Red States vs. Blue States - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Doug64
#14927317
Awhile back, one columnist pointed out that you can't really judge who is a Red State and who is a Blue State just by the latest presidential election, that ignores both how the states vote for other offices and how they vote over time. I was curious just how things would look if you measured both, so I looked at how each state voted for the House of Representatives, the Senate, Governor, and President in elections covering the sixteen years from 2001 to 2016, assigning each category an equal weight. For example, Missouri voted for House Republicans 62.3% of the time, Republican Senators 60% of the time, Republican Governors 33.3% of the time, and Republican Presidents 100% of the time, for a final score of 63.9%.

So, counting all states with a score greater then 67% as Red States and all with a score equal to or below 33% as Blue States, and everything in between as Purple, the lists look like this:

Red States (18)
  • Idaho 98.2%
  • Alabama 93.9%
  • Nebraska 93.8%
  • Alaska 93.8%
  • South Carolina 93.8%
  • Utah 93.5%
  • Texas 90.8%
  • Georgia 90.1%
  • Mississippi 89.3%
  • Wyoming 87.5%
  • Oklahoma 83.9%
  • Kansas 83.0%
  • South Dakota 79.3%
  • Kentucky 77.4%
  • Tennessee 77.2%
  • Louisiana 75.8%
  • Arizona 72.6%
  • Indiana 72.5%

Purple States (17)
  • North Dakota 67.0%
  • Florida 66.9%
  • Missouri 63.9%
  • North Carolina 60.8%
  • Ohio 60.1%
  • Arkansas 59.2%
  • Nevada 59.0%
  • Montana 55.0%
  • Iowa 54.4%
  • West Virginia 42.3%
  • Wisconsin 40.4%
  • Pennsylvania 39.7%
  • Colorado 35.8%
  • Virginia 34.7%
  • New Mexico 34.5%
  • Maine 34.3%
  • Michigan 33.6%

Blue States (15)
  • New Hampshire 31.1%
  • Minnesota 28.2%
  • Illinois 26.2%
  • New Jersey 24.0%
  • California 18.5%
  • Connecticut 17.5%
  • Maryland 17.4%
  • Massachusetts 16.7%
  • Delaware 14.3%
  • Vermont 14.3%
  • New York 12.7%
  • Hawaii 12.5%
  • Rhode Island 12.5%
  • Oregon 10.0%
  • Washington 9.2%

It'll be interesting to see how the list changes, if at all, after this November.
#14927398
A related issue is that population losses in high tax blue states, compared to population gains in lower tax red states, are dramatic enough that red states might start gaining electoral votes and congressional districts while blue states might start losing such votes.

Basically, if Texas stays red and ends up being significantly larger in proportion than say, California, a similar situation in New York state, it could require a complete re-alignment of American federal politics, which is not really a surprising prospect if you consider how the Democrats are arguably moving to the left of the majority anyway.
#14927402
That’s actually already happening, but it’s a slow process that also alters the voting patterns of the states they move to.
#14927647
To show how slowly that process, is, here's the estimated shifts after the 2020 census as of January of this year, along with the percentages for House and President:

  • Florida (H:68%, P:50%): +2
  • Texas (H:63%, P:100%): +2
  • Arizona (H:57%, P:100%): +1
  • Colorado (H:53%, P:25%): +1
  • Montana (H:100%, P:100%): +1
  • North Carolina (H:55%, P:75%): +1
  • Oregon (H:20%, P:0%): +1
  • Alabama (H:76%, P:100%): -1
  • Illinois (H:47%, P:0%): -1
  • Michigan (H:55%, P:25%): -1
  • Minnesota (H:43%, P:0%): -1
  • New York (H:26%, P:0%): -1
  • Ohio (H:66%, P:50%): -1
  • Pennsylvania (H:59%, P:25%): -1
  • Rhode Island (H:0%, P:0%): -1
  • West Virginia (H:52%, P:100%): -1

For the House, playing with the percentages, that works out to a 1.23 seat shift from Democrat to Republican -- not exactly earthshaking, but every little bit helps.

Percentages for the president don't work so well, thanks to the winner-take-all allocation most states use for their Electoral College votes, but playing with those percentages anyway that works out to a 3 vote shift from Democrat to Republican. Again, every little bit helps.
#14927648
I don't recall all the details, but one of the Major Media Outlets did a "Poll of the Pollsters" earlier this week ... They got a bunch of the major pollsters together and asked them to call the midterms based on their own personal analysis (admittedly not a very scientific method). When the dust settled they agreed the Dems would take the house back. I think they were split about the senate.

