Daily Kos

A look into a different world: Republican primary maps

Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:11:54 PM PDT

This year's primary season has been an interesting one to say the least.  The media narrative that the Republicans lack a strong candidate while we Democrats have an "inevitable" candidate in Senator Clinton has been turned on its head with the quick rise of Senator McCain after January and the nearly deadlocked race between Senators Obama and Clinton.

As we head into another pair of primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, I thought it would be interesting to look back, but this time at the Republican race, now that it's essentially over.  Though it was a much less exciting race for us, it still shows some interesting trends, so I've put together some maps showing the progress of the Republican race for the presidential nomination.

If you're wondering why I don't yet have something similar up for the Democratic race, don't fret!  I hope to put up something similar this Wednesday or Thursday, after we can take stock of the North Carolina and Indiana results.  I'll also offer some comparison with the Republicans then.

Just as with my maps of the democratic race, all maps in this diary follow this color scale:

With each of the corners representing 100% of a counties vote for a single candidate and every color in between representing a ratio of votes proportional to the color's position on the triangle.  In this case red is McCain, green is Huckabee, and blue is Romney. Counties with significant votes for other candidates will be darker than others.  Light gray states have not yet voted and white counties have no returns.

Like previous maps I have done, you can access a larger version of each map from its Flickr page, which you can get to by clicking on the map, and I've also made color swapped versions, which are available at the bottom of the diary.

Here is the map of the Republican presidential primary contests so far:

Republican map (RGB)

States are subdivided by county, except for Kansas (by congressional district), Alaska (not subdivided), North Dakota (not subdivided), and West Virginia (not subdivided).  Obviously, the Republicans have held contests in states where we have not yet (Montana and West Virginia) and and vice versa (Idaho, Nebraska, and Hawaii).

If you compare the map to a similar map of the Democratic primary so far, you may notice three major differences:

  1. The Republican race was mainly a three person race, while for the most part, the Democratic race was a two person race.
  1. The Republican race lacks some of the continuity of trends over state lines that occurs in the Democratic race.
  1. Some states in the Republican race, such as Montana and Wyoming, have a comical level of variability from county to county

There is a fourth observation that can be made if the candidates' vote ratios in each county are separated out:
McCain
Mccain
Huckabee
Huckabee
Romney
Romney
Other
Other
There is a significant vote for other candidates.  This is split between multiple candidates and different states have different levels of those candidates.  For instance, in Florida most of the "Other" vote is for Giuliani; in Washington, Maine, Montana, and Nevada, it's mostly for Ron Paul; in Iowa and South Carolina, it's mostly for Fred Thompson, and in Noxubee County, MS it seems that residents voted for anyone and everyone besides McCain (who won a plurality nonetheless).

Now, the great complexity of these patterns and the differences between trends from state-to-state are better understood in a temporal context, because though the Republican race was much less interesting intellectually and it was much clearer who would win early on, it was actually a much more dynamic race than the Democratic race

Early states

Early states (RGB)
Like the Democratic race, the first Republican contest was held on January 3 in Iowa.  However, unlike the Democrats, a good portion of the Republican field decided not to put a significant effort into winning Iowa.  The two most notable players who didn't were John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, who the New York City/Washington D.C.-based "mainstream media" had pegged as the "frontrunner".

In reality, the two main players in Iowa were Mitt Romney, who had invested a great amount of his personal wealth into Iowa, and Mike Huckabee, who only appeared to be a major player after taking second in the Iowa straw poll in Ames (a Republican fundraiser that is mainly a spectacle of unabashed vote-buying), despite paying a small fraction of Romney's hundreds of dollars per vote.  Afterward, Huckabee caught on as the favorite, easily winning Iowa despite having very limited resources.

Two days later, in the little-noticed Wyoming county conventions, Romney won most of the delegates (each county selected either a delegate or an alternate, which is the most detailed information available).  The other delegate-electing counties elected delegates for Thompson and Hunter.  McCain won one of the alternates.

The media spun Romney's loss in Iowa as a win for McCain, who took fourth in Iowa, since he had focused mainly on New Hampshire and South Carolina.  This narrative paid off and McCain won New Hampshire, which further shot him forward in national polls.

