Thoughts on the final Trend map?

[MT Treasurer]

Only 16 states trended Democratic.

[/]

New Mexico will end up trending Republican too, and a few of the other shades will likely change as well.

[Kingpoleon]

IL trending Democratic is the biggest shock to me.

[Bigby]

Utah is probably the biggest fluke unless McMullin becomes the next Harold Stassen.

[nclib]

Is it certain this is final?

Only 5 states swung Republican but trended Democrat (ID, CO, OR, AK, NC).

[dax00]

a map without the two-party bias. 0-2% trend = 30% shade; 2-5% trend = 50% shade; 5-10% trend = 70% shade; 10%+ trend = 90% shade

[Make My Bank Account Great Again]

Democrats could still win back the rust belt in 2020/maybe 2024, but their future will be in the south and southwest in the long run.

I could see a 2024 map resembling something like this:

[tmthforu94]

1) Kansas - not really apparent why it would trend to Hillary.

Kansas is a deeply religious, evangelical state, so you had some Christians who were turned off by Trump and supported third parties. Additionally, Brownback has been extremely unpopular and all of the State Senate races were up, so Democrats had a better ground game than usual in attempting to win some seats in the legislature. There was also some national funding from the DCCC and other organizations to help Sidie in KS-03, which in turn, helped Clinton win the 3rd district.

[Sumner 1868]

Since New Mexico, Florida and Nevada trended Republican I'm taking the proposed Sunbelt strategy less and less seriously.

[White Trash]

Since New Mexico, Florida and Nevada trended Republican I'm taking the proposed Sunbelt strategy less and less seriously.

I never took it seriously. Democrats aren't winning college-educated whites anytime soon, and these voters are crucial in these states.

[Make My Bank Account Great Again]

Since New Mexico, Florida and Nevada trended Republican I'm taking the proposed Sunbelt strategy less and less seriously.

New Mexico is still trending Democratic. This year it trended Republican by .03 percentage points which is effectively zero but from 2000-2016 it's trended 6.8 points Democratic.

Nevada was never a good fit for the sunbelt strategy because there's a large WWC electorate there.

Florida is a mess to predict.

[justfollowingtheelections]

3 states stick out the most to me:

1) Kansas - not really apparent why it would trend to Hillary.

2) New York - doesn't match other states with huge metro areas that trended to Hillary.  Maybe Trump was more engaging to typically demoralized New York Republicans.

3) Florida - this state you never know, but the large metro area thing would portend that it would trend to Hillary.  I guess it was one of the big states that was actually focused on so anything could happen.

Other than that, pretty much every state on there makes sense.

Kansas didn't trend to Hillary but against Trump.
New York: Trump did really well upstate

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Illinois is the one that is really bizarre to me here.  I always had it pegged as a state that would be significantly closer than the last few cycles (but not competitive) with Trump's WWC appeal and Clinton not having Obama's home state advantage (even though she actually grew up there).

[Gass3268]

Illinois is the one that is really bizarre to me here.  I always had it pegged as a state that would be significantly closer than the last few cycles (but not competitive) with Trump's WWC appeal and Clinton not having Obama's home state advantage (even though she actually grew up there).

Trump cratered in the Chicago suburbs.

[nclib]

a map without the two-party bias. 0-2% trend = 30% shade; 2-5% trend = 50% shade; 5-10% trend = 70% shade; 10%+ trend = 90% shade

Please explain the criteria for this map.

[dax00]

a map without the two-party bias. 0-2% trend = 30% shade; 2-5% trend = 50% shade; 5-10% trend = 70% shade; 10%+ trend = 90% shade

Please explain the criteria for this map.

whichever party gained the most percentage points from their total in 2012 in each state. i defined the % trend as the margin between first and second place with respect to that.

for example, in wisconsin, the republicans went from 45.89% in 2012 to 47.19% in 2016, for a gain of 1.3%. gary johnson went from 0.67% in 2012 to 3.58% in 2016, for a gain of 2.91%. in my map, the trend in wisconsin was considered 2.91%-1.3%=1.61% for the libertarians

what the map really shows is that trump didn't so much win more states than romney as did clinton lose them, and the abundance of yellow states really emphasizes the disfavorability of the two major candidates

all the yellow states are johnson/weld and the green states are mcmullin

[Nyvin]

All the states, except Florida, that are predicted to gain a seat in 2020 are trending Democratic in that map.

Conversely, all the states, except Illinois, that are predicted to lose a seat in 2020 are trending Republican.

[Figueira]

btw - the argument that it was only 16 states that trended to Hillary is not necessarily that big a deal.  If you add up the electoral votes of those 16 states (+ DC) you get 239.

Right, because there is no part of our government in which each state gets equal representation!

[mencken]

a map without the two-party bias. 0-2% trend = 30% shade; 2-5% trend = 50% shade; 5-10% trend = 70% shade; 10%+ trend = 90% shade

Please explain the criteria for this map.

whichever party gained the most percentage points from their total in 2012 in each state. i defined the % trend as the margin between first and second place with respect to that.

for example, in wisconsin, the republicans went from 45.89% in 2012 to 47.19% in 2016, for a gain of 1.3%. gary johnson went from 0.67% in 2012 to 3.58% in 2016, for a gain of 2.91%. in my map, the trend in wisconsin was considered 2.91%-1.3%=1.61% for the libertarians

what the map really shows is that trump didn't so much win more states than romney as did clinton lose them, and the abundance of yellow states really emphasizes the disfavorability of the two major candidates

all the yellow states are johnson/weld and the green states are mcmullin

That is a swing map, not a trend map.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Interesting that all of the most Dem-trending states (apart from the oddball, Utah) are all large or medium-sized states. And all of the dark blue states are quite small...

[Figueira]

Interesting that all of the most Dem-trending states (apart from the oddball, Utah) are all large or medium-sized states. And all of the dark blue states are quite small...

There are other oddballs besides Utah. But that is very concerning for Democrats.

[Nyvin]

Interesting that all of the most Dem-trending states (apart from the oddball, Utah) are all large or medium-sized states. And all of the dark blue states are quite small...

There are other oddballs besides Utah. But that is very concerning for Democrats.

For the future Senate elections, yeah, it's pretty bad for Democrats.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^ The other problem for Democrats is that there are no "gimme" pickups for them on the 2018, 2020, and 2022 senate maps. Sure, lots of seats they could theoretically get, but nothing like IL this year, or WV/MT/SD for the Rs in '14, that they can get just by running somebody who hasn't killed anyone. They will have to fight for every single pickup.

[Mr. Illini]

Illinois is a FS (per usual) for trending D the first cycle after the favorite son was on the ballot.

It was surprising to me, as well, but not surprising at all once you know that Clinton won DuPage by 15 points.