The most average state

[Duke David]

As some of you might have noticed I inquired about the most "bellwetherous" US states; i. e. the states that voted most frequently for the candidate that would eventually become president.

The three most "successful" states in choosing the "right" candidate are:

• New Mexico (92,0%)
• Illinois (83,3%)
• Ohio (82,7%)

Whereas Illinois has turned from a bellwether state into a blue state, New Mexico and Ohio have still been swinging towards the overall winning party.
With only two "mistakes", the New Mexicans have been remarkably good at siding with the nationwide favorite. On the basis of popular vote, they even got it wrong only once, when they chose Ford over Carter in 1976.

My question is as follows:
Why are the New Mexicans so "average"?
I understand Ohio and Illinois, which lie somewhat in the middle of the contiguous states. But peripheral New Mexico? Its demographic structure is nowhere near representative.

Can anyone tell me why they always side with the successful candidate?

[RI]

New Mexico has a large population of Democratic Hispanics almost perfectly offset by conservative whites.

[Duke David]

New Mexico has a large population of Democratic Hispanics almost perfectly offset by conservative whites.

Oh, thank you. Finally an answer.

And what makes Ohio and Illinois bellwether states?

[jimrtex]

New Mexico has a large population of Democratic Hispanics almost perfectly offset by conservative whites.

Oh, thank you. Finally an answer.

And what makes Ohio and Illinois bellwether states?

Illinois isn't.

Ohio has a mix of big cities and small cities and rural areas, plus some strong Republican traditions particularly in the Cincinnati area with the Tafts.

Compare to Indiana which isn't because it doesn't have the large cities, or Illinois which has an overwhelming large city.

[Duke David]

New Mexico has a large population of Democratic Hispanics almost perfectly offset by conservative whites.

Oh, thank you. Finally an answer.

And what makes Ohio and Illinois bellwether states?

Illinois isn't.

Look at my opening post:

Illinois comes second among all bellwether states. I have to admit, though, that Illinois has rather become blue since 1992 than "bellwetherous".

[jimrtex]

Illinois isn't.

Look at my opening post:

Illinois comes second among all bellwether states. I have to admit, though, that Illinois has rather become blue since 1992 than "bellwetherous".

Ill. Bo Peep has lost its sheep in 2 of the last 3 election.

Over the past century (1912-2008)

The best are:

NV 1
NM 2
MO 2
OH 2
TN 3

IL 4
KY 4
FL 4

In the top 8, the 3 southern states (KY, TN, FL) were not solid enough to rack up 3 misses in the GOP 20s, and then voted for Eisenhower, and didn't vote States Rights in 1948, 60, or 68.  But voted for both Carter and Clinton.

Nevada and New Mexico, didn't mess up with a vote against a 3rd FDR term or progressives, and both voted for JFK, the only two western states (excluding Hawaii).  Neither voted for Carter, which was their first miss, and the only miss for Nevada.  Both voted for Carter, which could be indicating that they are trending in a Pacific-Southwest sort of way.  Which is supported by NM voting for Gore (very narrowly).

Missouri and Ohio had one idiosyncratic election (1944 when Ohio voted against a 4th FDR term, and 1956 when Missouri voted for Stevenson).  Ohio voted for Nixon in 1960, and Missouri voted for McCain in 2008.  Like Nevada and New Mexico, they voted for Clinton and Carter.

Illinois went from 1916 to 1976 without a miss, voting for JFK in 1960, but then voted for Ford, and against Bush in 2000 and 2004.

[Duke David]

Illinois isn't.

Look at my opening post:

Illinois comes second among all bellwether states. I have to admit, though, that Illinois has rather become blue since 1992 than "bellwetherous".

Ill. Bo Peep has lost its sheep in 2 of the last 3 election.

Over the past century (1912-2008)

The best are:

I didn't speak of the last century.

I speak of all elections from 1789 through to 2008.

And on the basis of this span, New Mexico is the most bellwetherous state of all.
And I just want to know why.

[jimrtex]

Illinois isn't.

Look at my opening post:

Illinois comes second among all bellwether states. I have to admit, though, that Illinois has rather become blue since 1992 than "bellwetherous".

Ill. Bo Peep has lost its sheep in 2 of the last 3 election.

Over the past century (1912-2008)

The best are:

I didn't speak of the last century.

I speak of all elections from 1789 through to 2008.

And on the basis of this span, New Mexico is the most bellwetherous state of all.
And I just want to know why.

I disagree with your definition.

But the reason is because New Mexico wasn't a State until 1912, so didn't have to only miss twice over the previous century as well, or have elections that remote holding its score down.

Picking right from 1912-1956 wasn't that hard, unless a State was too Democrat (South), too Republican (North), or too idiosyncratic (Progressive, or against an FDR 3rd or 4th term).

5 western States did it (ID, NV, AZ, MT, NM).

NM and NV voted for JFK in 1960 (very narrowly).

AZ voted for Goldwater in 1964,

All 5 voted against Carter in 1976.

So up to 1992, NM and NV had one miss, and ID and MT had one more.

Where they have diverged is the elections of 92 and 96 and 08.  So essentially the difference is that NM and NV are more Democratic (this is why NM missed in 2000).  and more consistently voted for Clinton and Obama.  Long term, this may hurt the two, because they may continue to vote Democratic in close elections.

[Duke David]

I disagree with your definition.

I couldn't care less. There's no reason why half of the election results should be disregarded.

But the reason is because New Mexico wasn't a State until 1912, so didn't have to only miss twice over the previous century as well, or have elections that remote holding its score down.

I hope you've noticed that I used percentages as calculation base.

[jimrtex]

I hope you've noticed that I used percentages as calculation base.

Who is the better hitter in your opinion,

the player who goes 3 for 4 (75%) in his first major league game.

The rookie who hits .350 (35%) in April.

The veteran who wins the batting title with a .337 (33.7%) batting average,

The Hall of Famer with a .330 (33%) career batting average.


Use percentages to prove your argument.