Meanwhile, Romney staged his comeback in Michigan, which the RNC, unlike the DNC, had only stripped of half its delegates, a punishment they gave every early state.  Romney's father George had been a governor of Michigan, so he enjoyed a certain home state advantage and pulled off a win despite the fact that many of the disenfranchised Democrats crossed over to vote for McCain (the effort to urge them to vote for Romney here on Daily Kos wasn't particularly effective if exit polls are to be believed).

After Michigan, the candidates focused on different states.  Romney focused on Nevada while McCain and Huckabee focused on South Carolina, where Fred Thompson was also staging his last stand.  Romney easily won Nevada with over half the vote, with Ron Paul taking second, but the media paid much more attention to the simultaneous race in South Carolina where McCain won a narrow plurality over Huckabee (33%-30%) but because of the Republicans' apportionment system won the vast majority of the delegates, giving him frontrunner status in the media.

The media coverage swung back to the Democrats while they battled for South Carolina a week later and all the Republicans moved on to Florida, where Rudy Giuliani had decided to do most of his campaigning, figuring that a win in Florida, with it's winner-take-all delegate apportionment, would send him back into the race, where he could take a decisive lead.

Unfortunately for Rudy, losing the other races by embarrassing margins (he did worse than Ron Paul in every race except New Hampshire) didn't impress the Floridians, who rewarded his attention with a distant third place to McCain who got the endorsement of Governor Crist two days before the election and Romney.  Again, despite winning by only 5%, McCain took all the delegates making him the clear frontrunner.  From this point on, the question of the race was not who the nominee would be but when McCain would win it.

February 5

February 5 (RGB)

February 5 was a big night for John McCain and also a night that proved once again that the mainstream media was out of touch.  The narrative was that the race would be between McCain and Romney.  Instead, the non-McCain vote was split between Romney and Huckabee, with Huckabee doing very well in the South and Romney narrowly winning his home state of Massachusetts as well as the sparsely populated Western states of Utah, Montana, North Dakota, and Alaska as well as Minnesota.

Montana looks like it should be a logo for the Montana Log Cabin Republicans because the only people eligible to vote were a few party leaders in each county and with the very small sample sizes in each county, there was wild variability in the results from county to county, especially in the east where the population is sparsest.

West Virginia still has a primary to run, but it's convention was won by Huckabee because after the first round, nearly all of the McCain preference group decided to join Huckabee's, to deprive Romney of the first round lead that would have won him the convention's delegates.

These wins were fairly empty for McCain's opponents, though, since McCain ended up winning the biggest states, most of which had winner-take-all or nearly winner-take-all delegate apportionment.

February 9

February 9 (RGB)
After the embarrassment of his February 5 performance, Romney suspends his campaign at the CPAC conference to the surprise of his staffers at the event.  He draws some votes in the Washington caucuses and the Louisiana, but at this point, the race is plainly going to play out as a lopsided race between McCain and Huckabee.  McCain wins the Washington caucuses and Huckabee wins Louisiana and Kansas, which are the last races he wins.

Potomac primaries

Potomac primaries (RGB)
McCain extends his lead by sweeping Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

February 19

February 19 (RGB)
McCain wins Washington's primary as well as the Wisconsin primary.  Despite McCain's insurmountable lead, Huckabee continues to run and still pulls significant support.

March 4

March 4 (RGB)
Huckabee's last stand.  McCain wins the 1191 delegates needed to ensure that he will be nominated in St. Paul in September.

Running virtually unopposed

Post-March 4 (RGB)
Pennsylvania and Mississippi are the only states that have held contests since March 4 and both were overwhelming victories for the presumptive nominee, as should be expected from all future contests.  Ron Paul continues to run his campaign, and he took second place in Pennsylvania, but with only 16% of the vote.

Part of the reason that McCain won so quickly, despite not being the clear frontrunner going into Iowa was the Republican delegate apportionment system and the McCain campaign's exploitation of it.  Compare this map of the candidates' vote ratios by state:

State ratios (RGB)

To this map of the candidates' delegate ratios according to The Green Papers:

Delegate ratios (RGB)

Starting with South Carolina and Florida, McCain won quite a few contests that were winner-take-all or nearly winner-take-all, and for many, he did it with less than half the vote.  February 5 examples include Missouri (where he won by 1%, yet won all of its delegates), Delaware, California, Oklahoma, and even his home state of Arizona, where he won 47% of the vote.

