State-by-state presidential voting trends since 1988

[Awsi Dooger]

This is an extremely lengthy post, intended as a handy reference to statewide presidential voting tendencies, in comparison to the national average, since 1988. I originally posted this chart on DU in June 2003 and have referred to the numbers frequently while assessing state likelihood. In June 2003 several DUers wrote they were bookmarking the thread, so I thought I would make the chart available again as November 2 nears.

In May of this year Chris Bowers of MYDD.com put together a very similar chart, minus the specific voting percentages but retreating further than I did, to 1976. His "partisan index", about halfway down the scroll, is here:http://www.mydd.com/special/president I stopped at '88 primarily because the South has obviously changed so dramatically, the old numbers more depressing than relevant, IMO.

Some highlights:

* A full 36 of 51 regions (states plus District of Columbia) have comfortably embraced one party, tilting in that direction EVERY TIME since '88, compared to the national average. Unfortunately, Republicans maintain much more blind loyalty and margin for error, with 23 in their favor to 13 for Democrats.

* One minor pet peeve at DU are the posts that compare Clinton's state-by-state results in '92 and '96 to Kerry's potential this year. That completely undervalues Clinton's impressive national popular vote margins (+ 5.56% in '92 and + 8.53% in '96), and the severe improbability Kerry can match them. A huge national edge will naturally swipe from the other party's pool, states that would be lost in a 50/50 or even 52/48 scenario.

* The West Virginia 2000 numbers are incredible and sickening, a full 13+ point betrayal beyond any hint from '88 to '96. I guarantee if West Virginia had installed touch screens prior to 2000, it would have been an overbearing daily conspiracy harangue on DU. But recent state polls indicate more than 20% of West Virginia Democrats continue to favor Bush.

* Demographic shifts are admittedly not my specialty, but it's baffling to me we have abandoned Louisiana in '00 and '04, given the consistent Democratic drift in the state from '88 to '96 and our recent senate/gov successes in Louisiana. Clinton managed a terrific 52% in '96, and his 12+ point margin of victory was greater than in Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

* Current polls indicate a huge change in Colorado, compared to '96 and '00 when Colorado trended nearly 10 points more GOP than the national average. Have to report I'm skeptical of that dramatic a shift in one cycle, particularly given how innacurate the 2002 Colorado senate polls were, favoring Democrat Strickland over Allard, who won handily.

* Gore (+0.51% nationally) somehow managed a lower percentage than Dukakis (-7.72%) in 16 states. Adding all the Nader votes to Gore's total would still leave him short of Dukakis in Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, along with West Virginia. In Oklahoma and South Dakota, Gore trailed Dukakis badly without Nader on the ballot. I'm unsure if we are freefalling in those states, or simply have abandoned most of them.

* Our vulnerable states: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Oregon. All went to Dukakis comfortably, then barely for Gore. The reliable Democratic margins have slipped or completely evaporated, although Nader did pull more than 5% in both Minnesota and Oregon. No wonder these have been targeted by Rove & Co. I'm concerned we are taking Oregon too much for granted on DU. Even in '96, minus Nader on the ballot, Oregon was slightly more GOP than the national average.

* The bellwether states: Iowa and Wisconsin are the reigning champs, within 2% of the national margin each cycle since '92. New Hampshire and Oregon joined them within 2% in both '96 and '00. Dating to '88, Ohio has been a nuisance, always within 4% of the national average but erring toward Republicans. Michigan and Missouri have remained within 5% and Pennsylvania within 5.5%. But the overall nod for consistency since '88 goes to overlooked New Mexico, never more than 3% divergent from the national average.

* The net margins confirm since '88 the important states Florida and New Jersey have stampeded toward Democrats. The pivotal areas, along with Florida, are those that hang within several points of the grasp of the other party: Arkansas, Arizona, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire and Ohio all with Republican margins but not overwhelming, with Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin likewise for Democrats. The margins, at least, refute the conventional wisdom that New Mexico is trending Democratic. I don't know how to label West Virginia, until post-November 2.

