Misouri and Bellewether Row

[True Democrat]

People say Missouri is the perfect bellewether state as it has only voted for the loser once in the past 100 years (1956).  I've noticed that the row of states that Missouri is in (Minnesota through Lousiana) is also a bellwether area.  The majority of these states have gone to the winner of Presidential election since 1900 (except in 1968 because of Wallace, but Nixon still beat Humphrey in the count 2-1)  What do you think of this trend?

[jokerman]

I don't know.  Considering that Kerry could have very probably won the 2004 election without winning Missouri, the same situation could very likely happen in 2008 as well and it would lose it's status.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I think as the south has become more conservative, the Bellwether Line has shifted more upwards. At this point, I think Iowa qualifies much more than Missouri. Eventually, I think, it will be Minnesota. Then we may have to start holding elections in Canada.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Delaware is a good Bellewether state.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Actually, while Missouri is an excellent bellweather (10 of the last 10), and Arkansas and Louisiana are very good (9 of the last 10), Iowa is only fair (7 of the last 10) and Minnesota poor (only five of the last 10).

[True Democrat]

No, I'm saying there' s trend that shows that whoever wins the majority of the five states from Minnesota to Louisiana.  This is true in every election since 1900 except 1968 because of Wallace (though Nixon did beat Humphrey two states to one).

[Platypus]

that's pretty amazing, but unlikely to continue much longer if there is a democrat win, Minnesota is moderate democrat; Iowa a swing state; Missouri and Arkansas moderate Republican, and Louisiana a firm but not rock solid GOP state. I think the southwest is where it's at. You win 3 of CO, NM, AZ and NV and you win, i'd say. I'll just go oand check that, but even if it's not a past trend, it's a likely future one.

[True Democrat]

that's pretty amazing, but unlikely to continue much longer if there is a democrat win, Minnesota is moderate democrat; Iowa a swing state; Missouri and Arkansas moderate Republican, and Louisiana a firm but not rock solid GOP state. I think the southwest is where it's at. You win 3 of CO, NM, AZ and NV and you win, i'd say. I'll just go oand check that, but even if it's not a past trend, it's a likely future one.

Ah... so the new area to look for shall be called the "Utah Bottleneck"

[Platypus]

yep. EVERY ELECTION since AZ and NM joined, if you've wonm three of AZ, NM, NV and CO you've won.

In 1960, Kennedy won NV and NM, whilst Nixon won CO and AZ, but otherwise the winning candidate has recieved three states, and every time a candidate recieved three states, they won.

[True Democrat]

yep. EVERY ELECTION since AZ and NM joined, if you've wonm three of AZ, NM, NV and CO you've won.

In 1960, Kennedy won NV and NM, whilst Nixon won CO and AZ, but otherwise the winning candidate has recieved three states, and every time a candidate recieved three states, they won.

Not 1976.

[Platypus]

damn, didn't spot that. Still, all but ONCE since NM and AZ joined. That's a pretty important thing, especially considering it's ingreasinly looking like a battleground in the future.

[Sibboleth]

The problem is, we don't know what future trends are until they happen.
I've said it before and I'll say it again (maybe you'll listen this time round), George W Bush is not allowed to seek re-election in 2008. Every President seems to have a distinctive pattern of support and we won't know what Dubya's was until he's gone so to speak... kinda like Bubba.

[Platypus]

would you accept that the MN-LA row is a less lkely bellweather then the southwest?

[Gustaf]

Someone did that study that showed that the centre of America, in population terms, was in a state won by the winner of the election in every election except one since Washington.

[Beet]

Someone did that study that showed that the centre of America, in population terms, was in a state won by the winner of the election in every election except one since Washington.

Not true. In 1916 the mean center of population was almost certainly Indiana, but Wilson lost it. From 1810 to 1850, the mean center of population was in Virginia, but Harrison lost it in '40 and Quincy lost it in '24. The median center of population has been in Indiana since 1950.

[ilikeverin]

Someone did that study that showed that the centre of America, in population terms, was in a state won by the winner of the election in every election except one since Washington.

Not true. In 1916 the mean center of population was almost certainly Indiana, but Wilson lost it. From 1810 to 1850, the mean center of population was in Virginia, but Harrison lost it in '40 and Quincy lost it in '24. The median center of population has been in Indiana since 1950.

Not so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_center_of_U.S._population

[Kevinstat]

Someone did that study that showed that the centre of America, in population terms, was in a state won by the winner of the election in every election except one since Washington.

Not true. In 1916 the mean center of population was almost certainly Indiana, but Wilson lost it. From 1810 to 1850, the mean center of population was in Virginia, but Harrison lost it in '40 and Quincy lost it in '24. The median center of population has been in Indiana since 1950.

Not so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_center_of_U.S._population

Mean does not equal median.  Gustaf [edit: ahem, I mean thefactor] was probably saying that the intersection of the median lattitude and the median longitude has been in Indiana in every census from 1950 onwards.  In other words, half of the Americans counted in each of those census have lived north, south, east and west of a point in Indiana.  Everyone who lived northeast, southeast, northwest and southwest of that point moving to Maine, Florida, southern California and Washington would have no impact on the median center of population, while it would definitely have some impact on the mean center of population.

