States which are the least likely to have all their counties go to one candidate

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Until Bredesen's re-election, I would have said TN. Amazing that a Dem carried every county in E. Tennessee. Good job Phil!

What a sad mandate for murder.

I assume you're referring to the TennCare cuts, which really made me angry as well. What was really dumb about them was that TN is surrendering two dollars in federal money for every one dollar it is saving in state money. I'm sure there are forty-nine other states that won't mind taking that federal cash.

Exactly.  And he ran in 2002 on using his health care management experience and business acumen to fix TennCare.  Instead, he used the state sales tax winfall to make himself look fiscally responsible and turned around and cut people's health care safety net out from under them.  What a (D)ope.

He's so personally wealthy that he cannot and does not understand the struggles of the most needy Tennesseans.  Unfortunately, neither do the majority of Tennesseans - as was proved by the results of the election.

[memphis]

Until Bredesen's re-election, I would have said TN. Amazing that a Dem carried every county in E. Tennessee. Good job Phil!

What a sad mandate for murder.

I assume you're referring to the TennCare cuts, which really made me angry as well. What was really dumb about them was that TN is surrendering two dollars in federal money for every one dollar it is saving in state money. I'm sure there are forty-nine other states that won't mind taking that federal cash.

Exactly.  And he ran in 2002 on using his health care management experience and business acumen to fix TennCare.  Instead, he used the state sales tax winfall to make himself look fiscally responsible and turned around and cut people's health care safety net out from under them.  What a (D)ope.

He's so personally wealthy that he cannot and does not understand the struggles of the most needy Tennesseans.  Unfortunately, neither do the majority of Tennesseans - as was proved by the results of the election.

However, he has delivered on the one issue that really seems to resonate with people. Tennessee still has no state income tax.

[Verily]

VT, Mass, NH, CT and RI are the only states that come to mind that lack that kind or diversity.

There's also Utah, Wyoming, and Nebraska, both of which frequently have all their counties won by the Republican.

And Hawaii to Democrats. Nevada can be swept by Republicans in a strong year for them. (It happened every election 1980-1988.)

Also, the last time NH was swept was 1988, by a Republican.

[nclib]

The following states (in red below) have not had any candidate (Presidential, Gubernatorial, or Senatorial) carry all counties in that states since at least 1996.

In addition to the states mentioned earlier in this thread, I'd say Colorado would be quite difficult for either party to carry all counties.

[bgwah]

When it comes to the major offices (President, Governor, and Senator), I believe the last all-county sweep in Washington was the 1982 Senatorial Election. The Republican did well against incumbent Jackson relatively speaking but still got less than 25% of the vote.

[minionofmidas]

The following states (in red below) have not had any Presidential candidate carry all counties in that states since at least 1960.

AK - data problems.
DC - no counties.

I think my map has a prettier pattern than nclib's. .P

[Nym90]

The closest to a Dem sweep.

Jim Blanchard (D) v. Bill Lucas (R), 1986:



Blanchard won 68/31. Including a 73/26 win in Lucas' home county (Wayne).

Nice.

How close did Blanchard come to winning Ottawa County?

[Nym90]

Until Bredesen's re-election, I would have said TN. Amazing that a Dem carried every county in E. Tennessee. Good job Phil!

What a sad mandate for murder.

I assume you're referring to the TennCare cuts, which really made me angry as well. What was really dumb about them was that TN is surrendering two dollars in federal money for every one dollar it is saving in state money. I'm sure there are forty-nine other states that won't mind taking that federal cash.

Exactly.  And he ran in 2002 on using his health care management experience and business acumen to fix TennCare.  Instead, he used the state sales tax winfall to make himself look fiscally responsible and turned around and cut people's health care safety net out from under them.  What a (D)ope.

He's so personally wealthy that he cannot and does not understand the struggles of the most needy Tennesseans.  Unfortunately, neither do the majority of Tennesseans - as was proved by the results of the election.

