Weirdest Presidental Election Result by state since 1960

[Calthrina950]

What’ll be the weirdest 2020 result?

- I think Kansas and Alaska could surprise us (Trump +12 maybe).
- If New Hampshire votes closely to Colorado and Virginia.
- How narrow Biden’s wins in Nevada and New Mexico are.
- If Biden wins Florida or Arizona by 3+ pts.

I'd say that a 55 Trump-35 Biden-10 Third Party result in Utah would qualify as well, as that would make Trump the first Republican to win the state twice to fail to reach 60% there since William H. Taft in 1908/1912 (Eisenhower in 1956, Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1980 and 1984, H.W. Bush in 1988, and W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 all reached that benchmark there). If Biden manages to hit 40% there (which is possible if he picks up the lionshare of McMullin's vote), that would be an even stranger result. As for Alaska, Trump won it by 14% last time, beating Hillary Clinton there 51-37%, with third parties garnering 12% of the vote.

So I could easily see the state being a high single-digit win for him this time, if the third-party vote consolidates towards Biden. And we almost forget that New Hampshire went for Obama by nearly 10% in 2008, so a similar result this year wouldn't be too shocking, given how unpopular Trump is with women and college-educated voters there.

[DabbingSanta]

What’ll be the weirdest 2020 result?

- I think Kansas and Alaska could surprise us (Trump +12 maybe).
- If New Hampshire votes closely to Colorado and Virginia.
- How narrow Biden’s wins in Nevada and New Mexico are.
- If Biden wins Florida or Arizona by 3+ pts.

Weirdest possible results?

1) Trump winning Minnesota (1972).

2) Trump losing either Georgia (1992) or Texas (1976), or both.

[Calthrina950]

1980, as has been alluded to on here before when discussing the result in Arkansas, certainly did have many strange state-by-state results. Reagan did exceptionally well in his native region (the West), winning almost every state of that region (except for Hawaii) by double digits, and exceeding 60% or even 70% of the vote in many of those states. Most of the South, conversely, was extremely close, with Reagan garnering a majority in a select few states (Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia). But one result that's particularly interesting, and which I've taken note of just recently, is Maryland.

This is the county map for the state that year:

A glance at the map would make it seem that Reagan won the state, given that he carried the majority of the counties, including Baltimore, Howard, and Montgomery Counties. I've watched old NBC News Election Night coverage on YouTube, and Reagan was actually leading in the state for much of the night until late returns gave Carter the advantage. However, a closer look reveals how Carter managed to win Maryland. Baltimore, Howard, and Montgomery Counties only went to Reagan with pluralities, with John Anderson drawing away a significant number of votes from Reagan. But most importantly of all, Carter won Baltimore City over Reagan by more than 50%, garnering over 70% of the vote there. His margin of 134,009 there more than accounted for his 45,555 margin in the state as a whole.

Reagan's weakness with black voters probably helps to explain why he lost Maryland, and in particular, why he lost Baltimore by so much. In the corresponding Senatorial race, Charles Mathias won Baltimore by 13% and swept every county in the state, while getting 66%. There was much ticket-splitting in Maryland that year, with Mathias winning over substantial numbers of Carter voters, including many black Democrats (although a majority stayed Democratic).

[OSR stands with Israel]

1980, as has been alluded to on here before when discussing the result in Arkansas, certainly did have many strange state-by-state results. Reagan did exceptionally well in his native region (the West), winning almost every state of that region (except for California) by double digits, and exceeding 60% or even 70% of the vote in many of those states. Most of the South, conversely, was extremely close, with Reagan garnering a majority in a select few states (Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia). But one result that's particularly interesting, and which I've taken note of just recently, is Maryland.

Reagan won California by 17 points in 1980, the largest margin for any Republican in California since 1928

[Calthrina950]

1980, as has been alluded to on here before when discussing the result in Arkansas, certainly did have many strange state-by-state results. Reagan did exceptionally well in his native region (the West), winning almost every state of that region (except for California) by double digits, and exceeding 60% or even 70% of the vote in many of those states. Most of the South, conversely, was extremely close, with Reagan garnering a majority in a select few states (Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia). But one result that's particularly interesting, and which I've taken note of just recently, is Maryland.

Reagan won California by 17 points in 1980, the largest margin for any Republican in California since 1928

That was a mistake on my part (I was tired when typing up this post). I meant to say Hawaii.