Here are the national presidential numbers, followed by the statewide breakdown:

'88: George Bush 53.37%, Michael Dukakis 45.65% = Republican by 7.72%
'92: Bill Clinton 43.01%, George Bush 37.45% = Democratic by 5.56%
'96: Bill Clinton 49.24%, Bob Dole 40.71% = Democratic by 8.53%
'00: Al Gore 48.38%, George W. Bush 47.87% = Democratic by 0.51%

Example: Clinton, with an 8.53 national margin in '96, wins Florida by 48.02 to 42.32, or 5.70%. The net margin, therefore, is actually + 2.83% Republican, since Clinton did not manage his 8.53 number.

Alabama:
'88: Bush (59.17 - 39.86) = + 11.59% Republican
'92: Bush (47.65 - 40.88) = + 12.33% Republican
'96: Dole (50.12 - 43.16) = + 15.49% Republican
'00: Bush (56.47 - 41.59) = + 15.39% Republican

Alaska:
'88: Bush (59.59 - 36.27) = + 15.60% Republican
'92: Bush (39.46 - 30.29) = + 14.73% Republican
'96: Dole (50.80 - 33.27) = + 26.06% Republican
'00: Bush (58.62 - 27.67) = + 31.46% Republican

Arizona:
'88: Bush (59.95 - 38.74) = + 13.49% Republican
'92: Bush (38.47 - 36.52) = + 7.51% Republican
'96: Clinton (46.52 - 44.29) = + 6.30% Republican
'00: Bush (51.02 - 44.73) = + 6.80% Republican

Arkansas:
'88: Bush (56.37 - 42.19) = + 6.46% Republican
'92: Clinton (53.21 - 35.48) = + 12.17% Democrat
'96: Clinton (53.74 - 36.80) = + 8.41% Democrat
'00: Bush (51.31 - 45.86) = + 5.76% Republican
(note: '92 and '96 are obviously more reflective of a huge favorite son swing than political tendencies of the state. notice the extremely similar non-Clinton net margins of '88 and '00)

California:
'88: Bush (51.13 - 47.56) = + 4.15% Democrat
'92: Clinton (46.01 - 32.61) = + 7.84% Democrat
'96: Clinton (51.10 - 38.21) = + 4.36% Democrat
'00: Gore (53.45 - 41.65) = + 11.29% Democrat

Colorado:
'88: Bush (53.06 - 45.28) = + 0.06% Republican
'92: Clinton (40.13 - 35.87) = + 1.30% Republican
'96: Dole (45.80 - 44.43) = + 9.90% Republican
'00: Bush (50.75 - 42.39) = + 8.87% Republican

Connecticut:
'88: Bush (51.98 - 46.87) = + 2.61% Democrat
'92: Clinton (42.21 - 35.78) = + 0.87% Democrat
'96: Clinton (52.83 - 34.69) = + 9.61% Democrat
'00: Gore (55.91 - 38.44) = + 16.96% Democrat
(note: some Lieberman influence in 2000, inflating our advantage)


Delaware:
'88: Bush (55.88 - 43.48) = + 4.68% Republican
'92: Clinton (43.51 - 35.31) = + 2.64% Democrat
'96: Clinton (51.82 - 36.58) = + 6.71% Democrat
'00: Gore (54.96 - 41.90) = + 12.55% Democrat

District of Columbia:
'88: Dukakis (83.70 - 14.49) = + 76.93% Democrat
'92: Clinton (84.64 - 9.10) = + 69.98% Democrat
'96: Clinton (85.19 - 9.34) = + 67.32% Democrat
'00: Gore (85.16 - 8.95) = + 75.70% Democrat

Florida:
'88: Bush (60.87 - 38.51) = + 14.64% Republican
'92: Bush (40.89 - 39.00) = + 7.45% Republican
'96: Clinton (48.02 - 42.32) = + 2.83% Republican
'00: Bush* (48.85 - 48.84) = + 0.52% Republican
* (my estimated adjustment, after elongated analysis and plenty of admitted guesswork, is Gore 49.18 - Bush 48.53 = + 0.14% Democrat)

Georgia:
'88: Bush (59.75 - 39.50) = + 12.53% Republican
'92: Clinton (43.47 - 42.88) = + 4.97% Republican
'96: Dole (47.01 - 45.84) = + 9.70% Republican
'00: Bush (54.67 - 42.98) = + 12.20% Republican

Hawaii:
'88: Dukakis (54.27 - 44.75) = + 17.24% Democrat
'92: Clinton (48.09 - 36.70) = + 5.83% Democrat
'96: Clinton (56.93 - 31.64) = + 16.76% Democrat
'00: Gore (55.79 - 37.46) = + 17.82% Democrat

