Why is Indiana so conservative anyways?

[pbrower2a]

Why is Indiana more Republican than the rest of America? Not since 1948 has Indiana been close to voting for a Democrat for President in a close election. Harry Truman came close to winning Indiana in 1948, but that was something of a fluke; had the racist Strom Thurmond not bolted from the Democratic Party, taking electoral votes of states that never voted republican, Truman would have won in a landslide that year.


2008 looked close until about 11PM EST and Obama was ahead in Indiana, when the votes started coming in from California, where Obama absolutely demolished McCain, so Indiana has yet to show that it can vote for a Democratic nominee for President in a close election. Bill Clinton never won it even though he won all of the neighboring states, and Dubya won Indiana by about a 15% margin in 2000 and a 20% margin in 2004.

Obama barely won Indiana, and that looks like a fluke. About everything has to go right for the Democrats in a Presidential election -- either a 45-state landslide (FDR, 1932 and 1936; or LBJ in 1964)  or:

1. An unusually adept Democratic campaigner who

2. Is from Indiana or Illinois (Michigan or Ohio unproven in this effect)

3. Is winning nationally by a 5% or greater margin

4. Runs against a weakened GOP

5. Has a fouled-up economy to exploit

6. Campaigns extensively in Indiana

7. And the GOP neglects Indiana.

All seven of these conditions were true in 2008, and they won't all be in place in 2012. The Democratic nominee for President will of course be from Illinois (barring assassination or impeachment), and he is not likely to be any less adept a campaigner in 2012 than in 2008.  Should he be winning the Presidency by a 5% or so margin, he won't do much campaigning. Should he be behind or be ahead by a narrow margin, he will be doing his campaigning elsewhere -- in places more critical to re-election. If there is a real struggle for re-election, then the GOP will certainly not neglect Indiana.

I can predict that if the electronic news call Indiana for Obama within a few minutes after the polls close in the state, then Obama will win in a 400+ electoral-vote landslide because Indiana is likely to be more Republican-leaning than the rest of the country by a somewhat larger margin. The question will be whether the landslide will be on an Eisenhower scale or a Reagan scale (watch a bunch of southern states that clobbered Obama -- and Texas). I can predict that Obama will more likely win Arizona than Indiana in 2012.

So why is Indiana more Republican-leaning than its neighbors?

Indiana does not vote for Democrats from outside the Great Lakes region except in electoral blowouts.  JFK lost Indiana by about a 15% margin but won Illinois and Michigan outright and was reasonably close in Ohio. Nixon won an absolute majority in Indiana in 1968; it is not clear that the Wallace vote all came from people who might have voted for Humphrey. Being from a neighboring state isn't enough; Stevenson lost Indiana twice by large margins (although that says much about Stevenson as a campaigner). Western and northeastern Democrats don't win (LBJ was more a westerner than a southerner, and Kerry lost by 20% in Indiana.

Since 1992 Southern populists could win in the North -- of course that means Bill Clinton. Clinton just couldn't win Indiana even though he won all of the surrounding states. Gore, who might have won the Presidency in 2000 had he remained true to or rediscovered the effectiveness of Carter/Clinton populism, lost Indiana by 15%.

So let's look at the home states of Democratic nominees for President since 1916: Wilson NJ, Cox OH, Davis WV, FDR NY, Truman MO, Stevenson IL, Kennedy MA, LBJ TX,  Humphrey MN, McGovern SD, Carter GA, Mondale MN, Dukakis MA, Clinton AR, Gore TN, Kerry MA, Obama IL...

All right: in 1920 both Harding and Cox were from Ohio, so the "neighboring state" effect is effectively zero. Indiana and Missouri really are similar, which explains how Truman came closer than anyone to winning Indiana in a reasonably-close election. Stevenson just couldn't compete with the war record of Eisenhower. Indiana and Minnesota aren't that close.

Could it be the distribution of population? Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois are at roughly the same range of latitudes, but Indiana's population is more skewed toward the southern part of the state. Indiana was settled largely from people traveling down the Ohio Valley and thus was more southern -- and Appalachian -- then was the case in either Ohio or Illinois.  Indiana got little settlement from the Deep South at any time, so it never had a strong affiliation with the Planter South, explaining how it was firmly on the Union side in the Civil War. Post-Civil War politics thus show, as in Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio.

