Talk Elections

Aside from Obama's carrying it in 2008, the state has only been carried by the Democrats once since 1936, when LBJ crushed Goldwater in one of the largest landslides in U.S History. Despite being part of the unionized rust belt, it still votes heavily Republican. Can someone explain this?

No major cities, which are Democratic, is one of the reasons.

Voting laws tend to be quite strict iirc.

But, very good question. You'd think it'd at least be a swing state.

We also have one of the strictest anti-abortion laws short of banning it. Pro-Life politics are a strong thing around here.

This is true. Indiana is full of good Christian people.

Um, Indianapolis?

But yes, the main reason is that urban areas are outweighed by rural and suburban areas, and said urban areas are whiter than average.

True the state is largely made up of farmers and small businessmen the historic mainstay base of the Republican Party.

That could be another reason. Indianapolis is a swing city because of those busisness intrests. It has a conservative mayor who is doing a solid job.

I believe I posted about this very question a while ago.

Indiana is, in my opinion, kind of strange in that it's a (mostly) red state surrounded by swing and blue states. My theory is that it's a state in the Midwest that historically, didn't take part in many of the trends that shaped the politics of the Midwest.

- It has no large cosmopolitan city like Illinois
- No large black population like in Michigan
- Not as many unionized manufacturing workers like in Ohio
- No large progressive Scandinavian immigrant population like in Wisconsin and Minnesota

Indiana is the best example today of what the Midwest might have looked like before movements like the great migration and the Rustbelt industrial boom shaped the region. It's a state where most people still claim German, protestant ancestry, full of small towns and farmers. Which, as someone said, was an original base of the Republican party.

yes, also you have a unique combination of Indiana being very lightly settled by New England Yankees compared to every other Midwestern state AND being significantly settled by 'Greater Appalachians'.  The Yankee settlement band that stretches from northern PA and across OH's(northwestern reserve) narrows significantly across northern Indiana.  I remember it having something to do with soil, but it might have been the Appalachians pushing north in southern Indiana -- that pushed the Midlanders North --- and the Yankees were boxed out- squeezed against lake Michigan.  

So you have:
1) Midlanders who have probably been the longest lasting cultural base of the Republican party(with a brief exception of FDR realignment) ,
2) Greater Appalachians who tend to be somewhat Libertarian, and
3) a sliver of Midwestern Yankees who used to be Strong Republicans, but now produce mostly knee jerk leftists.

The early alignment would be Midlanders+Yankees vs. Appalachians
The current alignment would be Midlanders+ Appalachians vs. Yankees

The Republicans have always been able to form a majority coalition of the three groups is the bottom line answer.  

()                

the state has always leaned republican nationally but it hasn't always aligned with local races. The state has elected democrat senators over the years (Evan and Birch Bayh as well as Vance Hartke) and some of the CDs which always were republican leaning have elected democrats for periods of time such as Phillip Sharp, Lee Hamilton or John Brademas.

I have a lot of knowledge here, but my steam has been taken by others who posted earlier. :P

I'm the only active member of this forum (sorry JCL :P) who lives in southern Indiana. Southern Indiana is not part of the Rust Belt. I consider Southern Indiana to begin a little above I-70.

In my neck of the words, we'll vote Democratic often at state and local levels, much like Kentucky. But we are very reliable to the GOP in national elections.

Even here, unions are pretty strong, but what gets people going is that they're evangelicals, aka, they're big on social issues. Issues like gay marriage and abortion largely keep IN in the GOP column. Honestly, outside of Marion County (which isn't too Democratic), and up around Chicago (which I honestly don't consider part of Indiana, Indiana is pretty much a bunch of farmers. :P

As to Obama - he only won in 2008 because he spent money here and McCain hardly did. Obama also visited the state; McCain didn't. I promise you, had McPalin made a couple stops here, he would have won it.

Indiana is basically Illinois without Chicago.

It's ok Tmfth. As you have the southern part I've got the central part.


Ever thought that most Hoosiers (like myself and Tmfth) just don't want what Obama's offering. If Mitt and whoever his runningmate is come here, Obama will get bodied like Wesker bodys beam assists in UMVC3.

Indiana is Republican state, because it's practically the only Midwestern state than hasn't been overrun by minorities, immigrants, and non-Christians by a large scale. It's practically like a Midwestern Oklahoma or Arkansas.

I don't know how relevant that is, but Indiana was historically quite strongly for the Democrats until Lincoln won it in 1860. After that it was a bellwether during the Gilded Age. So it seems as if it was a bit more border state-ish and a bit less solidly Republican Midwestern in its voting patterns until WWI.

