Introduction
Posted on October 14th, 2008 by dhcolman
Starting Wednesday, October 15, you can follow The Geography of U.S. Presidential Elections in real time. To learn more about this timely Stanford University course, you can watch the introductory video below, or download it from iTunesU. And once the first lecture is posted, we invite you to join the discussion hosted by the professor, Martin Lewis. Stay tuned for more, and enjoy the course.
Looking forward to the discussion!
I found this class just thrilling. So many fascinating tidbits came out of just one session. I have been reading up on them and thinking about them all week. Here are a few of them:
1. The listing of affluent and non-affluent counties in Alabama was just fascinating. The affluent: Shelby, Baldwin, Madison each have different descriptors. Shelby is the affluent of the Birmingham professional class.; Baldwin is the waterfront property owners of snowbirds and of the southern landed gentry; Madison is the defense and high tech money of Huntsville. The poor counties seem to cluster in a specific corridor: the northwest Alabama valley, an area that the LA Times won a Pulitzer for describing in a series about poor black counties along the Alabama River. These counties are Sumter, Hale, Bullick, Wilcox, Lowndes, Perry, each from that very local region. What a thrilling little micro-geograhy lesson.
2. Along those same lines is the remark cited by James Carville that Pennsylvania comprises of Philadelphia on the east, Pittsburgh on the west, and Alabama in the middle. I was a cartography major and my senior project was preparing a series of cartograms on Pennsylvania counties, using various descriptors as a basis for maps. I became very learned on all the counties in PA, and got to know the fine differences between Juniata, Perry, and Dauphin counties in Central PA and the affluent counties of Montgomery, Delaware, and Bucks in Philadelphia, and the upscale ones in Pittsburgh (NW Allegheny, Beaver, and southern Butler counties). Was really nostalgic to think about those differences in that very stratified and electorally important state.
Will be back with more things I loved about the class that stimulated thinking about these things.
Thank you Professor Lewis!
I had a question on apathetic registered voters: Would past presidential elections have had more Democrat winners if apathetic registered Democrat voters gone to the polls? The class incited me to take a look at a few statistics so far. It appears the answer is no. Anyway, I have found a new interest in this next election with regard to supposed increased numbers of registered voters and the final outcome.
Many thanks for this wonderful initiative, Professor Lewis.
The presentation held several surprises for me, who live in devastated Venezuela (home of President Horribilis), and know virtually nothing about electoral geography of the United States.
From abroad, one tends to think, quite simplistically, that the higher the income of a voter, the more likely to vote Republican and vice-versa: the lower, the more likely he or she is of voting Democrat. It turns out to be a lot more subtle, and a lot more interesting.
I do hope you will touch on the subject of geography of election methods - which states or counties use machines or electronic systems of any kind, and which use manual vote counting, and how, if at all, have the mechanical/electronic methods changed or affected the voting patterns.
I look forward to the coming weeks. Thanks again!
Many thanks to all of you for your interesting and informed questions and comments. I hope we can hear more from Bob Marburg about voting in Pennsylvania. It is notable that even the country that contains Penn State (Center County, If I recall correctly) voted from George W. Bush in 2004, which is unusual, especially considering how large the university is. As far as Alabama goes, the voting pattern is actually liked to geology: these counties lie in the so-called Black Belt, noted for its fertile soils that derive from chalky limestone. IIt was here that the biggest and most profitable plantations were established, and hence the area ended up with an African-American majority. In the 1840s, these counties voted from Whig candidates, while most of the rest of the state voted for Jacksonian Democrats.
Many thanks to all of you for your interesting and informed questions and comments. I hope we can hear more from Bob Marburg about voting in Pennsylvania. It is notable that even the country that contains Penn State (Center County, If I recall correctly) voted for George W. Bush in 2004, which is unusual, especially considering how large the university is. As far as Alabama goes, the voting pattern is actually liked to geology: these poor Democratic counties are all in the so-called Black Belt, noted for its fertile, black soils that derive from chalky limestone. Here the biggest and most profitable plantations were established, and hence the area ended up with a substantial African-American majority. In the 1840s, these same counties voted for Whig candidates, while most of the rest of the state voted for Jacksonian Democrats. In the 1870s, before Jim Crow, they voted for Republican candidates.
Larry Lance brings up an important issue. I don’t know much about it, but I would like to look into it. If the answer is indeed “no,” it seems counter-intuitive.
