Why are US tourism areas leaning Dem?

[Franknburger]

In several threads, such as this one on the Berkshires or this one on the Rockies, people have given tourism as argument for certain rural areas leaning/swinging Dem.

For me, as a European, this was somehow surprising. At least in Germany, tourism areas tend to vote conservative:
a.) Their economic base is predominantly small business (smaller hotels, restaurants, souvenir shops, tourism service providers, craftsmen working in refurbishment/repair, etc.),
b.) They tend to have low rates of college graduates (though you may find quite a number of college drop-outs, e.g. the wind-surfer turned into windsurfing trainer),
c.) They tend to function as pensioners' retreat (not to the extent as is Florida, but still) and/or, in case they are within commuting distance to major cities, as upper middle-class exurbs,
d.) Conflicts between tourism and environmental protection (e.g. kite surfers vs. bird watchers, restriction on expanding housing or ski areas) tend to promote a negative view on environmentalism and may especially keep the Greens from gaining traction.
From an unsystematic scan of European election maps, similar patterns seem to exist in other European countries, e.g. Italy.

Against this background,  am interested in the following:
a.) Is it really true that in the US, tourism areas tend to lean Dem, or does that only apply to a certain subset (e.g. inland / sports / eco-tourism)?
b.) If so, what are the underlying factors?
c.) What patterns exist in other European countries, e.g. Denmark, Sweden, UK, France, Italy and Spain?

[Sol]

Depends on the industry. Ski areas, as is generally the case in the rockies, tends to be quite left-wing. Tourist areas also have many low income  service people who form a significant bloc. There are also some places that cater to a white liberal clientele (sometimes LGBT) , such as Key West. It think this is also the case in Western Mass.

Beaches often are quite conservative though. There is usually a retiree element.

[old timey villain]

A lot of the coastal areas in Florida are very Republican, like the Florida panhandle. I can think of a few others

1) North Georgia mountains. They're not an international draw, but certainly a regional draw and have a large tourism industry. Same with the Smokies. Basically most of the southern Appalachians from VA to GA are very Republican.

2) Desert areas like the grand canyon and monument valley. Any of those areas that might vote Dem do so because of a large Native American population.

3) The badlands of South Dakota (Mount Rushmore)

4) Yellowstone and wilderness regions of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho

5) The Jersey Shore is certainly more Republican than most of Jersey

6) Did I mention panama city??

Of course many of the biggest tourism draws in America are the big cities, but they don't lean Dem because they get lots of tourists. They lean Dem because they're cities.

[barfbag]

I don't know if they all are. Disney World used to be Republican and now it leans Democratic in Orange County. It could be people tend to move to tourist areas leading to an increase in population setting up a city like atmosphere which is all the right demographics and geographics needed for successful Democrats. I happen to live near more Republican tourist areas, but they're historical sites. Amusement parks would probably tend to be more liberal.

[TDAS04]

The Black Hills region is South Dakota is very conservative, but is quite touristy.  It even has skiing. 

[memphis]

Most natural tourism spots (mountains, beaches, etc) are not liberal. Cities like Las Vegas and Orlando have large minority populations.

[Linus Van Pelt]

There is definitely a difference between the US and Europe in the voting patterns of elite ski resorts. There are some threads about this somewhere, I believe. It probably has to do in part with the general cultural tone of US politics, and in part with the fact that the Rockies resorts are too far from any populated agricultural area to draw many local rural employees.

Overall, though, I agree with the others that tourism areas are not particularly Democratic. Even in MA, the most tourism-oriented area is Cape Cod (Barnstable County), which is a bit more Republican than the state average.

[tpfkaw]

Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard (Dukes County) are even more touristy than Cape Cod and are extremely Democratic.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard (Dukes County) are even more touristy than Cape Cod and are extremely Democratic.

Right, fair enough.

[barfbag]

It also really depends on the surrounding regions. Tourist areas won't be too red though because their advantages lead to higher populations.

[Person Man]

from my experience, tourist areas seem to reflect where they get their most people from. For example the beaches of Southwest Florida seem to attract people from the same place that the Panhandle draws from. However nice beaches are expensive and draw the more international the crowd. This is where you get a lot of multicultural people, relatively disadvantaged, even if they are modestly wealthy by most standards, people and people from big cities. The Huffington Post crowd. The more regional and less expensive places tend to draw people from rural and white places where everyone makes about the same amount of money. The Trace Atkins and Fox News crowd.

