Why is Indiana so damned Republican?

[Jacobtm]

Since the Republican party has been around, it seems that Indiana is almost always a SOLIDLY Republican state in Presidential elections. 

Since the existance of the Republican party, Indiana has voted Democratic in Presidential elections 7 times. 1876, 1884, 1892, 1912, 1932, 1936 and 1964.

I'm not sure of the specifics behind Indiana voting Democratic in the 1800's, but in the 1900's, the 4 elections that they went Democratic were all under extreme circumstances.

In 1912, Roosevelt split the Republican vote, and Wilson won with 43%, while if the Republican vote were united, they would've won with 48%.

Obviously, with the Great Depression, it'd make sense to vote for someone different in '32 and '36, but then in '40 and '44, Indiana quickly changed their mind and began voting Republican again.

In '64 Goldwater only won 6 states. Indiana went with the flow here, but it was only because it was SUCH an extreme landslide that Indiana got swept up.

So what's the deal here? It doesn't even make sense that Indiana would've been particularly pro-Republican during the Civil war and Reconstruction, as there was hardly any sort of Abolitionist movement in Indiana. In fact, I've heard that they were one of the worst Union states in regards to Black rights (besides the slave-holding ones). Hell, one of the times they went Democratic was when James G. Blaine was running, so his rather "liberal" stance on slavery and black rights probably had something to do with it.

Currently, it seems that the reason Indiana is SO Republican can be attributed to the fact that it doesn't have any really large cities. Their largest city, I believe, is Indianapolis, which is home to around 850,000 people. In most states, Republicans tend to do better in rurual areas, while Democrats do better in urban areas, so the distinct lack of large urban areas would seem to predispose Indiana towards being Republican now.

But why should it have been so Republican back in the early part of the 1900's, when the Democrats were all populist and people in the rural areas of the nation loved them?

[tinman64]

Indiana was fairly competitive for Democrats from 1868 to 1916. Starting with Horatio Seymour in 1868, who received almost 49% of the vote there.

Horace Greeley got 46% in 1872; Tilden won it in 1876 (with Hoosier Hendricks as his running mate); Hancock almost 48% in 1880; Cleveland won with Hendricks in 1884, lost it in 1888 (understandably so, since Benjamin Harrison was from Indiana); Cleveland took it back in 1892; Bryan got 48% in 1896 and almost 47% in 1900; 1904 was a Roosevelt year; and, in 1908, despite his worst national defeat in three tries, Bryan came very close to winning with 47%.

So at least during this period, most Democratic candidates averaged around 47-48% in Indiana.  Of course, having Hoosiers like Hendricks and Marshall on four different tickets helped the Dems.  But then, in 1920, Indiana took a sharp turn to the Republicans from which it has rarely wavered.  My estimation is that the rural Republican vote there, as in Ohio, heavily offsets any margins that Democrats might have in more urban areas.

[Adlai Stevenson]

What is interesting though is that in 2004 Indiana and Kentucky were more Republican than many states in the South; i.e., Louisiana, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina were all more Democratic than Indiana.  Why?  Is it because of the higher black percentage there? 

Also, Indiana clearly has more of a Democratic bench than these states do.  I mean that the Democrats have a US Senator; held the Governorship and Legislature from 1988 to 2004 and could unseat two sitting Republican Congressmen this year.  It doesn't seem to add up.

[memphis]

People seem to be asking several different questions here. Indiana is very Republican in recent Presidential races because it is mostly rural, is not adjacent to the Mississippi River or either coast, and has a small black population. Before FDR, the Dems (the party of rum, Romanism and rebellion) did well in the South and in large immigrant cities. Again, this puts into the GOP column. Local races do not line up with national results. Lets not forget that Mississippi has a Democratic majority in its statehouse and that ND has two Democratic senators. It dosn't make any sense to me either, but that's just the way it is.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Take Chicago out of IL and you have Indiana II.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

People seem to forget that the Republican party was not founded as a pro-abolition party, but as an anti-slavery party.  There were a number of northerners who were not against slavery because they thought it was immoral to kepp slaves, but because they did not wish to compete with black labor.  That's why Indiana and several other Midwest States had such strict laws.  They didn't wan't any black to come there and take their jobs, and they didn't care if they were slave or free.

Northerners often tend to convieniently forget their own racist past and present and make the South a scapegoat for all American racism.

[Democratic Hawk]

I read somewhere that Indiana has never been much into social welfare, relative to many other states

Dave

[Republican Michigander]

Indiana only has one real strong union area in Gary and the Chicago burbs. Indianapolis is much less democrat than other large cities. Bloomington isn't as democrat as Ann Arbor.

There's also a large "Butternut" population (and Notre Dame/South Bend area) there which goes for local and more populist democrats, but won't go for the "John Kerry" types.

[Jacobtm]

Northerners often tend to convieniently forget their own racist past and present and make the South a scapegoat for all American racism.

I'm well aware of racism in the north.

There were race riots in Boston as late as the 1970's.

Though the south undeniably much worse. You didn't hear quite so much about lynchings/burnings of random black people in the North, nor quite so much about slavery.

[memphis]

Northerners often tend to convieniently forget their own racist past and present and make the South a scapegoat for all American racism.

I'm well aware of racism in the north.

There were race riots in Boston as late as the 1970's.

Though the south undeniably much worse. You didn't hear quite so much about lynchings/burnings of random black people in the North, nor quite so much about slavery.