Interesting ?

Zam 8)
#14927679
Zamuel wrote:I don't recall all the details, but one of the Major Media Outlets did a "Poll of the Pollsters" earlier this week ... They got a bunch of the major pollsters together and asked them to call the midterms based on their own personal analysis (admittedly not a very scientific method). When the dust settled they agreed the Dems would take the house back. I think they were split about the senate.

Interesting ?

Zam 8)


No, I think elections are determined by last minute dirty tricks and stupid mistakes. Trump was basically elected because of Hillary’s ‘deplorables’ comment.
#14927778
One Degree wrote:No, I think elections are determined by last minute dirty tricks and stupid mistakes. Trump was basically elected because of Hillary’s ‘deplorables’ comment.

Oh? So it's -not- the election fairy then ?

Zam :lol:
#14931294
Looking at a comments thread elsewhere I saw yet again the charge that Red States are federal welfare queens, so I thought I'd check that out again. Here's the most and least for per capita federal spending for welfare and education, per Governing: The States and Localities. (I didn't include highway spending because that's more a function of the geographical size and population of the state.)

Highest Per Capita
  1. $2,829.70 New Mexico (Purple, 34.5%)
  2. $2,427.60 Vermont (Blue, 14.3%)
  3. $2,409.80 Oregon (Blue, 10%)
  4. $2,146.07 New York (Blue, 12.7%)
  5. $2,105.89 Mississippi (Red, 89.3%)
  6. $1,998.14 West Virginia (Purple, 42.3%)
  7. $1,964.51 Kentucky (Red, 77.4%)
  8. $1,930.25 Alaska (Red, 93.8%)
  9. $1,825.38 Arkansas (Purple, 59.2%)
  10. $1,813.43 California (Blue, 18.5%)

Lowest Per Capita
  1. $876.51 Virginia (Purple, 34.7%)
  2. $960.91 Colorado (Purple, 35.8%)
  3. $977.28 Georgia (Red, 90.1%)
  4. $979.49 South Dakota (Red, 79.3%)
  5. $980.85 Kansas (Red, 83.0%)
  6. $992.80 Florida (Purple, 66.9%)
  7. $1,007.17 New Hampshire (Blue, 31.1%)
  8. $1,036.81 Idaho (Red, 98.2%)
  9. $1,102.47 Utah (Red, 93.5%)
  10. $1,111.55 Nevada (Purple, 59.0%)

So the highest per capita is pretty evenly divided with four Blue and three Purple and Red each; but the lowest per capita is another story with five Red and four Purple, but only one Blue.

I also calculated the totals for each category:

  • US Average $1,471.51
  • Red States $1,315.65
  • Purple States $1,358.09
  • Blue States $1,697.05
#14931559
Things change a bit when you factor in what the states pay in federal taxes, so here's the most and the least for every federal tax dollar sent to Washington for state welfare & education for every federal dollar received:

Greatest Recipients
  1. $5.13 New Mexico (Purple, 34.5%)
  2. $4.29 Mississippi (Red, 89.3%)
  3. $3.90 West Virginia (Purple, 42.3%)
  4. $2.64 Vermont (Blue, 14.3%)
  5. $2.43 Oregon (Blue, 10%)
  6. $2.24 Maine (Purple, 34.3%)
  7. $2.10 Alabama (Red, 93.9%)
  8. $2.08 Kentucky (Red, 77.4%)
  9. $2.03 Montana (Purple, 55%)
  10. $2.01 South Carolina (Red, 93.8%)

Lowest Recipients
  1. $0.48 Delaware (Blue, 14.3%)
  2. $0.61 New Jersey (Blue, 24%)
  3. $0.70 Minnesota (Blue, 28%)
  4. $0.71 Connecticut (Blue, 17.5%)
  5. $0.71 Virginia (Purple, 34.7%)
  6. $0.73 Nebraska (Red, 93.8%)
  7. $0.75 Illinois (Blue, 26.2%)
  8. $0.77 Massachusetts (Blue, 16.7%)
  9. $0.82 Kansas (Red, 83%)
  10. $0.85 South Dakota (Red, 79.3%)

And that definitely looks a lot better for Blues, with two in the top ten recipients and six in the bottom ten. Though if the polarizing drift continues that's likely to change, with New Mexico, Maine, and Virginia shifting into the Blue camp.