[Alcibiades]

1980, as has been alluded to on here before when discussing the result in Arkansas, certainly did have many strange state-by-state results. Reagan did exceptionally well in his native region (the West), winning almost every state of that region (except for Hawaii) by double digits, and exceeding 60% or even 70% of the vote in many of those states. Most of the South, conversely, was extremely close, with Reagan garnering a majority in a select few states (Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia). But one result that's particularly interesting, and which I've taken note of just recently, is Maryland.

This is the county map for the state that year:

A glance at the map would make it seem that Reagan won the state, given that he carried the majority of the counties, including Baltimore, Howard, and Montgomery Counties. I've watched old NBC News Election Night coverage on YouTube, and Reagan was actually leading in the state for much of the night until late returns gave Carter the advantage. However, a closer look reveals how Carter managed to win Maryland. Baltimore, Howard, and Montgomery Counties only went to Reagan with pluralities, with John Anderson drawing away a significant number of votes from Reagan. But most importantly of all, Carter won Baltimore City over Reagan by more than 50%, garnering over 70% of the vote there. His margin of 134,009 there more than accounted for his 45,555 margin in the state as a whole.

Reagan's weakness with black voters probably helps to explain why he lost Maryland, and in particular, why he lost Baltimore by so much. In the corresponding Senatorial race, Charles Mathias won Baltimore by 13% and swept every county in the state, while getting 66%. There was much ticket-splitting in Maryland that year, with Mathias winning over substantial numbers of Carter voters, including many black Democrats (although a majority stayed Republican).

Another weird Maryland result was 1988. It was the only time the state has voted Republican outside of a 49-state blowout since 1956. It can probably be explained by the fact that Dukakis got absolutely crushed among white suburbanites, and Bush’s dog-whistles about African-American criminals may have played particularly well in white Maryland considering the state’s high black population.

Dukakis actually did better than Carter in Montgomery and PG Counties, however he did much worse in Anne Arundel, Howard and Baltimore Counties and pretty much the rest of the entire state, including its rural areas. The two did about the same in Baltimore City, but its population declined between 1980 and 1988.

[Calthrina950]

1980, as has been alluded to on here before when discussing the result in Arkansas, certainly did have many strange state-by-state results. Reagan did exceptionally well in his native region (the West), winning almost every state of that region (except for Hawaii) by double digits, and exceeding 60% or even 70% of the vote in many of those states. Most of the South, conversely, was extremely close, with Reagan garnering a majority in a select few states (Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia). But one result that's particularly interesting, and which I've taken note of just recently, is Maryland.

This is the county map for the state that year:

A glance at the map would make it seem that Reagan won the state, given that he carried the majority of the counties, including Baltimore, Howard, and Montgomery Counties. I've watched old NBC News Election Night coverage on YouTube, and Reagan was actually leading in the state for much of the night until late returns gave Carter the advantage. However, a closer look reveals how Carter managed to win Maryland. Baltimore, Howard, and Montgomery Counties only went to Reagan with pluralities, with John Anderson drawing away a significant number of votes from Reagan. But most importantly of all, Carter won Baltimore City over Reagan by more than 50%, garnering over 70% of the vote there. His margin of 134,009 there more than accounted for his 45,555 margin in the state as a whole.

Reagan's weakness with black voters probably helps to explain why he lost Maryland, and in particular, why he lost Baltimore by so much. In the corresponding Senatorial race, Charles Mathias won Baltimore by 13% and swept every county in the state, while getting 66%. There was much ticket-splitting in Maryland that year, with Mathias winning over substantial numbers of Carter voters, including many black Democrats (although a majority stayed Republican).

Another weird Maryland result was 1988. It was the only time the state has voted Republican outside of a 49-state blowout since 1956. It can probably be explained by the fact that Dukakis got absolutely crushed among white suburbanites, and Bush’s dog-whistles about African-American criminals may have played particularly well in white Maryland considering the state’s high black population.

Dukakis actually did better than Carter in Montgomery and PG Counties, however he did much worse in Anne Arundel, Howard and Baltimore Counties and pretty much the rest of the entire state, including its rural areas. The two did about the same in Baltimore City, but its population declined between 1980 and 1988.

1988 is certainly perplexing in many ways. In addition to Maryland, Bush held Pennsylvania-another single-digit win for Reagan in 1984-largely thanks to the "Willie Horton issue", as I would phrase it, and it also enabled him to win Illinois (which had been a 13% win for Reagan), but he lost New York and Iowa-two other single-digit Reagan wins. Iowa was relatively unaffected by the Willie Horton issue and reacted strongly to the Farm Crisis of that decade-which is also why it was more Democratic than the national average in 1984.

