States' most partisan results compared to the national average

[nclib]

I made a table of every state's margins compared to the national average for the years 1960-2004. Below is for each state, which year was most Democratic and most Republican, compared to the national average.

                 D              R
Alabama         1960      1964
Alaska         1964      2000
Arizona         1996      1964
Arkansas         1976      1972
California         2004      1980
Colorado         1964      1980
Connecticut      2000      1976
Delaware         2000      1988
Florida         1976      1972
Georgia         1976      1964
Hawaii         1964      1972
Idaho         1960      2000
Illinois         2004      1976
Indiana         1984      2004
Iowa         1988      1960
Kansas         1988      1996
Kentucky         1980      2004
Louisiana         1960      1964
Maine         1964      1960
Maryland         2000      1972
Massachusetts      1972      1980
Michigan         1964      1976
Minnesota      1984      1960
Mississippi      1960      1964
Missouri         1964      2004
Montana         1972      2000
Nebraska         1988      2004
Nevada         1960      1980
New Hampshire      1964      1984
New Jersey      2000      1988
New Mexico      1992      1968
New York         2000      1976
North Carolina      1976      1972
North Dakota      1972      1980
Ohio         1964      1960
Oklahoma         1976      2004
Oregon         1972      1960
Pennsylvania      1984      1976
Rhode Island      1964      1976
South Carolina      1976      1964
South Dakota      1972      2000
Tennessee      1976      1972
Texas         1964      2000
Utah         1960      2004
Vermont         2004      1960
Virginia         1980      1964
Washington      2004      1976
West Virginia      1980      2004
Wisconsin         1972      1960
Wyoming         1964      2000


Year by year, which years resulted in which states' most partisan results compared to the national average:       D                                   R

1960 AL,ID,LA,MS,NV,UT     IA,ME,MN,OH,OR,VT,WI
1964 AK,CO,HI,ME,MI,MO,NH,OH,RI,TX,WY     AL,AZ,GA,LA,MS,SC,VA
1968                                            NM
1972 MA,MT,ND,OR,SD,WI     AR,FL,HI,MD,NC,TN
1976 AR,FL,GA,NC,OK,SC,TN     CT,IL,MI,NY,PA,RI,WA
1980 KY,VA,WV                       CA,CO,MA,NV,ND
1984 IN,MN,PA                        NH
1988 IA,KS,NE                         DE,NJ
1992 NM
1996 AZ                                   KS
2000 CT,DE,MD,NJ,NY               AK,ID,MT,SD,TX,WY
2004 CA,IL,VT,WA                    IN,KY,MO,NE,OK,UT,WV

Comments?

Edit: the format is a bit off, but the first column is Dem states/years, and the second column is Repub states/years.

[Joe Biden 2020]

The most shocking is that Bush got all 77 counties in Oklahoma in 2004.  Of course, Kerry was a horrible candidate and Oklahoma was a very red state in 2004, but still.  Oklahoma will be quite a bit closer in 2008.  I doubt the Democrats can win, but it will definitely be 50s-40s at the widest margin.

[nclib]

1980 [Dem] KY,VA,WV

Given that these three states all border each other, does anyone know why Carter was relatively popular (or Reagan relatively unpopular) in that region?

Also, does anyone think any state(s) will be the most Democratic/Republican in 2008 relative to the national average? (I'm sure Illinois will if Obama is the nominee, but any others?)

[Nym90]

1980 [Dem] KY,VA,WV

Given that these three states all border each other, does anyone know why Carter was relatively popular (or Reagan relatively unpopular) in that region?

Also, does anyone think any state(s) will be the most Democratic/Republican in 2008 relative to the national average? (I'm sure Illinois will if Obama is the nominee, but any others?)

Well, Carter did relatively well with white working class voters in 1980, compared to his national average. That's one thing that comes to mind. A lot of the Reagan Democrats didn't actually vote for Reagan until 1984.

[nclib]

1980 [Dem] KY,VA,WV

Given that these three states all border each other, does anyone know why Carter was relatively popular (or Reagan relatively unpopular) in that region?

Also, does anyone think any state(s) will be the most Democratic/Republican in 2008 relative to the national average? (I'm sure Illinois will if Obama is the nominee, but any others?)

Well, Carter did relatively well with white working class voters in 1980, compared to his national average. That's one thing that comes to mind. A lot of the Reagan Democrats didn't actually vote for Reagan until 1984.

That sounds about right, since Carter did reasonably well in the western part of VA, while Reagan won the DC suburbs, even Arlington and Alexandria.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The most shocking is that Bush got all 77 counties in Oklahoma in 2004.  Of course, Kerry was a horrible candidate and Oklahoma was a very red state in 2004, but still.  Oklahoma will be quite a bit closer in 2008.  I doubt the Democrats can win, but it will definitely be 50s-40s at the widest margin.

