Massachusetts 2008

[HAnnA MArin County]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this topic elsewhere on the forum, but if not, here goes.

So what happened in Massachusetts in 2008? It's apparently the most liberal state in the nation and didn't vote *that* strongly for the apparently most liberal U.S. Senator and President (Barack Obama) we've ever had. Every county trended Republican, and four counties - Worcester, Norfolk, Bristol and Plymouth - swung Republican, meaning that John McCain did better in these four counties than George W. Bush did in 2004. Yes, I know this isn't much of a surprise seeing as how favorite son John Kerry was the Democratic nominee, but it's just a little fascinating to me how not every single county swung more Democratic in 2008 with Obama at the top of the ticket. Why is this? The only two reasons I can think of are because of the primaries (Hillary won Massachusetts despite Kennedy, Kerry and Patrick's endorsements of Obama) or like others who argue that counties that swung GOP in 2008 did so because of race.

So what is it? Are these counties really racist in the liberal bastion of Massachusetts, or were they just pissed off that Hillary wasn't the nominee? Or something else? I'm really curious to understand why.

[Rob]

So what is it? Are these counties really racist in the liberal bastion of Massachusetts, or were they just pissed off that Hillary wasn't the nominee?

These factors are related.

[Verily]

Also, Massachusetts was Kerry's home state, and it was an added bonus that Kerry was Catholic. Kerry had maxed out Democratic performance on the Presidential level in a relatively even year already.

Massachusetts is not the most "liberal" state in the nation, anyway, either economically left-wing (probably New York) or socially liberal (Vermont). Lots of tribal Democrats who are actually quite conservative by Northeastern standards.

[ag]

MA is in a "steady state". Most areas have been reliably D for quite a while: there isn't much space for a further swing. If you think about it, among the areas  that "trended" R were San Francisco, Philadelphia, New York, Brooklyn and Queens. Not because they are "racist", but because they've done their swing long time back. 

In fact, in some suburban Boston counties, there has been a minor Republican "revival". The "least democratic" of all MA counties, Plimouth, had its highest recent D vote share and margin in 1996, and both have been dropping ever since (though, of course, the D vote share has only gone down marginally, from 54.67% to 53.02%).

In the rest of the state, however -  both in Boston itself and in the rural areas beyond the Boston suburb ring - it's a slow movement further into the D dominance, but, really, there isn't enough space there to offset the opposite slow move in the suburbs (still, Obama got over 70% of the vote in 5 counties - Suffolk, Berkshire, Dukes, Franklin and Hampshire - even Kerry only managed the feat in 3). Overall, though, it seems to be a steady state.

[HAnnA MArin County]

So what is it? Are these counties really racist in the liberal bastion of Massachusetts, or were they just pissed off that Hillary wasn't the nominee?

These factors are related.

I don't think so. I'm far from racist and I still supported Hillary but voted for Obama.

Thank you everyone for your analyses.

[Verily]

So what is it? Are these counties really racist in the liberal bastion of Massachusetts, or were they just pissed off that Hillary wasn't the nominee?

These factors are related.

I don't think so. I'm far from racist and I still supported Hillary but voted for Obama.

Thank you everyone for your analyses.

This is a really obvious logical fallacy. "I'm not a racist, therefore no one who supported Clinton was a racist." Obviously, there were racists who supported Clinton. Massachusetts (and Rhode Island) is an interesting example of this, in that they were the only states in the primaries that actually showed an identifiable "Bradley Effect"--that is, people actively lied to pollsters en masse about who they were voting for, probably for racial reasons.

Whether this has anything to do with Obama's performance in the general is much more difficult to say, particularly in the light of Kerry's strength as a candidate for the area in 2004. There is some evidence that, while there are a lot of racist Massachusetts Democrats, they do vote for black candidates in the general election, only voting against them in the primaries for racial reasons. (And I'm talking about statewide and local races here, not national.) That would suggest that Kerry's strength for the area was the main driver, but the lingering impact of racism was probably a small factor.

[hcallega]

As someone planning on living in the Boston area shortly, I have done some political research on the state and the city in particular. Verily is right that very often black candidates do worse in the primaries than in other states. This has to do with several factors but the biggest is Boston's difficult racial past. As an Irish-Catholic city following the victories of "Honey" Fitz and James Michael Himself, much of the voting base was very uncomfortable with any influx of blacks. The belief was that they would take away jobs and bring with them crime, drugs, and poverty. In fact, Celtics legend Bill Russell was even the subject of this as several racists vandalized his house and pooped in his bed. Things came a crescendo during the 1970s busing crisis, when the belief among working-class IC's was that liberals and blacks were trying to use social engineering because there was something wrong about them. The Bradley effect was proven here in the 1983 mayoral election when Ray Flynn (my favorite mayor) defeated Mel King (the son of Jamaican immigrants). Flynn was the Irish candidate and defeated King primarily because of a resoundingly high white working-class turnout while King won pretty much everywhere else.

