Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
FiveThirtyEight's elasticity scores
| FiveThirtyEight | |
 | |
| Basic facts | |
| Location: | New York City |
| Affiliation: | ABC News |
| Founder(s): | Nate Silver |
| Year founded: | 2008 |
| Website: | Official website |
FiveThirtyEight's elasticity scores measured how responsive states and congressional districts were to changes in the national political environment. Elasticity scores showed the percentage points a party could expect to gain in a state or district for every 1 percentage point the party gained nationwide.[1]
FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver and staff writer Nathaniel Rakich said, "A very elastic [state or district] is prone to big shifts in [national] voter preferences, while inelastic [states and districts] don’t blow as much with the political winds."[1]
For example, the 2020 elasticity score for Michigan was 1.03. "This means that for every 1 point the national political mood moves towards a party, the district is expected to move 1.03 points towards that party," according to FiveThirtyEight.[1]
Silver first developed the concept of state elasticity scores in 2012. In September 2018, FiveThirtyEight released elasticity scores for all 50 states and the 435 congressional districts.[1] In June 2020, Silver released updated elasticity scores for all 50 states and five congressional districts on Twitter.[2] In April 2024, FiveThirtyEight discontinued their calculation of elasticity scores.[3]
Methodology
FiveThirtyEight derived the elasticity scores from the demographic and political characteristics of voting populations. According to Silver and Rakich, factors such as race, religion, and partisan identity allowed them to estimate the probability that district or state voters' preferences would change in response to a shift in national preferences. Silver and Rakich say, "The principle is that voters at the extreme end of the spectrum — those who have close to a 0 percent or a 100 percent chance of voting for one of the parties, based on our analysis — don’t swing as much as those in the middle."[1]
Elasticity scores did not necessarily correlate with the competitiveness of a state or a district. According to Silver and Rakich, competitive seats could be elastic or inelastic. They said campaign strategists might take elasticity into account when, for instance, they are deciding whether to focus on persuading voters (which might work better in a more elastic district) or turn out partisan voters (which might work better in a more inelastic district).[1]
The demographic and partisan data used to calculate elasticity scores comes from the 2016 version of the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, a 60,000 person survey conducted by Harvard University and YouGov. This data was aggregated at the state and district levels for the FiveThirtyEight analysis.[1]
State elasticity scores
Elasticity scores by state in 2018 and 2020
FiveThirtyEight elasticity scores show the percentage points a party can expect to gain in a state or district for every 1 percentage point the party gains nationwide.
Here are a few examples of state elasticity scores in 2020. A higher score indicates a more elastic state.
- Alaska: "This state's elasticity score is 1.07. This means that for every 1 point the national political mood moves towards a party, the state is expected to move 1.07 points towards that party."
- Florida: "This state's elasticity score is 1.04. This means that for every 1 point the national political mood moves towards a party, the state is expected to move 1.04 points towards that party."
- Georgia: "This state's elasticity score is 0.84. This means that for every 1 point the national political mood moves towards a party, the state is expected to move 0.84 points towards that party.
