Talk:Bellwether

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Could we have a list of classic Bellwether constituencies please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.251.100 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 May 2006

Is there a quote / source for JP Morgan being mentioned as a bellwether stock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.146.191.222 (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 05 July 2017, Fred Carstensen, added "This is an inversion of the original meaning as the bellwether, because of his emasculated conditioned, always stuck close to the flock; his bell alerted the shepherd to its location." He also changed "leading his flock to "following his flock." I could find no support for these changes in any resource, but I certainly was not able to find any examples of usage from the 14th Century, so "following" may indeed be correct. In fact, the best reference I found was on dictionary.com: "Figurative sense of 'chief, leader' is from mid-14c." In order to stimulate discussion, I have undone Fred's change. BAlfson (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In 2000, Delaware did vote for the candidate who received the most votes from voters, so in that sense it was an accurate bellwether for total votes in the country. A bellwether can be for which candidate receives the most actual votes from voters, not just which candidate received the most electoral votes. —The preceding

But the popular vote doesn't actually mean anything in such systems. And this is particular crucial as in most elections decided on a constituency basis bellweather seats/states are heavily targetted precisely because of their marginality, and thus are where the winner is made or lost. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it doesn't mean anything. A bellwhether accurately reflects the votes of the larger group. So, New Mexico slightly going for Gore in 2000 was a much more accurate reflection of the votes of the nation (which went for Gore) than Utah overwhelmingly going for Bush, even though Bush was the electoral college winner and thus the winner.

talk) 17:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Speaking of bellwether states, does anyone think that Florida should should be included on the list of bellwether states? I would think so considering that since 1928, the winner of Florida has won the presidential election 19 out of 21 times (about 90.5%). Fuelsaver (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Yeah absolutley Fuelsaver, since 1928 Florida has only been wrong in 1992 (by less than 2%) and in 1960 (by just 2.02%). Its Definetly a bellwether state.[reply]

Considering the quagmire that was the 2000 election, the disputed result of that election (should it be counted as a win for Bush, as forced by the SCUSA, or as a win for Gore, as independent audits seem to indicate a full recount would have been?), and continuing questions about voting practices in the state, I do not believe including it as a bellwether would be a good idea, since it would simply open up a can of worms. When people start talking about Florida as a bellwether, perhaps then, but that hasn't happened as of yet. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copy and paste job from Encyclopedia.com

I think you may have it backwards, and Encyclopedia.com took its entry from here. I know that some parts of the article are original, since I wrote them myself, from scratch. Can you identify which parts of this article you think may be a copyright violation? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delaware used to be a bellwether state, but it's failed two in a row, so it's no longer a bellwether —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.140.37 (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see more countries added but of course it comes down to "as information becomes available". I am sure we can find some more bellwethers if we scan at least the

Bexar county has been won by the winning presidential candidate since 1972. I cannot understand why it is not on that list of top 50 bellwether counties in the country. In 72 it went for Nixon, 76 to Carter, 80 and 84 to Regan, 88 to Bush, 92 and 96 to Clinton, 00 and 04 to Bush and 08 to Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supun47 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winner of Bexar county Presidential elections from 1928 - 1976 given here: "Politically, from the time of the annexation of Texas to the Union until the 1950s, Bexar County was staunchly in the Democratic camp. Republican presidential candidates Warren G. Harding and Herbert Hoover received a narrow majority of the county's votes in the 1920 and 1928 elections respectively, but Democrats prevailed in every other election until Dwight D. Eisenhower's first campaign in 1952. Since that time Republicans have won the majority of the elections, the exception being those of John F. Kennedy in 1960, Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964, Hubert Humphrey in 1968, and Jimmy Carter in 1976." http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcb07

Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections

other verifications here:

1956 Eisenhower

San Antonio Light, Nov. 7, 1956 (available through newspaperarchive.org)

Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections

1960 Kennedy

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1960&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0

1964 Johnson

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1964&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0

1968 Humphrey

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1968&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0

1972 Nixon

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1972&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0

1976 Carter

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1976&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0

1980 Reagan

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1980&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0

1984 Reagan

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1984&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0

1988 Bush

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1988&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0

1992 Clinton

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1992&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0

1996 Clinton

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1996&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0

2000 Bush

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2000&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0

2004 Bush

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2000&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0

2008 Obama

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2008&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0

Kaltenmeyer (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-written it. Missouri, Delaware and the not-there-before I added it Illinois are former bellwether states. The part about states winning "most" is super-meaningless because it necessarily favors older states, so I've eliminated it.

