The Minnesota / Wisconsin symbiosis in electoral politics

[Statistikhengst]

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The Minnesota / Wisconsin symbiosis in electoral politics

All of the information is in the link above, worked out bit for bit.

For those who know the deep symbiosis between Kansas and Nebraska as RED states, this study provides mathematical evidence of the same in two states that we currently consider BLUE states.

Take a read, but read it all.


A quote from the end:

"In every cycle since 1940 (excluding 2008), Wisconsin's presidential ballot results have been more to the right of Minnesota's, meaning that when both states went for a Democratic candidate, the Wisconsin margin (excluding 2008) was smaller, and if both states went for a Republican, the margin in Wisconsin margin was larger.

In 1984, 1980, 1968, 1960 and 1944, Minnesota and Wisconsin did not go for the same candidate. In every case, MN went for the Democrat while WI went for the Republican. So, to quote John King from CNN, Wisconsin's "blue DNA" does not run as deep as Minnesota's. However, WI, which was one of those states that used to be in a winning Republican's column, never once went for a presidential candidate with the name "Bush" - neither in 1988 nor 1992 nor 2000 nor in 2004. So, the case could be made that WI has moved more Democratic than the statistics say.

Unlike Minnesota, which has always gone for the incumbent Democratic candidate since 1936, Wisconsin has turned on a Democratic incumbent twice during this time: in 1944 and in 1980.

Compare the "pull" values for both states: where with MN you see a sea of blue, with WI, there is a lot of red. And once again, since 1940 (and excluding 2008), the pull in WI has been less Democratic / more Republican, respectively, than in Minnesota. In 2012, the pull values between these two states were the closest they have ever been to each other, a detail that I find fascinating. MN's 2012 margin was 3.84 points more than the national, while WI's 2012 margin was 3.09 points above the national margin. So, relative to the national performance, both of these states stayed pretty much the same distance "above water" for Obama.

The Wisconsin trend values are also fascinating when compared to Minnesota: there are a lot more trend values for Wisconsin in double digits (in bold) than for Minnesota. This tells me that the state of Wisconsin has a more volatile electorate, probably more willing to change it's mind.

If the GOP viewed these two states as "low hanging fruit" for 2012, it is clear that Wisconsin was more in reach than Minnesota. When you consider that the state of Ohio has been trending more and more blue ever since 1992, the combined electoral firepower of Minnesota and Wisconsin (20 EV) could offset a loss of Ohio to the Democratic party in future elections. The GOP of the future would do well to continue to invest in these two states in order to offset permanant losses that may happen in other states like New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada (20 EV).

The symbiosis between Minnesota and Wisconsin does not run as deep as that between Kansas and Nebraska, but it is there, if you know how to interpret the historical electoral numbers."

Enjoy the numbers, enjoy the read at the link above.