Composite electoral map 1909-2009

[Schmitz in 1972]

I thought it would be interesting to see how the parties have performed in each state over the past century (the 25 elections from 1912 forward). After collecting the data, I put it in map form.

This map shows which party won each state in the plurality of presidential elections over the past 100 years. The shading is based on the percentage of the time that party won the state (NOT an average of the popular vote percentage). Pennsylvania turned out to be a tie, each party having won it 12 times, with the Bull Moose party holding the tiebreaker.

Twelve states were divided 13 to 12, with each party taking six (NM, TX, KY, IL, MO, and FL for the Democrats; TN, NV, DE, CT, OR, and NJ for the Republicans). If the Republicans had just 400 more votes in New Mexico in 2000, it would be blue - a century of elections turns on a few hundred votes! Anyway, it's neat map because it shows you just how much things have changed in the South and in New England in such a relatively short period of time. It almost defies belief that Republicans won Vermont 19 out of 25 times. As a final note, the hypothetical Democrat wins the (2008) electoral college 329-188-21, but that's a deceptively comfortable margin: had only a handful of down-to-the-wire elections (like the aforementioned NM 2000) come down the other way, the Republican would have won.

Note: California is red only by virtue of the two Wilson electors from the 1912 election. I factored in non-faithless elector related electoral splits while making the map (CA in 1912, WV in 1916, AL in 1960, and NE in 2008), but only in California did a split make a difference in who won overall. Without the split counted, CA is a 12-12 tie like PA, with the Bull Moose party holding the tiebreaker.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

It almost defies belief that Republicans won Vermont 19 out of 25 times.

That is right, for most of the 1900s Vermont was a solidly Republican state. It was one of only two states to have went to Taft in 1912 (the other was Utah), and one of only two to have went for Landon in 1936 (the other was Maine).

[memphis]

It almost defies belief that Republicans won Vermont 19 out of 25 times.

That is right, for most of the 1900s Vermont was a solidly Republican state. It was one of only two states to have went to Taft in 1912 (the other was Utah), and one of only two to have went for Landon in 1936 (the other was Maine).

It's pretty much the opposite of Mississippi. The times, they have a changed.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Massachusetts is interesting.  It appears to have gone Democratic more times than Mississippi, which I wouldn't have expected.

[Schmitz in 1972]

Massachusetts is interesting.  It appears to have gone Democratic more times than Mississippi, which I wouldn't have expected.

Massachusetts experienced its "crossover" in the 1920s, when it resisted Hoover's landslide and went for Smith. After that, only Eisenhower was able to do anything there (Reagan winning it twice was almost literally a miracle - in 1980 he took it by less than 4,000 votes due mostly to Anderson's 15%, and in 1984, the only way a Republican could have won Massachusetts was a 49 or 50 state landslide, which is of course what happened).

Mississippi's "crossover" wasn't until the 1960s. After narrowly rejecting Kennedy for Byrd in 1960, the only times Democrats have even made it close ('76 and '80) were when their candidate was a Bible quoting peanut farmer.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Massachusetts is interesting.  It appears to have gone Democratic more times than Mississippi, which I wouldn't have expected.

Massachusetts experienced its "crossover" in the 1920s, when it resisted Hoover's landslide and went for Smith. After that, only Eisenhower was able to do anything there (Reagan winning it twice was almost literally a miracle - in 1980 he took it by less than 4,000 votes due mostly to Anderson's 15%, and in 1984, the only way a Republican could have won Massachusetts was a 49 or 50 state landslide, which is of course what happened).

Mississippi's "crossover" wasn't until the 1960s. After narrowly rejecting Kennedy for Byrd in 1960, the only times Democrats have even made it close ('76 and '80) were when their candidate was a Bible quoting peanut farmer.

Massachusetts went to Reagan in 1980 by just 0.15%--a closer margin than any other state, on either side, and that was just two elections after Massachusetts was the only state to have voted Democratic.

But in 1984, Reagan actually won Massachusetts with a majority of popular votes (!), and it was still a close state, going to Reagan by just 2.79%.

[Verily]

Massachusetts is interesting.  It appears to have gone Democratic more times than Mississippi, which I wouldn't have expected.

Massachusetts experienced its "crossover" in the 1920s, when it resisted Hoover's landslide and went for Smith. After that, only Eisenhower was able to do anything there (Reagan winning it twice was almost literally a miracle - in 1980 he took it by less than 4,000 votes due mostly to Anderson's 15%, and in 1984, the only way a Republican could have won Massachusetts was a 49 or 50 state landslide, which is of course what happened).

