States splitting apart

[jimrtex]

The following states have voted together for several elections in a row (the year is that of their last disagreement).  Which will vote for different presidential candidates first?

Note: RI and HI have voted together in every election in which HI has participated in, since 1960.  MS and AL are treated as having voted together during the Civil War and during Reconstruction when they did not vote for president.

[Aizen]

MT-CO

[Alcon]

I definitely see OH/TN as the likeliest.  The competitive ones are:

1. OH-TN I think the GOP is going to have to work to win Ohio in 2008
2. MT-CO I'd say about a 35-40% chance
3. NM-IA In another close election, especially with McCain, who knows?
4. WI-NY Obviously, almost happened twice
5. FL-AZ A solid victory might take away FL without AR
6. DE-PA PA is polling GOP, but I still think it's probably going Dem
7. CT-MI Unlikely, but possible
8. MN-DC Not very likely
9. AR-LA I know people say Clinton is likely to do well in AR, but still unlikely for me (I am being generous with this ranking)
10. OK-VA OK is going nowhere, but VA could flip in a strong victory
11. OR-WA The most unlikely on this list, but still sorta competitive

(The last three I think are almost equally likely, though.)

The only one on this list that I will already call as definitely, definitely not happening in 2008 is ID-UT (I'm confident enough that I won't have to eat my words on that).

This all, of course, is excepting a third-party entering.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm surprised that people are favoring OH-TN so much.  While it is on my list of near term possibles, it isn't among my top 3.  4th likeliest at best, and more like 5th likeliest.

[Tender Branson]

I'm surprised that people are favoring OH-TN so much.  While it is on my list of near term possibles, it isn't among my top 3.  4th likeliest at best, and more like 5th likeliest.

Why ? OH will vote for the Democrat next year, while TN will not.

[minionofmidas]

I'm surprised that people are favoring OH-TN so much.  While it is on my list of near term possibles, it isn't among my top 3.  4th likeliest at best, and more like 5th likeliest.

Why ? OH will vote for the Democrat next year, while TN will not.

I wouldn't rule a Dem win in Tennessee out. By no means. Still, it's certainly a good bit less than 50% likely.

[Gabu]

I'm surprised that people are favoring OH-TN so much.  While it is on my list of near term possibles, it isn't among my top 3.  4th likeliest at best, and more like 5th likeliest.

What's #1 then?

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'd say Top Five all equal are:

CT/MI
DE/PA
PA/OH
WI/NY
NM/IO

[Smash255]

I'd say Top Five all equal are:

CT/MI
DE/PA
PA/OH
WI/NY
NM/IO

PA & OH wasn't even a choice,  as far as the others Ohio & Colorado have better chances of flipping than Michigan, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

CT-MI and NY-WI will definitely split the next time the GOP breaks 300 EV.

OH-TN requires a close election or Fred as the GOP candidate to split in 2008, and I'm not at all convinced that 2008 will be close, even if my current prediction is a close election with OH and TN splitting.  However, my prediction assumes a third party candidate getting 5% of the PV.  In a D-R only contest, I'd have Tennessee as a Democrat tossup right now.

[auburntiger]

CT-MI and NY-WI will definitely split the next time the GOP breaks 300 EV.

OH-TN requires a close election or Fred as the GOP candidate to split in 2008, and I'm not at all convinced that 2008 will be close, even if my current prediction is a close election with OH and TN splitting.  However, my prediction assumes a third party candidate getting 5% of the PV.  In a D-R only contest, I'd have Tennessee as a Democrat tossup right now.

You much be joking if you think TN is a Dem tossup. At most the Dem will get 46-47%. Middle TN and Nashville suburbs have gone sharply to the right, and ETN is already blood red anyway. There are still some Dem strongholds in WTN like Memphis, Haywood Co., and the counties that border the TN river and MS river (minus Tipton), but that's about it. Therefore, I declare TN is a red state in '08 and probably in '12.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With the shape I foresee the economy and the Iraq being in, Tennessee will be a tossup in 2008, altho one could easily argue whether it will be a Dem or GOP tossup.  The candidates picked will also matter and whether there is a strong third party effort and who leads it.


Now if I foresaw a close race in the Electoral College, then yes Tennessee would be a true blue Republican state, but right now, it's not looking like a close race come November 2008.

[Jaggerjack]

To put it simply, Ohio can go Democratic in 2008. We've fallen apart in Tennessee, I don't hold out much prospects of any Democrat taking that state.

[Joe Biden 2020]

To put it simply, Ohio can go Democratic in 2008. We've fallen apart in Tennessee, I don't hold out much prospects of any Democrat taking that state.