Idaho:
'88: Bush (62.08 - 36.01) = + 18.35% Republican
'92: Bush (42.03 - 28.42) = + 19.17% Republican
'96: Dole (52.18 - 33.65) = + 27.06% Republican
'00: Bush (67.17 - 27.64) = + 40.04% Republican

Illinois:
'88: Bush (50.69 - 48.60) = + 5.63% Democrat
'92: Clinton (48.58 - 34.34) = + 8.68% Democrat
'96: Clinton (54.31 - 36.81) = + 8.97% Democrat
'00: Gore (54.60 - 42.58) = + 11.51% Democrat

Indiana:
'88: Bush (59.84 - 39.69) = + 12.43% Republican
'92: Bush (42.91 - 36.79) = + 11.68% Republican
'96: Dole (47.13 - 41.55) = + 14.11% Republican
'00: Bush (56.65 - 41.01) = + 16.15% Republican

Iowa:
'88: Dukakis (54.71 - 44.50) = + 17.93% Democrat
'92: Clinton (43.29 - 37.27) = + 0.46% Democrat
'96: Clinton (50.26 - 39.92) = + 1.81% Democrat
'00: Gore (48.54 - 48.22) = + 0.19% Republican

Kansas:
'88: Bush (55.79 - 42.56) = + 5.51% Republican
'92: Bush (38.88 - 33.74) = + 10.70% Republican
'96: Dole (54.29 - 36.08) = + 26.74% Republican
'00: Bush (58.04 - 37.24) = + 21.31% Republican

Kentucky:
'88: Bush (55.52 - 43.88) = + 3.92% Republican
'92: Clinton (44.55 - 41.34) = + 2.35% Republican
'96: Clinton (45.84 - 44.88) = + 7.57% Republican
'00: Bush (56.50 - 41.37) = + 15.64% Republican

Louisiana:
'88: Bush (54.27 - 44.06) = + 2.49% Republican
'92: Clinton (45.58 - 40.97) = + 0.95% Republican
'96: Clinton (52.01 - 39.94) = + 3.54% Democrat
'00: Bush (52.55 - 44.88) = + 8.18% Republican

Maine:
'88: Bush (55.34 - 43.88) = + 3.66% Republican
'92: Clinton (38.77 - 30.44) = + 2.77% Democrat
'96: Clinton (51.62 - 30.76) = + 12.33% Democrat
'00: Gore (49.09 - 43.97) = + 4.61% Democrat

Maryland:
'88: Bush (51.11 - 48.20) = + 4.81% Democrat
'92: Clinton (49.80 - 35.62) = + 8.62% Democrat
'96: Clinton (54.25 - 38.27) = + 7.45% Democrat
'00: Gore (56.57 - 40.18) = + 15.88% Democrat

Massachusetts:
'88: Dukakis (53.23 - 45.37) = + 15.58% Democrat
'92: Clinton (47.54 - 29.02) = + 12.96% Democrat
'96: Clinton (61.47 - 28.08) = + 24.86% Democrat
'00: Gore (59.80 - 32.50) = + 26.79% Democrat

Michigan:
'88: Bush (53.57 - 45.67) = + 0.18% Republican
'92: Clinton (43.77 - 36.38) = + 1.83% Democrat
'96: Clinton (51.69 - 38.48) = + 4.68% Democrat
'00: Gore (51.28 - 46.14) = + 4.63% Democrat

Minnesota:
'88: Dukakis (52.91 - 45.90) = + 14.73% Democrat
'92: Clinton (43.48 - 31.85) = + 6.07% Democrat
'96: Clinton (51.10 - 34.96) = + 7.61% Democrat
'00: Gore (47.91 - 45.50) = + 1.90% Democrat

Mississippi:
'88: Bush (59.89 - 39.07) = + 13.10% Republican
'92: Bush (49.68 - 40.77) = + 14.47% Republican
'96: Dole (49.21 - 44.08) = + 13.66% Republican
'00: Bush (57.62 - 40.70) = + 17.43% Republican

Missouri:
'88: Bush (51.82 - 47.84) = + 3.74% Democrat
'92: Clinton (44.07 - 33.92) = + 4.59% Democrat
'96: Clinton (47.54 - 41.24) = + 2.23% Republican
'00: Bush (50.42 - 47.08) = + 3.85% Republican

