Weighted Presidential Election Trends by State (2000-2016)

[JA]

Drawing from the data provided by the Results section of Atlas, I created the weighted Presidential Election trends by US state from 2000-2016. Merely finding the mean of those results or just looking at the past election or two seemed, to me, unlikely to yield the sort of data I was seeking, so I decided to use weighted data to develop the results. The methodology I utilized was simple...

a=b(c)+d(e)+f(g)+h(i)+j(k)/c+e+g+i+k

Where...

a = Weighted trend from 2000-2016
b = 2000 trend (positive for Democratic, negative for Republican)
c = 1 (for year 2000)
d = 2004 trend (positive for Democratic, negative for Republican)
e = 2 (for year 2004)
f = 2008 trend (positive for Democratic, negative for Republican)
g = 3 (for year 2008)
h = 2012 trend (positive for Democratic, negative for Republican)
i = 4 (for year 2012)
j = 2016 trend (positive for Democratic, negative for Republican)
k = 5 (for year 2016)

I'm not a statistician or mathematician or anything like that, so perhaps there is an easier method for obtaining these results, but that worked well enough for me to get what I needed. Anyway, on to the results...

Positive (+) results signify a positive Democratic trend/negative Republican trend
Negative (-) results signify a negative Democratic trend/positive Republican trend

+6.7% | Utah¹
+5.1% | California
+2.9% | Alaska
+2.8% | Maryland
+2.8% | Virginia
+2.6% | District of Columbia
+2.6% | Texas
+2.1% | Colorado
+1.9% | Hawaii
+1.9% | Washington
+1.6% | Georgia
+1.5% | Arizona
+1.4% | North Carolina
+1.4% | Oregon
+1.1% | New Mexico
+1.0% | Vermont
+0.6% | Illinois
+0.5% | Massachusetts
+0.4% | Kansas
+0.4% | Nevada
+0.2% | New Jersey
+0.1% | Idaho
0.0% | Nebraska
-0.2% | Florida
-0.4% | South Carolina
-0.5% | New York
-0.7% | Connecticut
-1.0% | Delaware
-1.1% | New Hampshire
-1.8% | Pennsylvania
-1.9% | Minnesota
-1.9% | Wisconsin
-2.0% | Montana
-2.4% | Indiana
-2.7% | Alabama
-2.8% | Michigan
-2.8% | Ohio
-3.0% | Louisiana
-3.0% | Maine
-3.3% | Oklahoma
-3.5% | Rhode Island
-3.9% | Wyoming
-4.3% | Iowa
-4.5% | South Dakota
-4.6% | Kentucky
-4.8% | Missouri
-4.8% | Tennessee
-5.4% | North Dakota
-5.7% | Arkansas
-10.5% | West Virginia

1: Utah's trend numbers have been particularly disturbed by third party candidates - specifically, 2016 Independent candidate Evan McMullin.

The corresponding map looks rather interesting...

*Red = trending Democratic, Blue = trending Republican*
Electoral Votes: 271 (D), 260 (R), 7 (No Trend)

Does anyone have any interpretations of the results? The most obvious to me is that the Democratic Party is trending strongest in the West and "New South," along with a few other states in the Midwest and Northeast. It is the center of the country that has trended firmly towards the Republicans, along with Maine and Rhode Island in New England.

[Skill and Chance]

1. Several Northeast states trending Republican as much or more than the core Obama->Trump Midwestern states is noteworthy and somewhat surprising.  The margins may be deceiving in parts of New England.

2. Texas being in the same league with VA and CO on this timescale is surprising.  Even with Bush being from there it barely moved relative to the national margin during the Obama years.  This is the counter to the small NE states in #1.  I would not underestimate how fast the GOP margin could evaporate there going forward.

3. Nevada sticks out for not moving left as much as its neighbors.  2008 is basically the entire Dem trend there.

4. Florida comes out looking a lot better for Democrats than I would expected, especially with 2000 as the 1st year. 

5.  It is interesting that the 2008 anomaly doesn't even register in Indiana.  It's still rather amazing that Obama won there.

[Technocracy Timmy]

13 states had a 3.0+ trend for the GOP. The GOP has won all but two of these states in a presidential election from 2000 onwards (Maine and Rhode Island being the exceptions).

Only 2 states had a 3.0+ trend for the Democrats. California and Utah. And Utah won't be won by a Democrat anytime soon

[JA]

1. Several Northeast states trending Republican as much or more than the core Obama->Trump Midwestern states is noteworthy and somewhat surprising.  The margins may be deceiving in parts of New England.

2. Texas being in the same league with VA and CO on this timescale is surprising.  Even with Bush being from there it barely moved relative to the national margin during the Obama years.  This is the counter to the small NE states in #1.  I would not underestimate how fast the GOP margin could evaporate there going forward.