And for the group averages:

  • US Average $1.22
  • Red States $1.35
  • Purple States $1.26
  • Blue States $1.18

And for the comparison everyone seems to make, California is at $1.36 and Texas is at $0.95.
#14932806
And a few more I've come up with:

Highest Total Fertility Rate (Replacement Rate 2.1)
  1. 2.26 South Dakota (Red, 79.3%)
  2. 2.24 Utah (Red, 93.5%)
  3. 2.17 North Dakota (Purple, 67.0%)
  4. 2.14 Alaska (Red, 93.8%)
  5. 2.14 Nebraska (Red, 93.8%)
  6. 2.07 Idaho (Red, 98.2%)
  7. 2.02 Texas (Red, 90.8%)
  8. 2.00 Kansas (Red, 83.0%)
  9. 1.99 Iowa (Purple, 54.4%)
  10. 1.98 Oklahoma (Red, 83.9%)

Lowest Total Fertility Rate
  1. 1.54 Massachusetts (Blue, 16.7%)
  2. 1.54 Rhode Island (Blue, 12.5%)
  3. 1.54 Vermont (Blue, 14.3%)
  4. 1.55 New Hampshire (Blue, 31.1%)
  5. 1.63 Connecticut (Blue, 17.5%)
  6. 1.64 Maine (Purple, 34.3%)
  7. 1.65 Oregon (Blue, 10.0%)
  8. 1.69 New York (Blue, 12.7%)
  9. 1.71 Colorado (Purple, 35.8%)
  10. 1.72 Pennsylvania (Purple, 39.7%)

  • US TFR average: 1.82
  • Red State TFR average: 1.94
  • Purple State TFR average: 1.8
  • Blue State TFR average: 1.75

Highest Number of Marriages per Divorce
  1. 3.31 North Dakota (Purple, 67.0%)
  2. 2.93 Idaho (Red, 98.2%)
  3. 2.91 Hawaii (Blue, 12.5%)
  4. 2.83 Wyoming (Red, 87.5%)
  5. 2.68 Utah (Red, 93.5%)
  6. 2.50 Delaware (Blue, 14.3%)
  7. 2.32 New Jersey (Blue, 24.0%)
  8. 2.27 New York (Blue, 12.7%)
  9. 2.17 Colorado (Purple, 35.8%)
  10. 2.17 California (Blue, 18.5%)

Lowest Number of Marriages per Divorce
  1. 1.16 Maine (Purple, 34.3%)
  2. 1.47 Alabama Red, 93.9%)
  3. 1.51 Vermont (Blue, 14.3%)
  4. 1.55 Mississippi (Red, 89.3%)
  5. 1.59 Tennessee (Red, 77.2%)
  6. 1.59 Rhode Island (Blue, 12.5%)
  7. 1.63 New Hampshire (Blue, 31.1%)
  8. 1.64 Kentucky (Red, 77.4%)
  9. 1.66 Ohio (Purple, 60.1%)
  10. 1.70 Oregon (Blue, 10.0%)

  • US Marriage/Divorce Ratio: 1.97
  • Red Marriage/Divorce Ratio: 1.87
  • Purple Marriage/Divorce Ratio: 1.88
  • Blue Marriage/Divorce Ratio: 2.13

Highest per capita GDP (adjusted for CoL)
  1. $64,355.58 Wyoming (Red, 87.5%)
  2. $63,471.72 North Dakota (Purple, 67.0%)
  3. $60,402.28 Delaware (Blue, 14.3%)
  4. $58,921.14 Texas (Red, 90.8%)
  5. $56,867.24 Nebraska (Red, 93.8%)
  6. $55,936.92 Illinois (Blue, 26.2%)
  7. $54,749.73 Iowa (Purple, 54.4%)
  8. $53,596.81 Minnesota (Blue, 28.2%)
  9. $52,493.85 Kansas (Red, 83.0%)
  10. $52,475.53 Washington (Blue, 9.2%)

Lowest per capita GDP (adjusted for CoL)
  1. $27,523.89 Hawaii (Blue, 12.5%)
  2. $33,466.04 Maine (Purple, 34.3%)
  3. $37,432.71 Vermont (Blue, 14.3%)
  4. $37,515.50 West Virginia (Purple, 42.3%)
  5. $37,703.97 South Carolina (Red, 93.8%)
  6. $37,878.73 Montana (Purple, 55.0%)
  7. $37,953.57 Mississippi (Red, 89.3%)
  8. $38,258.90 Idaho (Red, 98.2%)
  9. $38,909.23 Oregon (Blue, 10.0%)
  10. $38,984.45 Rhode Island (Blue, 12.5%)