Thanks also to Clemencia Rodner for bringing up the important issue of voting methods. Again, this is not something that I know much about. If anyone else does, please help us out!
Yes, I have been reading about Alabama’s “Black Belt” in The Almanac of American Politics which describes this area’s geological and cultural history’s linkage to the electorate. Again, very interesting explanation you provide about this. Thanks again.
I wanted to mention something I was thinking about that was not brought up in the first class. There was no mention about the relationship between agricultural and rural economic activities (the natural resources industry, fishing, etc.) and non-agricultural economic activities, particularly industrial labor, as a determinant of electoral preference.
Would it be too much of a shortcut to suggest that almost all area with strong histories of labor and unions (Michigan, Eastern Pennsylvania, the Merrimack Valley, northern New Jersey, etc.) almost always vote Democratic?
Similarly, area of non-urban activity (Central Utah, Northern Idaho, and much of non-urban Oklahoma and Kansas) almost always vote Republican? I feel certain there must be some kind of correlation there. Although, as with many of the things discussed, that may be a misperception or a thing of the past as well.
I too was fascinated by the first class and looking forward to more. Two points:
1. Bob could be right about the correlation between unionized industrial areas and voting Democratic. I grew up in McKeesport, PA, a steel town upriver from Pittsburgh (not far from Homestead, site of the infamous 1892 strike). Steel mills were the core of the economy and everyone belonged to a union. This area was strongly Democratic until the decline of the steel industry led to unemployment, less unionization, and loss of population.
2. Is it possible to measure the Bradley effect, perhaps by state or county? It would be interesting to do that for the coming election.
Bob Marburg and Lisa Rogers are absolutely right about industrial areas generally voting for Democratic candidates. This is, however, a historically limited phenomenon. The Democratic Party was generally hostile to unions through the 1800s, while Republicans argued, sometime with success, that their policy of high tariffs benefited workers and industrialists alike. True, the largest cities then voted for the Democrats, especially if they had large ethnic populations (New York and Boston), but not so the heart of the industrial zone. As late as 1928, Herbert Hoover took every county in Michigan, and all but two in Ohio and three in Pennsylvania. The New Deal changed the situation, however. With FDR, the democrats became pro-unionized labor, and thus gained the industrial counties. They also gained many rural mining counties (such as Carbon County Utah and Sweetwater County Wyoming. ) The 1980s saw many of these counties change to the Republican Party (being full of “Reagan Democrats) — more recently they have tended Democratic, but not by a large margin. Obama did poorly in such areas in the primary elections. Union membership, however, still correlates fairly strongly with membership in the Democratic Party. Industrial areas with lower union membership rates (Birmingham Alabama) have been more inclined to vote Republican in recent decades.
So Lisa, I am probably speaking out of school about Pennsylvania counties. You know the deal more than anyone about Westmoreland, Allegheny, Beaver counties. Also, Professor Lewis, amazing that Hoover won all of Michigan. That sounds preposterous in the way we see Michigan today. But as you suggest, industry is swinging again in the way that southern Democratic “old boy” counties swung Republican in the mid 90s after years of being Dixiecrat.
For those who have interest, here is the LA Times story that won the 2000 Pulitzer Prize about the specific subculture in Wilcox County, one of the areas in Alabama’s Black Belt. Really brings to life last night’s discussion about the area.
http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2000,Feature+Writing
I realize that there already is far too much to cover in the time available, but I would be interested in trends in voter registration and turnout. Is this data available prior to the 20th century? It seems to me it probably falls into 3 categories: possible voters, registered voters, actual voters. Much is being made of the large increases in registered voters by Democrats in 2008. It will be interesting to see whether voter turnout increases and how. Will the percentages be about the same for a larger number of registered voters or will the voter registration efforts result in higher percentages as well as a larger pool? I’d also be interested in U.S. voter participation vs. other countries.
It’s interesting that industrial/unionized cities voting Democratic largely began in the 1930s, with a large chunk becoming Reagan Democrats in the 1980s. Today, Obama has been gaining in the rust belt area except for Indiana. I wonder what is different in Indiana that it doesn’t reflect to the same degree the recent trends in neighboring Ohio and Michigan, even with northwest Indiana being in the Chicago media market.