This is an honest, non-politically motivated question: What does the statement "Donald Trump won Missouri in 2016 by as many as 19 points, which suggests it will likely be less of a bellwether state in future elections." on the page mean? If Trump won Missouri and the nationwide election, then how does that suggest that Missouri will be "less of a bellwether"? Unless I've completely missed the point of the term, 2016 continues to add to Missouri's tendency to match the eventual outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.226.96 (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was 22% more Republican than the national average.

Bomberswarm2 (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is full of

"New Jersey is the only state that wasn't in the 1988 Dukakis strategy to give all of its electoral votes to the Democrats in every election since 1988."

What does this mean? Bush won a dozen states that Dukakis didn't that haven't voted Republican since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomberswarm2 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It means it's the only such state that Dukakis didn't target.

Colorado might be considered a bellweather in recent years. Only 2 misses since 1980^[1], and 3 misses since 1964^[2]. Not only that, but Colorado seems to lead the way for trends: For example, Colorado was one of few Western/Southwestern states to go for Obama in 2008, but subsequently Arizona went blue in 2020, and Democrats have been performing better in Texas. Colorado was also the first state to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, which is now a policy sweeping over other states across the country.

Some references to sources suggesting Colorado is a bellweather: "BIDLACK | Colorado is the nation's new political bellwether," Colorado Politics, 2018 - https://www.coloradopolitics.com/opinion/bidlack-colorado-is-the-nations-new-political-bellwether/article_6b75d936-e8e4-580d-af89-ffa2cfc2b538.html "Colorado Bellweather," Washington Examiner, 2014 - https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/colorado-bellwether "If You Want A Bellwether In Trump’s America And Blue Colorado, Look No Further Than Pueblo," CPR News, 2020 - https://www.cpr.org/2020/02/28/if-you-want-a-bellwether-in-trumps-america-and-blue-colorado-look-no-further-than-pueblo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.36.228 (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some reference needs to be made to the Midwest and the "blue wall." The three states, PA, MI, and WI, have been the clear focus of the past two elections (and indeed were also campaign targets the Republicans tried but failed to flip in 2008 and 2012) and have been representative of shifting attitudes of the "white working class" moving towards Republicans. Pennsylvania might be the prime example when it comes to media attention and impact. If bellweather is defined as a state that leads the trend, it might be said to "lead" more than Michigan or Wisconsin. With its 20 electoral votes, it is certainly more impactful than Michigan or Wisconsin. And it has voted with the winner of the presidential election in almost every year since 1972 with the exception of 2004 and 2008^[3]. Going back further, it has just 4 misses since 1952^[4].

Ohio, meanwhile, has had much higher margins for the Republicans in recent elections than Pennsylvania, and Ohio missed 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.36.228 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just tagged this article with multiple issues. The core is that this article seems to be a parking ground for a ton of

I'm chasing down the meaning and etymology here in response to a recent Heather Cox Richardson essay. She refers to a "bellwether" as "fitted with a bell to indicate where the flock was going". This article, to my surprise, agrees with that definition: "A shepherd could then note the movements of the animals by hearing the bell, even when the flock was not in sight." But it then sources that to merriam-webster -- which contradicts this definition. "Long ago, it was common practice for shepherds to hang a bell around the neck of one sheep in their flock, thereby designating it the lead sheep."^[1] So at the very least we have a sourcing problem here in this article; and we also have an interesting case of the meaning of a word being essentially reversed, from "leader" to "follower" as "bellwether" is used in the metaphorical sense. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]