In New England, Bush narrowly held Vermont-which was a 16% win for Reagan in 1984, but was more Democratic than the national average at that point and was trending leftwards because of increasing Republican conservatism on social issues-and did almost as well as Reagan in Maine and New Hampshire (the latter state was powerfully Republican then). But he lost Rhode Island by low double digits and only won Connecticut-the state his father had represented in the Senate-by about 5%.

But on the other hand, Dukakis only won Massachusetts by 8%, doing worse there than George McGovern (the only state where he did worse than McGovern), despite the facts that it was his home state, that it was a Democratic bastion except in landslide years, and that he was the incumbent Governor. And Dukakis came within single digits in New Mexico and Colorado-the latter state's result is particularly intriguing, given that Reagan won it by nearly 30% in 1984-but did worse than Mondale in Tennessee and about the same as him throughout most of the South, particularly in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina. So 1988 is a demonstration, more then almost any other election, of how there is no such thing as a universal swing.

[Alcibiades]

1980, as has been alluded to on here before when discussing the result in Arkansas, certainly did have many strange state-by-state results. Reagan did exceptionally well in his native region (the West), winning almost every state of that region (except for Hawaii) by double digits, and exceeding 60% or even 70% of the vote in many of those states. Most of the South, conversely, was extremely close, with Reagan garnering a majority in a select few states (Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia). But one result that's particularly interesting, and which I've taken note of just recently, is Maryland.

This is the county map for the state that year:

A glance at the map would make it seem that Reagan won the state, given that he carried the majority of the counties, including Baltimore, Howard, and Montgomery Counties. I've watched old NBC News Election Night coverage on YouTube, and Reagan was actually leading in the state for much of the night until late returns gave Carter the advantage. However, a closer look reveals how Carter managed to win Maryland. Baltimore, Howard, and Montgomery Counties only went to Reagan with pluralities, with John Anderson drawing away a significant number of votes from Reagan. But most importantly of all, Carter won Baltimore City over Reagan by more than 50%, garnering over 70% of the vote there. His margin of 134,009 there more than accounted for his 45,555 margin in the state as a whole.

Reagan's weakness with black voters probably helps to explain why he lost Maryland, and in particular, why he lost Baltimore by so much. In the corresponding Senatorial race, Charles Mathias won Baltimore by 13% and swept every county in the state, while getting 66%. There was much ticket-splitting in Maryland that year, with Mathias winning over substantial numbers of Carter voters, including many black Democrats (although a majority stayed Republican).

Another weird Maryland result was 1988. It was the only time the state has voted Republican outside of a 49-state blowout since 1956. It can probably be explained by the fact that Dukakis got absolutely crushed among white suburbanites, and Bush’s dog-whistles about African-American criminals may have played particularly well in white Maryland considering the state’s high black population.

Dukakis actually did better than Carter in Montgomery and PG Counties, however he did much worse in Anne Arundel, Howard and Baltimore Counties and pretty much the rest of the entire state, including its rural areas. The two did about the same in Baltimore City, but its population declined between 1980 and 1988.

1988 is certainly perplexing in many ways. In addition to Maryland, Bush held Pennsylvania-another single-digit win for Reagan in 1984-largely thanks to the "Willie Horton issue", as I would phrase it, and it also enabled him to win Illinois (which had been a 13% win for Reagan), but he lost New York and Iowa-two other single-digit Reagan wins. Iowa was relatively unaffected by the Willie Horton issue and reacted strongly to the Farm Crisis of that decade-which is also why it was more Democratic than the national average in 1984.

In New England, Bush narrowly held Vermont-which was a 16% win for Reagan in 1984, but was more Democratic than the national average at that point and was trending leftwards because of increasing Republican conservatism on social issues-and did almost as well as Reagan in Maine and New Hampshire (the latter state was poerfully Republican then). But he lost Rhode Island by low double digits and only won Connecticut-the state his father had represented in the Senate-by about 5%.

But on the other hand, Dukakis only won Massachusetts by 8%, doing worse there than George McGovern (the only state where he did worse than McGovern), despite the facts that it was his home state, that it was a Democratic bastion except in landslide years, and that he was the incumbent Governor. And Dukakis came within single digits in New Mexico and Colorado-the latter state's result is particularly intriguing, given that Reagan won it by nearly 30% in 1984-but did worse than Mondale in Tennessee and about the same as him throughout most of the South, particularly in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina. So 1988 is a demonstration, more then almost any other election, of how there is no such thing as a universal swing.