Thanks to Bob Marburg for a great link re. Alabama’s Black Belt. In regard to Wally Mersereau’s first question, voter turn-out rates were initially quite low (less than 20%), rose in the early 1800s to nearly 40% and then dropped again around 1820. The Jacksonian era saw a huge surge; in 1840, up to 80% of eligible voters went to the polls. Turn-out fluctuated but stayed high until roughly 1900, when it dropped to the 50-60% range — the South especially saw a substantial drop as African-Americans were disenfranchised. Since then rates have fluctuated around 50%. In 1932 the figure was 52%, in 1960, 62.8 % and in 1996, 48.9%. In 1996, the figure for the Northeast was 50.3%, for the South 45.9%, for the Midwest 54%, and for the West 47%. In 1996, the turn-out in Minnesota was 64%, whereas in Nevada it was 38.7%. There is a good discussion of historical trends in J. Clark Archer et al., Historical Atlas of US Presidential Elections 1788-2004.
Wally Mersereau makes an important point in regard to Indiana. While Indiana used to be an important swing state, over the past 50 years it has been one of the most consistently Republican-voting states in presidential elections — it has not gone for a Democrat since 1964. (Democrats have continued to be competitive, however, at the state level). In 1992 and 1996, for example, Indiana was the only state in the Northeastern quadrant of the country not to vote for Bill Clinton. Indiana does have a large unionized manufacturing sector, which is still correlates somewhat with Democratic voting patterns, but many of Indiana’s factories are located in small and mid-sized cities, which lean Republican. Southern Indiana, which used to be Democratic voting, has a strong Southern influence in its culture, which now (among Whites) correlates with Republican voting at the presidential level. Recently, Indiana has seen substantial growth in the generally non-industrial city and suburbs of Indianapolis. Here the suburban belt is strongly Republican. In 2004, fast-growing Hamilton County gave over 74% of its votes to George W. Bush. Currently, however, polls show that John McCain has only a two or three point lead in Indiana, which has surprised many observers. In other states with similar voting histories, the Republican candidate has a much greater lead. Here, however, the real exception is Virginia. It too has not gone Dem. since 1964 — but it looks like it will in 2008
In the first class meeting you mentioned a general rule to the effect that “rich states vote Democratic and rich people vote Republican”. Can you expand on that?
I have often wondered the same thing about Indiana and Professor Lewis’ explanation of its conservative leaning is informative.
However, while much of Indiana’s rust belt activity occurs in smallish cities like Kokomo, Anderson, Columbus, Terre Haute, and Crawfordsville, a good deal of it occurs in larger, more traditional manufacturing areas like Lake County (really an extension of Chicago), Indianapolis (a top 25 market), Floyd County (Greater Louisville), and Fort Wayne, a largish city. These are major American cities (all Top 50 Television ADIs).
Having lived in Indiana for a while, I was struck by the noticeably conservative flavor to these larger places that seemed to contradict my impression that they would be more of a Democratic stronghold. Comparing these places to other large midwestern cities like St. Louis, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kalamazoo, Milwaukee, etc., it seemed that Indiana’s cities were of like size, but had a significantly different view towards things like art and books, rock and roll, and traditional liberal things like gay and women’s rights and property owner rights.
It always struck me as strange that the Indiana cities did not have a more metropolitan character to them. Only the north side of Indianapolis (Hamilton County, as you mention, and the Carmel area) seemed to be exceptions to this.
In regard to John Melton’s question about rich states voting for Democratic candidates and rich people for Republican ones, the first thing to note is that this pattern is quite recent. West Virginia is one of the poorest states and was one of the most Democratic-voting — but in 2000 and 2004 it voted solidly for George W. Bush. One hundred years ago, rich states tended to vote for Republican candidates, as did wealthy people. Most observers today think that cultural issues (abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc.) have pushed wealthy states into the Democratic camp and poor states into the Republican camp, but surely it is more complicated than that. I would highly recommend reading Andrew Gelman’s recent book on this topic.
Bob Marburg knows more about Indiana than I do, and I was quite interested to read his description of the state’s economic geography. I would note, however, that Lake County has tended to vote for the Democratic candidate. I have always thought of Indianapolis as more of a logistics and light-manufacturing (pharmaceuticals) center than as a center of traditional manufacturing, but I have discovered that Bob is a correct in noting that the city does have a strong heavy-manufacturing aspect as well. It is interesting, however, that Indianapolis’s county (Marion) voted for the Dem. candidate in 2004 for the first time since 1964. A new poll out today shows Obama with a sizable lead statewide — but I remain skeptical.
Does anyone else have any insight on Indian’s conservatism? If so, please let us know!