His opponents on the other hand didn't take advantage of the system at all.  The only winner-take-all state that Romney won was Utah, but he won it by such a ridiculous margin that he would have gotten nearly all the delegates anyway.  His narrow win in Massachusetts earned him effectively nothing, since it had a proportional allocation system, as was the case with the caucus states he won.  Huckabee only won all the delegates of Kansas, whose caucuses he won by a similar margin to Romney's Utah performance and Arkansas's lopsided distribution delegate distribution wasn't really that far off the result of the race.

The only part of the Republican race that is more democratic than the Democratic race is the fact that they have a much smaller body of RNC members which are analogous to our superdelegates.

Color swaps:
Original map
Republican map (RBG)Republican map (BRG)Republican map (BGR)Republican map (GBR)Republican map (GRB)
McCain monotone
Mccain (Red)McCain (Green)Mccain (Blue
Huckabee monotone
Huckabee (Red)Huckabee (Green)Huckabee (Blue)
Romney monotone
Romney (Red)Romney (Green)Romney (Blue)
Other monotone
Other (Red)Other (Green)Other (Blue)
Early states
Early states (RBG)Early states (BRG)Early states (BGR)Early states (GBR)Early states (GRB)
February 5
February 5 (RBG)February 5 (BRG)February 5 (BGR)February 5 (GBR)February 5 (GRB)
February 9
February 9 (RBG)February 9 (BRG)February 9 (BGR)February 9 (GBR)February 9 (GRB)
Potomac
Potomac primaries (RBG)Potomac primaries (BRG)Potomac primaries (BGR)Potomac primaries (GBR)Potomac primaries (GRB)
February 19
February 19 (RBG)February 19 (BRG)February 19 (BGR)February 19 (GBR)February 19 (GRB)
March 4
March 4 (RBG)March 4 (BRG)March 4 (BGR)March 4 (GBR)March 4 (GRB)
Mississippi and Pennsylvania
Post-March 4 (RBG)Post-March 4 (BRG)Post-March 4 (BGR)Post-March 4 (GBR)Post-March 4 (GRB)
State level map
State ratios (RBG)State ratios (BRG)State ratios (BGR)State ratios (GBR)State ratios (GRB)
Green Papers Delegate ratios map
Delegate ratios (RBG)Delegate ratios (BRG)Delegate ratios (BGR)Delegate ratios (GBR)Delegate ratios (GRB)

Tags: Map, Primaries, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Geography, 2008, Rescued (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 26 comments

  •  wow! this looks cool! (4+ / 0-)

    sadly, I cannae make neither heads nor tails of it.

    my bad

  •  Comments? Suggestions? (35+ / 0-)

    As I pointed out after Pennsylvania, I switched to a new template, so I'll have to my weighted map scheme and unfortunately I don't know how to do a cartogram of these races, but I'm open to suggestions for improvement.

    Respect. Empower. Include.

    by Meng Bomin on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:14:29 PM PDT

    •  TMI (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      trashablanca, jlms qkw

      I'll tip, but there was so much information, none of it easy to follow.

      "People should not be afraid of their government; governments should be afraid of their people." --V

      by MikeTheLiberal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:21:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I just bookmarked to read tonight when (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      trashablanca, JVolvo, jlms qkw

      I can concentrate... Work is not the place to absorb this!

      Now, go spread some peace, love and understanding. Use force if necessary. - Phil N DeBlanc

      by lineatus on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:22:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  great work. You analysis text is very helpful (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      walkshills

      for me b/c the maps - especially the last mega-batch of smaller maps - is more than I can dig into and comprehend.

      Still, interesting to see the flow of how McSame came out on top.

      Any idea how 'battleground' states OH and PA will shake out in Nov?  Do your voter maps help with (estimated) results, or trends?

      Thanks MB!

      Bottled hot water for dehydrated babies? WTF?!

      by JVolvo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:41:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Pre-coffee? (0+ / 0-)

      I mean, comments and suggestions from the bird's nest before our first cup?

      Great job.
      Cartagrams are so much more representative of votes, which is what count.  I understand they may not be available.
      A legend at the top of the page would be nice -- maybe right after the color-morph triangle (which introduces the concept of color-weighting), reproduced with ROMNEY MCCAIN and HUCKABEE boldly labeling each corner.
      The color swaps are prob. more confusing than helpful (esp. in a 3-way race).  Perhaps link them by text instead of by picture.

      Again, great job.  The conclusion you draw is well worth knowing.  Looking forward to your analysis of the Dem primary.

