National Political Movement Since 1988: A Wake-up Call for Republicans

Part of my mission in making this website was to analyze political movement in each state. I have compiled state percentages for each candidate (Democrat and Republican) since 1988. I will briefly explain how I come about my conclusions before I reveal them.

1. First, the % of the vote received by the Republican candidate is subtracted from the % of the vote received by the Democratic candidate. We will use Virginia as an example:

Percent Dukakis: 39.23
Percent Bush: 59.74
(Percent Dukakis)-(Percent Bush)=(Percent Democratic Margin)
Percent Democratic Margin: -20.51

2. Now, in order to eliminate the variable of which candidate wins nationally, we need to measure this percent zeroed on the national margin:

Percent Democratic Margin (Virginia): -20.51
Percent Democratic Margin (National): -7.72
Percent Democratic Margin (Virginia, adjusted to reflect National margin): -12.79

Therefore, Virginia voted 12.79% more Republican than the nation as a whole in 1988.

3. The same percentage is computed for every following election up to 2004. Virginia's numbers are as follows:

Percent Democratic Margin 1988: -12.79
Percent Democratic Margin 1992: -9.94
Percent Democratic Margin 1996: -10.46
Percent Democratic Margin 2000: -8.03
Percent Democratic Margin 2004: -5.74

4. As you can see, the margin that Virginia has voted Republican as compared to the nation has decreased since 1988. In order to find the rate of movement towards the Democrats, we average the results of all 5 years to get an average of -9.49%. To find the rate of movement to the Democrats, we subtract the average margin from the margin in 2004 to get the percent trend to the Democrats.

(Democratic Margin in 2004)-(Average Democratic Margin)= (Percent Democrat Movement)
Percent Democrat Movement (Since 1988) = 3.75

As we can see, Virginia is moving at a fairly quick pace towards the Democrats, which is supported by known political shifts of exurbs and suburbs in Northern Virginia and the state as a whole.

Based on calculations for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, we can place these states in three categories: (Trending Republican), (Trending Democrat), or (Steady). If a state is moving at a rate of 1% or less we will categorize it as steady in political movement, just in case of inaccuracies in calculations (rounding). I will list the number of Electoral Votes a state has in parenthesis next to it, and the state is color coded according to the party it voted for in 2004.

Trending Democrat (EVs) .Trending GOP(EVs) Steady (EVs)

California (55) ......................Alabama (9).............Alaska (3)
Colorado (9) .........................Arkansas (6)............Arizona (10)
Connecticut (7).....................Georgia (15).............Minnesota (10)
Delaware (3).........................Hawaii (4)................New Mexico (5)
D.C. (3)...................................Idaho (4).................North Carolina (15)
Florida (27)............................Indiana (11)............South Carolina (8)
Illinois (21).............................Iowa (7)...................Wisconsin (10)
Maine (4)......... .....................Kansas (6)
Maryland (10)...................... Kentucky (8)
Massachusetts (12)..............Louisiana (9)
Michigan (17).........................Mississippi (6)
Washington (11)....................Missouri (11)
Nevada (5).............................Montana (3)
New Hampshire (4)..............Nebraska (5)
New Jersey (15)....................North Dakota (3)
New York (31).......................Oklahoma (7)
Ohio (20)................................South Dakota (3)
Oregon (7)..............................Tennessee (11)
Pennsylvania (21).................Texas (34)
Rhode Island (4)....................Utah (5)
Vermont (3)...........................West Virginia (5)
Virginia (13)...........................Wyoming (3)

Total EVs: 302............... Total EVs: 175................Total EVs: 61

The states moving leftwards, while the same in number same as the number moving rightward, possess 72.5% more electoral votes. Some may argue that 'recent political trends' have altered the movement of some states, but in order to get a true picture we must look at the long term picture. There are many problems with only looking at two or three presidential elections. For example, Clinton carried his home state of Arkansas in 1992 and 1996 and increased the Democratic margin in that state. As soon as Clinton was off the ballot, Arkansas went back to it's original Republican trend. If data from 1992-2004 or 1996-2004 is used, the political shift of Arkansas will appear more significant than it actually has been. This effect will briefly alter political trends in the home states of Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. Using data over longer periods helps reduce this effect.

I am not suggesting that in 2008 the Democrats will receive 302+ electoral votes. Rather, I am suggesting that in 2016 and beyond, if Republicans don't focus on moving some of those population heavy states into their column, they are set to lose presidential election after presidential election. If the states that remain steady in trending are distributed to the side that they went for in 2004, the disparity is slightly smaller, but the Democrats still have a large advantage. Unfortunately for Republicans, the states gaining population faster, and thus more Electoral Votes, are almost evenly split between the sides. These long term trends bode ill for Republicans and should serve as a wake-up call.