Yes - 1988 was a strange election, caught between alignments - residual New Deal voting, suburban Reaganist and law-and-order Republicanism, and hints of the alignment to come, particularly with Democratic strength in the Upper Midwest and Upper New England. Another strange result was Louisiana - Dukakis’ best Southern states, but one of Carter’s worst in 1980.

The two strangest for me were Colorado and Maine. With Colorado, I have no idea why it showed a brief Democratic revival in 1988 and 1992 after 40 years of GOP presidential dominance, not to reappear again until 2008. As for Maine, it seemed a good fit for Dukakis - like Iowa and Vermont, a very white, rural, liberal-leaning state (which was to become reliably Democratic in the following decades), where the Willie Horton issue had little impact. Did the fact that the Bush family had their summer residence there alone really give HW his surprisingly decisive victory? I feel there must be another facet of the state I am overlooking.

[Calthrina950]

1980, as has been alluded to on here before when discussing the result in Arkansas, certainly did have many strange state-by-state results. Reagan did exceptionally well in his native region (the West), winning almost every state of that region (except for Hawaii) by double digits, and exceeding 60% or even 70% of the vote in many of those states. Most of the South, conversely, was extremely close, with Reagan garnering a majority in a select few states (Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia). But one result that's particularly interesting, and which I've taken note of just recently, is Maryland.

This is the county map for the state that year:

A glance at the map would make it seem that Reagan won the state, given that he carried the majority of the counties, including Baltimore, Howard, and Montgomery Counties. I've watched old NBC News Election Night coverage on YouTube, and Reagan was actually leading in the state for much of the night until late returns gave Carter the advantage. However, a closer look reveals how Carter managed to win Maryland. Baltimore, Howard, and Montgomery Counties only went to Reagan with pluralities, with John Anderson drawing away a significant number of votes from Reagan. But most importantly of all, Carter won Baltimore City over Reagan by more than 50%, garnering over 70% of the vote there. His margin of 134,009 there more than accounted for his 45,555 margin in the state as a whole.

Reagan's weakness with black voters probably helps to explain why he lost Maryland, and in particular, why he lost Baltimore by so much. In the corresponding Senatorial race, Charles Mathias won Baltimore by 13% and swept every county in the state, while getting 66%. There was much ticket-splitting in Maryland that year, with Mathias winning over substantial numbers of Carter voters, including many black Democrats (although a majority stayed Republican).

Another weird Maryland result was 1988. It was the only time the state has voted Republican outside of a 49-state blowout since 1956. It can probably be explained by the fact that Dukakis got absolutely crushed among white suburbanites, and Bush’s dog-whistles about African-American criminals may have played particularly well in white Maryland considering the state’s high black population.

Dukakis actually did better than Carter in Montgomery and PG Counties, however he did much worse in Anne Arundel, Howard and Baltimore Counties and pretty much the rest of the entire state, including its rural areas. The two did about the same in Baltimore City, but its population declined between 1980 and 1988.

1988 is certainly perplexing in many ways. In addition to Maryland, Bush held Pennsylvania-another single-digit win for Reagan in 1984-largely thanks to the "Willie Horton issue", as I would phrase it, and it also enabled him to win Illinois (which had been a 13% win for Reagan), but he lost New York and Iowa-two other single-digit Reagan wins. Iowa was relatively unaffected by the Willie Horton issue and reacted strongly to the Farm Crisis of that decade-which is also why it was more Democratic than the national average in 1984.

In New England, Bush narrowly held Vermont-which was a 16% win for Reagan in 1984, but was more Democratic than the national average at that point and was trending leftwards because of increasing Republican conservatism on social issues-and did almost as well as Reagan in Maine and New Hampshire (the latter state was powerfully Republican then). But he lost Rhode Island by low double digits and only won Connecticut-the state his father had represented in the Senate-by about 5%.

But on the other hand, Dukakis only won Massachusetts by 8%, doing worse there than George McGovern (the only state where he did worse than McGovern), despite the facts that it was his home state, that it was a Democratic bastion except in landslide years, and that he was the incumbent Governor. And Dukakis came within single digits in New Mexico and Colorado-the latter state's result is particularly intriguing, given that Reagan won it by nearly 30% in 1984-but did worse than Mondale in Tennessee and about the same as him throughout most of the South, particularly in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina. So 1988 is a demonstration, more then almost any other election, of how there is no such thing as a universal swing.