  • US per capita GDP $47,682.44
  • Red State per capita GDP/CoL $55,875.13
  • Purple State per capita GDP/CoL $46,941.77
  • Blue State per capita GDP/CoL $46,714.76

Highest Median Household Income (adjusted for CoL)
  1. $65,879.65 Wyoming (Red, 87.5%)
  2. $65,126.29 Utah (Red, 93.5%)
  3. $64,899.12 Virginia (Purple, 34.7%)
  4. $63,361.28 Minnesota (Blue, 28.2%)
  5. $62,770.54 New Hampshire (Blue, 31.1%)
  6. $61,621.51 Illinois (Blue, 26.2%)
  7. $61,510.11 Colorado (Purple, 35.8%)
  8. $61,168.69 North Dakota (Purple, 67.0%)
  9. $60,998.31 New Jersey (Blue, 24.0%)
  10. $60,956.19 Texas (Red, 90.8%)

Lowest Median Household Income (adjusted for CoL)
  1. $39,444.98 Hawaii (Blue, 12.5%)
  2. $41,652.31 Oregon (Blue, 10.0%)
  3. $43,408.06 West Virginia (Purple, 42.3%)
  4. $44,276.87 Maine (Purple, 34.3%)
  5. $45,444.36 New York (Blue, 12.7%)
  6. $45,744.68 California (Blue, 18.5%)
  7. $47,291.67 Arkansas (Purple, 59.0%)
  8. $47,522.91 Rhode Island (Blue, 12.5%)
  9. $47,534.90 Nevada (Purple, 55.0%)
  10. $47,650.63 Montana (Purple, 55.0%)

  • US Median Household $53,891.01
  • Red State Median Household/CoL $49,724.08
  • Purple State Median Household/CoL $54,499.72
  • Blue State Median Household/CoL $51,765.16

Highest 2018 Growth Rate
  1. 2.15% Idaho (Red, 98.2%)
  2. 1.96% Nevada (Purple, 55.0%)
  3. 1.85% Utah (Red, 93.5%)
  4. 1.69% Washington (Blue, 9.2%)
  5. 1.56% Florida (Purple, 66.9%)
  6. 1.53% Arizona (Red, 72.6%)
  7. 1.41% Texas (Red, 90.8%)
  8. 1.37% Colorado (Purple, 35.8%)
  9. 1.37% Oregon (Blue, 10.0%)
  10. 1.28% South Carolina (Red, 93.8%)
Lowest 2018 Growth Rate
  1. -0.97% Wyoming (Red, 87.5%)
  2. -0.70% West Virginia (Purple, 42.3%)
  3. -0.26% Illinois (Blue, 26.2%)
  4. -0.23% Alaska (Red, 93.8%)
  5. -0.08% Hawaii (Blue, 12.5%)
  6. -0.04% Mississippi (Red, 89.3%)
  7. -0.04% Louisiana (Red, 75.8%)
  8. -0.02% North Dakota (Purple, 67.0%)
  9. 0.01% Connecticut (Blue, 17.5%)
  10. 0.05% Vermont (Blue, 14.3%)

  • US 2018 Growth Rate 0.71%
  • Red States Growth Rate 0.97%
  • Purple States Growth Rate 0.75%
  • Blue States Growth Rate 0.47%
#14934723
And a few more stats, resulting from comment threads elsewhere:

here's the average rankings and the best and worst for CNBC's economic environment rankings:

10 Best States
  1. Texas (Red, 90.8%)
  2. Washington (Blue, 9.2%)
  3. Utah (Red, 93.5%)
  4. Virginia (Purple, 34.7%)
  5. Colorado (Purple, 35.8%)
  6. Minnesota (Blue, 28.2%)
  7. Georgia (Red, 90.1%)
  8. Massachusetts (Blue, 16.7%)
  9. North Carolina (Purple, 60.8%)
  10. Florida (Purple, 66.9%)

10 Worst States
  1. Alaska (Red, 93.8%)
  2. Mississippi (Red, 89.3%)
  3. West Virginia (Purple, 42.3%)
  4. Hawaii (Blue, 12.5%)
  5. Maine (Purple, 34.3%)
  6. Rhode Island (Blue, 12.5%)
  7. Louisiana (Red, 75.8%)
  8. New Mexico (Purple, 34.5%)
  9. Kentucky (Red, 77.4%)
  10. Alabama (Red, 93.9%)

