I've been doing a little analysis of the 2012 Presidential election, dividing the country into the eight major geographic areas used by Theodore H. White in "The Making of the President, 1960." White noted that in the 1960 election Richard M. Nixon carried five areas, while John F. Kennedy carried three. In 2012 Barack Obama and Mitt Romney each carried four regions, but where they prevailed, and the intensity with which they did so, is interesting.
The best area for both Obama and JFK was New England (MA, ME, VT, NH, RI, CT). Obama got 60.27% of the vote there, while JFK got 56%. The Pacific (CA, OR, WA, HI, AK) was almost as good for Obama, giving him 59.47% while JFK took 49.40%. The Mid-Atlantic (NY, NJ, PA, MD, DE) was Obama’s third best area with 55.79%, while JFK received 51.5%. Finally the Midwest (IL, MI, IN, MN, WI, OH) was also better for Obama with 53.9% whereas JFK got 48.7%.
The Rocky Mountain states (MT, ID, CO, UT, WY, NV, AZ, NM) were fairly similar in both elections, Obama received 45.35% while JFK took 46.4%. Obama improved a bit on JFK in the Farm States (IA, ND, KS, SD, NB) with 44.29% to JFK’s 41.2%. It’s in the Old South (AL, AS, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TX, VA) that we see a real shift, Obama received only 39.76% of the vote there while JFK actually carried that region in 1960 with 52.9%. Obama’s worst region was the Border states (KY, MO, OK, TN, WV) where he received only 33.92%, while JFK took 47.8%.
So what we see here is that since 1960 the Pacific states, New England, and the Atlantic states have grown much bluer while the Rocky Mountain and Farm states are still basically red. The Midwest is still a swing area. The Southern and Border states were deep red in 2012, as they have been for the last several elections, but with a special intensity that's undoubtedly racial. Basically, and we already knew this, the country is deeply polarized.
2012 election data is from http://www.politico.com/.... 1960 election data is from Theodore H. White: “The Making of the President 1960” Mentor, pages 393-95.