More than a month before the 2020 US Presidential Election, I finalized my review of a prediction method. I believed it was possible to predict the outcome of the election using one metric.
I came surprisingly close.
Out of 50 states plus DC, five were wrong, plus one that I forced due to a low confidence level (Arizona). Not bad for a single metric and my first, and rather rushed, look at predicting the results of a Presidential Election. Here was my initial post that predicted the outcome expected based on that one metric.
So, what was the metric? Since I don’t think I’ll be able to write a book about it, and the many correlations that take place that will undoubtedly get a lot of responses of Correlation is not Causation, I think I’ll simply disclose it and see if someone stumbles across my site. All of my discussion is still here, unedited. All of my predictions are still here, unchanged.
Yeah, yeah, what was the metric?
That was it. In each state, I performed an analysis based on the last Census data and that gave me what I needed. Essentially one data point, Population Density, predicted 46 of the 51 regions.
From here, I’ll refine the analysis. The next presidential election, and perhaps the intermediate elections will definitely be impacted by the concept of Social Order. The Republican Party is being “balkanized” by a triad of interested parties; rural, religious, and the rich. It will shred the party in the process unless something miraculous holds it together. Those who align and are Rural seek independence from government rule even though a tremendous benefit takes place. It’s a bit far afield from this post to discuss it, but its worth mentioning. Those who are religious find alignment because of the history of the party being Pro-Life, a single issue driver for those who find that of great interest. The rich are interested in the party because they want something similar to the rural interests… less oversight. Although there is religious affinity within the three, they are distinct in their desired outcome.
Why was all this mentioned? Well, because population density is decidedly a Democrat embodiment. All who embrace it (the Democrat alignment) benefit from the multitude. You can’t be overwhelmingly rich if everyone has ample opportunity. You can’t be inclusive of your affinity for one religion when it does not allow for an alternative religion. You can’t be rural if you are in the suburbs and metropolitan areas, and that gap away from people is something that those who align with a rural lifestyle have great affinity for along with the lower oversight of government rule.
Meanwhile, all three benefit from the social order of a higher population density and in the United States, the higher population density still allows for individualistic processes. Personal goals are approachable and can be realized. The community comes together in times of emergency, but for the bulk of high density individualistic culture in the US, it is segmentation of ingroup and outgroups which stand over time.
That is it for now. I’ll have to come back and discuss the specifics. The specifics to be discussed in the next post will be the differences in results in per-state density. Namely, that as you move away from the population density centers, it trends towards Republican. There are outliers in each state, and some states are outliers in how they voted compared to the overall direction of the states. It may be specific to the 2020 election, but the 2024 election will substantiate the claim I am making.
Population Density is the primary indicator of the direction a state votes.
(edited for some clarity)