18 November 2011

With the Partisan rankings revived...

which I did here, it is time to republish the partisan ranking bios for all 50 states plus DC (first published in November 2007) - time for an upgrade!


The Partisan Ranking state bios will be published simultaneously here and also at the ELECTORAL STATISTICS sub-forum at politicalhotwire.com, at a rate of about 2 states per day.


Should anyone have additional information they think should be added to these "bios", then let me know per email, here.


I will be adding information to these bios quite frequently, such as polling data, etc... once we know who the GOP nominee for President will be.


Before it begins, some important points:

1.) The order of the bios is based on the partisan rankings from 2008, which is a purely mathematical rankingand goes from 1 to 51 for each party, starting with rank 1 for the party that won the last GE. There is also an inverse correspondence: the no. 1 ranked Democratic (liberal) state will automatically be the 51st ranked Republican (conservative) state, and so forth. The ranking is based on two things, which comes out to be pretty much the same. It is based on the winning percentage margin (in descending order) and the partisan value (winning percentage margin for that state MINUS the national winning percentage margin). 

Here is how this looks in table format in one way, using Hawaii as an example:


HI
Rank.
Winning %
% Margin
Part. Value
Notes
2008
2 / 50
71.85%
+45.26%
38.00
Largest partisan-shift of 2008
2004
11 / 41
54.01%
+8.74%
11.20
2000
6 / 47
55.79%
+18.33
17.81



In the case of a candidate who wins the election but wins some states with margins less than the national winning margin (which happens in most every cycle), this value would be a negative value. We will see this when we get to states like VA, OH, NC, FL from 2008.

2.) Again, a reminder: this is a purely mathematical ranking, not based on emotion. You may still think that Utah is the most conservative state that ever existed, but based on it's performance in the last GE, WY currently has conservative ranking no. 1 (liberal ranking 51) and UT has slipped to ranking no. 3.

3.) The use of "liberal" and "conservative" brings me to this point: in the rankings, the numbers do not know an ideology and it is impossible to tell if voters who voted for this or that candidate based on ideology, but it is easier to classify in rankings. Therefore, the states are ranked 1-51 as "liberal" or "conservative". I would not try to split too many hairs about this - if the terms bother, then just mentally substitute "Democratic" and "Republican" instead.

4.) The partisan rankings only make real sense when we see them in a historical context, and then, patterns really begin to emerge. It is from these patterns that we can best estimate a trend for the next years. In post 2 of this thread I am going to repost the massive PARTISAN TREND graphic - in two parts, that I already posted here at PH. Take a look and see where your state has lined up from cycle to cycle.

5.) It is no wonder that the bitter battleground states are usually between position 24 and 31 on the partisan rankings. Ohio was between position 19 and 31 for the Democratic party for last 44 years, most of the time between position 23 and 26 for the winning team.

The biographical data is pretty cut and dried. If anyone has something they think should be added, then please PM me, I will look at the information and decide whether it should be included. The goal here is to be as absolutely neutral as possible and simply let history speak for itself.

I have also made a short table of superlatives for each state. 

The electoral development of each state is also listed (number of electors per census cycle)

At the end is a FACIT: (a short summary) in which I do allow opinion as to the state of this state.

I hope this information helps

No comments:

Post a Comment

Constructive comments and critique are always welcome. Please keep it polite and respectful.