They didnt during the civil war either. But the state governments have a lot more organizational power so things may be represented as 'state v state' even when its muddier in reality.
Perhaps. But I think the electoral map now is different than it was in 1860.
I haven't done a rigorous version of this, but I don't think Abraham Lincoln won a single county vote south of the Mason-Dixon Line and the Ohio River in the presidential election of 1860...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_...ted_States_Presidential_Election_Counties.svg
There was
very clearly a border between North and South that corresponded exactly with where the states stood on the slavery issue and ended up being the dividing line between Union and Confederacy save for the border states that were convinced (somewhat through skilled political maneuvering but also through the not so veiled threat of federal troops) to remain with the Union with MD, DE, KY, and part of VA/WV. The rainbow of colors across MO makes my point that was the one place where the Civil War was truly a prairie fire civil war.
Compare that to say Texas last time around...
Team Blue won the Metroplex, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and El Paso very handily. Not so in 1860. It wasn't like Atlanta and New Orleans voted for Lincoln in 1860. The antebellum South didn't have urban enclaves of people who found common political cause with the people in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington the same way people living in the large metro areas of the South and the West do nowadays.