Before the reign of Republicans, Indiana was practically a Southern state. The same goes for Southern Illinois. Both of them went for Buchanan in 1856. It was a state like Indiana that really didn't want to fight a war just for the sake of slaves. During the Gilded Age, it was possible for a Democrat like say, Grover Cleveland, to win the state by pretty solid margins. I'd agree that it's around WWI that it started going solidly Republican.

I would agree, but it's not a "Republican state", it just leans that way.  Kentucky and West Virginia tend to be Republican in presidential elections but actually more Democratic at the statewide level, from what I've seen.  I guess Indiana just tends to be more rural.  And remember, there are a lot of swing states in the Upper Midwest where unions are strong, too.

I heard that its basically part of the "Butternut" reigon, where Southerners have migrated across the Ohio to work in Indiana, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania....and probably Indiana is really white, too...its where the KKK formed when it was basically the Tea Party of the 1920s which helped push through Prohibition and  3 Conservative Presidents, back to back.

You mean where the KKK re-formed, don't you?  You realize what a hackish post this is, trying to portray all whites as racist and tying conservatives and Tea Partiers to the KKK.
The KKK was actually founded in the South during Reconstriction as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party.  While a large number of Northern Republicans especially in Indiana, joined the Klan in the 1920s, it remained a mostly Democratic organization.

Oh...the KKK you are talking was dealt with pretty quickly. The KKK was a major part of the Indiana GOP in 1920s. About 20% of the electorate was in the Klan in the mid 1920s.  In 1926, it was about as big as a deal as the Tea Party was in 2010....and it wasn't just about racism, either...it was basically part of the bigger authoritarian lean of the 1920s...you know, Prohibition, Eugenics. All the fun stuff that right-wing social engineering has brought us.  

..and let's not forget that in the Civil War, there were a lot of Confederate sypathy in Indiana and rural Ohio.

This is correct, but actually parts of that were considered 'progressive' at the time.

Exactly.  Haven't you ever heard about how active Margaret Sanger was with the progressive movement?  She was also the founder of Planned Parenthood, which, last time I checked, wasn't really into "right-wing social engineering."  Prohibition was also part of the progressive movement.  It may be considered right-wing now, but it was liberal for that time.

Well, the Klan was, from my knowledge, against that...but they were also very anti-labor. Not only were they violently culturally conservative, but class conservatives as well.

They were certainly some of the conservatives at that time.

They were 25% of the electorate.

Indiana is very Republican, but it's not necessarily "conservative" in the way the Tea Party is. The Indiana GOP may have shot themselves in the foot by nominating a Tea Party extremist over a highly respected longtime Senator.

I agree with everythnt you've said, except that I'm a Republican and don't think Indiana is very strongly Republican.  It just leans that way.

I wouldn't underestimate Mourdock. It's not like he's a fringe perennial candidate, like Christine O'Donnell or obscure, loony state assemblyman like Sharron Angle. He's already been elected twice to statewide office.

You also forget there is a significant contingent of Evangelicals in the state and that is growing. Many of the Tea Party aligned candidates are also Evangelical Christians (Mike Pence, Jackie Walorski, Marlin Stutzman, David McIntoish).

In 2014 we will have a marriage amendment on our ballot

If you've ever driven through Indiana, you'd get why it's a Republican state. It's a farm oriented, Christian heavy place. And the "major cities" there are pretty ... not-so-major. I mean, Indianapolis is a city, but it's far from the most urban place in the world and its not populated to the point where it can control the state's vote. And even so, Obama only got 63% in Indianapolis' Marion County.

Obama only won Indiana because of Gary, and the urban areas near Chicago that were already familiar with him. It's not a likely state for future Democratic wins.

I looked up the election results for 2000, the election in recent years with the most closely divided results. George W. Bush won the electoral college with 271-267, with Al Gore earning the electoral votes of Iowa and Illinois.

According to Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, in 2000,  Gore carried the State of Illinois by 569,605 votes. Gore carried Cook County, which encompasses the City of Chicago and its innermost suburbs, by 746,005 votes, which was greater than his victory margin in the entire state.

Thus, if Chicago and its innermost suburbs were removed from Illinois, Bush would have carried Illinois.

It appears that the original poster is correct. It Chicago was removed from Illinois, the state's electoral results would be similar to Indiana.

