States and their political cultures

[pbrower2a]

In a thread on polls someone asked me whether it was far too early to speculate on how they would vote in the Presidential election of 2016. Of course the quality of candidates matters greatly (example: in the absence of political or economic calamities for the President, Chris Christie would probably lose a close election to Hillary Clinton  and such imaginable nominees as Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and Rick Santorum would lose in landslides; Christie would wipe the floor with VP Joe Biden, who would probably win decisively against Bush, Paul, Rubio, Ryan, and Santorum).

But I can say this: President Obama has been very cautious, and although he has never gotten the spectacular approval ratings that even Dubya got he has not taken America for a ride on a drunken joyride of euphoria, either.

The two main Parties have clearly distinguished themselves ideologically from each other, and the states have largely sorted themselves out into  distinct groups.       

Energy Acres -- states in which fossil-fuel interests (coal, natural gas, petroleum) dominate statewide politics.

Energy interests are strongly right-wing on economic issues -- especially on the environment. If you don't like the environmental disasters that energy production imply and you are in those states you might be invited to leave for friendlier territory.

America's Ranchers -- ranchers are much more politically-conservative than farmers and dairy operators. That explains the difference between Minnesota and Iowa on the east and Nebraska and the Dakotas on the west.

North Dakota would have been in this group except for the boom in natural gas. NE-01 and NE-03 fit the pattern.


The Mountain South. -- the Ozarks and Appalachians allow a xenophobic culture to flourish, and it is now arch-conservative. Kentucky and West Virginia would be here except for the domination of coal interests. 
 


"Mormon Country" -- Utah and to a lesser extent Idaho.  The powerful LDS Church is a state within a state, and that is able to cause a state with an ethnic mix similar to Minnesota, a very urban population to vote Republican. Of course if Republicans get unduly specific about favoring one form of Christianity over others to the detriment of Mormons, Mormons start voting heavily Democratic.

Polarized America -- these states are highly polarized on the basis of politics of ethnicity (Arizona) or race, and the white population dominates due to apparent solidarity on the matter. There are practically no liberal white people, and the issues are not a key industry.  In white.

Urban "Secular-Humanistan" -- states in which big-city politics utterly dominate statewide politics. Humanist ideas (where I get the name) are the local ideology. Even if people are devoutly religious their economics and social values fit secular-humanist ideology -- at least on the average.

Suburban "Secular-Humanistan". Not quite as liberal as the core of "Urban Humanistan" -- on the whole they are less urban or more "Southern". I am coloring them

pink of they lean slightly Democratic
gray if they are America's three microcosms (Colorado, Ohio, and Virginia)
pale blue if they lean slightly Republican

[traininthedistance]

I think it's a little odd that you have so many different Republican groups, but all Democratic states are the same- which is very much not the case in reality.  The Rust Belt Dems of places like RI and MI are very different from the white secular progressives of WA and OR, are very different from the multi-ethnic coalitions of an NM or CA. 

And, of course, many states have many different factors, or the factors are not so monolithic as you might indicate.

[pbrower2a]

I think it's a little odd that you have so many different Republican groups, but all Democratic states are the same- which is very much not the case in reality.  The Rust Belt Dems of places like RI and MI are very different from the white secular progressives of WA and OR, are very different from the multi-ethnic coalitions of an NM or CA. 

And, of course, many states have many different factors, or the factors are not so monolithic as you might indicate.

Maybe. But I see seventeen states and the District of Columbia having never voted for any Republican nominee for President since 1988, which suggests a very stable coalition of Democrats. Those states are not monoliths -- all states have their urban minority poor, unionized workers, and educated elites. Further, the demographics of Maryland, Vermont and New Mexico could hardly be more different -- but they now seem to vote much alike. I see Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as the shakiest of such states... but New Mexico becoming about as solidly D as any state.

Republicans think that they can work on the Rust Belt by promising jobs -- but either (1) after the loss of huge numbers of jobs or (2) massive pay cuts. Such is a tough sell. The job losses must happen first, and people must be convinced that 900,000 industrial jobs at $8 an hour is better than 800,000 industrial jobs at $12 an hour.