Average Rankings
  • Red States 25.6
  • Purple States 23.9
  • Blue States 27.0

And here's the states based on population:

The smallest states
  1. 573,720 Wyoming (Red, 87.5%)
  2. 623,960 Vermont (Blue, 14.3%)
  3. 738,068 Alaska (Red, 93.8%)
  4. 755,238 North Dakota (Purple, 67.0%)
  5. 877,790 South Dakota (Red, 79.3%)
  6. 971,180 Delaware (Blue, 14.3%)
  7. 1,061,712 Rhode Island (Blue, 12.5%)
  8. 1,062,330 Montana (Purple, 55.0%)
  9. 1,341,582 Maine (Purple, 34.3%)
  10. 1,350,575 New Hampshire (Blue, 31.1%)

The largest states
  1. 39,776,830 California (Blue, 18.5%)
  2. 28,704,330 Texas (Red, 90.8%)
  3. 21,312,211 Florida (Purple, 66.9%)
  4. 19,862,512 New York (Blue, 12.7%)
  5. 12,823,989 Pennsylvania (Purple, 39.7%)
  6. 12,768,320 Illinois (Blue, 26.2%)
  7. 11,694,664 Ohio (Purple, 60.1%)
  8. 10,545,138 Georgia (Red, 90.1%)
  9. 10,390,149 North Carolina (Purple, 60.8%)
  10. 9,991,177 Michigan (Purple, 33.6%)

  • US 2018 Population 327,328,813
  • Red State Population 97,865,351 29.9%
  • Purple State Population 108,666,629 33.2%
  • Blue State Population 120,796,833 36.9%
#14953403
It's been awhile since I've played with Red State/Blue State comparisons, but I recently came across Mercatus Center's state fiscal rankings for 2018. They rank each state for cash, budget, long-run, service level, and trust fund solvencies then combine them for a single rating. So applying their numbers to my RS/BS list, the winners and losers are:

Ten Best States
1. South Dakota (Red, 79.3% 3.04)
2. Florida (Purple, 66.9% 2.6)
3. Wyoming (Red, 87.5% 2.59)
4. Nebraska (Red, 93.8% 2.14)
5. Tennessee (Red, 77.2% 1.89)
6. Idaho (Red, 98.2% 1.48)
7. Montana (Purple, 55.0% 1.43)
8. Alabama (Red, 93.9% 1.17)
9. Utah (Red, 93.5% 0.95)
10. Nevada (Purple, 59.0% 0.87)

Ten Worst States
1. Connecticut (Blue, 17.5% -2.16)
2. Illinois (Blue, 26.2% -2.12)
3. Massachusetts (Blue, 16.7% -1.93)
4. New Jersey (Blue, 24.0% -1.72)
5. Kentucky (Red, 77.4% -1.53)
6. Delaware (Blue, 14.3% -1.24)
7. New York (Blue, 12.7% -1.11)
8. New Mexico (Purple, 34.5% -1.05)
9. West Virginia (Purple, 42.3% -1.04)
10. Pennsylvania (Purple, 39.7% -1.03)

Averages
• Red States 0.56
• Purple States 0.13
• Blue States -0.89
#14968799
So the 2018 elections are over, time to adjust the RS/BS list, starting with a map of the new line-up of Red/Purple/Blue states overall:

Image

For actual percentages, we have:

Red States (20, +2)
  • Idaho 98.2%
  • Alabama 94.4% (+0.5)
  • South Carolina 93.9% (+0.1)
  • Alaska 93.8%
  • Utah 93.8% (+0.3)
  • Wyoming 93.8% (+6.8 )
  • Nebraska 92.6% (-1.2)
  • Texas 91.4% (+0.6)
  • Mississippi 90.2% (+0.9)
  • Oklahoma 90.2% (+6.3)
  • Georgia 90.2% (+0.1)
  • Tennessee 84.6% (+7.4)
  • Kansas 83.0%
  • South Dakota 83.0% (+3.7)
  • Louisiana 80.5% (+4.7)
  • Arizona 77.7% (+4.1)
  • Kentucky 77.4%
  • Indiana 75.4% (+2.9)
  • North Dakota 74.3% (+7.3)
  • Florida 68.7% (+1.8 )