The table below shows the elasticity scores in all 50 states in 2018 and 2020.[1][2]
| Elasticity scores by state in 2018 and 2020 | ||
|---|---|---|
| State | 2018 | 2020 |
| Alabama | 0.89 | 0.81 |
| Alaska | 1.16 | 1.07 |
| Arizona | 1.05 | 1.07 |
| Arkansas | 1.00 | 1.02 |
| California | 0.94 | 0.96 |
| Colorado | 1.07 | 1.09 |
| Connecticut | 0.99 | 1.09 |
| Delaware | 0.93 | 0.90 |
| District of Columbia | 0.80 | 0.62 |
| Florida | 1.03 | 1.04 |
| Georgia | 0.90 | 0.84 |
| Hawaii | 1.07 | 1.15 |
| Idaho | 1.12 | 1.10 |
| Illinois | 1.01 | 0.98 |
| Indiana | 0.99 | 1.00 |
| Iowa | 1.08 | 1.13 |
| Kansas | 1.00 | 1.04 |
| Kentucky | 0.94 | 1.00 |
| Louisiana | 0.96 | 0.93 |
| Maine | 1.13 | 1.17 |
| Maryland | 0.96 | 0.87 |
| Massachusetts | 1.15 | 1.17 |
| Michigan | 1.07 | 1.03 |
| Minnesota | 1.03 | 1.01 |
| Mississippi | 0.92 | 0.79 |
| Missouri | 0.95 | 1.01 |
| Montana | 1.07 | 1.05 |
| Nebraska | 1.01 | 1.02 |
| Nevada | 1.08 | 1.08 |
| New Hampshire | 1.15 | 1.28 |
| New Jersey | 1.01 | 1.04 |
| New Mexico | 1.02 | 1.09 |
| New York | 0.97 | 0.96 |
| North Carolina | 0.98 | 0.94 |
| North Dakota | 0.98 | 1.11 |
| Ohio | 1.02 | 1.02 |
| Oklahoma | 0.94 | 0.93 |
| Oregon | 1.00 | 1.07 |
| Pennsylvania | 1.00 | 0.97 |
| Rhode Island | 1.15 | 1.26 |
| South Carolina | 0.97 | 0.88 |
| South Dakota | 1.01 | 1.03 |
| Tennessee | 0.98 | 0.98 |
| Texas | 1.03 | 1.02 |
| Utah | 1.06 | 1.02 |
| Vermont | 1.12 | 1.23 |
| Virginia | 0.94 | 0.92 |
| Washington | 1.00 | 1.06 |
| West Virginia | 1.04 | 1.10 |
| Wisconsin | 1.07 | 1.06 |
| Wyoming | 1.08 | 0.95 |
State elasticity in 2018
The map below shows a comparison of 2018 elasticity scores in all 50 states with darker colors representing higher scores.
District elasticity scores
Elasticity scores by congressional district in 2020
Five congressional districts received updated elasticity scores in 2020. Again, a higher score indicates a more elastic district.
- Maine's 1st Congressional District: "This district's elasticity score is 1.25. This means that for every 1 point the national political mood moves towards a party, the district is expected to move 1.25 points towards that party."
- Maine's 2nd Congressional District: "This district's elasticity score is 1.09. This means that for every 1 point the national political mood moves towards a party, the district is expected to move 1.09 points towards that party."
- Nebraska's 1st Congressional District: "This district's elasticity score is 0.97. This means that for every 1 point the national political mood moves towards a party, the district is expected to move 0.97 points towards that party.
- Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District: "This district's elasticity score is 1.06. This means that for every 1 point the national political mood moves towards a party, the district is expected to move 1.06 points towards that party.
- Nebraska's 3rd Congressional District: "This district's elasticity score is 1.03. This means that for every 1 point the national political mood moves towards a party, the district is expected to move 1.03 points towards that party.
Congressional district elasticity in 2018
Click here to see a spreadsheet with elasticity scores for all 435 congressional districts in 2018. The map below shows a comparison of 2018 elasticity scores in all 435 congressional districts with darker colors representing higher scores.
Organization background
Nate Silver founded FiveThirtyEight as a blog on polling in March 2008. It became a licensed blog of the New York Times in 2010.
ESPN purchased the FiveThirtyEight brand in 2013 and expanded the website to cover politics more generally as well as sports and culture. In April 2018, ABC News acquired FiveThirtyEight.[4][5]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 FiveThirtyEight, "Election Update: The Most (And Least) Elastic States And Districts," September 6, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Twitter, "Nate Silver," September 19, 2022
- ↑ ABC News, "Trump leads in swing-state polls and is tied with Biden nationally," April 24, 2024
- ↑ ESPN, "Nate Silver makes move to ESPN," July 22, 2013
- ↑ Variety, "ABC News Takes Over Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight," April 17, 2018
| |||||||