Montana:
'88: Bush (52.07 - 46.20) = + 1.85% Democrat
'92: Clinton (37.63 - 35.12) = + 3.05% Republican
'96: Dole (44.11 - 41.23) = + 11.41% Republican
'00: Bush (58.44 - 33.36) = + 25.59% Republican

Nebraska:
'88: Bush (60.15 - 39.20) = + 13.23% Republican
'92: Bush (46.58 - 29.40) = + 22.74% Republican
'96: Dole (53.66 - 34.95) = + 27.24% Republican
'00: Bush (62.25 - 33.25) = + 29.51% Republican

Nevada:
'88: Bush (58.86 - 37.92) = + 13.22% Republican
'92: Clinton (37.36 - 34.73) = + 2.93% Republican
'96: Clinton (43.93 - 42.91) = + 7.51% Republican
'00: Bush (49.52 - 45.98) = + 4.05% Republican

New Hampshire:
'88: Bush (62.41 - 36.29) = + 18.40% Republican
'92: Clinton (38.86 - 37.64) = + 4.34% Republican
'96: Clinton (49.32 - 39.37) = + 1.42% Democrat
'00: Bush (48.07 - 46.80) = + 1.78% Republican

New Jersey:
'88: Bush (56.24 - 42.60) = + 5.92% Republican
'92: Clinton (42.95 - 40.58) = + 3.19% Republican
'96: Clinton (53.72 - 35.86) = + 9.33% Democrat
'00: Gore (56.13 - 40.29) = + 15.33% Democrat

New Mexico:
'88: Bush (51.86 - 46.90) = + 2.76 Democrat
'92: Clinton (45.90 - 37.34) = + 3.00% Democrat
'96: Clinton (49.18 - 41.86) = + 1.21% Republican
'00: Gore (47.91 - 47.85) = + 0.45% Republican

New York:
'88: Dukakis (51.62 - 47.52) = + 11.82% Democrat
'92: Clinton (49.73 - 33.88) = + 10.29% Democrat
'96: Clinton (59.47 - 30.61) = + 20.33% Democrat
'00: Gore (60.21 - 35.23) = + 24.47% Democrat

North Carolina:
'88: Bush (57.97 - 41.71) = + 8.54% Republican
'92: Bush (43.44 - 42.65) = + 6.35% Republican
'96: Dole (48.73 - 44.04) = + 13.22% Republican
'00: Bush (56.03 - 43.20) = + 13.34% Republican

North Dakota:
'88: Bush (56.03 - 42.97) = + 5.34% Republican
'92: Bush (44.22 - 32.18) = + 17.60% Republican
'96: Dole (46.94 - 40.13) = + 15.34% Republican
'00: Bush (60.66 - 33.06) = + 28.11% Republican

Ohio:
'88: Bush (55.00 - 44.15) = + 3.13% Republican
'92: Clinton (40.18 - 38.35) = + 3.73% Republican
'96: Clinton (47.38 - 41.02) = + 2.17% Republican
'00: Bush (49.97 - 46.46) = + 4.02% Republican

Oklahoma:
'88: Bush (57.93 - 41.28) = + 8.93% Republican
'92: Bush (42.65 - 34.02) = + 14.19% Republican
'96: Dole (48.26 - 40.45) = + 16.34% Republican
'00: Bush (60.31 - 38.43) = + 22.39% Republican

Oregon:
'88: Dukakis (51.28 - 46.61) = + 12.39% Democrat
'92: Clinton (42.48 - 32.53) = + 4.39% Democrat
'96: Clinton (47.15 - 39.06) = + 0.44% Republican
'00: Gore (46.96 - 46.52) = + 0.07% Republican

Pennsylvania:
'88: Bush (50.70 - 48.39) = + 5.41% Democrat
'92: Clinton (45.15 - 36.13) = + 3.46% Democrat
'96: Clinton (49.17 - 39.97) = + 0.67% Democrat
'00: Gore (50.60 - 46.43) = + 3.66% Democrat

Rhode Island:
'88: Dukakis (55.64 - 43.93) = + 19.43% Democrat
'92: Clinton (47.04 - 29.02) = + 12.46% Democrat
'96: Clinton (59.71 - 26.82) = + 24.36% Democrat
'00: Gore (60.99 - 31.91) = + 28.57% Democrat

