Why Indiana is so conservative ?

[Jyrki]

Indiana is a Northern conservative state. That's odd...
Kerry can win New Hampshire and Ohio but he can't win Indiana (unless he get Evan Bayh as his VP). Why ?

Gore-Bush was the most significant "North-South divide" of the last fifty years.
The division between the Right (South) and the Left (North) is the same since Lincoln in 1860. If you look at the electoral map of 1896 and at the one of 2000 (below), you'll see that the right-wing states and the left-wing states have not changed (the Republican party and the Democratic party switching positions).
...With a big exception : Indiana.
Indiana is extremely conservative while Michigan, Illinois and Ohio are centrist or liberal.
- In the 1920s, nationally, Indiana was said to have the most powerful Ku Klux Klan. It counted a high number of members statewide and its importance peaked in the 1924 election of Edward Jackson for governor.
- Indiana voted against FDR in 1940 and 1944 and against Kennedy in 1960.
- This state has supported the republican nominee in every election since the landslide of Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

How do you explain this ?
Why Illinois and Indiana are so different ?

1860 :

1896 :

2000:

[Jyrki]

Indiana is a Northern conservative state. That's odd...

No it isn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because GOP loyalties stretch back to the Civil War

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not true

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not true. Besides Lincoln was quite conservative (whereas Robert E. Lee was a liberal)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure... the Corn Belt is very conservative... but that extends into Illinois, Ohio, etc.
The Gary-Hammond area is strongly Democrat BTW

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Civil War+Cornbelt=GOP

Don't lose my time with post like this, please.
"Because GOP loyalties stretch back to the Civil War"
And not New Hampshire maybe ??!

[Jyrki]

Do you think that in the future if the Democratic nominee was from Indianna or the VP, could they win it, assuming the political situation is the same or similar.

Siege40

I think they could... but they probably won't  
It's a long shot, even with Evan Bayh.

[Jyrki]

There were a lot of very interesting replies : I really learned a lot from this thread.
I'd like to thank siege40, muon2, kghadial, gustaf and staterights for their input. I'm impressed.

To summarize, there are two big explanations :
Indiana = Illinois - Chicago
Indiana is more Southern than the other Northern states

They're good explanations and they work well together.
Although, I'm not 100 % satisfied.
The border states like Kentucky and Missouri are more Southern than Indiana. They voted more "progressive" in recent elections (more Gore, less Bush, less Dole, more Dukakis, more Mondale, less Reagan,...)
Actually, the margin between the republican candidate and the democratic candidate has been higher for Indiana since 1912 !
If you look at the demographics, the black vote and the big cities are not significantly different.
So........................... Why ?

[Jyrki]

There were a lot of very interesting replies : I really learned a lot from this thread.
I'd like to thank siege40, muon2, kghadial, gustaf and staterights for their input. I'm impressed.

To summarize, there are two big explanations :
Indiana = Illinois - Chicago
Indiana is more Southern than the other Northern states

They're good explanations and they work well together.
Although, I'm not 100 % satisfied.
The border states like Kentucky and Missouri are more Southern than Indiana. They voted more "progressive" in recent elections (more Gore, less Bush, less Dole, more Dukakis, more Mondale, less Reagan,...)
Actually, the margin between the republican candidate and the democratic candidate has been higher for Indiana since 1912 !
If you look at the demographics, the black vote and the big cities are not significantly different.
So........................... Why ?

Well...you have to keep in mind though that the Dems used to have the South, so being more Southern worked for the Dems for a long time. Unless I'm mistaken the difference between Indiana and Kentucky wasn't very big last election?

You're right, the South voted for the Dems before 1964.
But the southern states (including the border state named Kentucky almost every time) voted more Bush jr, less Nader, less Gore, more Dole, less Clinton (96), less Perot (92 & 96), more Bush sr (92), less Dukakis and less Mondale than northern states did. While Indiana voted more like that than Kentucky (and Missouri), by a little margin in 2000 but usually by a big one in the previous elections.
You can check it on this site.

Indiana is really a state like no other. It's strange...
KY has no big city and about the same percentage of black people. Why the northern folks of Indiana voted more "southern" than the southern folks of Kentucky ? Why Indiana voted more conservative than all the other northern states (with the possible exception of New Hampshire) ?