      Two war crimes make 'the right', not 'a right'. Defeat the liar John McCain.

      by Yellow Canary on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:13:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tipped and recced for what must have been (6+ / 0-)

    a huge amount of work! My metaphorical hat is off to you.

    Lousy Bowlers for Obama

    by paintitblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:33:33 PM PDT

  •  Cool! (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    walkshills, jlms qkw

    This looks awesome.

  •  Huckabee & Clinton (7+ / 0-)

    The map of Huckabee's performance gives us an interesting 'control' group for the Democratic primary, perhaps, in that it shows where an Arkansas governor has cultural appeal.  And guess what: where Huckabee found support among Republicans, so does Clinton find support among Democrats, with the exception of Kansas and some states that voted after McCain had the race tied up.  (Clinton, of course, also does well in NY and neighboring states, and areas with large Latino populations.)  Very, very interesting.

  •  Thank you for all this work (7+ / 0-)

    and for a visual breakdown.

    Wondering what this means in terms of solid support for McCain in the fall.  Where do we have the best chances of Republicans moving over to vote for a Democrat, or for that matter - them staying home?

    Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity

    by Deoliver47 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:17:04 PM PDT

    •  Ironically, I suspect that (8+ / 0-)

      the areas where our nominee will do best against McCain are areas that McCain won his primary.  The type of voters that would vote for Romney or Huckabee are not liable to vote for a Democrat.

      This was actually a major part of McCain's electability argument.  He, unlike the other candidates, can win independents and challenge Democrats on their own turf.  Hopefully once the media focuses on the general election race, McCain will lose some of the "maverick" appeal that he has among independents.  I always found it funny that the "anti-war Republicans" went overwhelmingly for McCain, given his stances on that issue.

      Respect. Empower. Include.

      by Meng Bomin on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:26:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Highly recommended. (0+ / 0-)

    Plus, he knows what crapped out means, which will help him explain his condition on the morning of November 5 - PBCliberal

    by Nulwee on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:37:44 PM PDT

  •  Congrats on being diary-rescued! n/t (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    JVolvo
  •  The Dem maps were so much more straightforward. (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    JVolvo
  •  huckabee looks like an obvious veep pick (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    futurebird

    given mccain's weakness in the republican strongholds of the lower midwest and south relative to huckabee.

    mccain really is only strong in the so-called blue states.

    surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

    by wu ming on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:15:20 PM PDT

  •  Time to dump winner take all states in the Gen? (0+ / 0-)

    As anxiety provoking as the Democratic Primaries have been, I've been wondering if the Electoral College shouldn't be changed to award all but 2 electors in each state by the candidate that won the legislative district.

    I think this is something the Republicans were trying to push through in California.  In their case it was to get an unfair advantage, but if it was done across the board it would be fair.  

    The current system doesn't seem like it reflects the reality of our current demographics.  As a Seattle area resident I think my politcal, economic, and cultural interests are more in line with people from Austin, San Fransico, and Boston than with people from Yakima, WA.  I'm sure the feeling is mutual.  Farmers in Eastern Washington have goals more in turn with people in Iowa than Seattle or Portland.

    Idealy, the extra electors bigger states get helps insure their influence reflects their size.  However, states like Texas, New York, and California almost seem to have less influence than states like Ohio or Missouri because those states overall strongly favor one party.  

    What is missed is that as much as California as a state favors Democratic candidates, there are many legislative districts that strong favor Republicans.  The opposite is true for states like Texas.

    I think it would be better for the system overall if Presidential candidates spent less time in Akron and Phildephia and more time in Albany, Dallas, and Stockton.

    •  The district-based system sounds good... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      walkshills

      but unfortunately it would do an even worse job of reflecting the people's will than the current system. As you can read here, Gore won 210 congressional districts, which would have given him a total of 253 electoral votes instead of the 266 that he did get. I think the best thing would be if we had a simple popular vote, meaning that everyone's vote is important and valued no matter where they live.

      •  I'll second the motion for a straight popular (0+ / 0-)

        vote.  Winner-take-all really amounts to a lot of wasted votes, because in reality, the only votes that count are those that win a plurality in any given state.  Texas Democrats, California Republicans, there are a lot of both but neither count in a Presidential race.