LOL. Not if Obama is the nominee. It will be even worse than 2004.

[Joe Biden 2020]

The most shocking is that Bush got all 77 counties in Oklahoma in 2004.  Of course, Kerry was a horrible candidate and Oklahoma was a very red state in 2004, but still.  Oklahoma will be quite a bit closer in 2008.  I doubt the Democrats can win, but it will definitely be 50s-40s at the widest margin.

LOL. Not if Obama is the nominee. It will be even worse than 2004.

It can't be worse than 2004.  If Obama is the nominee, I still expect no more than 58 points for McCain in Oklahoma.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The most shocking is that Bush got all 77 counties in Oklahoma in 2004.  Of course, Kerry was a horrible candidate and Oklahoma was a very red state in 2004, but still.  Oklahoma will be quite a bit closer in 2008.  I doubt the Democrats can win, but it will definitely be 50s-40s at the widest margin.

LOL. Not if Obama is the nominee. It will be even worse than 2004.

It can't be worse than 2004.  If Obama is the nominee, I still expect no more than 58 points for McCain in Oklahoma.

I'd like to have some of whatever you're on. What does Obama give his voters, anyway?

[Smid]

Minnesota      1984      1960

I guess that result shouldn't be at all surprising, given how Republican the country was in 1984 and how Minnesota was the one state that Reagan didn't win that year (nor did he win DC).

[nclib]

Minnesota      1984      1960

I guess that result shouldn't be at all surprising, given how Republican the country was in 1984 and how Minnesota was the one state that Reagan didn't win that year (nor did he win DC).

True, and it was also Mondale's home state. Most states that had a home state nominee (AZ,CA,GA,KS,MI,SD,TX) had their highest relative performance the year the home stater was on the ballot, though these were the exceptions:

Ark. Dem. was 1976, not 1992 or 1996 (Clinton).
Mass. Dem. was 1972, not 1960 (Kennedy), 1988 (Dukakis), or 2004 (Kerry).
Tenn. Dem. was 1976, not 2000 (Gore).

[Smid]

Yeah, I'd noticed that about Arkansas not having its best result, even with the homestate advantage of Clinton, in either of the years he was elected.

Tennessee was interesting in 2000, given that it didn't go to Gore, despite it being his homestate. Indeed, if he had carried Tennessee, Florida wouldn't have made a difference in that election. His failure to carry his homestate is in my opinion what cost him the election.

[jesmo]

The most shocking is that Bush got all 77 counties in Oklahoma in 2004.  Of course, Kerry was a horrible candidate and Oklahoma was a very red state in 2004, but still.  Oklahoma will be quite a bit closer in 2008.  I doubt the Democrats can win, but it will definitely be 50s-40s at the widest margin.

LOL. Not if Obama is the nominee. It will be even worse than 2004.

It can't be worse than 2004.  If Obama is the nominee, I still expect no more than 58 points for McCain in Oklahoma.

I'd like to have some of whatever you're on. What does Obama give his voters, anyway?

Obama will still get 40% in Oklahoma. If you don't like that, too bad! Hillary would have gotten 50+%!

[jeron]

Obama will still get 40% in Oklahoma. If you don't like that, too bad! Hillary would have gotten 50+%!

No way!

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

No way does he get 40% in Oklahoma! Get real. It will be something like 65-35 for McCain.

[nclib]

bump for 2008 results

Counting 1960 thru 2008, the following states had their most partisan results compared to the national average in 2008:

Dem: CA, CO, DE, HI, IL, IN, MD, NV, NM, VT, VA, WA
Rep: AR, KY, MO, OK, TN, WV

[platypeanArchcow]

bump for 2008 results

Counting 1960 thru 2008, the following states had their most partisan results compared to the national average in 2008:

Dem: CA, CO, DE, HI, IL, IN, MD, NV, NM, VT, VA, WA
Rep: AR, KY, MO, OK, TN, WV

So the new spreads are:

1960 AL,ID,LA,MS,UT            IA,ME,MN,OH,OR,VT,WI
1964 AK,ME,MI,MO,NH,OH,RI,TX,WY     AL,AZ,GA,LA,MS,SC,VA
1968                                            NM
1972 MA,MT,ND,OR,SD,WI     FL,HI,MD,NC
1976 AR,FL,GA,NC,OK,SC,TN     CT,IL,MI,NY,PA,RI,WA
1980 KY,WV                             CA,CO,MA,NV,ND
1984 MN,PA                             NH
1988 IA,KS,NE                         DE,NJ
1992
1996 AZ                                   KS
2000 CT,NJ,NY                       AK,ID,MT,SD,TX,WY
2004                                          IN,NE,UT
2008 CA,CO,DE,HI,IL,IN,MD,NV,NM,VT,VA,WA      AR,KY,MO,OK,TN,WV

So this election was extremely polarized into "red" and "blue" states, more so than even those previous years (1964, 1972, 1976) when the South voted pretty much as a bloc.