South Carolina:
'88: Bush (61.50 - 37.58) = + 16.20% Republican
'92: Bush (48.02 - 39.88) = + 13.70% Republican
'96: Dole (49.79 - 43.96) = + 14.36% Republican
'00: Bush (56.84 - 40.90) = + 16.45% Republican

South Dakota:
'88: Bush (52.85 - 46.51) = + 1.38% Democrat
'92: Bush (40.66 - 37.14) = + 9.08% Republican
'96: Dole (46.49 - 43.03) = + 11.99% Republican
'00: Bush (60.30 - 37.56) = + 23.25% Republican

Tennessee:
'88: Bush (57.89 - 41.55) = + 8.62% Republican
'92: Clinton (47.08 - 42.43) = + 0.91% Republican
'96: Clinton (48.00 - 45.59) = + 6.12% Republican
'00: Bush (51.15 - 47.28) = + 4.38% Republican
(note: Gore on the ticket every cycle since '92 has undoubtedly had some impact, despite the over-the-top failure in '00. I believe the 8.62 number from '88, or within a couple points lower, is most accurate.)

Texas:
'88: Bush (55.95 - 43.35) = + 4.88% Republican
'92: Bush (40.56 - 37.08) = + 9.04% Republican
'96: Dole (48.76 - 43.83) = + 13.46% Republican
'00: Bush (59.30 - 37.98) = + 21.83% Republican
(note: like Arkansas in '92 and '96, Texas '00 is certainly candidate-driven and inflated)

Utah:
'88: Bush (66.22 - 32.05) = + 26.45% Republican
'92: Bush (43.36 - 24.65) = + 24.27% Republican
'96: Dole (54.37 - 33.30) = + 29.60% Republican
'00 Bush (66.83 - 26.34) = + 41.00% Republican

Vermont:
'88: Bush (51.10 - 47.58) = + 4.20% Democrat
'92: Clinton (46.11 - 30.42) = + 10.13% Democrat
'96: Clinton (53.35 - 31.09) = + 13.73% Democrat
'00: Gore (50.63 - 40.70) = + 9.42% Democrat

Virginia:
'88: Bush (59.74 - 39.23) = + 12.79% Republican
'92: Bush (44.97 - 40.59) = + 9.94% Republican
'96: Dole (47.10 - 45.15) = + 10.48% Republican
'00: Bush (52.47 - 44.44) = + 8.54% Republican

Washington:
'88: Dukakis (50.05 - 48.46) = + 9.31% Democrat
'92: Clinton (43.40 - 31.96) = + 5.88% Democrat
'96: Clinton (49.84 - 37.30) = + 4.01% Democrat
'00: Gore (50.16 - 44.58) = + 5.07% Democrat

West Virginia:
'88: Dukakis (52.20 - 47.46) = + 12.46% Democrat
'92: Clinton (48.41 - 35.39) = + 7.46% Democrat
'96: Clinton (51.50 - 36.76) = + 6.21% Democrat
'00: Bush (51.92 - 45.59) = + 6.84% Republican

Wisconsin:
'88: Dukakis (51.41 - 47.80) = + 11.33% Democrat
'92: Clinton (41.13 - 36.78) = + 1.21% Republican
'96: Clinton (48.81 - 38.48) = + 1.80% Democrat
'00: Gore (47.83 - 47.61) = + 0.29% Republican

Wyoming:
'88: Bush (60.53 - 38.01) = + 14.80% Republican
'92: Bush (39.56 - 33.98) = + 11.14% Republican
'96: Dole (49.81 - 36.84) = + 21.50% Republican
'00: Bush (67.76 - 27.70) = + 40.57% Republican
(note: overlooked and irrelevant, but Cheney made a substantial impact here)

[flowomo]

1. good to have on hand...

just printed it out. thanks.

[Awsi Dooger]

4. No problem, flowomo

That's what I had in mind. DU is such a great source. I'm always copying and bookmarking stuff here.

Looked like a good time to repost this. The college football games I'm watching are so one-sided I needed something to do.

[On the Road]

2. Thanks for This -- Very Interesting

Some surprises here. Dukakis won South Dakota in 1988. Iowa went Republican in 2000 and Oregon went Republican in 1996 and 2000.