Purple (11, -6)
  • Missouri 64.6% (+0.7)
  • Iowa 62.5% (+8.1)
  • Arkansas 61.9% (+2.7)
  • North Carolina 60.4% (-0.4)
  • Ohio 57.9% (-2.2)
  • Montana 55.0%
  • Nevada 48.5% (-10.5)
  • West Virginia 44.6% (+2.3)
  • Wisconsin 39.6% (-1.0)
  • Pennsylvania 36.7% (-3.0)
  • Michigan 33.2% (-0.4)

Blue (19, +4)
  • Maine 30.8% (-3.5)
  • Virginia 30.5% (-4.2)
  • New Mexico 27.1% (-7.4)
  • Illinois 27.0% (+0.8 )
  • New Jersey 26.9% (+2.9)
  • New Hampshire 25.0% (-6.1)
  • Colorado 24.7% (-11.1)
  • California 17.6% (-0.9)
  • Minnesota 17.4% (-10.8 )
  • Maryland 17.0% (-0.4)
  • Massachusetts 16.7%
  • Vermont 14.3%
  • Delaware 10.7% (-3.6)
  • Connecticut 9.1% (-8.4)
  • Washington 9.1% (-0.1)
  • Hawaii 6.3% (-6.2)
  • Rhode Island 6.3% (-6.2)
  • New York 6.0% (-6.7)
  • Oregon 5.0% (-5.0)

RS/BS for presidential elections; dark red/blue are those states that voted for that party's nominee all of the last four elections, light red/blue those that voted for that party 3 out of four times, and purple are half-and-half. That's 180 dark red electoral votes, 26 light red EV, 53 purple EV, 79 light blue EV, and 200 dark blue EV--which means that even if a Republican candidate sweeps the Red and Purple states, he/she will still need to pick up another 19 EVs from light blue states:

Image

The Senate:

Image

The House:

Image

And finally the Governors:

Image
#15094076
Wow, it's been awhile since anyone's added to this. But with the Wuhan virus roiling politics, I thought I'd look at how the pandemic has impacted the Red State/Blue State calculus. It might be obvious, but the list runs from most Red to most Blue.

Image

And for the ten states worst hit so far:

  1. New York 6.0% (Blue)
  2. New Jersey 26.9% (Blue)
  3. Connecticut 9.1% (Blue)
  4. Massachusetts 16.7% (Blue)
  5. Louisiana 76.4% (Red)
  6. Rhode Island 6.3% (Blue)
  7. Michigan 33.2% (Purple)
  8. Pennsylvania 36.7% (Purple)
  9. Illinois 27.0% (Blue)
  10. Maryland 17.0% (Blue)

And the ten states least hit (by the virus, not the economic impact):

  1. Hawaii 6.3% (Blue)
  2. Alaska 93.8% (Red)
  3. Montana 55.0% (Purple)
  4. Wyoming 93.8% (Red)
  5. Utah 93.8% (Red)
  6. Oregon 5.0% (Blue)
  7. Arkansas 61.9% (Purple)
  8. West Virginia 44.6% (Purple)
  9. Idaho 98.2% (Red)
  10. Tennessee 84.6% (Red)
#15112416
So, I figured it's been over two months, let's see where we stand on the impact of the Wuhan virus, measured by deaths per million.

Red States
  • Idaho 131.1 98.2%
  • Alabama 353.9 94.4%
  • South Carolina 389.8 93.9%
  • Alaska 35.5 93.8%
  • Utah 104.5 93.8%
  • Wyoming 48.4 93.8%
  • Nebraska 178.3 92.6%
  • Texas 293.5 91.4%
  • Mississippi 629.7 90.2%
  • Oklahoma 152.4 90.2%
  • Georgia 394.3 90.2%
  • Tennessee 177.8 84.6%
  • Kansas 130.4 83.0%
  • South Dakota 165.0 83.0%
  • Arizona 568.4 77.7%
  • Louisiana 905.0 76.4%
  • Indiana 451.0 75.4%
  • Kentucky 172.8 75.3%
  • North Dakota 147.0 74.3%
  • Florida 377.6 68.7%

Purple States
  • Missouri 226.0 64.6%
  • Iowa 293.5 62.5%
  • Arkansas 177.3 61.9%
  • North Carolina 208.1 60.4%
  • Ohio 314.5 57.9%
  • Montana 70.2 55.0%
  • Nevada 308.1 48.5%
  • West Virginia 73.3 44.6%
  • Wisconsin 171.1 39.6%
  • Pennsylvania 577.6 36.7%