[nclib]

bump for 2008 results

Counting 1960 thru 2008, the following states had their most partisan results compared to the national average in 2008:

Dem: CA, CO, DE, HI, IL, IN, MD, NV, NM, VT, VA, WA
Rep: AR, KY, MO, OK, TN, WV

So the new spreads are:

1960 AL,ID,LA,MS,UT            IA,ME,MN,OH,OR,VT,WI
1964 AK,ME,MI,MO,NH,OH,RI,TX,WY     AL,AZ,GA,LA,MS,SC,VA
1968                                            NM
1972 MA,MT,ND,OR,SD,WI     FL,HI,MD,NC
1976 AR,FL,GA,NC,OK,SC,TN     CT,IL,MI,NY,PA,RI,WA
1980 KY,WV                             CA,CO,MA,NV,ND
1984 MN,PA                             NH
1988 IA,KS,NE                         DE,NJ
1992
1996 AZ                                   KS
2000 CT,NJ,NY                       AK,ID,MT,SD,TX,WY
2004                                          IN,NE,UT
2008 CA,CO,DE,HI,IL,IN,MD,NV,NM,VT,VA,WA      AR,KY,MO,OK,TN,WV

So this election was extremely polarized into "red" and "blue" states, more so than even those previous years (1964, 1972, 1976) when the South voted pretty much as a bloc.

True, though it is a bit deceptive since trends often occur gradually, and for the most recent election, it is only bordered on one side.

[nclib]

I calculated each state's 2nd best Dem/Rep result compared to the national average, and listed states where the top two Dem/Rep results are both for or against the same candidate.

Dem:

ID: anti-Nixon (1960,1972)
LA: anti-Nixon (1960,1968)
MA: anti-Nixon (1968,1972)
MS: anti-Nixon (1960,1968)
NY: anti-Bush II
SC: Carter
TN: Carter
WV: Carter

Rep:

CO: anti-Carter
HI: Nixon (1960, 1972)
ID: Bush II
IN: Bush II
IA: Nixon (1960, 1968)
MD: Nixon (1968, 1972)
MT: Bush II
NV: Reagan
NH: Reagan
OR: Nixon (1960, 1968)
SD: Bush II
TX: Bush II
WA: anti-Carter
WI: Nixon (1960, 1968)

by candidate:

Nixon (1960, 1968): IA, OR, WI
anti-Nixon: (1960, 1968): LA, MS
Nixon (1960, 1972): HI
anti-Nixon: (1960, 1972): ID
Nixon (1968, 1972): MD
anti-Nixon: (1968, 1972): MA
Carter: SC, TN, WV
anti-Carter: CO, WA
Reagan: NV, NH
Bush II: ID, IN, MT, SD, TX
anti-Bush II: NY

-------

Comments?

[Gustaf]

I calculated each state's 2nd best Dem/Rep result compared to the national average, and listed states where the top two Dem/Rep results are both for or against the same candidate.

Dem:

ID: anti-Nixon (1960,1972)
LA: anti-Nixon (1960,1968)
MA: anti-Nixon (1968,1972)
MS: anti-Nixon (1960,1968)
NY: anti-Bush II
SC: Carter
TN: Carter
WV: Carter

Rep:

CO: anti-Carter
HI: Nixon (1960, 1972)
ID: Bush II
IN: Bush II
IA: Nixon (1960, 1968)
MD: Nixon (1968, 1972)
MT: Bush II
NV: Reagan
NH: Reagan
OR: Nixon (1960, 1968)
SD: Bush II
TX: Bush II
WA: anti-Carter
WI: Nixon (1960, 1968)

by candidate:

Nixon (1960, 1968): IA, OR, WI
anti-Nixon: (1960, 1968): LA, MS
Nixon (1960, 1972): HI
anti-Nixon: (1960, 1972): ID
Nixon (1968, 1972): MD
anti-Nixon: (1968, 1972): MA
Carter: SC, TN, WV
anti-Carter: CO, WA
Reagan: NV, NH
Bush II: ID, IN, MT, SD, TX
anti-Bush II: NY

-------

Comments?

Some of them are fairly obvious. Maryland is probably an Agnew-effect for instance. But some I really don't get.