[Awsi Dooger]

3. Well, Dukakis didn't exactly "win" South Dakota

The actual numbers are at left. Dukakis lost SD by 6 points, but that was better than his national average of -7.72 points.

[On the Road]

13. I See -- I Misinterpreted

Will have to look at this again.

[Awsi Dooger]

5. One minor note regarding South Dakota

The 2000 number favoring Republicans by 23+ points is somewhat misleading and will not hold up in 2004. We have two Democratic senators in red South Dakota, Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson. There was no senate race in 2000 and Democrats did not show up for the presidential vote.

This year, with the heated Daschle/Thune senate race and the congressional rematch with Herseth, Democrats will come out in huge numbers and Bush's net margin will probably be cut in half, closer to the +9 or +11 numbers of '92 and '96.

When I update this chart post-election, it will look like a sharp Democratic move in South Dakota, instead of a basic political reality.

[Awsi Dooger]

6. Kick

In case anyone else wants to bookmark/print this stuff

[69KV]

7. Great work!

What sticks out like a sore thumb here is some of the states that went for Bush in 1988:

Vermont
New Jersey
Illinois
California
Maryland

Things can change, and change quickly. 1988 was not all that long ago. Every one of these is among the solidest blue states now, core Democratic states that we can count on winning no matter what.

Also the other thing that sticks out is some of the states that temporarily went Dem during the Clinton era: Kentucky, Tennessee, Arizona, Montana, Georgia, Louisiana, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire...

1992 and 1996 were not all that long ago either.

The question is, how do we turn other states blue the way Vermont, New Jersey, Illinois etc. have been turned solid blue? And how do we bring some of the swing states, some of which like Georgia and Montana are now considered solid red, back over to our side?

I don't know about y'all but my mission won't be finished until Idaho and Mississippi and Utah are solid Dem states and the RepuKKKe party has gone the way of the Whigs and the Federalists. Looking at how solidly blue some states have turned, that were red as recently as 1988, gives me hope that the RepuKKKe party is on their last leg.

[eriffle]

8. what is wrong with my state!

We voted for Dukakis, but not Gore? ARGH!!! It looks like we're going for Bush again this year, but luckily I live close enough to ohio and have friends there to campaign for Kerry in the last two weeks if needed.

[Lexingtonian]

9. Wow. That's a lot of work you did, AD.

One minor pet peeve at DU are the posts that compare Clinton's state-by-state results in '92 and '96 to Kerry's potential this year. That completely undervalues Clinton's impressive national popular vote margins (+ 5.56% in '92 and + 8.53% in '96), and the severe improbability Kerry can match them. A huge national edge will naturally swipe from the other party's pool, states that would be lost in a 50/50 or even 52/48 scenario.

This is an apples vs. oranges problem. A plurality victory, e.g. 43-38, is politically far less useful- it lacks the sense of mandate- than a 51-48 true majority. And 1996 is an aberration- conservative (Dole or Perot) turnout was down 3 million relative to projections.

The West Virginia 2000 numbers are incredible and sickening, a full 13+ point betrayal beyond any hint from '88 to '96. I guarantee if West Virginia had installed touch screens prior to 2000, it would have been an overbearing daily conspiracy harangue on DU. But recent state polls indicate more than 20% of West Virginia Democrats continue to favor Bush.

If you look at trends since the early '70s, there is a continuous peeling off and dying off of conservative Democrats until 1991 (they were there for the November 1990 House elections) and a continuous growth of ~3%/Presidential term of the Modern kind throughout. The last big bunch of the conservative Democrats (many of them 'FDR Democrats') left/died between 1988 and 1992- the Republican effort was tremendous and ubiquitous, and flipping them was what the endless slew of 'wedge issues' of the time was all about. Bill Clinton couldn't get a 6% chunk of the electorate that voted for Dukakis (and Carter and Mondale) back- they went to Perot in 1992- but got the 3 million/ 3% new Democratic voters that got him to 43%. It's been up 3 million each go-around since.

