arbitrary comparison of 2016 to 2000
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:46:41 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  arbitrary comparison of 2016 to 2000
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: arbitrary comparison of 2016 to 2000  (Read 785 times)
kcguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,031
Romania


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 22, 2017, 10:59:48 AM »

In celebration of my 500th post, which I managed to achieve in less than five years since my registration Smiley , I’m doing a comparison of the 2000 and 2016 elections.  (Sorry if something similar has already been done; I don’t follow every thread.)

Years ago—maybe 15 years ago?—I divided the United States into 100 districts of approximately equal size.  (Ninety-eight of the districts were between 2.45 and 3.15 million residents.)  I then calculated the two-party vote for each of the districts, but I only have the data now rounded to the nearest percentage point.  (Although my districts are fairly arbitrary, I like the fact that similarly-sized entities are being compared; I don’t think it makes sense to compare Philadelphia County with Deaf Smith County and pretend they’re equally important.)

This year, I tried to use the same districts to calculate the 2016 election results.  Unfortunately, the data I got must have been very preliminary, so I had to keep adjusting the numbers to match the final results.  That said, the overall picture should be fairly accurate, even if some details are wrong.


Popular vote:
2000:  Gore 50%
2016:  Clinton 51%


Number of my arbitrary districts carried (out of 100):
2000:  Bush 58
2016:  Trump 52


Most partisan districts (2000):
1.  Manhattan and the Bronx.  Gore 86%
2.  Los Angeles Central.  Gore 80%
(tie).  Chicago Central.  Gore 80%.
4.  Queens and Brooklyn East.  Gore 79%
5.  Brooklyn and Staten Island.  Gore 77%
6.  San Francisco and Oakland.  Gore 75%
7.  Utah and Wyoming.  Bush 72%
8.  Boston.  Gore 69%
9.  Detroit South.  Gore 68%
(tie).  West Texas.  Bush 68%
11.  Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota.  Bush 67%.

Most partisan districts (2016):
1.   Manhattan and the Bronx.  Clinton 90%
2.   Los Angeles Central.  Clinton 87%
3.   Chicago Central.  Clinton 86%
4.   San Francisco and Oakland.  Clinton 85%
5.   Queens and Brooklyn East.  Clinton 79%
6.   Los Angeles South.  Clinton 75%
7.   San Jose and Coastal California.  Clinton 74%
8.   Brooklyn and Staten Island.  Clinton 73%
9.   West Virginia and East Kentucky.  Trump 73%
10.   East Tennessee.  Trump 73%
11.   Virginia North and the District of Columbia.  Clinton 72%
12.   North East Texas and North Louisiana.  Trump 71%
13.   Oklahoma.  Trump 69%
14.   Boston.  Clinton 69%
15.   Washington Coastal.  Clinton 69%
16.   Los Angeles East.  Clinton 68%
17.   Newark.  Clinton 68%
18.   Pennsylvania South East.  Clinton 68%
19.   Detroit South.  Clinton 68%
20.   Mid Pennsylvania.  Trump 68%
21.   West Texas.  Trump 67%


Gore-Trump districts:
     East New York State
     New York State West
     Long Island
     New Jersey South
     Pennsylvania West
     West Tennessee
     South Michigan
     South Minnesota
     Iowa
     South East Missouri

Bush-Clinton districts:
   Virginia South East
   North East Carolina
   Georgia Central
   Florida Central
   Miami and Florida South West
   Illinois North
   Houston
   Texas Gulf Coast and Austin
   San Antonio and South Texas
   Dallas
   Colorado North
   Arizona East
   San Diego
   Orange County
   California South East
   Hawaii and Alaska


Biggest swings (2000 to 2016):
1.   West Virginia and East Kentucky.  Bush 55% to Trump 73%.
2.   East Tennessee.  Bush 57% to Trump 73%.
3.   Virginia North and the District of Columbia.  Gore 58% to Clinton 72%.
4.   Dallas.  Bush 59% to Clinton 54%.
5.   San Jose and California Coastal.  Gore 61% to Clinton 74%.
6.   San Diego.  Bush 52% to Clinton 61%.
7.   Orange County.  Bush 58% to Clinton 54%.
8.   Los Angeles North and Santa Barbara.  Gore 54% to Clinton 65%.
9.   Arkansas.  Bush 53% to Trump 64%.
10.   Sacramento and Contra Costa.  Gore 55% to Clinton 66%.
11.   Chicago Suburban.  Gore 54% to Clinton 65%.
12.   Texas Gulf Coast and Austin.  Bush 59% to Clinton 52%.
13.   San Francisco and Oakland.  Gore 75% to Clinton 85%.
14.   Los Angeles South.  Gore 65% to Clinton 75%.
15.   Houston.  Bush 57% to Clinton 53%.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2017, 02:53:39 PM »

Interesting that your EC was much closer in 2016 than in 2000.  I guess it's because you split off a bunch of Southern cities from the surrounding rural areas of their states?
Logged
kcguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,031
Romania


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2017, 05:03:35 PM »

I have no idea why.  I didn't look particularly close at most of my calculations, but I did notice that "Illinois North" was tipped entirely by the margin in Lake County.  Of course, four of those districts flipping were probably because neither party in 2016 ran the Governor of Texas as a candidate.

Actually, the three closest districts in 2000 were all Gore districts, so it could have been 61-39.  In 2016, by contrast, the two closest districts were both Trump districts.  ("South Minnesota" makes both lists, with a margin under 1% both times.)
Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,730


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2017, 10:32:27 AM »

will you link your map?
Logged
kcguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,031
Romania


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2017, 07:56:10 PM »


I did the original one long ago, so long ago it was on paper.  I'll try to put something together, but it may take a couple days.
Logged
kcguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,031
Romania


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2017, 07:48:04 PM »




Divided counties:

Los Angeles -- divided between Los Angeles Central (entirely in LA County), Los Angeles South (entirely in LA County), Los Angeles East (includes part of San Bernardino County), and Los Angeles North and Santa Barbara (also includes Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties).

San Bernardino -- divided between Los Angeles East (includes part of LA County) and California South East (also includes Imperial, Inyo, and Riverside Counties).

Maricopa -- divided between Arizona East and Arizona West

Harris -- divided between Houston (also includes Brazoria, Fort Bend, and Galveston Counties) and "Beaumont and Lake Charles"

Cook -- city and a couple suburbs in Chicago Central; most Cook suburbs and Du Page County in Chicago Suburban

Kings -- divided between "Brooklyn and Staten Island" and "Queens and Brooklyn East"

Middlesex -- divided between "Boston" and "Massachusetts North West and Vermont"; also, Brookline was removed from Norfolk County and added to "Boston"
Logged
kcguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,031
Romania


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2017, 07:51:28 PM »

Interesting that your EC was much closer in 2016 than in 2000.  I guess it's because you split off a bunch of Southern cities from the surrounding rural areas of their states?

Interestingly, when doing this map, I noticed that Fulton County, Georgia, ended up in a Trump district (North Georgia), so it wasn't entirely due to cities being separated from their rural surroundings.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 12 queries.