Is "purple state" the right term for a state...

[Adam Griffin]

This thought was inspired by this article.

I keep hearing people say that "Georgia is moving toward the center", but in reality, this couldn't be further from the truth. The Republican half of the state (electorate) has jolted much further to the right than it was even 5 or 10 years ago, while the Democratic Party continues to move leftward - albeit at a much slower rate. The only thing pushing the state into what we call a "purple state" status is the changing demographics that will ultimately decide elections based on turnout and an incredibly small swing electorate.

I personally don't think states like GA and NC should be lumped into the same "purple state" category as states like OH and VA. How do you feel about this? What alternative term would you give to the states outlined above that are close but inelastic, and which states do you think would fit into this category (and which would fit the definition of a purple state being centrist and elastic)?

[ElectionsGuy]

Yes, I would say so. If I was describing a state with centrism I would say its a moderate state. A state like Virginia or Ohio is not moderate, but purple.

[Mister Mets]

Interesting question. Generally I've understood purple to mean it's a state where Democrats and Republicans both have a good chance of winning, rather than a state with a moderate electorate (although there is overlap.)

[pbrower2a]

Political polarization is extremely sharp in some states split nearly 50-50... like Wisconsin. Nearly half of Wisconsin thinks that Scott Walker is the greatest Governor in the State's history. Nearly half hates him. 

[GOON]

I've always understood that the term "purple state" describes a state that could swing either way in Presidential elections (hence, combining red and blue make the color purple.  There is your art lesson for the day, but w/e.)

[Person Man]

What states are polarized purple and what states are "moderate" purple?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Some states are a bit of a hybrid of the two (Colorado springs to mind..I'd say its population is somewhere in the middle on average but there are significant ideological factions in both parties that skew perceptions of its overall "polarization.")

[Person Man]

Some states are a bit of a hybrid of the two (Colorado springs to mind..I'd say its population is somewhere in the middle on average but there are significant ideological factions in both parties that skew perceptions of its overall "polarization.")

You could say the same about Ohio or Iowa. I think most purple states...at least in the Midwest are basically one or two big democratic city states surrounded by moderate suburbs and very conservative tracts of farmland, strip malls, mega churches, bedroom communities and trailer parks.

[Angel of Death]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/swing-voters-and-elastic-states/

[ElectionsGuy]

What states are polarized purple and what states are "moderate" purple?

Polarized purple could be Virginia, while "moderate" purple could be a state like New Hampshire.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Other than on a couple social issues the Democrats are moving right nationwide.

[pendragon]

Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota and Nevada come to mind as "moderate purple" states.  Stretching the definition of "purple state" a bit, you could add Indiana, Montana, Missouri, Maine and Oregon.

[Miles]

Overall, I'd say a state is purple if the end result is close, without regard to the deeper coalitions/dynamics but the OP makes a good point.

What states are polarized purple and what states are "moderate" purple?

Polarized purple could be Virginia, while "moderate" purple could be a state like New Hampshire.

This is just like the "battleground" vs. "swing state" difference. Though more voters are becoming unaffliated, I still think their are more "battlegrounds."

Battleground/polarized: NC, VA, FL, OH, WI, PA
Swing/moderate: NH, CO, IA, NV

[RTX]

I'd consider a purple state one where it's a coin flip between a generic D vs. generic R for statewide elections

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Other than on a couple social issues the Democrats are moving right nationwide.

[windjammer]

Adam,
According to me, a purple state is a state that is competitive during the presidential elections: Colorado, Ohio, and indeed soon Georgia.

THAT'S DEFINITELY NOT A CENTRIST STATE. Centrist states are different. According to me, centrist states= Indiana, Rhode Island, Delaware,...

[illegaloperation]

elastic purple states (examples): NH, IA

inelastic purple states (examples): VA, NC

[SNJ1985]

What states are polarized purple and what states are "moderate" purple?

North Carolina is a major example of a ''polarized purple'' state.

[KCDem]

Other than on a couple social issues the Democrats are moving right nationwide.

There is nothing wrong or funny with what he said, though the truth behind his words is quite sad.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Other than on a couple social issues the Democrats are moving right nationwide.

There is nothing wrong or funny with what he said, though the truth behind his words is quite sad.

http://politicalcompass.org/charts/us2012.php

http://politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png

Go to politicalcompass.org for a complete description of Obama's rightward movement if you want to read about it.

Obviously this is a very inexact science and Obama's move isn't indicative of the entire party, but the original statement is echoed here. In general, Democrats have been dragged so far to the right by the Tea Party. Some might argue that the party hasn't moved entirely, just Obama has for practical and/or political reasons, but the party aside from moderates in deep red states is mostly behind him. True leftists don't seem to speak against him loudly. The majority of Democrats (not in either of those groups) have moved with him.

What is spoken even more loudly to me is that the last election proves the polarization has little to do with the issues. The parties haven't been more closely aligned (nationally) post WW2. They (mostly Republicans) just don't get stuff done.

I think the Economist (or maybe Electoral-vote?) had an article a few weeks back that there have been more unanimous SCOTUS decisions than ever before. Polarization on the issues is just nonsense when a totally political supreme court agrees so much. Some states might have had some polarization increases but nationally, no way.

Both parties are far to the right of where they were in the 2000s, and Democrats may have moved further, but every time they budge, the GOP just moves even further which is why it seems big.

A bit off topic, but I did want to give input on that issue.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The idea that the most centrist candidate wins is such rank idiocy. I suppose Wisconsin voted for Johnson and Baldwin as Senators because they were so centrist? LOL.

[DS0816]

The idea that the most centrist candidate wins is such rank idiocy. I suppose Wisconsin voted for Johnson and Baldwin as Senators because they were so centrist? LOL.

It's b.s. corporate media/party establishment "idocy."

Really, it's just a way to keep people in line.

[RR1997]

Yes

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Other than on a couple social issues the Democrats are moving right nationwide.

There is nothing wrong or funny with what he said, though the truth behind his words is quite sad.

http://politicalcompass.org/charts/us2012.php

http://politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png

Go to politicalcompass.org for a complete description of Obama's rightward movement if you want to read about it.

Obviously this is a very inexact science and Obama's move isn't indicative of the entire party, but the original statement is echoed here. In general, Democrats have been dragged so far to the right by the Tea Party. Some might argue that the party hasn't moved entirely, just Obama has for practical and/or political reasons, but the party aside from moderates in deep red states is mostly behind him. True leftists don't seem to speak against him loudly. The majority of Democrats (not in either of those groups) have moved with him.

What is spoken even more loudly to me is that the last election proves the polarization has little to do with the issues. The parties haven't been more closely aligned (nationally) post WW2. They (mostly Republicans) just don't get stuff done.

I think the Economist (or maybe Electoral-vote?) had an article a few weeks back that there have been more unanimous SCOTUS decisions than ever before. Polarization on the issues is just nonsense when a totally political supreme court agrees so much. Some states might have had some polarization increases but nationally, no way.

Both parties are far to the right of where they were in the 2000s, and Democrats may have moved further, but every time they budge, the GOP just moves even further which is why it seems big.

A bit off topic, but I did want to give input on that issue.

LOL political compass "analysis". If you ever want to laugh, read their UK 2010 election write-up.

[Spacephys02]

I would separate the states based on ones that I would consider swing states and others that I would consider purple states. Purple states would be ones like Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina that are almost equally divided between hard-core Democratic base voters and Republican base voters and won't really move in either direction from election to election. Swing states would be ones like New Hampshire and Iowa where voters aren't very attached to either party and will often "swing" between the two parties, sometimes dramatically.