[BaldEagle1991]

from my experience, tourist areas seem to reflect where they get their most people from. For example the beaches of Southwest Florida seem to attract people from the same place that the Panhandle draws from. However nice beaches are expensive and draw the more international the crowd. This is where you get a lot of multicultural people, relatively disadvantaged, even if they are modestly wealthy by most standards, people and people from big cities. The Huffington Post crowd. The more regional and less expensive places tend to draw people from rural and white places where everyone makes about the same amount of money. The Trace Atkins and Fox News crowd.

This could explain in my state why Galveston is Republican leaning, and yet the beaches of South Padre Island are Democratic leaning. You're pretty right about that.

However there is a strong GOP lean on historical tourist spots.

[Person Man]

from my experience, tourist areas seem to reflect where they get their most people from. For example the beaches of Southwest Florida seem to attract people from the same place that the Panhandle draws from. However nice beaches are expensive and draw the more international the crowd. This is where you get a lot of multicultural people, relatively disadvantaged, even if they are modestly wealthy by most standards, people and people from big cities. The Huffington Post crowd. The more regional and less expensive places tend to draw people from rural and white places where everyone makes about the same amount of money. The Trace Atkins and Fox News crowd.

This could explain in my state why Galveston is Republican leaning, and yet the beaches of South Padre Island are Democratic leaning. You're pretty right about that.

However there is a strong GOP lean on historical tourist spots.

When it comes to who is attracted to which tourist destination, historical don't matter. What matters is how diverse a place is in terms of class and race.

If its a place that generally attracts families with young kids from a couple hundred miles away to stay in 1-star and 2-star motels and motor inns from places where there is very little poverty but six figures is considered "rich" and anyone who is half-Italian is considered "ethnic", then yeah. That place will be 55%, if not 65% Republican.

Here's a picture of such a place




On the other hand, if the place generally attracts people under 35 from places across the world where the slums are right next door to $10 million dollar penthouses to either come camp right out on the beach or to stay in  4, 5 and 6 star hotels, any Republican who can get more than 40% of the vote is either the next Ronald Reagan or the biggest RINO ever.

Here's a picture of such a place

[cheesepizza]

Tourism relies on low-skilled service-sector workers, many of whom are minorities, and most of whom earn a small amount of income.  Both factors lead to tourist-y areas to vote Democratic. 

[Person Man]

Tourism relies on low-skilled service-sector workers, many of whom are minorities, and most of whom earn a small amount of income.  Both factors lead to tourist-y areas to vote Democratic. 

So places that are more mom and pop, its just an owner and a handful of employees in a business so small the dozen or so employees are directly affected by the welfare of the employer. Hence, everyone shares eachother's interests. In bigger and more expensive places, a place could have hundreds, if not thousands of employees. Some of the owners will be less concerned about the bottom line and more concerned about being a good global citizen. Many of the employees will think they can do better than what their employers are willing to offer on their own without hurting the bottom line.

[RedSLC]

Areas that are close national parks can sometimes have environmentalist sympathies that make them more willing to vote D than the surrounding areas. Not all of the time, but at least some of the time.

This was the explanation I found for several sparsely-populated precincts in southern Utah that voted for Obama in 2008, despite having low minority populations. Even in 2012, Obama won three very small precincts in heavily republican Washington County, all of which were right next to Zion National Park. There's also Grand County, which Obama won in 2008, and Ralph Nader got nearly 15% of the vote in 2000.

[RedSLC]

from my experience, tourist areas seem to reflect where they get their most people from. For example the beaches of Southwest Florida seem to attract people from the same place that the Panhandle draws from. However nice beaches are expensive and draw the more international the crowd. This is where you get a lot of multicultural people, relatively disadvantaged, even if they are modestly wealthy by most standards, people and people from big cities. The Huffington Post crowd. The more regional and less expensive places tend to draw people from rural and white places where everyone makes about the same amount of money. The Trace Atkins and Fox News crowd.

This could explain in my state why Galveston is Republican leaning, and yet the beaches of South Padre Island are Democratic leaning. You're pretty right about that.

However there is a strong GOP lean on historical tourist spots.

Galveston County is GOP, but Galveston proper is actually dem-leaning (Obama won it in 2008, and likely in 2012 as well, since it would have had to swing more than the county for Romney to win it.)

EDIT: I have just confirmed that Obama won Galveston in 2012 by looking at the Galveston County precinct results. The city was 53.1% for Obama.

[barfbag]

Tourism relies on low-skilled service-sector workers, many of whom are minorities, and most of whom earn a small amount of income.  Both factors lead to tourist-y areas to vote Democratic. 