It just doesn't have big cities other than Indianapolis and South Bend, and has lots of farms. Obama won Indiana in '08 probably because of the Democratic wave, and he won it without Evan Bayh on the ticket. In 2016, the Democratic nominee may have a more tough sell there (especially if it's Martin O'Malley; unless if he picks Sen. Joe Donnelly to make the state potentially competitive.

It is the state in midwest that people especially like in Chicago who want their taxes cheap. Especially gas tax and cigarette taxes. It is tax cutting state. Even Dem OBannon gov cut taxes.

Indiana would be ideal, but Ohio is heavilly targetted.

To be fair: Indiana would have voted Democrat in 1992 if it hadn't been for the most intelligent vice president we've ever had...

Indiana is basically Illinois without Cook County.

Maybe I'm off here, but Illinois's Republican Congressmen seem a bit more centrist to me than Indiana's House Republicans.

That is partly because North Illinois is fairly urban (Chicago).

Indiana being more suburban/rural than Illinois probably goes a long way towards explaining why the former is a Republican-leaning state.

So far none of the responses touched on the real reason, which is not surprising for this topic when it's been discussed before and is rarely mentioned by anyone besides Al or Lewis. Indiana actually has a higher population density than the US as a whole does, and is home to not only the 13th largest city in the US but the second largest in the Midwest in regards to the "rural" and "no major cities" talking points.

And this:


Is actually pretty disproven when you compare this map to maps of the state in other years (obviously I'm referring to only the first sentence, not the second):

()

The answer is what Indiana has that other Midwestern states lack is the hyper-GOP suburbs of Indianapolis. Indiana is not a "culturally southern" state by any reasonable definition of the term, but metro Indianapolis votes like a southern metro. Even in 2008 McCain got over 60% in every Indianapolis suburban county and Romney won them all by about 2:1. The only other metro in the area that votes that way is Cincinnati. However this can be cancelled out by the other Democratic strongholds in the state. Indiana doesn't have any big enough except for the area near Chicago, however since that lacks the core city it almost always isn't enough. The fact that some Cincinnati suburbs are in Indiana as well (not very big areas and basically just some scattered exurbs, but regardless they're there) doesn't help either. You could also point to Milwaukee, but actually it's not comparable because Milwaukee County is big enough and D enough to usually outvote the suburbs. Indiana would be a swing state if it had a metro as large and reliably D as Madison is in it though.

But if metro Indianapolis voted like say even Columbus (which has some pretty Republican suburbs, but those can be outvoted), it would be much more of a swing state.

Here's the calculation thanks to Flo

Indiana + Cook County =

Romney: 1,916,085 (41.2%)
Obama: 2,641,424 (56.9%)
Other: 86,696  (1.9%)

Total: 4,644,205

There's no Chicago or Detroit in Indiana.

Indianapolis' history and development is really different from most other Midwestern cities has its not located on one of the Great Lakes.  Ohio would probably vote the same way as Indiana if Lake Erie was a floodplain and the only major cities in the state were Columbus and Cincinnati.   

It should be noted that Indianapolis annexed many of its Marion County suburbs in 1970 with UniGov, which is why it has ranked from #11 - #15 in terms of population since 1970.

The 1960 census showed a population of 451,000, which then jumped to 744,000 in 1970. After a period of decline in the '70s, it slowly recovered to 830,000 today (plus 2 million or so in the metro).

To further expand on the "no major cities" point, Indiana instead has more small and some mid-sized industrial cities and towns that don't allow the population and political dynamics that occurred in Illinois (Chicago), Wisconsin (Milwaukee + Madison + Driftless Region), Ohio (Cleveland + Columbus + Toledo), and Michigan (Detroit + Grand Rapids) that gave Democrats the advantage/allowd them to be competitive.

Racially, Whites (84% of the population! 81% non-Hispanic white!) are less Scandinavian progressive but rather German/Dutch/English/Irish/Polish conservatives descended from colonial times or shortly after, there aren't many Hispanics or Asians, and Blacks are less than 10% of the population.

The Democrats get their support mainly from:
- Indianapolis (but no so much in the incorporated 'burbs)
- South Bend, Evansville ("mid-sized" industrial cities, but again: less so in the 'burbs)
- Gary/Hammond/East Chicago + the Chicago suburbs in Lake, Porter, and LaPorte counties
- an occasional rural outlier that can swing (Starke County '08)
- southeastern Indiana along the Ohio (but more for the "right" kind of Dem)
- Tippecanoe and Monroe counties (home to the main campuses of Purdue University and Indiana University, respectively)

Republicans rule virtually all the Indianapolis suburbs/exurbs, Fort Wayne area, smaller industrial cities scattered throughout, Louisville suburbs, and pretty much everything not listed in the Dem camp.