Indiana's population is skewed more southerly than is the case for Illinois or Ohio. Indiana's population center is close to Indianapolis; that of Ohio is probably a little to the northeast of Columbus (Greater Cincinnati and Dayton are less populous than Greater Cleveland, Akron-Canton, Youngstown, and Toledo combined). Illinois is of course greater Chicago and miles of cornfields and coal mines except for a few population islands. Except for the spillover from St. Louis, Illinois has no large cities south of Springfield.

Michigan was settled largely from New York and New England, and except for the flat terrain it is hard to distinguish from "Upstate New York". Such was also true for northern Ohio, northern Indiana, and of course the Chicago area. That shows in politics. Indiana has comparatively liberal areas, but Indianapolis is conservative for a large city, and both Gary-Hammond and South Bend are in population decline. Indiana is less "Yankee" than Michigan, Illinois (if only because of Chicago), and Ohio, so it is less likely to vote for a Yankee liberal.

Indiana is more rural than its neighbors. Its institutions more reflect a rural heritage, and Indiana is still more rural than Illinois, Michigan, or Ohio in population. Start with its polls closing at 6PM local time. That's convenient enough for farmers, but it's inappropriate for people who work in factories, offices, and stores. Illinois closes its polls at 7PM local time, Ohio does so at 7:30 PM, and Michigan does so at 8 PM.  Needless to say people get more time in which to vote in Michigan, Ohio, or Illinois, and such shows in voting rates.  As a rule, the lower the voting-participation rate, the stronger the conservative politics are.

It also has (or until recently had) a smaller minority population. Indiana has a fast-growing Hispanic population even in some unlikely (rural) areas.  (I know!)   

It's also an anti-union haven. Indiana has a statewide "right-to-work" law that emasculates labor unions. The common wisdom in some parts of Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan is that if one can't get factory work in Illinois, Ohio, or Michigan, then one can find it in Indiana -- before the jobs re-open in the more-pro-union states, so don't change residence permanently. Industrial wages are lower, and add to that, Indiana imposes sales taxes on food. Unemployment is hard to get (the state unemployment office will tell you about farm labor, domestic work, fast food, and retail sales clerking) and very low. A more liberal state wouldn't act like Indiana. 

Let's remember, though: a state that gave the GOP candidate a 20% margin in 2004 gave Obama a narrow margin of victory. Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania used to be about as Republican as Indiana -- before 1980. Indiana in 2008 could be a fluke; but it could also be following a pattern that other states in the northeastern quadrant of the United States have been making. If 2008 was a fluke in Indiana, then the GOP could win it again. If 2008 was a trend, then the GOP may have lost another state that it can't afford to lose.     

 



 

[pbrower2a]

Demographically, Indiana is basically a Southern  state without a large minority population and with plenty of middle-class small towns and affluent white suburbs-the backbone of the GOP electorate.

Of course, GOP support in Suburbia isn't as reliable as it used to be  -- which likely says much about the character of Big Business as management and ownership.

[pbrower2a]

...As late as 1976 in a close national race, Illinois and Michigan both voted for Ford, and Ohio barely voted for Carter.

Indiana has lagged the Democratic trend of Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio... and it's too early to tell whether Indiana has been going toward the national trend or beyond. (It still voted more Republican than the national average, which it has done for nearly a century).

A common rap on Indiana from Michigan and Ohio was that if things got bad where you were, you might be able to get a job in Indiana, a "right-to-work" state (which means that one does not have to join a union after working in a predominantly-union shop). Pay was decidedly lower. Taxes are higher (Indiana taxes groceries, like everything else, at 7%), and public services aren't very generous. But even the lower level of employment that made Indiana tolerable fell apart. Indiana became a part of the Rust Belt just the same.

But we will see in 2012. Seat-of-the-pants analysis tells me that Indiana is the one state that Obama won in 2008 that he is most likely to lose in 2012; even if he gets about the same national support for about 360-370 electoral votes, Obama is more likely to win Arizona or Missouri than Indiana.  For the first time since 1948 Indiana was even close to voting for the Democratic nominee for President in a close election (1948 was an anomaly because of the Thurmond/Dixiecrat secession which prevented a Truman landslide). Indiana was close all summer when the 2008 election, and it looked close on Election Night 2008 until the West Coast vote came in.

The Republicans will take Indiana seriously in 2012; Obama won't be doing any active campaigning in Indiana (he'll either be so far ahead in national polling that he will win without it, and if 2012 should be close, he might have to be satisfied to win without it because there are easier wins -- VA, CO, OH, NV, FL, and even AZ); so if Obama wins Indiana in 2012 he will do so in an electoral blowout in the vicinity of 400 EV, so there won't be a close election).