There may be more diversity between groups of "Red" states (blue on a usual election map). It may be easier to distinguish parts of  the Republican coalition (for now) than the Democratic coalition. My map distinguishes Arizona and New Mexico which on the surface seem much alike -- except for political realities within them. New Mexico has some very conservative areas, and Hispanics (largely Mexican-Americans) vote much alike in Arizona and New Mexico. But political polarization seems weaker in New Mexico; Republicans have turned up the rhetoric of  antipathy toward 'illegal aliens' in Arizona. Should such implode in Arizona, Arizona will vote like New Mexico.

Likewise, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 -- when poor Southern whites would consider voting for the same person that poor Southern blacks voted for. Break the ethnic polarization of the vote and the Republicans lose big in those states. 

   

[dpmapper]

I think it's a little odd that you have so many different Republican groups, but all Democratic states are the same- which is very much not the case in reality.  The Rust Belt Dems of places like RI and MI are very different from the white secular progressives of WA and OR, are very different from the multi-ethnic coalitions of an NM or CA. 

And, of course, many states have many different factors, or the factors are not so monolithic as you might indicate.

Maybe. But I see seventeen states and the District of Columbia having never voted for any Republican nominee for President since 1988, which suggests a very stable coalition of Democrats. Those states are not monoliths -- all states have their urban minority poor, unionized workers, and educated elites. Further, the demographics of Maryland, Vermont and New Mexico could hardly be more different -- but they now seem to vote much alike. I see Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as the shakiest of such states... but New Mexico becoming about as solidly D as any state.

Republicans think that they can work on the Rust Belt by promising jobs -- but either (1) after the loss of huge numbers of jobs or (2) massive pay cuts. Such is a tough sell. The job losses must happen first, and people must be convinced that 900,000 industrial jobs at $8 an hour is better than 800,000 industrial jobs at $12 an hour.

There may be more diversity between groups of "Red" states (blue on a usual election map). It may be easier to distinguish parts of  the Republican coalition (for now) than the Democratic coalition. My map distinguishes Arizona and New Mexico which on the surface seem much alike -- except for political realities within them. New Mexico has some very conservative areas, and Hispanics (largely Mexican-Americans) vote much alike in Arizona and New Mexico. But political polarization seems weaker in New Mexico; Republicans have turned up the rhetoric of  antipathy toward 'illegal aliens' in Arizona. Should such implode in Arizona, Arizona will vote like New Mexico.

Likewise, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 -- when poor Southern whites would consider voting for the same person that poor Southern blacks voted for. Break the ethnic polarization of the vote and the Republicans lose big in those states. 

   

Why couldn't ethnic polarization break by ending the Democratic monopoly on black voters, instead (or additionally)? 

And your attribution of Arizona's GOP tilt to immigration issues is much too simplistic.  There is simply no equivalent to the Phoenix area in New Mexico. 

[pbrower2a]

I think it's a little odd that you have so many different Republican groups, but all Democratic states are the same- which is very much not the case in reality.  The Rust Belt Dems of places like RI and MI are very different from the white secular progressives of WA and OR, are very different from the multi-ethnic coalitions of an NM or CA. 

And, of course, many states have many different factors, or the factors are not so monolithic as you might indicate.

Maybe. But I see seventeen states and the District of Columbia having never voted for any Republican nominee for President since 1988, which suggests a very stable coalition of Democrats. Those states are not monoliths -- all states have their urban minority poor, unionized workers, and educated elites. Further, the demographics of Maryland, Vermont and New Mexico could hardly be more different -- but they now seem to vote much alike. I see Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as the shakiest of such states... but New Mexico becoming about as solidly D as any state.

Republicans think that they can work on the Rust Belt by promising jobs -- but either (1) after the loss of huge numbers of jobs or (2) massive pay cuts. Such is a tough sell. The job losses must happen first, and people must be convinced that 900,000 industrial jobs at $8 an hour is better than 800,000 industrial jobs at $12 an hour.

There may be more diversity between groups of "Red" states (blue on a usual election map). It may be easier to distinguish parts of  the Republican coalition (for now) than the Democratic coalition. My map distinguishes Arizona and New Mexico which on the surface seem much alike -- except for political realities within them. New Mexico has some very conservative areas, and Hispanics (largely Mexican-Americans) vote much alike in Arizona and New Mexico. But political polarization seems weaker in New Mexico; Republicans have turned up the rhetoric of  antipathy toward 'illegal aliens' in Arizona. Should such implode in Arizona, Arizona will vote like New Mexico.

