When (If) you read this NYT article on why some states are “red” and some states are “blue”:
But why do ideology and geography cluster so predictably? Why, if you know a person’s position on gay marriage, can you predict that he or she will want to increase the military budget and decrease the tax rate, and is more likely to hail from Wyoming or Georgia than from Minnesota or Vermont? To be sure, some of these affinities may spring from coalitions of convenience. Economic libertarians and Christian evangelicals, united by their common enemy, are strange bedfellows in today’s Republican party, just as the two Georges — the archconservative Wallace and the uberliberal McGovern — found themselves in the same Democratic Party in 1972.
I think there are a couple of things you should keep in mind.
First, even the bluest states are not uniformly blue. The idea of a Blue North and a Red South is erroneous. Take the county by county 2008 presidential election results for New York for example. Simple analyses like those used by the author of the NYT article just don’t stand up to scrutiny. The same is true of Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and many, many other states.
Neither are red states really red. See Mississippi. That’s easily explained by demographics but I don’t need to belabor the point.
There is an element of truth in it, however. I don’t think that you can explain today’s voting patterns by the Church of England/Nonconformist split of the 17th and 18th centuries. But you don’t have to look back that far. When people come to the United States they bring their ideas about social organization and politics with them. This is territory I’ve covered before. The Irish brought their ideas of proper governance, based on the systems that prevailed in Irish villages, and refurbished them for New York and Chicago. Scandinavians brought their ideas of what constituted a just society from Scandinavia of the 19th century to the Upper Midwest. And so on.
There are other, pragmatic, bread-and-butter reasons, too. That’s fodder for another post.
I’m a big fan of Fischer’s Albion’s Seedlings, and still find it ressonates. Which group thought marriage was a civil contract? The puritans, and one can see how that conception remains important today among their heirs.
Similarly, I’ve long thought that Romney’s wealth would be a significant problem for him among many of the middling demographics, but not necessarily among Puritans, who do not equate wealth so easily with sinne. If I am correct, Romney will do relatively better in the Northeast than in the Midwest when compared with McCain. (I’m not saying Romney will win any Northeast states, just that the movement of voters will be more significant there)
A few months ago the local alternative weekly ran an editorial with this interesting discussion:
“Springfield is a corrupt state capital not because it is isolated but because it is the state capital of a corrupt state. The invisible hand that guides a society’s fate is not the market but culture. The state’s political culture was conclusively analyzed by the late political scientist Daniel Elazar. His 1970 book, Cities of the Prairie, identified the dominant strain in Illinois’ political culture as the individualistic tradition imported from our Southern cousins and perpetuated by subsequent migrants from peasant cultures who have found that tradition congenial.
The individualistic culture sees the democratic order as just another marketplace that can be exploited by individuals and groups to improve themselves socially and economically. As a result, wrote Elazar, “Politics in Illinois came early to be centered on personal influence, patronage, distribution of federal and later state benefits and the availability of economic gain of those who were professionally committed to politics as their ‘business.’†”
http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-10417-itrss-springfieldrss-fault.html
I might look for that book in a used bookstore.
I think you are missing the point. It isn’t that a red state must imply that everyone there holds certain views. It is a likelihood argument. If a person has conservative views on X, Y, and Z, then the likelihood they are from states 1, 2, or 3 is “high”. Basically, think in terms of probabilities. To state it a bit more rigorously,
Prob(Being from Wyoming|Conservative Views) > Prob(Being from New York|Conservative Views).
This does not preclude people in New York having conservative views.
I don’t think I’m missing the point. I think that the causality in the article is bogus and can only be justified if you assume that views within the states are much more uniform than they are.
The only reason that Illinois is blue is Cook County. If Cook County were excised from Illinois, Illinois would sometimes vote Democratic, sometimes Republican—more like Missouri than it is now.
In addition, the author is mistaken in believing that “progressive” and “Democratic” are synonymous. Only about a third of Democrats are progressives. Without that equivalence there is just no article there.
I think you hit it, Dave. “Habitually Blue states” have ginormous metro areas, like Chicago, NYC, SA Franncisco, LA, Boston etc. The bond is either socioeconomic (despite all the flack Romney took over the 47) or academic institution intensity. Eg Boston. Throw a little old time religion and you’ve got a decent working model.
As you well know, if you travel from Cicero to DeKalb you might as well have gone from Venus to Mars. And it’s only 50 minutes.
In nationwide elections, people living in rural areas vote overwhelmingly Republican and people living in large cities vote overwhelmingly Democratic. The elections are largely disputed in suburban or medium cities, which tend to go back and forth. There are regional/cultural differences. Why is rural Vermont so much more liberal than other rural areas of the country? Why is Dallas so much more Republican than comparable cities?
The article does focus too much on states. Alabama was the most pro-McCain state in the South, and they voted 60% for McCain. Most states, at least of any size, operate within the 40 yard lines of politics. (New York might be the sole exception: 2008 was 63% for Obama, but I would be surprised if Obama does not exceed 60% this time)
Pd
You hit what I didn’t, although Alabama and religion is obvious. But, for example, closer to home, look at Minnesota. Minneapolis cannot explain its normal Blue lean. I’m not sure what the issue is.
On the other hand, Wisconsin is a perfect experiment state. If the so called Reagan Dems go right, you can elect Republicans, despite Madison and the union town mentality elsewhere. In a wave election like 2008, it clearly goes Dem. This year? Razor thin.
I suspect Michigan will ultimately go Dem because of the Detroit and within 100 mile influence. But go to the north of the, heh, mitt, or western Michigan and its a whole different world. It’s not totally implausible that Michigan could surprise.
Ohio is what it is, the ultimate tip-o-the fulcrum state. The bellwether on election night for me will be Pennsy. If it goes Romney it’s a romp. If it goes Obama it’s a nail biter.
I was interested in that red splash in the blue field in Miss.
That’s where Vicksburg is. Warren County.