Mississippi's "crossover" wasn't until the 1960s. After narrowly rejecting Kennedy for Byrd in 1960, the only times Democrats have even made it close ('76 and '80) were when their candidate was a Bible quoting peanut farmer.

Massachusetts went to Reagan in 1980 by just 0.15%--a closer margin than any other state, on either side, and that was just two elections after Massachusetts was the only state to have voted Democratic.

But in 1984, Reagan actually won Massachusetts with a majority of popular votes (!), and it was still a close state, going to Reagan by just 2.79%.

Not exactly as surprising as you make it out to be. What did McGovern have that Mondale didn't? "Mc".

[Antonio the Sixth]

I thought it would be interesting to see how the parties have performed in each state over the past century (the 25 elections from 1912 forward). After collecting the data, I put it in map form.

This map shows which party won each state in the plurality of presidential elections over the past 100 years. The shading is based on the percentage of the time that party won the state (NOT an average of the popular vote percentage). Pennsylvania turned out to be a tie, each party having won it 12 times, with the Bull Moose party holding the tiebreaker.

Twelve states were divided 13 to 12, with each party taking six (NM, TX, KY, IL, MO, and FL for the Democrats; TN, NV, DE, CT, OR, and NJ for the Republicans). If the Republicans had just 400 more votes in New Mexico in 2000, it would be blue - a century of elections turns on a few hundred votes! Anyway, it's neat map because it shows you just how much things have changed in the South and in New England in such a relatively short period of time. It almost defies belief that Republicans won Vermont 19 out of 25 times. As a final note, the hypothetical Democrat wins the (2008) electoral college 329-188-21, but that's a deceptively comfortable margin: had only a handful of down-to-the-wire elections (like the aforementioned NM 2000) come down the other way, the Republican would have won.

Note: California is red only by virtue of the two Wilson electors from the 1912 election. I factored in non-faithless elector related electoral splits while making the map (CA in 1912, WV in 1916, AL in 1960, and NE in 2008), but only in California did a split make a difference in who won overall. Without the split counted, CA is a 12-12 tie like PA, with the Bull Moose party holding the tiebreaker.

Interesting map.

[pbrower2a]

How about comparing 1908 to 2008? An odd parallel is that Taft won about the same percentage of electoral votes in 1908 as Obama did in 2008. Of course, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, and New Mexico were not states and did not vote in 1908; D. C. just did not vote; women did not vote; blacks were effectively excluded from voting in the South but would surely have voted heavily Republican if given the chance; persons under 21 did not vote; mass media in 1908 were almost exclusively newspapers in 1908 and printed newspapers may have been dying in 2008.

Taft followed an immensely-popular Republican President; Obama followed an immensely un-popular Republican President.

Taft 1908, McCain 2008
did not vote 1908, McCain 2008
Taft 1908, Obama 2008
Bryan 1908, Obama 2008
did not vote 1908, Obama 2008
Bryan 1908, McCain 2008

Electoral votes are for 2008.

Errata: NE-02 and both Maine Congressional districts should be orange.

Look how the parties have practically flip-flopped over 100 years in regional support! Obama could have won (barely) by winning only states that both he in 2008 and the Republican nominee of 1908 won!

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Massachusetts is interesting.  It appears to have gone Democratic more times than Mississippi, which I wouldn't have expected.

Massachusetts experienced its "crossover" in the 1920s, when it resisted Hoover's landslide and went for Smith. After that, only Eisenhower was able to do anything there (Reagan winning it twice was almost literally a miracle - in 1980 he took it by less than 4,000 votes due mostly to Anderson's 15%, and in 1984, the only way a Republican could have won Massachusetts was a 49 or 50 state landslide, which is of course what happened).

Mississippi's "crossover" wasn't until the 1960s. After narrowly rejecting Kennedy for Byrd in 1960, the only times Democrats have even made it close ('76 and '80) were when their candidate was a Bible quoting peanut farmer.

Massachusetts went to Reagan in 1980 by just 0.15%--a closer margin than any other state, on either side, and that was just two elections after Massachusetts was the only state to have voted Democratic.

But in 1984, Reagan actually won Massachusetts with a majority of popular votes (!), and it was still a close state, going to Reagan by just 2.79%.

Not exactly as surprising as you make it out to be. What did McGovern have that Mondale didn't? "Mc".

They also have a representative called James McGovern (district 3).

[minionofmidas]

Whoa. Blast from the past. Hey Liberty.