Blue States
  • Michigan 652.9 33.2%
  • Maine 93.0 30.8%
  • Virginia 272.0 30.5%
  • New Mexico 324.8 27.1%
  • Illinois 618.7 27.0%
  • New Jersey 1,794.8 26.9%
  • New Hampshire 308.2 25.0%
  • Colorado 322.5 24.7%
  • California 261.0 17.6%
  • Minnesota 299.5 17.4%
  • Maryland 591.7 17.0%
  • Massachusetts 1,254.9 16.7%
  • Vermont 93.0 14.3%
  • Delaware 605.9 10.7%
  • Connecticut 1,245.6 9.1%
  • Washington 222.3 9.1%
  • Hawaii 21.9 6.3%
  • Rhode Island 957.2 6.3%
  • New York 1,687.7 6.0%
  • Oregon 84.2 5.0%

The ten states worst hit so far
  1. New Jersey 1,794.8 26.9% (Blue)
  2. New York 1,687.7 6.0% (Blue)
  3. Massachusetts 1,254.9 16.7% (Blue)
  4. Connecticut 1,245.6 9.1% (Blue)
  5. Rhode Island 957.2 6.3% (Blue)
  6. Louisiana 905.0 76.4% (Red)
  7. Michigan 652.9 33.2% (Blue)
  8. Mississippi 629.7 90.2% (Red)
  9. Illinois 618.7 27.0% (Blue)
  10. Delaware 605.9 10.7% (Blue)

Ten states least hit so far
  1. Hawaii 21.9 6.3% (Blue)
  2. Alaska 35.5 93.8% (Red)
  3. Wyoming 48.4 93.8% (Red)
  4. Montana 70.2 55.0% (Purple)
  5. West Virginia 73.3 44.6% (Purple)
  6. Oregon 84.2 5.0% (Blue)
  7. Maine 93.0 30.8% (Blue)
  8. Vermont 93.0 14.3% (Blue)
  9. Utah 104.5 93.8% (Red)
  10. Kansas 130.4 83.0% (Red)

Red States: 290.3
Purple States: 242.0
Blue States: 585.6
#15112705
There aren't red states and blue states. This is because states are arbitrary political divisions with no organic cultural or geographic unity; as the nation has changed over the centuries, the arbitrary nature of states has grown increasingly awkward over time.

However states do have some remaining political power:
* The ability to control redistricting.
* The power to administer local elections.
* The power to distribute federal funds to counties and municipalities.

The Republican Party has quite ingeniously taken advantage of these powers to increase their hold over state legislatures, where the real power now lays.

If you look at the actual voting totals in many of the states with heavy GOP majorities in the legislature, you see some really startling contradictions at work. Just one example for illustrative purposes:

Image

The GOP will be forced, and I emphasize inevitably forced, to become increasingly heavy handed and authoritarian in its exercise of power in states where these contradictions are most prevalent. Either that or surrender power - which ain't likely to happen. You can do your own analysis on a state-by-state basis.

This is a holding back the tide operation for the GOP. I don't expect big changes right away. But the GOP coalition, which has held for half-a-century, is rapidly decaying - just as the New Deal coalition fell apart by LBJ.
#15112709
quetzalcoatl wrote:There aren't red states and blue states.

For my Red/Purple/Blue divisions, to be Red the state needs to vote for Republicans for President, Congress (both houses), and governor 67% of the time over sixteen years, and the same for Democrats to be Blue. Any state that doesn't do either is Purple.

This is a holding back the tide operation for the GOP. I don't expect big changes right away. But the GOP coalition, which has held for half-a-century, is rapidly decaying - just as the New Deal coalition fell apart by LBJ.

Trump carried thirty states in 2016 and with the way the Democrats are siding with those that want to keep our economies shut down, the schools closed, and our cities given over to rioters, I wouldn't be surprised if he increases that count in November--assuming that the elections are handled fairly. In elections where one in five mail-in ballots are declared invalid, anything is possible.
#15112710
Doug64 wrote:Trump carried thirty states in 2016 and with the way the Democrats are siding with those that want to keep our economies shut down, the schools closed, and our cities given over to rioters, I wouldn't be surprised if he increases that count in November--assuming that the elections are handled fairly. In elections where one in five mail-in ballots are declared invalid, anything is possible.


Stop playing the Belorussian trick (i.e. someone is gonna win by committing vote fraud) on us.

Vote fraud is more possible in favour of the party in power (Republican in this case) because they control more resources on the higher level, in this case federal.

