Why is Indiana more republican than it's neighboring states?

[iceman]

Indiana is sort of an oddity in that region. It is more heavily republican than it's neighboring Midwestern states. Even it's biggest county was only recently democratic and it barely sways the whole state when it comes to voting. In the 1992 and 1996 elections it sticks out like a sore thumb as a red island surrounded by blue states. Why?

[kwabbit]

It's often said that Indiana is more culturally Southern than the other Midwestern states. The Ohio River is the usually the boundary of the Upper South from the Midwest. Midwestern areas that lie along the Ohio River are usually more conservative, such as the historically conservative Cincinnati Metro, and much more of the population of Indiana is geographically close to the Ohio River, rendering it more conservative.

This is just a theory, but Indiana and Ohio have similar demographics, with Ohio having a slighter larger proportion of their population being black. This explains some of the difference in voting patterns, but the main difference comes with how Indiana whites vote. Their vote percentage for Republicans is closer to that of upper Southern whites.

Correspondingly, the recent shifts of Indiana voting is similar to that of upper Southern states. The rural areas have become hyper GOP under Trump while having been somewhat competitive before. The main metro, Indianapolis, which used to be pretty red, is now rapidly becoming more blue. Hamilton County, home to the north Indianapolis suburbs, shifted 12 points to the left, similar to the Atlanta, Nashville, Lexington, and Dallas suburbs, among others. These southern metros have had stronger leftwards shifts than Northern Metros, and Indianapolis has joined them.

[RINO Tom]

Historically?  I will leave that to someone from Indiana or with a better knowledge of the history than I have to answer.

Right now?  Pretty simple, actually: Indianapolis' suburban AND urban voters are much more Republican than those of Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, etc.

[Sol]

Historically?  I will leave that to someone from Indiana or with a better knowledge of the history than I have to answer.

Right now?  Pretty simple, actually: Indianapolis' suburban AND urban voters are much more Republican than those of Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, etc.

Yeah this is basically the key.

Most other Midwestern states have large postindustrial cities, in the vein of Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, St. Louis, etc. The closest area to that is Gary, but it's nowhere near the same size as the aforementioned cities.

The big city of Indianapolis is basically like Columbus if Columbus was less closely tied to Eds and Meds--i.e. it's a more new growth city without either heavy industry and unions or Education to push it left.

If you put Cook County in Indiana, it basically votes like Illinois.

I don't know if Indiana is really thaaat much more Southern than Ohio or Illinois--Little Egypt and Butternut Ohio are equivalently populous southernish areas in each. Again, the partisan difference comes down to the lakeside metros in IL and OH.

[Chips]

Historically?  I will leave that to someone from Indiana or with a better knowledge of the history than I have to answer.

Right now?  Pretty simple, actually: Indianapolis' suburban AND urban voters are much more Republican than those of Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, etc.

Yeah this is basically the key.

Most other Midwestern states have large postindustrial cities, in the vein of Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, St. Louis, etc. The closest area to that is Gary, but it's nowhere near the same size as the aforementioned cities.

The big city of Indianapolis is basically like Columbus if Columbus was less closely tied to Eds and Meds--i.e. it's a more new growth city without either heavy industry and unions or Education to push it left.

If you put Cook County in Indiana, it basically votes like Illinois.

I don't know if Indiana is really thaaat much more Southern than Ohio or Illinois--Little Egypt and Butternut Ohio are equivalently populous southernish areas in each. Again, the partisan difference comes down to the lakeside metros in IL and OH.

This.

[Alben Barkley]

The whole thing about Indiana being more “Southern” seems to make sense at first glance, but it doesn’t really explain why Indiana has also HISTORICALLY been more Republican than not only neighboring Midwestern states but actual Southern states, including some where Indiana settlers predominantly came from including Kentucky. Nor does it explain why it has also historically been more Republican than another Midwestern state heavily influenced by Southern culture and settlers from similar places — Missouri.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

The whole thing about Indiana being more “Southern” seems to make sense at first glance, but it doesn’t really explain why Indiana has also HISTORICALLY been more Republican than not only neighboring Midwestern states but actual Southern states, including some where Indiana settlers predominantly came from including Kentucky. Nor does it explain why it has also historically been more Republican than another Midwestern state heavily influenced by Southern culture and settlers from similar places — Missouri.

