Who Turned My Blue State Red?

[HillOfANight]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/opinion/sunday/who-turned-my-blue-state-red.html?_r=0

Good read. Basic message is that lots of voters that benefited from a safety net are now shunning those that are using them, because they're not "those people" anymore. It's not just a racial thing, also looks at drug abusers in rural towns. If safety nets were seen as safety nets and not giveaways, could make Democrats look more palatable to people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Devils30]

It isn't just Democratic voters not voting, these areas have low turnout rates but many Gore/Kerry voters were social conservatives who finally switched to the GOP for good.

[Bismarck]

Yes. Democrats are actually the majority they just don't vote enough. And those that do vote are actually democrats too they just hate poor people enough to vote for democrats.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely - let's start with compulsory voting for them.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

This is why we need to make voting compulsory.

[The Free North]

This is why we need to make voting compulsory.

Dear lord no, what an awful idea.

If people can't be bothered to walk to a polling station you cant complain. If you dont like the way the country is going but dont vote, even if your economic interests are at stake, you are an absolute moron.

[Adam Griffin]

This is why we need to make voting compulsory.

Dear lord no, what an awful idea.

If people can't be bothered to walk to a polling station you cant complain. If you dont like the way the country is going but dont vote, even if your economic interests are at stake, you are an absolute moron.

You seem to make the horribly inaccurate assumption that the percentage of voters who are idiots is lower than the percentage of non-voters who are idiots and/or the horribly inaccurate assumption that effort = intelligence.

[Mr. Morden]

MacGillis needs to read "Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State".  Yes, poorer states like Kentucky tend to vote Republican.  But it's the higher income people in those poorer states who are the most likely to vote Republican.  Poor states are highly polarized in voting habits by income level, whereas rich states aren't.  Here are the maps by income level for the 2008 election:



Many states didn't have exit polls in 2012, so I guess it's impossible to make the same map for that election, but is there any reason to believe that this has changed?

[DS0816]

This is why we need to make voting compulsory.

Dear lord no, what an awful idea.

If people can't be bothered to walk to a polling station you cant complain. If you dont like the way the country is going but dont vote, even if your economic interests are at stake, you are an absolute moron.

A lot of people not voting are choosing to not vote. They don't feel their participation is worth their time because their vote doesn't make a difference.

[Clark Kent]

MacGillis needs to read "Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State".  Yes, poorer states like Kentucky tend to vote Republican.  But it's the higher income people in those poorer states who are the most likely to vote Republican.  Poor states are highly polarized in voting habits by income level, whereas rich states aren't.  Here are the maps by income level for the 2008 election:



Many states didn't have exit polls in 2012, so I guess it's impossible to make the same map for that election, but is there any reason to believe that this has changed?

Is it just me, or did New Hampshirites making between $40000 and $75000 vote Republican, but New Hampshirites making between $75000 and $100000 voted Democratic?

[Eomer]

Many states didn't have exit polls in 2012, so I guess it's impossible to make the same map for that election, but is there any reason to believe that this has changed?

I'd guess the 4 Appalachian States should also be colored red in poorest section now.

[Lord of the Dome]

This is why we need to make voting compulsory.

Dear lord no, what an awful idea.

If people can't be bothered to walk to a polling station you cant complain. If you dont like the way the country is going but dont vote, even if your economic interests are at stake, you are an absolute moron.

You seem to make the horribly inaccurate assumption that the percentage of voters who are idiots is lower than the percentage of non-voters who are idiots and/or the horribly inaccurate assumption that effort = intelligence.

I don't care about any of that, but please don't make me vote if I don't want to, especially not every 2 years. I can name 50 other things you could do to boost turnout rather than forcing people to vote.

Yes, the horror.

[Nym90]

Lower turnout is absolutely part of the story, but the total number of Republican votes has also increased dramatically in these Appalachian areas, too, not just the percentage.

[Young Conservative]

This is why we need to make voting compulsory.

That's unconstitutional and it still wouldn't change the outcome of an election in Kentucky.

[HillOfANight]

MacGillis needs to read "Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State".  Yes, poorer states like Kentucky tend to vote Republican.  But it's the higher income people in those poorer states who are the most likely to vote Republican.  Poor states are highly polarized in voting habits by income level, whereas rich states aren't.  Here are the maps by income level for the 2008 election:



Many states didn't have exit polls in 2012, so I guess it's impossible to make the same map for that election, but is there any reason to believe that this has changed?

Interesting chart. I wonder how it would look further segmented by race and income? I would make a wild guess that a lot more whites around $20k probably didn't vote for Obama (nor Gore or Kerry btw).

[RINO Tom]

MacGillis needs to read "Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State".  Yes, poorer states like Kentucky tend to vote Republican.  But it's the higher income people in those poorer states who are the most likely to vote Republican.  Poor states are highly polarized in voting habits by income level, whereas rich states aren't.  Here are the maps by income level for the 2008 election:



Many states didn't have exit polls in 2012, so I guess it's impossible to make the same map for that election, but is there any reason to believe that this has changed?

Interesting chart. I wonder how it would look further segmented by race and income? I would make a wild guess that a lot more whites around $20k probably didn't vote for Obama (nor Gore or Kerry btw).

I'd say they might not have voted for Obama, but they almost certainly voted for Gore.

[Adam Griffin]

This is why we need to make voting compulsory.

Dear lord no, what an awful idea.

If people can't be bothered to walk to a polling station you cant complain. If you dont like the way the country is going but dont vote, even if your economic interests are at stake, you are an absolute moron.