That may be true about Tennessee, but you also have to go back and look, yes, Al Gore did lose his home state in 2000, but Kerry was just a horrible candidate, but Edwards could probably have put Tennessee a little closer.  It wouldn't have been a tossup, but it might be more of a lighter shade red as opposed to blood red like its southern neighbor of Alabama.

Ohio can very easily go Democratic in 2008.  Just look at how close they came in 2004 when the Kerry camp was contemplating a recount.

[Nym90]

OH and TN are the most likely, with a pretty decent shot at MT and CO as well, if we are looking at 2008.

The next strong GOP win will split WI and NY probably, but I don't see that happening before at least 2016.

[Nym90]

On a side note, 1960 isn't considered a split between MS and AL? It's certainly debateable either way, but I'd count it.

[Jake]

Had there been Unpledged Electors (D) on the Alabama ballot, I think we can conclude it probably would've won.

[jimrtex]

On a side note, 1960 isn't considered a split between MS and AL? It's certainly debateable either way, but I'd count it.

Byrd received a majority of the Alabama electors.

[jimrtex]

The following states historically had the longest pattern of voting together:

10 states voted in the first election in 1789 when Washington was elected unanimously.  Of the 13 original states, NC and RI had yet to ratify the Constitution, and NY failed to choose its electors.

In 1792, all 10 again voted for Washington.

In 1796, the states split into two groups.  PA-VA-SC-GA voted for Jefferson.  These four would stick together through 1820, voting in subsequent elections for Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe (two elections each).   

Meanwhile, NH-MA-CT-NJ-DE-MD voted for J.Adams, and repeated in 1800, though MD was tied.   In 1804 CT-DE alone voted for C.Pinckney.  These two voted together until 1820 voting for C.Pincney in 1808, D.Clinton, King, and Monroe.

The other four, NH-MA-NJ-MD, voted for Jefferson in 1804, but split in 1808, when NH-MA voted for C.Pinckney while NJ-MD voted for Madison.  NJ and MD split in 1912, voting for D.Clinton and Madison, respectively.  NH-MA voted for D.Clinton in 1812, but split in 1816, with NH voting for Monroe, and MA for King.

So by 1820, you had two remaining blocs that had voted together in all 9 elections, the Democrat bloc of PA-VA-SC-GA and the Federalist bloc of CT-DE.

In 1824, the Democrat bloc split, PA-SC voting for Jackson, while VA-GA voted for Crawford; and the Federalist block ended, with CT voting for J.Q.Adams, and DE going with Crawford.

In 1828, Both PA-SC and VA-GA voted for Jackson.  In 1832, PA and VA-GA voted for Jackson, but SC voted for Floyd.  This left the longest group as VA-GA with 12 elections voting torgether.

In 1836, VA voted for Van Buren, while GA voted for White.   

The new leaders became PA-NC which had voted together since NC's first election in 1792.  The two would vote together for a 13th time, voting for W.H. Harrison in 1840, but would split in 1844 with PA voting for Polk, while NC went for Clay.

The new leaders, at 9 elections, were PA-LA which had voted together in every election since 1812 following LA statehood.  These two would continue for the next 3 elections, voting for Taylor, Pierce, and Buchanan.  In 1860, PA voted for Lincoln, while LA voted for Breckinridge.

At the outset of the Civil War, RI-CT had voted together for 11 elections since 1820.  They would stay together for 3 more elections, voting for Lincoln, and Grant twice.  In 1876, RI voted Hayes, while CT voted Tilden.

There were two new co-leaders, ME-MI which had voted together since MI first election in 1836, and AL-AR which had voted together since AR fist election in 1836.  ME-MI would have one more election together if we exclude the Civil War election of 1864 for AL-AR.

The two pairs would stick together through 1908, with ME-MI voting consistently Republican, and AL-AR voting consistently Democrat.  In 1912, MI voted for T.Roosevelt, while the other three voted for Wilson.  This left AL-AR alone with 20 (or 19) elections together.

AL-AR continued to vote Democrat together until 1948, when AL voted for Thurmond, while AR voted for Truman.

Beginning in 1948, AL-MS became the new leaders, having voted together since 1844 (in 1844, MS voted for W.H.Harrison, while AL voted for Van Buren).   The two are counted as having voted together during the 1864 Civil War election, and the 1868 election when MS was still excluded, while AL voted for Grant.

Both stuck with Democrats in 1952 and 1956.  AL gave a narrow majority of its electoral vote to Byrd in 1960 to stick with MS, and then the two voted for Goldwater in 1964, and Wallace in 1968.  The two have voted for the GOP in every election since then, except for Carter im 1976.  The closest they came to splitting was in 1980, when Reagan had a narrow, but almost identical, margins (1.30% in AL, 1.32% in MS).