I know that Indiana has historically had much less immigration, but does that also apply to Missouri? I would assume St. Louis and Kansas City (to a lesser extent) would have had more immigration. Both states have seen less immigration over the past few decades.

Also, Indiana has smaller industrial cities compared to big cities in Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. but i'm not sure how much of Missouri's population is rural vs. urban.

[lfromnj]

Isn't there also a huge brand of evangelism in Fort Wayne?(3rd largest city)

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Why is Indiana more republican than it's its neighboring states?

Indiana is sort of an oddity in that region. It is more heavily republican than it's its neighboring Midwestern states. Even it's its biggest county was only recently democratic and it barely sways the whole state when it comes to voting. In the 1992 and 1996 elections it sticks out like a sore thumb as a red island surrounded by blue states. Why?

As for 1992, Dan Quayle's home-state advantage was a major determinant of the Hoosiers' electoral decision.

[TDAS04]

The whole thing about Indiana being more “Southern” seems to make sense at first glance, but it doesn’t really explain why Indiana has also HISTORICALLY been more Republican than not only neighboring Midwestern states but actual Southern states, including some where Indiana settlers predominantly came from including Kentucky. Nor does it explain why it has also historically been more Republican than another Midwestern state heavily influenced by Southern culture and settlers from similar places — Missouri.

Indiana actually wasn’t that much more Republican than its Midwestern neighbors historically, at least not prior to the 1960s.  It voted Democratic three times during the Gilded Age, while Illinois and Wisconsin only did so once each, and Ohio and Michigan didn’t at all.  Even after that, Indiana was the most Democratic state in the Great Lakes Midwest in a majority of presidential elections before the 1930s.

[pbrower2a]

Historically?  I will leave that to someone from Indiana or with a better knowledge of the history than I have to answer.

Right now?  Pretty simple, actually: Indianapolis' suburban AND urban voters are much more Republican than those of Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, etc.

Indianapolis, Bloomington, Lafayette-West Lafayette, South Bend, and the southeastern suburbs of Chicago are firmly D. The voting patterns in these cities are not much different from those in corresponding cities in Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, or Wisconsin.

Here is Indiana in 1960, when JFK lost the state by 11%:

 

and in 2012, when Obama lost it by 10%:



Kennedy was still winning counties along the Ohio River while winning only Lake (Gary and Hammond), Vigo (Terre Haute) and St. Joseph (South Bend) appreciably to the north of the Ohio River. Obama more lost almost all counties on the Ohio River, but picked up counties containing Indianapolis, Muncie, and Bloomington. 

Indianapolis was a relatively small city, but it has grown greatly, absorbing what would have been distinct suburbs, so it remained one of the most R-leaning cities in America until suburban-like populations started going D. 

Indiana became more R in the south and more D in the true urban environments. It is still more rural than Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, or Wisconsin so it is more R than them. It is less rural than Kentucky, though. Indiana is probably trending D over the long run, but should it ever become about even, then the game is nearly up for the Republican Party as it is then constituted nationwide.   

[pbrower2a]

The whole thing about Indiana being more “Southern” seems to make sense at first glance, but it doesn’t really explain why Indiana has also HISTORICALLY been more Republican than not only neighboring Midwestern states but actual Southern states, including some where Indiana settlers predominantly came from including Kentucky. Nor does it explain why it has also historically been more Republican than another Midwestern state heavily influenced by Southern culture and settlers from similar places — Missouri.

Indiana isn't going to be "Southern" until global warming makes southern Indiana part of the Cotton Belt. Unlike states more clearly Southern, it doesn't have the large number of Southern Baptists who are the most right-wing large sect in America except for Mormons. (If the GOP keeps nominating people like Trump, then it might lose the Mormons).