but for NV, 16 of those 20 years were under RINOs. It’s kind of like when people point to Massachusetts having a proclivity for Republican Governors and saying “5/6 of the most recent Governors were Republicans!” Those 5 were obviously RINOs as well

[Roll Roons]

I'd say NY having a Republican State Senate until 2018, considering that Republicans haven't won a statewide race there since 2002, which is the longest drought for any state.

Here's another one: New Jersey's House delegation was split 6-6 as recently as 2016.

Also I've noticed some interesting correlations between presidential elections and gubernatorial elections in a handful of states. Since 1988, the sitting president's party has always lost the elections for governor in New Jersey, Kansas and New Mexico. This rule has also held for Wisconsin and Michigan since 1992. Famously, it was true of Virginia from 1976 until T-Mac won it in 2013 with Obama in the White House.

There are a few states that have currently unbroken streaks of predicting the winning party in the presidential elections one or two years later. These are Kentucky and Maryland beginning with 2004 presidential, and Massachusetts with 2000. One of these will have to end next year.

[Matty]

what was up with the dakotas and their love affair with electing dems to congress in the 90s and early 000s?

[Figueira]

ND, but here's another one: Kansas hasn't elected a governor of the same party as the president since 1986.

[Bojack Horseman]

I’m going with New York for the fact that there were that many traitor Democrats willing to caucus with the other side.

[538Electoral]

The 3rd one.

[The Arizonan]

what was up with the dakotas and their love affair with electing dems to congress in the 90s and early 000s?

Most of those Democrats were entrenched incumbents and they fit their respective states almost like a glove.

[Skill and Chance]

NY because it's a large, urban state.  The "wrong" party winning a safe state is much more plausible when there are only a few 100K voters and you can personally interact with a significant fraction of them.


NJ is just because Republicans won the gerrymander tiebreaker lottery for that map.  The Democrats got their map for the state legislature and have held massive majorities the whole decade even when Christie was landsliding.

[President Johnson]

You know what's the weirdest fact of all: Florida not electing a Democratic governor since 1994 because Democrats blow it each time.