2016 State Swing vs 2012, 2004

[Annatar]

Something interesting I noticed was that the national swing was almost twice as large in 2012 as 2016, R+3.4 vs R+1.8 in 2016 yet only 5 states swung by more than 10% to Romney whereas 8 states swing by double digits to Trump, Romney seems to have had more of a universal swing from 2008-2012 whereas Trump's gains were more concentrated which helped him in the EC.

Even in 2004 where the swing was R+3 from 2000 Bush only improved by double digits in 2 states, he seems to have had even more of a uniform swing than Romney, Romney with a similar national swing gained by double digits in 5 states. Trump really was unique compared to Bush in 2004 and Romney in 2012 by having a small national swing but having huge swings in a small number of states.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

1. Red states are getting redder, blue states bluer, and this amplifies the effect of a national swing.

2. Trump did exceptionally well in the Rust Belt and upper Mississippi Valley, which also amplified the swings in these states.

If this trend continues, Electoral/Popular splits will become more and more likely. In favor of either party. Long term, the trends don't look good for Republicans:

2016's biggest nominal R swings were OH, MI, NY, PA, MO, IN, IA, and WI. Since the 1980 census, every single one of these lost electoral votes. After 1980 these added up to 146 EVs. Currently: 120 EVs. And they keep shrinking.

2016's biggest nominal D swings were CA, TX, UT, AZ, MA, GA, VA, and WA. Since the 1980 census, each of these gained EVs (except MA, which has lost 2). After the 1980 census these added up to 135 EVs. Currently: 162. And they keep growing.

So what we have is Trump making huge gains in places that are rapidly becoming less relevant to the electoral math.

[Annatar]

1. Red states are getting redder, blue states bluer, and this amplifies the effect of a national swing.

2. Trump did exceptionally well in the Rust Belt and upper Mississippi Valley, which also amplified the swings in these states.

If this trend continues, Electoral/Popular splits will become more and more likely. In favor of either party. Long term, the trends don't look good for Republicans:

2016's biggest nominal R swings were OH, MI, NY, PA, MO, IN, IA, and WI. Since the 1980 census, every single one of these lost electoral votes. After 1980 these added up to 146 EVs. Currently: 120 EVs. And they keep shrinking.

2016's biggest nominal D swings were CA, TX, UT, AZ, MA, GA, VA, and WA. Since the 1980 census, each of these gained EVs (except MA, which has lost 2). After the 1980 census these added up to 135 EVs. Currently: 162. And they keep growing.

So what we have is Trump making huge gains in places that are rapidly becoming less relevant to the electoral math.

I wouldn't say the long term trends are bad for the GOP, from 2000-2016 states with a majority of EV's became more Republican. So far this century the overall shift has favoured the GOP, and even more so if you normalise swings to take into account the national swing

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

1. Red states are getting redder, blue states bluer, and this amplifies the effect of a national swing.

2. Trump did exceptionally well in the Rust Belt and upper Mississippi Valley, which also amplified the swings in these states.

If this trend continues, Electoral/Popular splits will become more and more likely. In favor of either party. Long term, the trends don't look good for Republicans:

2016's biggest nominal R swings were OH, MI, NY, PA, MO, IN, IA, and WI. Since the 1980 census, every single one of these lost electoral votes. After 1980 these added up to 146 EVs. Currently: 120 EVs. And they keep shrinking.

2016's biggest nominal D swings were CA, TX, UT, AZ, MA, GA, VA, and WA. Since the 1980 census, each of these gained EVs (except MA, which has lost 2). After the 1980 census these added up to 135 EVs. Currently: 162. And they keep growing.

So what we have is Trump making huge gains in places that are rapidly becoming less relevant to the electoral math.

I wouldn't say the long term trends are bad for the GOP, from 2000-2016 states with a majority of EV's became more Republican. So far this century the overall shift has favoured the GOP, and even more so if you normalise swings to take into account the national swing

The Republicans are fine until Texas becomes competitive. Then all holy hell breaks loose. This is a ticking time bomb that will blow up the current alignment.

[Annatar]

1. Red states are getting redder, blue states bluer, and this amplifies the effect of a national swing.

2. Trump did exceptionally well in the Rust Belt and upper Mississippi Valley, which also amplified the swings in these states.

If this trend continues, Electoral/Popular splits will become more and more likely. In favor of either party. Long term, the trends don't look good for Republicans:

2016's biggest nominal R swings were OH, MI, NY, PA, MO, IN, IA, and WI. Since the 1980 census, every single one of these lost electoral votes. After 1980 these added up to 146 EVs. Currently: 120 EVs. And they keep shrinking.

2016's biggest nominal D swings were CA, TX, UT, AZ, MA, GA, VA, and WA. Since the 1980 census, each of these gained EVs (except MA, which has lost 2). After the 1980 census these added up to 135 EVs. Currently: 162. And they keep growing.

So what we have is Trump making huge gains in places that are rapidly becoming less relevant to the electoral math.

I wouldn't say the long term trends are bad for the GOP, from 2000-2016 states with a majority of EV's became more Republican. So far this century the overall shift has favoured the GOP, and even more so if you normalise swings to take into account the national swing

The Republicans are fine until Texas becomes competitive. Then all holy hell breaks loose. This is a ticking time bomb that will blow up the current alignment.

I agree on that, if Texas starts to lean democratic the GOP will probably work with democrats to get rid of the electoral college.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

1. Red states are getting redder, blue states bluer, and this amplifies the effect of a national swing.

2. Trump did exceptionally well in the Rust Belt and upper Mississippi Valley, which also amplified the swings in these states.

If this trend continues, Electoral/Popular splits will become more and more likely. In favor of either party. Long term, the trends don't look good for Republicans:

2016's biggest nominal R swings were OH, MI, NY, PA, MO, IN, IA, and WI. Since the 1980 census, every single one of these lost electoral votes. After 1980 these added up to 146 EVs. Currently: 120 EVs. And they keep shrinking.

2016's biggest nominal D swings were CA, TX, UT, AZ, MA, GA, VA, and WA. Since the 1980 census, each of these gained EVs (except MA, which has lost 2). After the 1980 census these added up to 135 EVs. Currently: 162. And they keep growing.

So what we have is Trump making huge gains in places that are rapidly becoming less relevant to the electoral math.

I wouldn't say the long term trends are bad for the GOP, from 2000-2016 states with a majority of EV's became more Republican. So far this century the overall shift has favoured the GOP, and even more so if you normalise swings to take into account the national swing

The Republicans are fine until Texas becomes competitive. Then all holy hell breaks loose. This is a ticking time bomb that will blow up the current alignment.

I agree on that, if Texas starts to lean democratic the GOP will probably work with democrats to get rid of the electoral college.

They will also have to broaden their appeal beyond white rural, white evangelical, and white working class voters. The problem is, the policy planks and rhetoric in place to placate these groups alienate them to voters they really need: affluent suburbanites and college educated minorities. If the GOP dies on the twin peaks of guns and abortion, that will be a terrible thing for our republic. It's essentially one-party rule until a new opposition organizes.