Likewise, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 -- when poor Southern whites would consider voting for the same person that poor Southern blacks voted for. Break the ethnic polarization of the vote and the Republicans lose big in those states. 

   

Why couldn't ethnic polarization break by ending the Democratic monopoly on black voters, instead (or additionally)? 

And your attribution of Arizona's GOP tilt to immigration issues is much too simplistic.  There is simply no equivalent to the Phoenix area in New Mexico. 

What does the current Republican Party have to offer the middle class of any ethnic minority? To give some idea, Republicans have done badly among Hispanics and Asians in recent years. Maybe it is the pandering to right-wing religious fundamentalists.

Albuquerque is far smaller than Phoenix, and it is much farther from the Mexican border (if that matters).

The Arizona Republican Party has doubled down on immigration as a polarizing issue. The New Mexico Republican Party had no chance to do so. It could be that Arizona has an older population than does New Mexico, and older white people are more susceptible to ethnic bigotry than are younger white people. Albuquerque is not the retirement area that Phoenix is.

Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado have some blatant similarities of demographics. About ten years ago the Colorado Republican Party did much what the Arizona Republican Party did recently -- and that has since imploded.  Such can happen in Arizona, and if it does a regional map in the spirit of the one that I have would have to be redrawn to recognize the similarities of the states in demographics once their politics become similar.

Beyond any question -- Mexican-Americans vote more like white people in Vermont than like white people in Georgia.


 

[pbrower2a]

Arguable alternative:    

Energy Acres -- states in which fossil-fuel interests petroleum dominates statewide politics.

Energy interests are strongly right-wing on economic issues -- especially on the environment. If you don't like the environmental disasters that energy production imply and you are in those states you might be invited to leave for friendlier territory.

America's Ranchers -- ranchers are much more politically-conservative than farmers and dairy operators. That explains the difference between Minnesota and Iowa on the east and Nebraska and the Dakotas on the west.

 NE-01 and NE-03 fit the pattern, but NE-02 does not.


The Mountain South. -- the Ozarks and Appalachians allow a xenophobic culture to flourish, and it is now arch-conservative. Kentucky and West Virginia would be here except for the domination of coal interests.  
 


"Mormon Country" -- Utah and to a lesser extent Idaho.  The powerful LDS Church is a state within a state, and that is able to cause a state with an ethnic mix similar to Minnesota, a very urban population to vote Republican. Of course if Republicans get unduly specific about favoring one form of Christianity over others to the detriment of Mormons, Mormons start voting heavily Democratic.

Polarized America -- these states are highly polarized on the basis of politics of ethnicity (Arizona) or race, and the white population dominates due to apparent solidarity on the matter. There are practically no liberal white people, and the issues are not a key industry.  In white.

Urban "Secular-Humanistan" -- states in which big-city politics utterly dominate statewide politics. Humanist ideas (where I get the name) are the local ideology. Even if people are devoutly religious their economics and social values fit secular-humanist ideology -- at least on the average.

Suburban "Secular-Humanistan". Not quite as liberal as the core of "Urban Humanistan" -- on the whole they are less urban or more "Southern". I am coloring them

pink of they lean slightly Democratic
gray if they are America's three microcosms (Colorado, Ohio, and Virginia)
pale blue if they lean slightly Republican

[traininthedistance]

I think it's a little odd that you have so many different Republican groups, but all Democratic states are the same- which is very much not the case in reality.  The Rust Belt Dems of places like RI and MI are very different from the white secular progressives of WA and OR, are very different from the multi-ethnic coalitions of an NM or CA. 

And, of course, many states have many different factors, or the factors are not so monolithic as you might indicate.

Maybe. But I see seventeen states and the District of Columbia having never voted for any Republican nominee for President since 1988, which suggests a very stable coalition of Democrats. Those states are not monoliths -- all states have their urban minority poor, unionized workers, and educated elites. Further, the demographics of Maryland, Vermont and New Mexico could hardly be more different -- but they now seem to vote much alike. I see Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as the shakiest of such states... but New Mexico becoming about as solidly D as any state.

And yet the fourteen states that have voted Republican since 1976 are put in several different buckets?  It's simply not true that "all Democrats are the same, but Republicans come on many shapes and flavors" as your map implies- in fact the converse is closer to being true (while of course still being false).