[EL] State by State party ID breakdown

Thu Dec 3 07:02:48 PST 2015

Underscoring the irrelevance of most states in presidential races these
days, the National Exit Pool surveys in 2012 only covered 31 states in
2012, after doing it in all 50 states the previous five elections. See
Washington Post story from 2012:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/10/04/networks-ap-cancel-exit-polls-in-19-states/

But of course there have been state polls everywhere for  some partisan
election over the past few years. Gallup in 2013 release  this
state-by-state summary of its state findings
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167030/not-states-lean-democratic-2013.aspx

Rob

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Schultz, David A. <dschultz at hamline.edu>
wrote:

> Thanks so far for the responses  but maybe I was unclear in my request.  I
> do not care how people actually voted and I do not care who won the
> election.  What I want to know is among those surveyed in each state how do
> they self-identify in terms of their partisan affiliation, especially
> during a presidential race.
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org> wrote:
>
>> I would qualify Charles' helpful post by adding that the most reliable
>> way to use the presidential results is not as a "straight tally", but in a
>> relative sense. That is, given that Obama defeated Romney by four
>> percentage points in the two-party vote even as the underlying partisan
>> balance in the country is assume to be about 50-50, then a state that
>> mirrored the national average with a 52% to 48% tally has partisan balance,
>> while a state like Florida that was dead even in the 2012 race in fact is a
>> Republican-leaning state.
>>
>> FairVote developed this "partisan index" approach in 1997 with our first
>> "Monopoly Politics" report based on the most recent election, and then
>> Charlie Cook later that year adapted it to the "partisan voting index" by
>> factoring in the last two elections. We keep using the single election
>> method and find it controls outcomes in most partisan elections.
>>
>> Here are just two examples of its connection to state legislative results
>> from an analysis we're doing on the impact of independent redistricting
>> commissions. Keep in mind that the legislative seats were elected largely
>> in 2014, but the relative 2012 presidential vote dominates outcomes.
>>
>> *Arizona*: Out of 80 seats, total of 3 have "partisan mismatch
>>
>> * 30 legislative districts each used to elect 1 state senator and 2 house
>> members
>>
>> - 12 have Democratic partisanship, and all have 1  Democratic senator and
>> 23 of 24 house members are D's
>> - 18 have Republican partisanship, and R's win 17 of 18 senators and 35
>> of 36 in house
>> - Of 30 districts, 5 are a generously defined competitive area between
>> 43.6% and 58.3% partisanship
>>
>> *California*: Out of 120 seats, total of 7 Republicans in Democratic
>> districts and none in Republican districts
>>
>> * CA state senate, 40 seats
>> - 2 R's in D in districts, and no D's in R districts
>>
>> * CA assembly, 80 seats
>> -  5 R's in D district and no D's in R districts
>>
>> TO be sure there are exceptions here and in other states -- especially
>> when picking governors. But the number of "mismatches" keeps declining.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Charles Stewart III <cstewart at mit.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think most political scientists (or at least many) would say the best
>>> quick place to start is just to take recent election returns in
>>> presidential elections.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I like Leip’s presidential atlas for such things:
>>> http://uselectionatlas.org/.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rather than take just the 2012 election, you might want to average 2008
>>> and 2012.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Party registration is a non-starter, so don’t even try that one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There may be a source out there that reports party identification from
>>> the big national academic surveys (like the CCES), and maybe someone on the
>>> listserv would run that table for you quickly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The book “Statehouse Politics” is probably out-of-date for your
>>> purposes, but you might want to give it a look in any case.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -cs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>>>
>>> *Charles Stewart III*
>>>
>>> *Kenan Sahin Distinguished Professor of Political Science *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Department of Political Science*
>>>
>>> *The Massachusetts Institute of Technology*
>>>
>>> *E53-449*
>>>
>>> *30 Wadsworth Street*
>>>
>>> *Cambridge, Massachusetts   02139*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Office:  617-253-3127 <617-253-3127>*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
>>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Schultz,
>>> David A.
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 03, 2015 8:43 AM
>>> *To:* michael.mcdonald at ufl.edu; law-election at uci.edu;
>>> lawcourt-l at legal.umass.edu
>>> *Subject:* [EL] State by State party ID breakdown
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does any one know of a database that has already organized state by
>>> state  population party identification  or affiliation over the last few
>>> election cycles?   (I.e. of those surveyed, what percentage identify as
>>> Democrat, Republican, or independent).   I would prefer to be able to look
>>> at presidential election cycles over the last few elections but also
>>> including congressional (midterm) is fine too.  What I have in mind is the
>>> exit poll data that does the state by state breakdown of partisan
>>> affiliation.  I know I can go back and go to CNN or other sites and create
>>> the data myself but before I do that I want to see if anyone has already
>>> done that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> David Schultz, Professor
>>> Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
>>> Hamline University
>>> Department of Political Science
>>>
>>> 1536 Hewitt Ave
>>>
>>> MS B 1805
>>> St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
>>> 651.523.2858 (voice)
>>> 651.523.3170 (fax)
>>> http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
>>> http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
>>> http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
>>> Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
>>> My latest book:  Presidential Swing States:  Why Only Ten Matter
>>>
>>>
>>> https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739195246/Presidential-Swing-States-Why-Only-Ten-Matter
>>> FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Rob Richie
>> Executive Director, FairVote
>> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 240
>> Takoma Park, MD 20912
>> rr at fairvote.org  (301) 270-4616  http://www.fairvote.org
>> *FairVote Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/FairVoteReform>*   *FairVote
>> Twitter <https://twitter.com/fairvote>*   My Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/rob_richie>
>>
>> Thank you for considering a *donation <http://www.fairvote.org/donate>*
>> <http://www.fairvote.org/donate>to support our reform vision
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U50uJohIw4c>.
>> (Note: Our Combined Federal Campaign number is 10132.)
>>
>
>
>
> --
> David Schultz, Professor
> Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
> Hamline University
> Department of Political Science
> 1536 Hewitt Ave
> MS B 1805
> St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
> 651.523.2858 (voice)
> 651.523.3170 (fax)
> http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
> http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
> http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
> Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
> My latest book:  Presidential Swing States:  Why Only Ten Matter
>
> https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739195246/Presidential-Swing-States-Why-Only-Ten-Matter
> FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
>

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Richie
Executive Director, FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 240
Takoma Park, MD 20912
rr at fairvote.org  (301) 270-4616  http://www.fairvote.org
*FairVote Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/FairVoteReform>*   *FairVote
Twitter <https://twitter.com/fairvote>*   My Twitter
<https://twitter.com/rob_richie>

Thank you for considering a *donation <http://www.fairvote.org/donate>*
<http://www.fairvote.org/donate>to support our reform vision
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U50uJohIw4c>.
(Note: Our Combined Federal Campaign number is 10132.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151203/de5feaf4/attachment.html>