[Jyrki]

The most conservative part of Indiana is the Corn Belt (which extends into Ohio) and has been loyally Republican for 140 years.

---
Doesn't Louisville count as a "big city"?

Not compared to Indianapolis. But you can count it... and you should count Fort Wayne for Indiana. It's a tie, at best.

[Jyrki]

It's got it's own Congressional District.

Kentucky is poorer than Indiania, BTW

Where can I find a map on the web with states ranked by poverty (or by median income) ?
Do Poorer states vote always more democratic ?

[Jyrki]

The most conservative part of Indiana is the Corn Belt (which extends into Ohio) and has been loyally Republican for 140 years.

Where can I find a map of the Corn Belt ? Thank you.

[Jyrki]

Indiana is so conservative for one simple reason:

It's the south, without the African-Americans.

Admittedly the northern lake area counties are part of the North and thus make Indiana a little closer to the center than the deep south (Carolinas, Georgia minus Atlanta, ala. , miss. , etc. ) if they all of a sudden lost all their African Americans.

Ohio and Illinois is much the same but they have far larger areas where the white folk are northern white folk, rather than southern white folk. Sorry if that seems offensive, but there really isn't a better way to put it, each minority type varies somewhat by region but caucasians vary wildly by region, some whites are new england liberals, and some are bible belt conservatives and the midwest is where they mix .

My theory on the Klan being so strong in Indiana is that they found it to be a haven of like minded people without too many of the people they hated (er ... still hate) being around.

This sounds about right. There certainly are southern whites who live in the North, and visa versa. The suburbs of Chicago fit in with the North, but most of the state fits in with the South.

What I find interesting is why is the Fort Wayne area so conservative. I've never been there, but I didn't think it was at all southern.

I don't think Ill. (w/o Chicago) and Ind. are comparable politically. Gore would have still won Illinois without Chicago.

As Kghadial said, IL goes to Bush in 2000 without Chicago or Cook Co. Without Cook, Bush wins 1,484,591 to 1,308,041, a comfortable margin. If only the city of Chicago is removed, Bush still wins by 1,862,189 to 1,834,305. All Democrats know they need a big margin in Cook (Gore was +750,000) to offset the rest of the state.

Where did you find these numbers ?

A lot of states vote republican outside their big cities. What would be New York without New York ? Republican ? (frightening)
If you take Philadelphia out of Pennsylvania, is Pennsylvania becoming "solid Bush country" ?

Thank god for the big cities  

[Jyrki]

also, I think comparing Indiana to the south is innacurrate. While it may share the same social conservatism as the south, it is not the same politically or culturally. The strip running across Kentucky is much like the south and was heavily Democratic in the "solid south" days, but the Corn Belt like Al has always mentioned has ALWAYS been Republican. But let's backtrack to the 1860's. Back then, the whole Midwest was Republican. Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa and even Minnesota were all Republican strongholds (although Minnesota and Wisconsin have always been pretty progressive states, the Teddy Roosevelt brand of Republicanism is light years away from the current. I would still consider these states to be liberal. Woodrow Wilson, the most progressive President of the era [despite his terrible racism] almost won Minnesota and let's not forget Robert LaFollette.) Indiana was actually the least Republican state of the region and basically a swing, due to the southern strip. Then during the New Deal, all the other states that I mentioned started to switch. Indiana was just left behind, probably due to the fact it wasn't as industrial heavy as those, and has always been more socially conservative.

So in a way, Indiana is much like Arkansas, Louisiana and New Hampshire, it just didn't change with the rest of the region. However even those states are starting to fall in line, and I don't see the same happening to Louisiana.

You mean Indiana ?

[Jyrki]

Alaskans probably get isolation pay as they do in Northern Canada. It's quite a lot from what I understand. Also most jobs in Alaska are mineral/ore related and usually pay very well.

As for Indiana, it's conservative simply because it's rural. Gary is heavily democratic, but it's population is very small. Indianapolis is heavily outvoted by it's suburbs.

Some states are more rural than Indiana AND less conservative. It's a bit too simple