3. Nevada sticks out for not moving left as much as its neighbors.  2008 is basically the entire Dem trend there.

4. Florida comes out looking a lot better for Democrats than I would expected, especially with 2000 as the 1st year.  

5.  It is interesting that the 2008 anomaly doesn't even register in Indiana.  It's still rather amazing that Obama won there.

All of that stood out to me as well - especially numbers 1 and 2. It appears that the sole reason Democrats are not discussing a general northern problem is the high margins in those states with which they have been fortunate enough to start this century. But, if this trend continues, states such as Maine, New Hampshire, and perhaps even Rhode Island may become problematic for the party. On the flip side, the party seems to be building a solid base in the Western part of the country and Texas is likely to become competitive within the next 2-4 election cycles. That would be seriously devastating for the GOP and would pressure them to either pivot to the Southwest or focus on taking more northern states. There are so many possibilities available going forward but, based on present trends, if they continue, it looks like the Democratic Party will be reorienting itself towards a base in the Mid-Atlantic and Southwest.

[JA]

13 states had a 3.0+ trend for the GOP. The GOP has won all but two of these states in a presidential election from 2000 onwards (Maine and Rhode Island being the exceptions).

Only 2 states had a 3.0+ trend for the Democrats. California and Utah. And Utah won't be won by a Democrat anytime soon

While that is true, those 13 states amount to 78 electoral votes; California alone accounts for 55 electoral votes and Utah makes 6, so that is 61 for Democrat 3.0+ states. However, if you change those numbers to 2.5+ states, you get 121 for Republicans and 128 for Democrats. Those numbers are likely to improve for Democrats as well, following the 2020 Census.

[Technocracy Timmy]

^ True, the presidential race with the electoral college would give Democrats a slight edge. But the senate would be tougher since 27 states are trending GOP while 22 are trending Democrat.

I think we'll have a realigning election soon enough though. The Reagan alignment can't last forever and Trump is a very dysfunctional figure leading it.

[MT Treasurer]

I also calculated the 2000-2016 trends, but looks like I did it in a different way:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=253993.0

[JA]

I also calculated the 2000-2016 trends, but looks like I did it in a different way:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=253993.0

Our results appear pretty similar, save for a few states. What was your methodology?

[JA]

^ True, the presidential race with the electoral college would give Democrats a slight edge. But the senate would be tougher since 27 states are trending GOP while 22 are trending Democrat.

I think we'll have a realigning election soon enough though. The Reagan alignment can't last forever and Trump is a very dysfunctional figure leading it.

As more people concentrate in fewer states, the undemocratic nature of the Senate will become increasingly problematic - especially since we are in an era of where the notion of America as a democracy is widespread.

Hopefully, there is a realignment coming soon. Our current party politics seems to be reaching a breaking point; how much longer can we continue down our current path without killing each other or our institutions completely erode their democracy and legitimacy? Besides, we have just about reached the end of a normal party system cycle (36 years since Reagan's inauguration).

[Person Man]

Of course Republicans might be slighlty favored by 2000 to 2016, they are 3-2 in the EV despite being 1-4.

[PragmaticPopulist]

The map looks a bit like how I envision the electoral map to look in 4-6 election cycles. Of course, it still remains to be seen if the midwest just trended R because of Trump, and a more conventional Republican would bring it back to it's normal leanings. The midwest trended D towards the end of the Bush years in most elections.

[Skill and Chance]

The map looks a bit like how I envision the electoral map to look in 4-6 election cycles. Of course, it still remains to be seen if the midwest just trended R because of Trump, and a more conventional Republican would bring it back to it's normal leanings. The midwest trended D towards the end of the Bush years in most elections.

I think it's more that Upper Midwest (and to a lesser extent Pennsylvania and rural New England) swing voters are very dovish.  Look at the trend in 1920, 1940, 1952, 1968 (minus the Humphrey home state effect in MN), and 1972.  These states tend to swing abruptly against any incumbent party that goes to war, if the war was at all controversial.

Democrats did so well in these states in 2004 and 2008 because of backlash against the Iraq War.  Had Bush not started that war, the 1996-2000 trend would have continued and many of these states would have already been Republican-leaning in 2004.  In local margin vs. national margin terms, the Democratic peak in several Upper Midwest states was all the way back in 1988.

With the possible exception of PA due to its Acela corridor influence, the only way I see Dems winning any of these states back is if Trump starts an unpopular war.  Trump is more likely to pick up MN and ME-AL next time than Democrats are to flip MI or WI back.

[Gass3268]

The map looks a bit like how I envision the electoral map to look in 4-6 election cycles. Of course, it still remains to be seen if the midwest just trended R because of Trump, and a more conventional Republican would bring it back to it's normal leanings. The midwest trended D towards the end of the Bush years in most elections.

I think it's more that Upper Midwest (and to a lesser extent Pennsylvania and rural New England) swing voters are very dovish.  Look at the trend in 1920, 1940, 1952, 1968 (minus the Humphrey home state effect in MN), and 1972.  These states tend to swing abruptly against any incumbent party that goes to war, if the war was at all controversial.