The North had lots of slavery although they did abolish it before the South did. Slaves made up 18% of Newport, RI's population at the time of the Revolution. In New York, slaves accounted for about 15% (Jack Greene's Pursuits of Happiness). The textile factories that launched Britain and the North into the Industrial Revolution in the early nineteenth century were dependant upon Southern slave labor. The North had very serious race issues in the 20th century as well, with some of the worst riots in Detroit and Newark. Racial tension is a national issue and pops up wherever there are substantial numbers of both blacks and whites.

[Jacobtm]

Northerners often tend to convieniently forget their own racist past and present and make the South a scapegoat for all American racism.

I'm well aware of racism in the north.

There were race riots in Boston as late as the 1970's.

Though the south undeniably much worse. You didn't hear quite so much about lynchings/burnings of random black people in the North, nor quite so much about slavery.

The North had lots of slavery although they did abolish it before the South did. Slaves made up 18% of Newport, RI's population at the time of the Revolution. In New York, slaves accounted for about 15% (Jack Greene's Pursuits of Happiness). The textile factories that launched Britain and the North into the Industrial Revolution in the early nineteenth century were dependant upon Southern slave labor. The North had very serious race issues in the 20th century as well, with some of the worst riots in Detroit and Newark. Racial tension is a national issue and pops up wherever there are substantial numbers of both blacks and whites.

I know all that, that's why I said you didn't hear quite so much about slavery and lynchings/burnings it in the North as you did in the South. The Noth has a big share of the racism in the U.S., but the South definately has more.

[nclib]

Indiana is very Republican in recent Presidential races because it is mostly rural, is not adjacent to the Mississippi River or either coast, and has a small black population.

Why are states adjacent to the Mississippi River more Democratic?

[nclib]

Take Chicago out of IL and you have Indiana II.

Without Cook County, Illinois would have voted Republican but still less so than Indiana.

[Democratic Hawk]

I often wonder if "rock-solid" Republican states like Indiana (or safe Democratic states for that matter) would be any closer if they weren't 'ignored' during the presidential election cycle

Clinton came relatively close in Indiana, granted there was Perot, but had he spent more time there, assuming he spent some time there, could the result have been different. It was the only Midwest state to evade him - even though it prospered under a Democratic governor at the time

Dave

[PBrunsel]

Indiana was basically to the 1876, 1880, and 1884 elections as Florida was to 2000 and Ohio to 2004. The reason that the Democrats selected such men as Senator Hendricks and newspaperman John English of Indianapolis is because they needed that state, and it was close in '76, '80' and '84 (as well as '88, '92).

The GOP tried equally as hard to keep that state by nominating such well liked Midwesterners for either President or Veep like Hayes, Garfeild, Lowden, Ben Harrison, and McKinley. In 1880 Indiana had considerable voter fraud as the GOP released "Boatmen Jims" to float up and down rivers in Indiana to vote several times.

[muon2]

Take Chicago out of IL and you have Indiana II.

Without Cook County, Illinois would have voted Republican but still less so than Indiana.

Consider the 2004 presidential election.

In IL, without the 7-county Chicagoland area, the vote was 55% Bush.
In IN, without the 3 Chicagoland counties on the lake, the vote was 63% Bush.
In OH, without the counties on Lake Erie or in the east near PA, the vote was 58% Bush.

Western and central OH is probably a better political match to IN than downstate IL. Even if one excludes the western part of IL from Rock Island to Peoria to the St. Louis suburbs (51% D), the vote only climbs to 56% Bush.

[Gustaf]

I find it funny that Indiana voted with the South against the Midwest and Northeast back in the Gilded Age, just like today (different margins, but still).

[skybridge]

They're too conservative to have daylight savings time.

[minionofmidas]

They're too conservative to have daylight savings time.

That's one thing they're doing right.

[skybridge]

They're too conservative to have daylight savings time.

That's one thing they're doing right.

It makes sense in Arizona--but Indiana?

[jokerman]

People seem to forget that the Republican party was not founded as a pro-abolition party, but as an anti-slavery party.  There were a number of northerners who were not against slavery because they thought it was immoral to kepp slaves, but because they did not wish to compete with black labor.  That's why Indiana and several other Midwest States had such strict laws.  They didn't wan't any black to come there and take their jobs, and they didn't care if they were slave or free.

Northerners often tend to convieniently forget their own racist past and present and make the South a scapegoat for all American racism.

Agreed.  The common phrase I've heard is
"in the South they don't care if they [blacks] live near them, as long as they don't get uppity; in the North they don't care if they get uppity, as long as they don't live near them"

[Beet]

People seem to forget that the Republican party was not founded as a pro-abolition party, but as an anti-slavery party.  There were a number of northerners who were not against slavery because they thought it was immoral to kepp slaves, but because they did not wish to compete with black labor.  That's why Indiana and several other Midwest States had such strict laws.  They didn't wan't any black to come there and take their jobs, and they didn't care if they were slave or free.

Northerners often tend to convieniently forget their own racist past and present and make the South a scapegoat for all American racism.

Agreed.  The common phrase I've heard is
"in the South they don't care if they [blacks] live near them, as long as they don't get uppity; in the North they don't care if they get uppity, as long as they don't live near them"

So, according to one common explanation of the term, a variation of 'latte liberalism' was indirectly responsible for the emancipation proclaimation.

[Sam Spade]

They're too conservative to have daylight savings time.

That's one thing they're doing right.

They just enacted a law mandating it in April 2005.  I don't like it either.

[minionofmidas]

They're too conservative to have daylight savings time.

That's one thing they're doing right.

It makes sense in Arizona--but Indiana?

DST doesn't make sense anywhere if you ask me...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

DST doesn't make sense anywhere if you ask me...

^^^