I agree with you that Bredesen is way too conservative. Unfortunately Tennessee probably isn't going to elect a liberal governor.

[Nym90]

The following states (in red below) have not had any candidate (Presidential, Gubernatorial, or Senatorial) carry all counties in that states since at least 1996.

In addition to the states mentioned earlier in this thread, I'd say Colorado would be quite difficult for either party to carry all counties.

I assume you are not counting elections in which one of the major parties didn't nominate a candidate (VA 2002 and IN 2006 Senate races, for example).

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I agree with you that Bredesen is way too conservative. Unfortunately Tennessee probably isn't going to elect a liberal governor.

Fortunately, Tennessee probably isn't going to elect a latte-sipping, manhattan-loving ideological "liberal".  We have, however, had Governors who were passionate about civil rights, cared about issues like health care and jobs, and supported a progressive income tax (that I personally dont' support).  We have a name for that kind of Governor, and that name was "Republican".

[Joe Republic]

I agree with you that Bredesen is way too conservative. Unfortunately Tennessee probably isn't going to elect a liberal governor.

Fortunately, Tennessee probably isn't going to elect a latte-sipping, manhattan-loving ideological "liberal".  We have, however, had Governors who were passionate about civil rights, cared about issues like health care and jobs, and supported a progressive income tax (that I personally dont' support).  We have a name for that kind of Governor, and that name was "Republican".

LOL  I often wonder if you're actually serious when you write stuff like that.

In any case, are you trying to refer to incompetent fools like Don Sundquist?

[Jake]

Actually, he was sucking Lamar Alexander's cock in that post.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I agree with you that Bredesen is way too conservative. Unfortunately Tennessee probably isn't going to elect a liberal governor.

Fortunately, Tennessee probably isn't going to elect a latte-sipping, manhattan-loving ideological "liberal".  We have, however, had Governors who were passionate about civil rights, cared about issues like health care and jobs, and supported a progressive income tax (that I personally dont' support).  We have a name for that kind of Governor, and that name was "Republican".

LOL  I often wonder if you're actually serious when you write stuff like that.

In any case, are you trying to refer to incompetent fools like Don Sundquist?

I'm referring to Governor Lamar Alexander, who is well-regarded in the black community and appointed the first African-American justice on the state supreme court.  I'm referring to both Alexander and Governor Sundquist who did support and fight for a progressive income tax.  Don Sundquist was faced with a difficult political situation and may have made some mistakes, but he was anything but incompetent.

[nclib]

The following states (in red below) have not had any candidate (Presidential, Gubernatorial, or Senatorial) carry all counties in that states since at least 1996.

In addition to the states mentioned earlier in this thread, I'd say Colorado would be quite difficult for either party to carry all counties.

I assume you are not counting elections in which one of the major parties didn't nominate a candidate (VA 2002 and IN 2006 Senate races, for example).

Correct. Though Warner and Lugar are/were popular in their respective states, they probably would have lost some counties had they had Democratic opposition.

[Smash255]

The following states (in red below) have not had any candidate (Presidential, Gubernatorial, or Senatorial) carry all counties in that states since at least 1996.

In addition to the states mentioned earlier in this thread, I'd say Colorado would be quite difficult for either party to carry all counties.

I assume you are not counting elections in which one of the major parties didn't nominate a candidate (VA 2002 and IN 2006 Senate races, for example).

Correct. Though Warner and Lugar are/were popular in their respective states, they probably would have lost some counties had they had Democratic opposition.

For example Lugar would lose Lake County, Warner would have lost Arlington, Richmond, and a few other cities.

[MasterJedi]

It's usually impossible for it to happen in WI but Kohl had the horrid Lorge against him so it happened.

[True Democrat]

The following states (in red below) have not had any Presidential candidate carry all counties in that states since at least 1960.

AK - data problems.
DC - no counties.

I think my map has a prettier pattern than nclib's. .P

Here's 1940:

[Stranger in a strange land]

I'd say TX, CA, AL, VA, WA, and NJ for now.