Yes - 1988 was a strange election, caught between alignments - residual New Deal voting, suburban Reaganist and law-and-order Republicanism, and hints of the alignment to come, particularly with Democratic strength in the Upper Midwest and Upper New England. Another strange result was Louisiana - Dukakis’ best Southern states, but one of Carter’s worst in 1980.

The two strangest for me were Colorado and Maine. With Colorado, I have no idea why it showed a brief Democratic revival in 1988 and 1992 after 40 years of GOP presidential dominance, not to reappear again until 2008. As for Maine, it seemed a good fit for Dukakis - like Iowa and Vermont, a very white, rural, liberal-leaning state (which was to become reliably Democratic in the following decades), where the Willie Horton issue had little impact. Did the fact that the Bush family had their summer residence there alone really give HW his surprisingly decisive victory? I feel there must be another facet of the state I am overlooking.

I'm not exactly sure about this either, except to say that Maine did have a tradition of moderate to liberal Republicanism-and Bush, in 1988, was still viewed as a moderate Northeastern Republican, given that he was the son of Prescott Bush (who was a moderate Republican while in the Senate), that he was originally from the region (Massachusetts), and that he had the tone and demeanor of a Northeasterner (despite having lived in Texas for forty years by that point-it was his son, W. Bush, who had the tone and demeanor of a true, born and bred Southerner, as we all know). Bush's connections to Maine in the form of his family residence certainly played a role as well, as did the fact that prior to becoming Reagan's running mate, he had criticized his economic policies (calling them "voodoo economics"), and that during his presidential campaigns, he ran on a theme of "compassionate conservatism" (i.e., the "shining points of light" speech).

This may also explain why Bush managed to hold Vermont and Connecticut, although the former state was more Democratic than the national average, and Reagan had done worse there in 1980 than Gerald Ford-losing many liberal and moderate Republican votes to John Anderson. I'm not sure why Dukakis did much better in Colorado aside from electoral geography reasons-he improved significantly over Mondale and Carter in Denver County, and also flipped both Boulder and Pitkin Counties, turning them into Democratic strongholds-Pitkin, in particular, had strongly disliked Jimmy Carter, and was one of the few McGovern counties won by Ford in 1976 (and in 1980, Anderson had drawn away many liberal votes there, enabling Reagan to win it with less than 40% of the vote). The only explanation to me is that independents and college-educated suburbanites/urbanites were already trending Democratic by that point-and Colorado, then as now, is one of the most educated states in the country.

[mianfei]

• Mississippi 1980: High black turnout there – and voting more D than 1976 – prevented large swings
• Maryland 1980: black vote – even in counties Reagan won – critical and more D than 1976. Reagan won Dorchester County, where Humphrey ran third in 1968 and almost certainly won a single-figure percentage of the white vote, by a smaller margin than Goldwater in 1964
• West Virginia 1972: extreme social and moral conservatism of poor white population meant McGovern was viewed as a left-wing extremist. Swings, although large, were nothing like post-Bill Clinton Democrats
• Colorado 1988: growing influence of resort-town counties and very loyal Hispanic vote was what made the state close (same true of New Mexico). Carter was a poor fit for almost every Democratic group in those states.
• South in 1988: Good economy (except in Louisiana which was affected by low oil prices especially in the southwestern parishes), no farm crisis, and no doubt Willie Horton had some effect

[Turbo Flame]

New Mexico in 2000 was only decided by 366 votes. Wonder why.

[Agonized-Statism]

New Mexico in 2000 was only decided by 366 votes. Wonder why.

It was still a swing state at the time, and extremely close results seem to be a theme for 2000.

[Alcibiades]

• Colorado 1988: growing influence of resort-town counties and very loyal Hispanic vote was what made the state close (same true of New Mexico). Carter was a poor fit for almost every Democratic group in those states.

But why was Colorado, having voted in line with the national average, then significantly more Republican than it in 1996 and 2000? After all, it’s not as if the groups you mentioned above grew any less influential (although I guess in 2000, Bush did well with Hispanics).

[Calthrina950]

• Colorado 1988: growing influence of resort-town counties and very loyal Hispanic vote was what made the state close (same true of New Mexico). Carter was a poor fit for almost every Democratic group in those states.