So places that are more mom and pop, its just an owner and a handful of employees in a business so small the dozen or so employees are directly affected by the welfare of the employer. Hence, everyone shares eachother's interests. In bigger and more expensive places, a place could have hundreds, if not thousands of employees. Some of the owners will be less concerned about the bottom line and more concerned about being a good global citizen. Many of the employees will think they can do better than what their employers are willing to offer on their own without hurting the bottom line.

These are both very true. I've worked at bigger companies where workers have been given perks and bonuses to stay when competition has moved in. I've also worked at places where we didn't get paid because the owner had to pay bills and go Christmas shopping.

[Person Man]

Tourism relies on low-skilled service-sector workers, many of whom are minorities, and most of whom earn a small amount of income.  Both factors lead to tourist-y areas to vote Democratic. 

So places that are more mom and pop, its just an owner and a handful of employees in a business so small the dozen or so employees are directly affected by the welfare of the employer. Hence, everyone shares eachother's interests. In bigger and more expensive places, a place could have hundreds, if not thousands of employees. Some of the owners will be less concerned about the bottom line and more concerned about being a good global citizen. Many of the employees will think they can do better than what their employers are willing to offer on their own without hurting the bottom line.

These are both very true. I've worked at bigger companies where workers have been given perks and bonuses to stay when competition has moved in. I've also worked at places where we didn't get paid because the owner had to pay bills and go Christmas shopping.

I knew guys like that and was kind of that owner when I ran things for my dad during the Great Recession. At first it was just to help him through his divorce and legal problems while I looked for a job and took the bar (you don't get too many job offers to do law as an eccentric 23 year old Democrat in Wyoming when the Unemployment rate in 10%), but it turned into something bigger and I  had to give up on the bar to totally run things and when I did all could with the accounts being drained by his ex around the time  I came down, I decided to go back west to do something that people actually needed doing. When you are kind of at that level of a middle class amateur entrapaneur, you aren't that removed from your employees. I don't if that experience was supposed to make me more Republican, but certain people learn different things from their lives at different times, I guess.

[Skill and Chance]

I think we are underestimating the impact of environmental issues on the ski resorts.  There are probably more single-issue climate change voters there than anywhere else in the country.  These people go into the voting booth thinking about snow, either because their livelihood depends on it (resort owners and employees) or because they don't have any other worries in life (wealthy patrons/retirees).  A similar trend might be expected to develop over time on the Florida beaches.  In Europe, where global warming and the environment in general is much less of a left-right issue, these people would be conservatives.

[cheesepizza]

I think we are underestimating the impact of environmental issues on the ski resorts.  There are probably more single-issue climate change voters there than anywhere else in the country.  These people go into the voting booth thinking about snow, either because their livelihood depends on it (resort owners and employees) or because they don't have any other worries in life (wealthy patrons/retirees).  A similar trend might be expected to develop over time on the Florida beaches.  In Europe, where global warming and the environment in general is much less of a left-right issue, these people would be conservatives.

  indeed, though theme parks trend dem for other reasons mentioned above.

[Franknburger]

Thanks for the answers provided so far, guys.

If I understand correctly, in general there is not much of a difference between how tourist areas vote in the US and in Europe - both tend to lean conservative.  There are of course the cities, which lean to the left. But that applies to the USA (Las Vegas, NYC, South-East Florida) and Europe (or at least Germany - Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Lübeck) alike. And the US have some "urban" seaside resorts, densely populated and with large hotels, that as well lean left.

There are a few exceptions from these general rules: First there are places that are primarily catering for an up-scale urban, often also gay, clientele, and lean Democrat. The Berkshires, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket and Galveston have been named as US examples. In fact, the same can be found in Germany - the East Frisian island of Wangerooge, e.g, voted almost 60% red-green in the 2013 Lower Saxony state election. Wangerooge, as neighbouring Spiekeroog (also majority red-green), is car-free and as such attracting a special clientele. The two neighbouring islands, Baltrum and Juist, where cars are allowed, still went solidly CDU-FDP.

The other exception are ski resorts, which (a) unlike in Europe, don't have much of an agricultural tradition / base, and (b) may be voting strongly on environmental/ climate change issues. In fact, such a trend may as well exist in Europe (Tender / Hash - if you read this,  please help out here with some Austrian and French data!)

So, after all, the US and Europe don't seem to be that different when it comes to tourism...

[Hash]

(Tender / Hash - if you read this,  please help out here with some Austrian and French data!)

I'll try to put something together, with ski resorts and coastal/beach resorts.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

They are?  I live in a tourism area that's very heavily Republican (granted, it's also a very conservative, religious farming community, but still...)

[cheesepizza]

They are?  I live in a tourism area that's very heavily Republican (granted, it's also a very conservative, religious farming community, but still...)

Most tourism areas don't fit this description.