You seem to make the horribly inaccurate assumption that the percentage of voters who are idiots is lower than the percentage of non-voters who are idiots and/or the horribly inaccurate assumption that effort = intelligence.

I don't care about any of that, but please don't make me vote if I don't want to, especially not every 2 years. I can name 50 other things you could do to boost turnout rather than forcing people to vote.

And if any of them worked substantially, political operatives from both parties across the country would be utilizing them.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

This is why we need to make voting compulsory.

Dear lord no, what an awful idea.

If people can't be bothered to walk to a polling station you cant complain. If you dont like the way the country is going but dont vote, even if your economic interests are at stake, you are an absolute moron.

You seem to make the horribly inaccurate assumption that the percentage of voters who are idiots is lower than the percentage of non-voters who are idiots and/or the horribly inaccurate assumption that effort = intelligence.

He's right.  The uninformed typically don't vote.  It's the 10% who decide elections who make up the uninformed voters and typically that 10% will be slightly divided in favor of the winner each time.  If people don't care, then they shouldn't vote. What's wrong? Losing seats in the house and now you're going to change the rules?

[Adam Griffin]

This is why we need to make voting compulsory.

Dear lord no, what an awful idea.

If people can't be bothered to walk to a polling station you cant complain. If you dont like the way the country is going but dont vote, even if your economic interests are at stake, you are an absolute moron.

You seem to make the horribly inaccurate assumption that the percentage of voters who are idiots is lower than the percentage of non-voters who are idiots and/or the horribly inaccurate assumption that effort = intelligence.

I don't care about any of that, but please don't make me vote if I don't want to, especially not every 2 years. I can name 50 other things you could do to boost turnout rather than forcing people to vote.

And if any of them worked substantially, political operatives from both parties across the country would be utilizing them.

I would support making Election Day a federal paid holiday, which would help. What you really have to do is get people excited to vote, which would happen if we either changed the voting system to an IRV or similar model. Also we would end the Voter ID laws.

Voter ID laws are not substantially impacting turnout: there, I said it. Maybe ever-so-slightly around the margins (in the case of 95 year-old women in the South), sure, but the vast, vast majority of people without government-issued photo IDs are the ones who never bothered entering a voting booth even before such requirements existed and who wouldn't if the requirements were lifted. In my own state, the first presidential election (and I believe the first election period) in which photo ID was in effect fully was an election in which the black share of the electorate jumped by 5 points compared to the previous presidential election (from 25% of voters to 30% of voters) and 6 points compared to two years prior. Obviously, enthusiasm was not countered by the requirement of an ID.

We have a better chance at making voting compulsory than we do at making IRV a reality in this country. One party largely supports compulsory voting to a degree. Neither party supports jeopardizing its electoral existence by birthing IRV.

Providing a "federal paid holiday" in and of itself wouldn't guarantee that people do what the specific holiday is designed to do, and I highly doubt it would result in any major behavioral changes. There are a variety of state-level accommodations across the country designed to generate a comparable interest (again with my state, which provides up to two hours guaranteed by law for individuals to take off work in order to go vote - how often do people take their civic duty seriously even with such an accommodation provided?). People would just find some excuse to celebrate or eat a bunch of fatty foods without actually participating in the act for which the holiday is designated.

Excitement for an election can be generated by ensuring that the maximum number of people participate in the process and have a vested interest in making the right decision. That is only going to happen if people are required to vote. Of course, we can provide an "opt-out" in the form of a penalty like we do for other things...such as a relinquishment of your federal tax refund for the year if you choose to make a principled statement or whatever (however, considering that a disproportionate number of those currently not voting probably don't have much to worry about here, a direct fine may be a worth appropriate route).

[Ebsy]

Compulsory voting would easy enough policy-wise to do. Just get cities controlled by Democrats to move their municipal elections to the first Tuesday after the first Monday during presidential election years and make voting compulsory. Of course, getting local governments to give up their ridiculously pro-incumbent low turnout municipal elections might be a bit rough, but it would be much easier than getting something through Congress.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Larry Sabato began writing about the split between "Traditional America" and "Tolerant America" after the 2000 election.  The 2000 election was the first election that was not a Democratic blowout where a number of swing states swung to the GOP for good.  In this category, I would name KY, WV, MO, TN, AR, and LA.  This trend increased in 2004, when IA switched to the GOP, but NH switched back to the Democrats.  Sabato notes that the Democrats in the states switching to the GOP were more likely to be churchgoers, gun owners, and more likely to hold conservative views on social issues across the board (Traditional America) and tended to be more hawkish, whereas independents and Republicans in places like NH were more likely to be pro-choice, not likely to be gun owners, more dovish.  The Southern states that have trended Democratic since that time (VA, FL, NC) are states where there is a growth in the non-Southern white populations of those states.

What Sabato missed, IMO, was the impact of the Environmentalist Al Gore as the Democrats' Presidential nominee.  I would argue that Gore's loss in KY, WV, LA, and TN had something to do with Gore's anti-fossil fuels record, and his anti-tobacco record.  Tobacco and coal were/are major sources of employment in the states mentioned, except for LA, which is an oil state.  On the other hand, FL, which was one of the most pro-Reagan states in 1984, became a swing state in part because FL as a core of voters that are conservative on many issues, but environmentally sensitive, in ways that don't apply to the rest of the South and Border States.  The Democrats are now the Environmentalist party, period, and Obama has boosted that aspect of today's Democratic party in coal country.