Democrats are supposed to be the one disenfranchised here so I do not believe they are in the position to win the election via vote fraud.
#15112713
Doug64 wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if he increases that count in November--assuming that the elections are handled fairly. In elections where one in five mail-in ballots are declared invalid, anything is possible.


Anything is indeed possible. My projections were more on long term trends.

Incidentally, the pet peeves sounded by both liberals and conservatives don't really play out too much in the elections, at least not to extent they believe it does. Most elections are strictly decided on the basics of demographics within individual districts - age, population density, income level, race primarily. This is why control of the state legislatures is critical. Proper design of district boundaries can negate much of the GOP demographic problem, but not all of it. And as aging boomers fall away, this problem can only get worse for them.

Patrickov wrote:Stop playing the Belorussian trick (i.e. someone is gonna win by committing vote fraud) on us.

Vote fraud is more possible in favour of the party in power (Republican in this case) because they control more resources on the higher level, in this case federal.

Democrats are supposed to be the one disenfranchised here so I do not believe they are in the position to win the election via vote fraud.


Republicans are invoking the theory that millions of misdirected mail-in ballots will be signed by miscreants and submitted. This is possible in some individual cases, but if you truly want to steal an election this kind of retail vote fraud is a chump's game. You need to be actually running the election at the state and district level. Most of all, you need access to EVM software and either internet connection through pen readers, or "inspectors" who can open up EVMs onsite. This is how Dems engineered Biden's primary win. If Republicans are smart, they already have this in hand - at least in those districts they can operate more or less freely in.
#15112714
Patrickov wrote:Stop playing the Belorussian trick (i.e. someone is gonna win by committing vote fraud) on us.

Vote fraud is more possible in favour of the party in power (Republican in this case) because they control more resources on the higher level, in this case federal.

Democrats are supposed to be the one disenfranchised here so I do not believe they are in the position to win the election via vote fraud.

Uh, no. Voter fraud is more possible for the local party in power, the level that actually chooses those that directly manage the elections locally and do the counting--and judge the validity of ballots. That's at county/city level, depending on the state. At higher levels, the most parties can do is create the conditions that make that fraud easier, such as by having massive amounts of mail-in ballots and pushing for rules that makes the fraud easier such as not requiring that the mail-in ballots be postmarked while allowing those arriving after election day to be counted.

quetzalcoatl wrote:Anything is indeed possible. My projections were more on long term trends.

Incidentally, the pet peeves sounded by both liberals and conservatives don't really play out too much in the elections, at least not to extent they believe it does. Most elections are strictly decided on the basics of demographics within individual districts - age, population density, income level, race primarily. This is why control of the state legislatures is critical. Proper design of district boundaries can negate much of the GOP demographic problem, but not all of it. And as aging boomers fall away, this problem can only get worse for them.

Normally, you're right, at least at the Gubernatorial/Senatorial/Presidential level--most of the time, the amount of fraud needed to flip an entire state is too large to hide. But the smaller the body of voters being counted, the fewer fraudulent votes needed to win and so the more attractive fraud becomes. (This, BTW, is one reason why I oppose electing our presidents through popular vote--it makes fraud in presidential elections much more feasible by making it easier to hide by spreading it across the entire nation instead of a handful of states.) Beyond that, if you're talking about gerrymandering, the best study on the issue I saw before 2018 (when Republicans controlled the House) only gave the House Republicans a 7-10 vote edge through gerrymandering--not enough to flip the House to the Democrats--due to the difficulty in achieving and sustaining the conditions needed to engage in it (complete control of the process for drawing boundaries by a single party) and the fact that both parties engage in it and so balanced out the impact a bit.

Still, I would have no problem with a constitutional amendment that simultaneously did three things--require some form of ranked voting in all Federal elections, that the Electoral College be divvied up by House district with the two EC votes for the senators going to whoever wins the state majority, and that all House districts be balanced, contiguous, and compact.

BTW, control of the House is something else Democrats are putting at risk this year thanks to the policies they are supporting. After the 2018 election the number of Purple states dropped as states shifted toward both ends of the line, but more toward the Blue side than the Red side. I won't be surprised if that shift toward the Blue side reverses this year.
Trump's Taxes Revealed Finally

Any audit is completely irrelevant His taxes are[…]

Doesn't @Drlee have VHA? If he works for the V[…]

A short while back, I posted an OP noting that Pr[…]

There's no universal 100% agreed upon definition […]