But why was Colorado, having voted in line with the national average, then significantly more Republican than it in 1996 and 2000? After all, it’s not as if the groups you mentioned above grew any less influential (although I guess in 2000, Bush did well with Hispanics).

Bob Dole seems to have had strong appeal in Eastern Colorado (which is similar to his home state of Kansas in many ways), while in 2000, Gore lost a considerable number of votes to Ralph Nader (who garnered 5.25% in Colorado). Nader did especially well in the liberal ski resorts and in Boulder County, breaking double digits in many counties (San Miguel County, where he got 17.2%, was his best county in the nation). This is the reason why Bush was able to win many typically Democratic counties such as San Juan, La Plata, Gunnison, Eagle, Routt, and Clear Creek, and why Gore's vote share (42.39%) was abnormally low. In 2004, John Kerry picked up Nader's vote, while Bush only marginally improved over his 2000 vote share, which is why the state swung Democratic that year and Bush's margin of victory fell from 8% to 4%.

[Calthrina950]

Bumping this thread up to see what the views are with regards to the weirdest state result of last year. I would have to say Georgia. The state flipping to the Democrats isn't surprising by itself, but that it did so while Florida and North Carolina stayed loyal to Trump (and with Trump improving in the former), is notable. Georgia is now to the left of both of those states, which it had not been since 1992.

[Alben Barkley]

Bumping this thread up to see what the views are with regards to the weirdest state result of last year. I would have to say Georgia. The state flipping to the Democrats isn't surprising by itself, but that it did so while Florida and North Carolina stayed loyal to Trump (and with Trump improving in the former), is notable. Georgia is now to the left of both of those states, which it had not been since 1992.

I would say Florida itself might have been the weirdest actually. The Miami-Dade swings were so massive and unexpected people thought it was a reporting error at first. The state went from having absurdly close election results basically every single time to being a far more comfortable victory for Trump than polls or forecasters predicted, or 2016 for that matter even as Biden got the swings he needed in most of the rest of the country to win. It just went the complete opposite direction as the country, and by more than most expected it to. Before the election you might think something was particularly unusual about Georgia if you heard the result, but in fact it was the only one that did exactly what it was supposed to; polls were most accurate and trends most steady there.

[Schiff for Senate]

Here are a few:


2020: FL (who would think  it would trend rightward in 2020 and go so rightward that it would be redder than NC, GA and AZ?) or TX (look at the Rio Grande Valley)

2016: WI; MI; PA

2000: FL (look at the margin...)

1972: MA (who would think it votes blue by so much? - it was McGovern's only state and it went for him by 9 points)

[votefortrump98]

The state went from having absurdly close election results basically every single time to being a far more comfortable victory for Trump than polls or forecasters predicted, or 2016 for that matter even as Biden got the swings he needed in most of the rest of the country to win. It just went the complete opposite direction as the country, and by more than most expected it to. Before the election you might think something was particularly unusual about Georgia if you heard the result, but in fact it was the only one that did exactly what it was supposed to; polls were most accurate and trends most steady there.

The polls predicted landslide victory for Biden which we didn't face at all. 110k votes in 4 closest swing state decided the outcome. While polls were indicating a slight advantage for Joe even in Texas, when in real life he barely won Wisonsin with margin of 20k votes. And this state was considered to be lean D all the time until Trump won it in 2016

[MATTROSE94]

Probably the entire 2020 election map due to the polling errors that underestimated Donald Trumps support by 13%.

[Calthrina950]

Bumping this thread up to see what the views are with regards to the weirdest state result of last year. I would have to say Georgia. The state flipping to the Democrats isn't surprising by itself, but that it did so while Florida and North Carolina stayed loyal to Trump (and with Trump improving in the former), is notable. Georgia is now to the left of both of those states, which it had not been since 1992.

I would say Florida itself might have been the weirdest actually. The Miami-Dade swings were so massive and unexpected people thought it was a reporting error at first. The state went from having absurdly close election results basically every single time to being a far more comfortable victory for Trump than polls or forecasters predicted, or 2016 for that matter even as Biden got the swings he needed in most of the rest of the country to win. It just went the complete opposite direction as the country, and by more than most expected it to. Before the election you might think something was particularly unusual about Georgia if you heard the result, but in fact it was the only one that did exactly what it was supposed to; polls were most accurate and trends most steady there.

I'll concede the point which you make here. I certainly was astounded by the magnitude of Trump's gains in Miami-Dade County, and I thought that he was on his way to winning reelection, until the rest of the night played itself out.