Illinois had a bigger swing to Romney than any of his home states did.

[Eraserhead]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, he does. It's clearly Utah.

In electoral terms (ie the state where he got a home state boost) this is a correct statement.

And then Hawaii's is Obama's (not Illinois or Kansas).

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, he does. It's clearly Utah.

In electoral terms (ie the state where he got a home state boost) this is a correct statement.

And then Hawaii's is Obama's (not Illinois or Kansas).

Nyes. Obama got a huge swing in Illinois in 2008 - which is a big part of the swing back now, after all. Hawaii just has other issues beyond the home state factor - nobody feeling other'ed by a nonwhite Prez, and the state's traditional pro-incumbent lean due to Asians & Soldiers.

[Averroës Nix]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, he does. It's clearly Utah.

In electoral terms (ie the state where he got a home state boost) this is a correct statement.

I think this assumption conflates the home-state factor with the Mormon factor, although in this case I'm not certain whether the two can (or should) be separated.

[renegadedemocrat]

Outside of Cook County, you'll find a pretty Republican state. Quad cities is pretty heavy for Obama, but even in DuPage, where it was close, there are a lot of Republican voters.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, he does. It's clearly Utah.

In electoral terms (ie the state where he got a home state boost) this is a correct statement.

I think this assumption conflates the home-state factor with the Mormon factor, although in this case I'm not certain whether the two can (or should) be separated.

In addition to the Mormon factor, there is the experience of the 2002 Olympics that qualifies as a sort of home state connection.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Home States generally tend to trend away from "their" candidate when he's on the ballot for the second time. CA trended D in 1972, GA trended R in 1980, CA trended D in 1984, AR trended R in 1996, TX trended D in 2004. The only exception in modern era has been Texas in 1992 (which is very surprising, if you consider Clinton's Southern appeal... did Bentsen make that much difference in 1988?).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Home States generally tend to trend away from "their" candidate when he's on the ballot for the second time. CA trended D in 1972, GA trended R in 1980, CA trended D in 1984, AR trended R in 1996, TX trended D in 2004. The only exception in modern era has been Texas in 1992 (which is very surprising, if you consider Clinton's Southern appeal... did Bentsen make that much difference in 1988?).

No, but Perot did in 1992.  While Dem share declined in Texas from 43 to 37%, the GOP declined from 56 to 41%.  You can't really use 1992 to discuss anything involving ordinary two-party political trends.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Home States generally tend to trend away from "their" candidate when he's on the ballot for the second time. CA trended D in 1972, GA trended R in 1980, CA trended D in 1984, AR trended R in 1996, TX trended D in 2004. The only exception in modern era has been Texas in 1992 (which is very surprising, if you consider Clinton's Southern appeal... did Bentsen make that much difference in 1988?).

No, but Perot did in 1992.  While Dem share declined in Texas from 43 to 37%, the GOP declined from 56 to 41%.  You can't really use 1992 to discuss anything involving ordinary two-party political trends.

I thought that the conventional wisdom was that Perot would hurt Bush, if it had any effect. That said, things could be different State-by-State.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Home States generally tend to trend away from "their" candidate when he's on the ballot for the second time. CA trended D in 1972, GA trended R in 1980, CA trended D in 1984, AR trended R in 1996, TX trended D in 2004. The only exception in modern era has been Texas in 1992 (which is very surprising, if you consider Clinton's Southern appeal... did Bentsen make that much difference in 1988?).

No, but Perot did in 1992.  While Dem share declined in Texas from 43 to 37%, the GOP declined from 56 to 41%.  You can't really use 1992 to discuss anything involving ordinary two-party political trends.

I thought that the conventional wisdom was that Perot would hurt Bush, if it had any effect. That said, things could be different State-by-State.

Nationally Bush went from 53% to 37% while the Dems went from 46% to 43%.  But Perot's home state was Texas too, so that probably goosed his results in the Lone Star State.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, I see why this case is tricky. Anyways, it's the only exception since at least the 50s (I wasn't sure which State I should consider as Ike's real "home State").

[Napoleon]

Yeah, I see why this case is tricky. Anyways, it's the only exception since at least the 50s (I wasn't sure which State I should consider as Ike's real "home State").

New York. He was President of Columbia University. New York swung to Eisenhower in 1956.

[hopper]

Lets see Presidential Voter Partisin Index(I just rounded) for Illinois:

1996: D+5
2000: D+6
2004: D+6
2008: D+9
2012: D+6

So in 2008 Obama just got a bump up PVI wise because it was Dem wave year.

[nclib]

This is actually the first election sequence Illinois has trended Republican since 1972-1976.

[hopper]

Romney won Kendall County which was I think the fastest growing county in the US population wise from 2001-2009.

[BaldEagle1991]

Yeah, I see why this case is tricky. Anyways, it's the only exception since at least the 50s (I wasn't sure which State I should consider as Ike's real "home State").

It's Kansas.

As for the topic, I think it had a lot to do with rural Illinois and their opposition to biofuels like Ethanol from corn (which Obama supports).

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I consider it Pennsylvania--the Eisenhauer family lived there, and it was where Eisenhower was registered to vote as president.