        Personally, I'm amused by Mike West's rationale for CDM and against the popular vote.  I could make a whole diary devoted to how wrong his rationale is, but I have a feeling that this has been covered by many before.

        Respect. Empower. Include.

        by Meng Bomin on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:37:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Then check out National Popular Vote (0+ / 0-)

        National Popular Vote is the solution to replacing the electoral college with the popular vote.

  •  "His opponents on the other hand didn't take... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Yellow Canary
    advantage of the system at all"
    Do you think this was just stupidity on their part? When I play a game, I at least bother to properly learn the rules....

    Fantastic analysis all around.

    •  I suspect that there were some demographic (0+ / 0-)

      constraints that prevented them from competing in many of the winner-take-all states.  Huckabee in particular was bound to his largely rural southern evangelical base.

      But yes, stupidity probably played a role, though I don't think anyone's really matched Rudy Giuliani's.  That was truly a masterpiece in strategic idiocy.

      It's a good thing that his finger will be nowhere near the button.

      Respect. Empower. Include.

      by Meng Bomin on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:01:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Suppose they weren't winner-take-all (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Anderkoo, Skaje, Chalice of Jamshid

    but instead the simplest possible proportional distribution--all delegates run at-large over the state, awarded based on the candidate's percentage of the vote, ties go to the higher percentage.

    Taking it just through Feb. 5 (the period when all 3 major candidates were running)...

    State and Delegates McCain Romney Huckabee Thompson Paul Giuliani Hunter
    IA:    40     5 11 14 5 4 1 0
    WY:    14 0 10 0 3 0 0 1
    NH:    12 5 4 1 0 1 1 0
    MI:    30 9 12 5 2 2 0 0
    NV: 34 4 18 3 3 5 1 0
    SC: 24 9 3 8 4 0 0 0
    FL:    57 21 18 8 0 1 9 0
    ME:    21 5 11 1 0 4 0 0
    AL:    48 18 9 20 0 1 0 0
    AK:    29 4 12 6 0 5 0 0
    AZ:    53 26 19 4 1 2 1 0
    AR:    34 7 5 21 0 1 0 0
    CA:    173 74 60 21 2 8 8 0
    CO:    46 9 28 6 0 3 0 0
    CT:    30 16 10 3 0 1 0 0
    DE:    18 9 6 3 0 0 0 0
    GA:    72 23 22 25 0 2 0 0
    IL:    70 34 21 12 0 3 0 0
    MA:    43 18 23 1 0 1 0 0
    MN:    41 9 18 8 0 6 0 0
    MO:    58 20 19 17 0 2 0 0
    MT:    25 5 10 3 0 7 0 0
    NJ:    52 29 15 5 0 2 1 0
    NY:    101 53 29 10 0 6 3 0
    ND:    26 6 10 5 0 5 0 0
    OK:    41 16 10 14 0 1 0 0
    TN:    55 18 14 20 2 4 0 0
    UT:    36 3 33 0 0 2 0 0
    WV:    30 14 0 16 0 0 0 0
    Total 469 460 260 22 79 25 1

    Total:
    McCain: 469
    Romney: 460
    Huckabee: 260
    Thompson: 22
    Paul: 79
    Giuliani: 25
    Hunter: 1

    So Romney would have been only 9 delegates back, well within my fudge factor.  Paul, Thompson, and Giuliani together couldn't make a difference, but Huckabee would have been the kingmaker.

    "Oaths bind not an ill man. Were I minded to do you ill, then lightestly would I swear any oath you desire, and lightestly in the next moment be forsworn."

    by jbelac on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:08:53 PM PDT

  •  Has McCain sealed the deal with Christians? (0+ / 0-)

    My guess is "no," and I would suggest that the Republicans' winner-take-all system could be their downfall in failing to let that vital corner of their foundation have its voice heard.

    This is the year for the Democrats to make significant inroads into Christian America. A few weeks ago I would have argued that Obama had a real shot at wooing a significant percentage of that population, With the whole Rev. Wright thing swirling around, I'm not so sure any more -- I'm trying to get a read on how evangelicals are reacting both to Wright and Obama's separation from Wright. I suspect that Hillary has hardly improved her standing with that population, either, though.

    Amazing work, Meng! This is plenty to chew over for some time...

  •  a cartographic delight n/t (0+ / 0-)

    They call it the Royale with cheese

    by vincent vega on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:20:05 AM PDT

Permalink | 26 comments