I think I contradicted myself at least a couple of times in the last posting. While Hamilton County is one of the fastest growing counties in the country, it is, as Professor Lewis says, very Republican, and is not an exception to Indiana’s conservative urban areas as I incorrectly implied.
Another correction: Fort Wayne is not a Top 50 TV ADI (Audience of Dominant Influence), although it is in the Top 80.
Like the presidential debates, a fact checking process that occurs after the post, would be a useful thing to discourage the occasional blowhard tendency that I might indulge more than I should. (Ideally, it should occur by the poster before the post).
Additionally, my understanding of the climate in the other Midwestern cities is only notional. I don’t really know the voting patterns there.
Although when visiting a place, like, for example, Cincinnati, it seemed to have certain attributes that distinguished it from Indiana’s cities, including
1. ethnic sections associated with Eastern cities, 2. neighborhoods that clearly supported alternative lifestyles, and, 3. generally, better public arts, like the selection of FM radio (WEBN-FM), chamber music, independent movie houses and galleries and local theater groups demonstrating more up-with-the-times works that might be seen in New York.
Indiana cities seemed to be missing these things, although this may have changed recently.
Were there any other blunders?
Bob Marburg brings up an interesting comparison between Cincinnati and Indianapolis. Cincinnati is a much older city: in 1850, some 115,000 people lived there, as opposed to 8,000 in Indianapolis. Many European immigrants — especially Germans — settled in Cincinnati — giving it distinct ethnic neighborhoods. Strong economic ties with the upper south, however, meant that it had a partial pro-southern orientation during the mid-1800s. More recently, the city has been noted for racial tensions and for cultural conservatism — although Bob is right in noting that it does have strong pockets of alternative lifestyles. It is notable, however, that Hamilton County (which contains Cincinnati) voted for George Bush in 2004. It is one of the most populous counties (845,000) in the northern half of the country to have voted Republican that year.
Thanks for the voter turnout information. The fluctuations over 200 years are very interesting. Early voting suggests 2008 will be at least a relatively high turnout. When you give turnout percentages, are these percentages of registered voters? Are there statistics that attempt to estimate what percentage of eligible voters are registered?
It does look as if Indiana may go for Obama. It was late to the trend, but now is rated as likely to go for the Democrat as Missouri and North Carolina, but still less so than Ohio and Michigan. I find the most comprehensive, and possibly most accurate, polling data on fivethirtyeight.com.
The figures that I gave refer to the percentage of the voting age population that actually votes (excluding women for the period before 1920). According to the Wikipedia, “In the United States, approximately 70% of the eligible population registers to vote, which may be an important contributing factor in the low average election turnout, which in recent decades just barely has topped 50% of voting age population in presidential elections. However, in 2004, the presidential election turnout was up to 56.70% of all US citizens old enough to vote.”
I agree with Wally Mersereau that fivethirtyeight.com. is a good source for polling date. There are several others, such as Polster and Election Projection. Check out http://www.electoral-vote.com/index.html for a well-designed map.
One recent poll puts the two candidates as even in Montana, which had previously been categorized as safe for John McCain. It is notable that the libertarians Ron Paul and Bob Barr score relatively highly in Montana (at about 4.5% and 1% respectively). Politically, Montana remains quite distinctive from Wyoming and Idaho.
Thank you Professor Lewis for that nice discussion of Cincinnati. Like some other cities of today, Its change is a bit of mystery to me as well. As you say, it has grown more conservative in the past few years and has become a hotbed of racial tension.
When I lived near Cincinnati in the late seventies and early eighties, you would never see it in those terms. People used to loll around Fountain Circle well past midnight without a thought to safety. Today, it is a very unsafe place.
Politically, would you believe its proximity to the South (across the river from Kentucky) explains its transformation toward Republican voting, following that sectional trend of the past 20 years?
I’m not sure why that has happened as I have always seen it as a kind of a beacon for, if you will, more Democratic type thinking in the region. Just goes to show how volatile places are in their makeup and how their character can change from decade to decade.
One small question, there are two states seldom do you mention in the class, these are Alaska and Hawaii. I want to ask is it because that Alaska is an oil state indicates it is a firm Republican state and because that Hawaii is a state with a large population of native Hawaiians indicates it is a firm Democratic state? Thank you.
Like Bob Marburg, I am perplexed by recent changes in Cincinnati. If anyone has insight on this important city, please join the discussion.