So I wouldn't say that MA or Boston are racists, though i would say that there is an "us vs. them" mentality. Then again Louise Day Hicks and Dapper O'Neill might prove me wrong.

[WalterMitty]

ha.  maybe this year's mayoral race will be another 'us vs. them' election.

tom menino vs. sam yoon.

[hcallega]

ha.  maybe this year's mayoral race will be another 'us vs. them' election.

tom menino vs. sam yoon.

Don't discount City Concilman Michael Flaherty. He hails from South Boston and probably won't win, but he will sap votes from Menino. I do agree that if it was just Menino vs. Yoon the southies would be all for Menino though.

[DavidNYC]

Also, Massachusetts was Kerry's home state, and it was an added bonus that Kerry was Catholic. Kerry had maxed out Democratic performance on the Presidential level in a relatively even year already.

This is the answer. I'm not usually one for pointing to simple, monocausal answers in politics (after all, humans are complicated and our affairs are messy). But it's mostly pointless to go searching for deeper answers when this one is pretty obvious on its face. Kerry got a higher percentage of the vote in Mass. than even JFK did. In fact, it might have been the second-best Dem performance after LBJ's. Hard to go higher than that in anything short of an utter blowout.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Massachusetts is so incredibly racist that we're the only state in the nation to have had a black U.S. Senator and black U.S. Governor in the last 40 years.

[DavidNYC]

Okay, so I double-checked. This is the percentage of the vote given to the Dem from FDR on in MA:

1964   76.19
1968   63.01
2004   61.94
2008   61.80
1996   61.47
1960   60.22
2000   59.80
1944   58.59
1976   56.11
1948   54.66
1972   54.20
1988   53.23
1940   53.11
1936   51.22
1932   50.64
1984   48.43 (R)
1992   47.54
1952   45.46 (R)
1980   41.75 (R)
1956   40.37 (R)

I didn't realize HHH had done so well in Mass. But anyhow, as you can see, apart from the LBJ mega-landslide (the greatest Democratic win of all time), two of the three best Dem performances in MA happened in the last two elections. Kerry was able to squeeze just a drop more juice out of that orange. The story here is not that Obama didn't improve on Kerry's numbers, but that he barely declined.

[GLPman]

So I wouldn't say that MA or Boston are racists, though i would say that there is an "us vs. them" mentality. Then again Louise Day Hicks and Dapper O'Neill might prove me wrong.

I lived in Boston for 18 years and I'd said your analysis is pretty much correct. There is very much an "us versus them" mentality, which definitely plays a huge role in city, state, and national politics.

[Old Man Willow]

Let's take a look at the white flight among white men in New England

Massachusetts 2004 Kerry 54% Bush 44%
Massachusetts 2008 Obama 53% Mccain 46%

Rhode Island 2004 Kerry 55% Bush 42%
Rhode Island 2008 Obama 48% Mccain 48%

Connecticut 2004 Bush 50% Kerry 49%
Connecticut 2008 Mccain 52% Obama 44%

Also take a look at Barack's home state

2004 Bush 51% Kerry 48%
2008 Mccain 53% Obama 46%

[Dan the Roman]

The problem with all the numbers posted here is they ignore Nader getting nearly 7% of the vote in 2000. After TN, Massachusetts actually had what was a larger than the national average Republican swings i in 2004, despite the favorite son affect. I think we are seeing is a Clinton affect, which is clear if you look at the Republican performance. it was disguised by the native son effect in 2004 but is clearer now.

Let's Look at the GOP vote instead of the Democratic vote.

1980 42%
1984 51%
1988 45%
1992 29%
1996 28%
2000 33%
2004 37%
2008 36%

Now compare that to the national numbers

1984  R - 8
1988  R - 8
1992  R - 8
1996  R -14
2000  R -15
2004  R -14
2008  R - 9

Notice the almost exact pattern from the pre-Clinton elections and the Obama one? There is a large group of voters in Massachusetts who really like the Clintons and also backed Gore for that reason. Otherwise the state votes about R -9 to the national average.