[Husker]

bump for 2008 results

Counting 1960 thru 2008, the following states had their most partisan results compared to the national average in 2008:

Dem: CA, CO, DE, HI, IL, IN, MD, NV, NM, VT, VA, WA
Rep: AR, KY, MO, OK, TN, WV

So the new spreads are:

1960 AL,ID,LA,MS,UT            IA,ME,MN,OH,OR,VT,WI
1964 AK,ME,MI,MO,NH,OH,RI,TX,WY     AL,AZ,GA,LA,MS,SC,VA
1968                                            NM
1972 MA,MT,ND,OR,SD,WI     FL,HI,MD,NC
1976 AR,FL,GA,NC,OK,SC,TN     CT,IL,MI,NY,PA,RI,WA
1980 KY,WV                             CA,CO,MA,NV,ND
1984 MN,PA                             NH
1988 IA,KS,NE                         DE,NJ
1992
1996 AZ                                   KS
2000 CT,NJ,NY                       AK,ID,MT,SD,TX,WY
2004                                          IN,NE,UT
2008 CA,CO,DE,HI,IL,IN,MD,NV,NM,VT,VA,WA      AR,KY,MO,OK,TN,WV

So this election was extremely polarized into "red" and "blue" states, more so than even those previous years (1964, 1972, 1976) when the South voted pretty much as a bloc.

I'm surprised NE was not on 1960 or 1968 for the republicans, since it was the most republican state in the U.S. both years. Most of this makes sense though.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The most shocking is that Bush got all 77 counties in Oklahoma in 2004.  Of course, Kerry was a horrible candidate and Oklahoma was a very red state in 2004, but still.  Oklahoma will be quite a bit closer in 2008.  I doubt the Democrats can win, but it will definitely be 50s-40s at the widest margin.

LOL. Not if Obama is the nominee. It will be even worse than 2004.

It can't be worse than 2004.  If Obama is the nominee, I still expect no more than 58 points for McCain in Oklahoma.

I'd like to have some of whatever you're on. What does Obama give his voters, anyway?

Obama will still get 40% in Oklahoma. If you don't like that, too bad! Hillary would have gotten 50+%!

Awesome prediction on my part! I get a pat on the back.

[nclib]

I calculated each state's 2nd best Dem/Rep result compared to the national average, and listed states where the top two Dem/Rep results are both for or against the same candidate.

Dem:

ID: anti-Nixon (1960,1972)
LA: anti-Nixon (1960,1968)
MA: anti-Nixon (1968,1972)
MS: anti-Nixon (1960,1968)
NY: anti-Bush II
SC: Carter
TN: Carter
WV: Carter

Rep:

CO: anti-Carter
HI: Nixon (1960, 1972)
ID: Bush II
IN: Bush II
IA: Nixon (1960, 1968)
MD: Nixon (1968, 1972)
MT: Bush II
NV: Reagan
NH: Reagan
OR: Nixon (1960, 1968)
SD: Bush II
TX: Bush II
WA: anti-Carter
WI: Nixon (1960, 1968)

by candidate:

Nixon (1960, 1968): IA, OR, WI
anti-Nixon: (1960, 1968): LA, MS
Nixon (1960, 1972): HI
anti-Nixon: (1960, 1972): ID
Nixon (1968, 1972): MD
anti-Nixon: (1968, 1972): MA
Carter: SC, TN, WV
anti-Carter: CO, WA
Reagan: NV, NH
Bush II: ID, IN, MT, SD, TX
anti-Bush II: NY

-------

Comments?

Some of them are fairly obvious. Maryland is probably an Agnew-effect for instance. But some I really don't get.

I would imagine this (below) has nothing to do with Nixon (Nixon was of course strong here in 1972), rather 1960 was the last year that Dems were dominant in the South, and in 1968 although Humphrey ran ahead of Nixon in these areas, obviously Wallace dominated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Verily]

Indiana stands out as having had its most Republican year in 2004 followed immediately by its most Democratic year in 2008.

Three states flipped 1960-64: Louisiana (D-R), Mississippi (D-R) and Ohio (R-D). Two states flipped 1972-76: North Carolina (R-D) and Florida (R-D). There were no other instances of back-to-back strongest performances for each party.

Interestingly, while 1960 and 1964, as well as 1972 and 1976, demonstrated radical regional shifts due to different factions rising and falling within the Democratic Party, 2004 and 2008 demonstrated no such radical regional shifts. Indiana was just weird. (Then again, the change in Ohio from 1960 to 1964 cannot be explained by regional shifts in those years, either.)

[nclib]

Actually in Ohio's case, it hasn't varied far from the national average--its highest GOP showing was 6.73 more Republican in 1960, and its highest Dem showing was 3.3 more Democratic in 1964.

[nclib]

bump for 2012 results

Counting 1960 thru 2012, the following states had their most partisan results compared to the national average in 2012:

Dem: CA, HI, MD, VT, VA, WA
Rep: AR, KY, MO, TN, UT, WV, WY

Actually not as polarizing as in 2008, 13 states set records in 2012 as opposed to 18 in 2008.