Democrats did so well in these states in 2004 and 2008 because of backlash against the Iraq War.  Had Bush not started that war, the 1996-2000 trend would have continued and many of these states would have already been Republican-leaning in 2004.  In local margin vs. national margin terms, the Democratic peak in several Upper Midwest states was all the way back in 1988.

With the possible exception of PA due to its Acela corridor influence, the only way I see Dems winning any of these states back is if Trump starts an unpopular war.  Trump is more likely to pick up MN and ME-AL next time than Democrats are to flip MI or WI back.

Trump's approvals are in the dumps in MI and WI. I don't get this meme. Longterm trend to the Republicans sure, but I expect Michigan to be Trump's Indiana. The state he was never supposed to win and swings back the other way in 2020.

[PragmaticPopulist]

The map looks a bit like how I envision the electoral map to look in 4-6 election cycles. Of course, it still remains to be seen if the midwest just trended R because of Trump, and a more conventional Republican would bring it back to it's normal leanings. The midwest trended D towards the end of the Bush years in most elections.

I think it's more that Upper Midwest (and to a lesser extent Pennsylvania and rural New England) swing voters are very dovish.  Look at the trend in 1920, 1940, 1952, 1968 (minus the Humphrey home state effect in MN), and 1972.  These states tend to swing abruptly against any incumbent party that goes to war, if the war was at all controversial.

Democrats did so well in these states in 2004 and 2008 because of backlash against the Iraq War.  Had Bush not started that war, the 1996-2000 trend would have continued and many of these states would have already been Republican-leaning in 2004.  In local margin vs. national margin terms, the Democratic peak in several Upper Midwest states was all the way back in 1988.

With the possible exception of PA due to its Acela corridor influence, the only way I see Dems winning any of these states back is if Trump starts an unpopular war.  Trump is more likely to pick up MN and ME-AL next time than Democrats are to flip MI or WI back.

Trump's approvals are in the dumps in MI and WI. I don't get this meme. Longterm trend to the Republicans sure, but I expect Michigan to be Trump's Indiana. The state he was never supposed to win and swings back the other way in 2020.

Polls in Michigan have been notoriously bad (see the pools that showed Clinton was gonna win it in the primary), but I agree that Michigan is probably Trump's Indiana. And the midwest in general tends to swing against the incumbent party regardless if there's an unpopular war or not.

[hopper]

13 states had a 3.0+ trend for the GOP. The GOP has won all but two of these states in a presidential election from 2000 onwards (Maine and Rhode Island being the exceptions).

Only 2 states had a 3.0+ trend for the Democrats. California and Utah. And Utah won't be won by a Democrat anytime soon

While that is true, those 13 states amount to 78 electoral votes; California alone accounts for 55 electoral votes and Utah makes 6, so that is 61 for Democrat 3.0+ states. However, if you change those numbers to 2.5+ states, you get 121 for Republicans and 128 for Democrats. Those numbers are likely to improve for Democrats as well, following the 2020 Census.

I don't see a Dem Presidential Candidate winning Utah anytime soon.

[hopper]

1. Several Northeast states trending Republican as much or more than the core Obama->Trump Midwestern states is noteworthy and somewhat surprising.  The margins may be deceiving in parts of New England.

2. Texas being in the same league with VA and CO on this timescale is surprising.  Even with Bush being from there it barely moved relative to the national margin during the Obama years.  This is the counter to the small NE states in #1.  I would not underestimate how fast the GOP margin could evaporate there going forward.

3. Nevada sticks out for not moving left as much as its neighbors.  2008 is basically the entire Dem trend there.

4. Florida comes out looking a lot better for Democrats than I would expected, especially with 2000 as the 1st year.  

5.  It is interesting that the 2008 anomaly doesn't even register in Indiana.  It's still rather amazing that Obama won there.

All of that stood out to me as well - especially numbers 1 and 2. It appears that the sole reason Democrats are not discussing a general northern problem is the high margins in those states with which they have been fortunate enough to start this century. But, if this trend continues, states such as Maine, New Hampshire, and perhaps even Rhode Island may become problematic for the party. On the flip side, the party seems to be building a solid base in the Western part of the country and Texas is likely to become competitive within the next 2-4 election cycles. That would be seriously devastating for the GOP and would pressure them to either pivot to the Southwest or focus on taking more northern states. There are so many possibilities available going forward but, based on present trends, if they continue, it looks like the Democratic Party will be reorienting itself towards a base in the Mid-Atlantic and Southwest.

New Hampshire-Its a competitive state for both parties in Presidential Elections.

Maine-It will be probably be fools good for the GOP like PA was in Presidential Elections until Trump won PA in 2016.

Rhode Island-Looks tempting for the GOP like some other Dem states like NJ, CT, and IL but the GOP isn't winning RI anytime soon.