Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 99 posts

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#21

Post by majormajor »

ww520 wrote: post #14

This is an amazing data visualization for historic data. Very interesting to see how the states shifted over time. California was solidly GOP before Clinton, how did they lose to Democrat afterward?

The big swings left, though still overall on the right, for Ford after Nixon and GHW Bush after Reagan also foreshadow the eventual shift—Nixon and Reagan gained a lot due to being a California senator and governor, respectively, before running for President.

(And for the Nixon era, that time's Republican party is a very different one than the one today. See also Texas being blue for Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey, and Carter.)

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#22

Post by diego_moita »

ww520 wrote: post #14

This is an amazing data visualization for historic data. Very interesting to see how the states shifted over time. California was solidly GOP before Clinton, how did they lose to Democrat afterward?

The main support for the Republicans was the Defense industry in Southern California. After the collapse of Soviet Union the defense industry shrunk. The only remains of it is Orange County.

Meanwhile, you have the big influx of Latinos, that vote strongly Democrat.

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#23

Post by jcampbell1 »

rayiner wrote: post #18
ww520 wrote: post #14

This is an amazing data visualization for historic data. Very interesting to see how the states shifted over time. California was solidly GOP before Clinton, how did they lose to Democrat afterward?

Population boom in the urban areas of LA, SF, etc.

I think it has more to do with Reagan being a Califonia Goverernor, Nixon being a California Senator. The early 90s recession hit California particularly hard and Clinton trounced Bush in California.

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#24

Post by dennisgorelik »

Dove wrote: post #16
jcdreads wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is almost entirely big city. Most American cities, considered by themselves, would be over there on the left with Washington. Here's a visualization of this; mostly bluer cities and mostly redder non-city: http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

Yeah, I know cities tend to vote liberal, but DC has always seemed extreme to me, even accounting for that. I mean, I don't have data for how big cities vote in general, but I thought it was something like 70% liberal. A solid majority and dissenters. But DC voted 93% Democrat in 2008. 93! That's not a majority. That's a consensus.

DC is fed by US government.

Democrats are pro-government, so DC votes for Democrats.

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#25

Post by anon102012 »

marshallp wrote: post #19

Of course, none of this actually matters anymore. The corporo-verlords have bought both parties. The only way is parliamentary system with proportional representation. This isn't a political statement, just that hackers should investigate how to hack the system into that form. One clever hack is being done by John Koza (inventor of genetic programming) to do away with the electoral college http://www.nationalpopularv…

A "parliamentary system" means a system where legislative elections are held and the party or coalition of parties that garners a majority then forms the executive branch of the government, and one member of the legislature is chosen to serve as the "prime minister" or head of the executive branch.

Americans would never accept a system that did not allow them to select their chief executives (presidents, governors, mayors).

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#26

Post by antoko »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #20
marshallp wrote: post #19

Of course, none of this actually matters anymore. The corporo-verlords have bought both parties. The only way is parliamentary system with proportional representation. This isn't a political statement, just that hackers should investigate how to hack the system into that form. One clever hack is being done by John Koza (inventor of genetic programming) to do away with the electoral college http://www.nationalpopularv…

Why do people love to act like both parties are the same? Is it just errant, broad pessimism? I understand wanting more options or not liking either available option but they're not the same. They don't have the same values, beliefs, principles, policies or experiences. They have many things in common, but they're not the same and it's not useless to talk about them and their perception in the polls.

Not that I speak for the GP but for me personally it is a question of relative similarity. My values compared to either one of the two main US parties are very different. Given that the relative similarities of the two parties it means they are effectively "the same".

If I instead compare and contrast them with each other, obviously I can too can see that they are not "the same"

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#27

Post by elsurudo »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #20
marshallp wrote: post #19

Of course, none of this actually matters anymore. The corporo-verlords have bought both parties. The only way is parliamentary system with proportional representation. This isn't a political statement, just that hackers should investigate how to hack the system into that form. One clever hack is being done by John Koza (inventor of genetic programming) to do away with the electoral college http://www.nationalpopularv…

Why do people love to act like both parties are the same? Is it just errant, broad pessimism? I understand wanting more options or not liking either available option but they're not the same. They don't have the same values, beliefs, principles, policies or experiences. They have many things in common, but they're not the same and it's not useless to talk about them and their perception in the polls.

The point isn't that they're "the same". It's that they're the same _where it matters_.

That they are both bought and paid for by the same corporate money. Where do the hundreds of millions to fund the campaigns come from? You don't think that those interests might, you know, want something in return?

All mainstream political "discussion" is simply a distraction from the true issues. To think anything else is just naive.

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#28

Post by marshallp »

anon102012 wrote: post #25
marshallp wrote: post #19

Of course, none of this actually matters anymore. The corporo-verlords have bought both parties. The only way is parliamentary system with proportional representation. This isn't a political statement, just that hackers should investigate how to hack the system into that form. One clever hack is being done by John Koza (inventor of genetic programming) to do away with the electoral college http://www.nationalpopularv…

A "parliamentary system" means a system where legislative elections are held and the party or coalition of parties that garners a majority then forms the executive branch of the government, and one member of the legislature is chosen to serve as the "prime minister" or head of the executive branch. Americans would never accept a system that did not allow them to select their chief executives (presidents, governors, m…

Hackers should hack them into it.

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#29

Post by lftl »

kevinnk wrote: post #7
dewitt wrote: post #3

Mike Bostock of D3 fame is basically unrivaled in data visualization using HTML, SVG, and JS: http://bost.ocks.org/mike/ Most of the code is open source, too: https://github.com/mbostock Awesome that he's working at the NYT alongside people like Nate Silver.

I agree, this is a really, really cool visualization of something that would otherwise be rather difficult to understand. I've always known about the "Southern switch" but something like this really highlights it. Alabama in particular had a almost 83% change in the vote from 1960 to 1964 and a 73% swing back in 1968! It's also cool to see the slowly cyclical nature of the elections, although the wild swings from one…

The note to the left helps explain why Alabama was SO far to the right that year. LBJ wasn't even on the ballot in 64.

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#30

Post by derleth »

mbell wrote: post #17

It would be awesome if this could somehow incorporate relative positions of the parties over time, perhaps by 'waving' the center line left-right as well. For example it could be argued that republicans during Nixon's time were closer to middle of the road democrats of today in terms of overall platform.

> it could be argued that republicans during Nixon's time were closer to middle road democrats of today in terms of overall platform.

That's because it's correct, depending on what you mean by 'middle road Democrat'. Nixon created the EPA, created OSHA, signed Title IX into existence, ended the Vietnam war, and endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment, which nevertheless failed to pass.

He couldn't have done a lot of those things without Congress, granted, but there wasn't a Tea Party back then, either.

Now don't get me wrong: Nixon was a petty, vindictive ass who used the office of the President to pursue personal vendettas and ultimately authored his own downfall in a display of raw hubris worthy of a Greek tragic hero. The irony here was that with Watergate, he attempted to cheat his way to victory in the 1972 election, which was the biggest landslide anyone alive then will live to see. He threw away his entire future in politics trying to rig something that was a sure thing for him to win anyway.

But enough on Nixon. Ronald Reagan was too liberal for most of the people who currently lionize him.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/05/10/even-reagan...

http://www.quora.com/Politics/Would-Ronald-Reagan-not-be-con...

Post reply on HN