Kevin

[ilikeverin]

Someone did that study that showed that the centre of America, in population terms, was in a state won by the winner of the election in every election except one since Washington.

Not true. In 1916 the mean center of population was almost certainly Indiana, but Wilson lost it. From 1810 to 1850, the mean center of population was in Virginia, but Harrison lost it in '40 and Quincy lost it in '24. The median center of population has been in Indiana since 1950.

Not so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_center_of_U.S._population

Mean does not equal median. Gustaf was probably saying that the intersection of the median lattitude and the median longitude has been in Indiana in every census from 1950 onwards. In other words, half of the Americans counted in each of those census have lived north, south, east and west of a point in Indiana. Everyone who lived northeast, southeast, northwest and southwest of that point moving to Maine, Florida, southern California and Washington would have no impact on the median center of population, while it would definitely have some impact on the mean center of population.

Kevin

Gustaf was talking mean.  Thefactor inexplicably switched to median at the end of his post, but I did not read it (as I made the understandable assumption that people to do suddenly and abruptly change their topic in the middle of their posts) as such, so I posted the link to tell him that no, the mean center of population has not been in Indiana since 1950.

[jimrtex]

Gustaf was talking mean.  Thefactor inexplicably switched to median at the end of his post, but I did not read it (as I made the understandable assumption that people to do suddenly and abruptly change their topic in the middle of their posts) as such, so I posted the link to tell him that no, the mean center of population has not been in Indiana since 1950.

Gustaf wrote "centre of population" (sic).   The Census Bureau defines both a "mean center of population" and a "median center of population".

It is not clear which measure Gustaf was referring to, since it is not true that the center of population by either measure has always been in a state carried by the presidential winner.

Since the median center of population has indeed been in Indiana since 1950 (and also 1900 and 1910), then the clear implication is that thefactor was covering both cases, whichever Gustaf meant.

[Platypus]

centre is an acceptable substitute for center, jim. center is an acceptable substitute for centre.

[Vasall des Midas]

centre is an acceptable substitute for center, jim. center is an acceptable substitute for centre.

Center is an inacceptable substitute for centre.

[Gustaf]

Stop saying "Gustaf says"...

It's not ME...someone else on the forum wrote about this maybe a year ago. The definition was, IIRC, the intersection point between two lines dividing the US into west/east and north/south halves, population-wise. According to the person writing it, this was Missouri for most of recent times and originally in Maryland.

[Vasall des Midas]

Stop saying "Gustaf says"...

It's not ME...someone else on the forum wrote about this maybe a year ago. The definition was, IIRC, the intersection point between two lines dividing the US into west/east and north/south halves, population-wise. According to the person writing it, this was Missouri for most of recent times and originally in Maryland.

Nope, that's the definition for the median, which is still east of the Mississippi. The location you give is correct for the mean. I remember the thread...the discussion here is very much like the one back then. The notion is false, btw.

[jimrtex]

It's not ME...someone else on the forum wrote about this maybe a year ago. The definition was, IIRC, the intersection point between two lines dividing the US into west/east and north/south halves, population-wise. According to the person writing it, this was Missouri for most of recent times and originally in Maryland.

Here are the centers of population as defined by the US Census Bureau:

Median Center of Population

A curiosity is the loop back in the first half of the 20th century, while the mean continued to move eastward.  The NS median latitude is approaching the San Francisco area, while EW median longitude is approach the Chicago area.  Both will slow the southwestward progress of the median.

Mean Center of Population - Follow the Money

I would expect the median lines to more closely reflect sectional political differences.

[Beet]

Gustaf was talking mean.  Thefactor inexplicably switched to median at the end of his post, but I did not read it (as I made the understandable assumption that people to do suddenly and abruptly change their topic in the middle of their posts) as such, so I posted the link to tell him that no, the mean center of population has not been in Indiana since 1950.

Gustaf wrote "centre of population" (sic).   The Census Bureau defines both a "mean center of population" and a "median center of population".

It is not clear which measure Gustaf was referring to, since it is not true that the center of population by either measure has always been in a state carried by the presidential winner.

Since the median center of population has indeed been in Indiana since 1950 (and also 1900 and 1910), then the clear implication is that thefactor was covering both cases, whichever Gustaf meant.

Right. In any case, it's still a pretty remarkable phenomenon. Since 1840, the state with the mean center of population has gone with the winner in all except for 1916, which was kind of a strange election because Wilson narrowly won on the basis of his incumbency, which he only had in the first place because of Roosevelt's ultra-successful third-party challenge in 1912... probably the most successful "third party" challenge since 1860, at least.

About the 1910-1930 loopback... the closing of the frontier, urbanization, and immigration all probably contributed. This was the period when northeastern cities were the most dominant in terms of their percentage of the national population.

Before 1930, there was clearly a gradual northward movement of population, again due to both immigration and internal migration, since the south had been devastated so much economically by the Civil War. The New Deal I think played a role in jumpstarting true industrialization in the south and since then the population center has been moving in that direction. That's a case where being in the electoral majority translated into clear economic gains for a region.