That's one way to see it.

Indianapolis annexed unincorporated parts of Marion County, basically devouring what would have been suburban sprawl before it had a chance to form communities with hokey names like "Redford Township", "Webster Acres", and "Park Forest". Outside Marion County, such suburbs are basically hick towns just outside the zone of urban expansion.


Indianapolis grew rapidly rather recently -- like Dallas, Phoenix, and Atlanta -- and its suburban areas are really new and still have rural qualities.  Even the suburbs of Los Angeles are showing their age. New suburbs have low costs of maintaining their infrastructure, and their traffic jams are on commuter routes. Older suburbs have obsolete infrastructure and plenty of traffic jams. Older suburbs lose their rural characteristics and become increasingly urban -- a fact that Barack Obama got very well.

Such states as Illinois and Michigan still voted for Jerry Ford in 1976 and have since voted for Republican nominees for President in electoral blowouts. Ohio may have stalled in that regard (did Ohioans vote for Carter because Ford was a star on the hated U of M Wolverines?)

Without Indianapolis and the awful Gary-Hammond area, Indiana is basically Kansas. The second-biggest metro area entirely in Indiana is Allen County (Fort Wayne), which is comparatively conservative for its size. South Bend is fairly liberal.   

A hell of lot of rural areas give the state of Indiana its Republican tilt. Add to this that populous Allen County (Fort Wayne) is somewhere around five to ten points above the statewide number. Marion County (Indianapolis) carried Democratic, for a 2004 John Kerry, first time since 1964. (That county, like so many others state after state, is trending Democratic.) So, for a Democratic presidential realignment that began in 2008, Indiana can, and will be, carried if the party's prevailing candidate puts forward his/her concerted effort and/or wins an Electoral College landslide. Barack Obama, in 2008, became the first Democrat to win Indiana since Lyndon Johnson from 1964. Difference between the 2008 Obama and previous state-winning Democrats of the 20th century is that the other ones won Electoral College landslides of having carried at least 80 percent of available states (true with Woodrow Wilson, 1912; Franklin Roosevelt, 1932 and 1936; and Lyndon Johnson, 1964). Obama did it with the carriage of 56 percent of available states. It looks to me that Indiana is more persuadable than otherwise perceived. And if you look at Elections 2008 and 2012, the ex-bellwether Missouri and Indiana have produced statewide margins closely connected with each other. In the last two presidential election cycles, they have been no more than 1.16 percent in spread (even though they had official results that colored differently from each other from 2008). A prevailing Democratic president with a national margin in the high single-digits can carry Indiana (along with Missouri); unlike with Bill Clinton's re-election from 1996.

Why wouldn't it be?  It looks a lot more like Republican states demographically (Kansas, Nebraska, West Virginia, Tennessee) than Democratic states (California, New York, Massachusetts)

I think there are a few big reasons, first there were no large suburban regions that swung to Bill Clinton in the 90s, the Democratic base in the NW near Chicago is not growing and the only Democratic trend is in Indianapolis and the college towns (Lafayette, Muncie, and Bloomington) while countering this small trend, is the Republican trend in the Ohio river counties which used to vote heavily Democratic.

Indiana's sales tax is 7%--Michigan's is 6%.


This is easily the best answer so far.

Indiana does not act like Illinois without Chicago. What I think we have to look at is that the state is at the center of a corn-heavy swath that votes heavily Republican. This region encompasses simply Southeastern Illinois, most of Indiana, and Western Ohio.

Southwestern Illinois votes much more like Missouri than Indiana. Northwest Illinois votes more like Iowa than Indiana. Illinois' downstate cities are also more liberal than Indiana's micro-cities.

Contradictory statement.

What do you consider as Indiana's micro cities?

Probably towns like Bloomington (liberal exception), Terre Haute, Lafayette, Kokomo, and Muncie.

Muncie is somewhat more liberal as well (Ball State) Kokomo is a swing city but when you include the surrounding county it's rather conservative. The city is annexing GOP precincts and I predict it will cost the Dems the mayors office.     

Fort Wayne, Anderson, Muncie, Terre Haute, Kokomo, Evansville, etc.

Compare voting patterns to Champaign, Springfield, Peoria, Bloomington (an exception), Rockford, Moline, etc.