I am glad that Tong Xiong brought up Alaska and Hawaii. Alaska is an oil state, which does correlate to some extent with Republican voting at the presidential level. But Alaska, like other lightly populated Western states, also has a strong libertarian streak. In some respects, Sarah Palin seems at odds with the libertarian tradition, but the Alaska Libertarian Party did endorse her in 2006.
In Hawaii, Native Hawaiians are a significant group (15-20%), but they are far outnumbered by Asian-Hawaiians (60% of the state’s total). Overall, Asian-American tend to vote for Democrats (as do Native Americans).
After the first class there was a question about polls and those who only use mobile phones. I noticed an article in this week’s economist that talks a bit about polling and mentions the “mobile-onlys” as they are called.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12484791
I found the Economist article interesting. It indicates cell phones probably are excluded from most polling. It also briefly touches on other reasons polls may be inaccurate despite attempts to adjust them. Considering the inherent weaknesses of polls, I wonder whether individual poll weaknesses may be largely offset by aggregating or averaging results from mutliple polls. We’ll know soon.
I found this floating around on the internet. Its picking up some steam, as it made it to me from a friend living in Mexico City.
It speaks towards the tension that we have seen growing between the Red States and Blue States. Very interesting facts thrown in here, not sure of their truth, but nonetheless a discussion starter. Enjoy…
Dear Red States…
We’ve decided we’re leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we’re taking the other Blue States with us.
In case you aren’t aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon,Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.
To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole’ Miss. We get 85 percent of America’s venture capital and entrepreneurs. You
get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition’s, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.
Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we’re going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they’re apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don’t care if you don’t show pictures of their children’s caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we’re not willing to spend our resources in Bush’s Quagmire.
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country’s fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation’s fresh fruit, 95 percent of America’s quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners)
90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale,
Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.
We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we’re discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say
that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy b*****ds believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.
By the way, we’re taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.
Peace out,
Blue States
Let me contribute one piece to the puzzle. I’ve been studying the five Deep South states of LA, MS, AL, GA and SC which have about 48 electoral votes.
In the 6 elections from 1948 to 1968 nearly all their votes were “thrown away” to losers - strom thurmond, Adlai Stevenson, Harry Byrd, Barry Goldwater and George Wallace.
Then, beginning in 1972 and through 2004 in nine consecutive elections - nearly all their votes went to the winner, 6 times to the GOP and 3 times to the Dems.
What happened? My opinion is that both parties adopted “Southern strategies” to manipulate these and adjoining southern states.
The Democrats nominated southerners in five of these elections - Carter twice, Clinton twice, Gore once and it worked in 3 of these 5 tries.
The GOP, beginning with Nixon in 1968 as documented by Keviin Phillips “The Republican Majority” and skilfully continued by Reagan and GW Bush - appealed to the South’s peculiar needs. However, out of the six elections the GOP won, their electoral votes were so large, they could have won without the South - with one huge exception the 2000 election.
So why did things change so dramatically after 1964? Surely the Voting Rights Act of 1965 made a huge difference both as to the participation of Black voters and probably also the behavior of whites who could no longer afford the luxury of throwing away their votes on lost causes. But I’m curious as to just where these changes occurred - which counties changed the most. Can anyone suggest books, articles or websites that explore this subject?
By the way my interest in the Deep South began in this same building back in the early sixties in classes taught by History Professor David Potter.
So I’m most curious to see if the Deep South can stretch their string of going with the winner to ten elections next week.
Many thanks to Dan Logan for an important post; after the disaster of 1972, the Democrats looked again to the South (Carter), and they did the same after major losses with northerners in 1984 and 1988 (turning to Clinton and then Gore). (Dan: you might want to repost your comments under the “week three” thread, as I am afraid that many people will miss it here)
The Republican Party was also helped in the south by urbanization and especially by suburbanization. As early as 1960, the urban areas of Texas were voting Republican, whereas in the rural areas most countries went Dem. After the voting reforms of the Johnson era, Black majority cities went for the Democrats, but not those with White majorities, and especially not suburbs. Even with the Southern Democrat Carter in 1976, Birmingham and Mobile Alabama went for Ford, whereas almost all rural counties in the state went for Carter.
Even today, some southern White, rural counties still vote for Democrats in presidential elections. They are largely in the outer South, however (Tennessee and Arkansas).
Thank you for your knowledgeable class, which spread in iTunes throughout the world. Your class enlightened my American dream once again, though we are living in an era of another great depression. As an American Studies’ student far from Beijing, China, I very appreciate your teaching method of showing the maps.