West Virginia's numbers are greatly skewed by the iron and coal worker unions getting a lot of people to vote Democratic who were/are too socially conservative to feel comfortable with the Party in the '90s. The massive breakdown of the steel industry did in the unions' power by 2000 and Bush promised his famous (but illegal) steel import tariff, and that did a lot to bring over the last conservative leaning skeptics among the large numbers of un(der)employed and retired union voters and their families. In 2000 the Christian Right and the NRA also brought in a substantial amount of inactive voters. IMHO West Virginia's 52/45/3 split in 2000 was actually a pretty accurate reflection of where the state's electorate really was along the national social/political fault lines, unfortunately.

Demographic shifts are admittedly not my specialty, but it's baffling to me we have abandoned Louisiana in '00 and '04, given the consistent Democratic drift in the state from '88 to '96 and our recent senate/gov successes in Louisiana. Clinton managed a terrific 52% in '96, and his 12+ point margin of victory was greater than in Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Look at the actual number of voters. It's a 52/48 or 53/47 Republican state, at best, this year at current levels and kinds of turnout. Again, the percentages are misleading in your attempt at understanding what goes on. Republicans simply have a number of voters locked in on the national issues that Democrats can't quite meet, and it's due to internal consensus being attained between the different conservative subgroups. They can- and do- split easily in state races, where the issues are different in nature.

Current polls indicate a huge change in Colorado, compared to '96 and '00 when Colorado trended nearly 10 points more GOP than the national average. Have to report I'm skeptical of that dramatic a shift in one cycle, particularly given how inaccurate the 2002 Colorado senate polls were, favoring Democrat Strickland over Allard, who won handily.

The Democratic Party organization in that state was horrifyingly slow to reform; there has been very little confidence in it in the state and it gave the state a slew of pretty inept candidates during the '90s. Strickland was a victim of both things, Democratic demoralization as well as little ability to respond to the 2002 unopposed Republican PR hysteria machine. (Republicans got ~80% turnout of their Presidential Election numbers in Red States in '02, Democrats got 70-74%: that was usually a margin of 4-6% for the Republican candidate beyond the partisan split of the state.)

The Salazar brothers and Kerry campaign affiliates have gotten a pile of new registrations out of the Hispanics in southern Colorado that neither side could get politically active during the '90s this year. I'd estimate they increased the Colorado electorate size by 3-4% and adds substantially to the 3% Democratic shift of the state (which is largely due to Denver). That's the basis of the present situation in Colorado- the newly active Hispanic voters are not strongly partisanly committed, so they're diluting both sides' proportion of the electorate and upping the Undecideds to a level that is unusual relative to other states. It derives from such a relatively large pool of voters remaining untapped until now.

Gore (+0.51% nationally) somehow managed a lower percentage than Dukakis (-7.72%) in 16 states. Adding all the Nader votes to Gore's total would still leave him short of Dukakis in Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, along with West Virginia. In Oklahoma and South Dakota, Gore trailed Dukakis badly without Nader on the ballot. I'm unsure if we are freefalling in those states, or simply have abandoned most of them.

Once you account for the 'FDR Democrats' that left or died after 1988, I think the answer is No. A lot of the seeming shrinkage is an artifact of using percentages- Republicans got a lot of inactive voters active in the Eighties and Nineties. A lot of Evangelicals tended to stay out of the morally polluted realm of domestic politics, full of the corruption of pork barrel politics as it is/was, until they became convinced that the Modern (Liberal) people were starting to endanger their sense of the world and their control of their part of it. The 3% Democratic gain is a national average and depends afaict on voters in their thirties replacing those who died in each four year term- with the flight of the young from a lot of the prarie Midwest states and rural Deep South to cities (Denver, Las Vegas, Twin Cities, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Orlando, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, SF, LA, SD, Seattle) those states appear 'stuck' as their voters age and become fewer overall. The silver lining is the increase of American Indian voters' power relative to rural whites'.

Evangelical and/or Christian Right voters have famously diminished in number across the last few elections. This year we'll probably see the effort to maximize their votes one last time; they just can't replace their numbers, let alone increase them. Their children are leaving their take on religion and 'morality' behind- not fully, but so extensively that the politics is unsustainable. Support for gay civil unions is increasing at a rate of 1% per month nationally and is at 60%, gay marriage is at half that rate and half the total- in 3 years 50%+ of the society will accept gay marriage. Abortion rights look endangerable, true, but no one seriously believes that the ability to get one will vanish or that women will change their notion of that it's their decision. And Unreligiousness has become something of an epidemic and socially normal rather than reason for ostracism over the past twenty years. It's Over, they know It's Over, so at this point the Christian Right game is really only about elderly people wanting to punish younger ones and the theocrats want to retain worldly power.

Our vulnerable states: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Oregon. All went to Dukakis comfortably, then barely for Gore. The reliable Democratic margins have slipped or completely evaporated, although Nader did pull more than 5% in both Minnesota and Oregon. No wonder these have been targeted by Rove & Co. I'm concerned we are taking Oregon too much for granted on DU. Even in '96, minus Nader on the ballot, Oregon was slightly more GOP than the national average.

They're also states that are more white than average and faced non-white immigration in significant numbers for the first time during the Eighties and Nineties. Oregon was also a white flight state for Californians. The effect is not in overt racism but elderly white voters not wanting to pay taxes for non-white education and social service costs. The effect is largest in places like California and Florida, actually, at present but every state goes through a phase of it. (Or, in the case of the Deep South, stays in it.)

[Awsi Dooger]

10. Great reply, as usual

Wow, it's going to take me quite a while to digest and apply all of that. You have an amazing knowledge of the most relevant population/voting factors in seemingly every region and state.

I work in sports statistical analysis. This chart was not something I undertook for DU. It was completed years before I joined DU in 2002. I have dozens of other Excel election related spreadsheets, somewhat similar to TruthIsAll but not as advanced. Some of them are very experimental with weird theories, no doubt assaulted if I posted them here. I posted this basic chart during the Dean frenzy in mid-2003, primarily out of frustration so many DUers were overconfident in very red states for 2004, ones that Clinton carried. I wanted to point out Clinton's narrow margin of victory in those states compared to his national average.

A couple of things stand out from your post. First, I completely agree the two Clinton races are not perfectly representative of state trends or margins given the huge Perot swipe, particularly in '92. I have a separate spreadsheet that makes adjustments in that regard. On DU I wanted to post a base model, no strange adjustments that aren't necessarily better.

I'm a little surprised you think West Virginia 2000 was exactly representative of the state's true national politics. That state intrigues me more than any other this year, although less so if Kerry concedes it early. You made the point elsewhere that voters are comfortable splitting in state races, where different issues prevail, but I keep remembering West Virginia threw out a GOP incumbent governor by several points on the same day it favored Bush over Gore. And this year, even after a Democratic scandal of some sort, the new Democratic governor nominee is expected to win the statehouse easily.

[Lexingtonian]

11. well...

I'll admit I've found the problem of expectations for this election and understanding what is going on pretty interesting. I worked quite hard at figuring out the '02 election and got it wrong, like almost everyone else, and it bugged me. I had to reexamine all the easy assumptions I made for that one, really. I've pieced things together again in what seems to me the most plausible way compatible with the evidence- but a lot of it is figured out by other people or is a simple connection between two or three things that have been stated here.... I do recommend taking things with a grain of salt. Still, this race is going to break wide open during the next week, I'm feeling quite sure of it.

What you're doing is really a good idea. I keep my own charts- the most important is a map of the states with each one containing a number representing the present effective Democratic baseline strength there- a percentage- which I revise a little bit over time. For example, presently Georgia is a 45 or 45+ and South Carolina a 46+, Missouri a 47+, California a 56. It's pretty handy, really.

A lot of what Gingrich and then Dubya did was bring Perot voters over to the Republican side- they saw that there was a conservative-leaning majority, they considered their job to be the consolidation of the the different groups.

The West Virginia Democratic Party feels like a hybrid of the Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio Democratic Parties from where I'm sitting. Pretty Southern, really. It benefits from the small size of the state- like in other small ones there's only enough local political talent to stock one Party well, which in time becomes a power-monopolizing centrist organization; the other one has to languish and field a lot of token and vanity and protest candidates. In West Virginia the Democratic Party is the former kind, their Republican Party the latter.

Take care, and I apologize for the many posts of yours I didn't reply to- partly from having nothing to add, partly from feeling my writing becoming unintelligible due to the late, or early, hour.

[arewenotdemo]

12. "It's Over, they know It's Over"

I really wish that were true; you seem to have more faith in the sheeple than I do.

Look at the success of the LaHaye fantasies and Gibson's Torturama...I don't see any let-up to the superstition.

Thanks for the analysis and stats!