In hindsight, Indiana going for Obama isn't that shocking

[pragmatic liberal]

Indiana has a longstanding reputation as a Republican bastion. It's a reputation that is well earned. In 2000, Bush beat Al Gore 57-42. In 2004, he beat John Kerry 60-39.

Yet in November of this year, in a development few would have foreseen less than a year earlier, Indiana went Democratic, voting for Barack Obama by a 50-49 margin. Indiana's swing was the largest one in the country except for Hawaii.

Yet in hindsight, the fact that Indiana went to Obama shouldn't be that surprising. Let's deconstruct the numbers:

In 2000, Bush got 57 points in Indiana versus 48 points nationally, meaning Indiana in 2000 was R +9.

In 2004, Bush got 60 points in Indiana versus 51 points nationally, meaning Indiana was against R +9.

This year, McCain got 49 points in Indiana and about 46 points nationally, meaning Indiana was R +3.

For Indiana to fall from +9 to +3 isn't really that odd. Consider the following:

* Democrats haven't seriously contested the presidential race in Indiana since 1948. At least some of the Republicans' lopsided margins came from the fact that the Democratic vote in Indiana was completely un-mobilized. Indeed, Indiana historically had one of the lowest turnouts during presidential years. It isn't unreasonable to wonder if the real Republican lean in Indiana has historically been somewhat less than R +9; with better Democratic turnout it would probably have been R +5 or R +6.

* For Obama to reduce that from R+5 to R+3 is very easy to see, given the conditions of 2008:

- A terrible local economy that has been in recession for much of the past year.

- An increasingly unpopular war and a lot of "bring them home" sentiment in a state with a large number of men and women in uniform.

- A Republican campaign that never enthused the Republican base.

- A Democratic candidate who hailed from the Mid-West. (Hoosiers are fairly parochial; they're distrustful of coastal types and easterners but in much of Central and Northern Indiana they're also a little disdainful of Southerners.)

- An extremely intense Democratic GOTV campaign; the Republicans had nothing, hoping to call a bluff.

- The "southernification" of the GOP: though Indiana is conservative, it's a more tempered conservativism than the evangelical-infused populist conservatism of the South. Indiana is largely mainline Protestant and Catholic and the archetypal Indiana Republican is Dick Lugar. There's a big continent of main-street conservatives in the state, many of whom may still tend to vote Republican but voted Democratic this year over the war and fiscal issues. And though the culture wars are at play here, they aren't quite as intense in Indiana as they are in the South.

Given all those factors, it's not hard to see how the state could go from, say, a natural +5 Republican tilt to a +3 Republican tilt.

I'll add a point I've made elsewhere: in terms of political geography, political culture, and demographics, the state Indiana most resembles is Ohio.

The regions of the state break down similarly to Ohio's: Southern Indiana, like Southern Ohio, is much like Appalachia and Kentucky; Central Indiana is similar to Central Ohio; and Northern Indiana is a little bit like Northern Ohio, with a big Democratic vote bank in the Lake Michigan region.

In terms of their presidential votes, Ohio and Indiana correlated pretty strongly for much of history. In fact, Ohio actually voted more Republican than Indiana as late as 1952. If you look back at election results, the first major divergence between Indiana and Ohio occurred in 1964: Goldwater did 7 points better in Indiana than in Ohio (44% of the vote in Indiana, 37% in Ohio). In 1968, continuing the trend, Nixon did 5 points better in Indiana than Ohio (45% in Ohio, 50% in Indiana).

If Ohio -- which is a relatively conservative state -- can regularly be a swing state, there's no reason Indiana can't be an at least occasional swing state.

I don't doubt that Indiana is a Republican-leaning state; in most elections, it'll go Republican. But I think Obama showed that it was a mistake Democrats conceded the state for so long. Under the right conditions and with the right candidate, Indiana can sometimes be won by a Democrat.

[minionofmidas]

* Democrats haven't seriously contested the presidential race in Indiana since 1948. At least some of the Republicans' lopsided margins came from the fact that the Democratic vote in Indiana was completely un-mobilized. Indeed, Indiana historically had one of the lowest turnouts during presidential years. It isn't unreasonable to wonder if the real Republican lean in Indiana has historically been somewhat less than R +9; with better Democratic turnout it would probably have been R +5 or R +6.

Play it safe, make that a 7.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite a lot of Evangelicals in Indiana too for all that. As in, large numbers for a northern (northeastern/midwestern) state.
Which helps explain why it's the most Republican state there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct, of course.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Check, and check (including even state capitals of similar size and location, with similar Republican traditions and similarly heavy Democratic trends in recent years!)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really... unless we're talking northwestern Ohio. And, uh, southern (okay, southwestern) Michigan.

Also, note (Al spotted that ages ago) that Obama did very well in areas with a lot of (non-new) manufacturing and not a lot of poverty. Indiana has loads of country like that.

[longtimelurker]

In Ken Phillips' book, "The Emerging Republican Majority", he goes into the details of the demographics of Indiana, and how it's much more like the south than either Ohio or Illinois, and its voting patterns have reflected that.  When the south voted Democratic, Indiana voted Democratic, and vice versa re: Republicans.

But that's history.  Immigration patterns - and changes in voting patterns from one generation to the next - are changing Indiana.  Not dissimilar to what's been going on in Virginia, North Carolina (see this year's results), and Georgia (check this space in 8 years).

[Lunar]

I would add that McCain and the RNC never ran ads in the Chicago media market (which reaches, what, 20% of Indiana's population?) and were never really competitive in the other media markets either.  I think Obama's campaign was the only one to run ads in Louisville media market too...


McCain was also an ethanol-hatah.


I remember reading an insane GOTV story where a Democratic, mildly-active son who was living in Hawaii for a while got a phone call from Obama two minutes after he got off the plane while the Dad, a staunch and constant volunteer for GOP efforts in Indiana never got a call from the RNC or McCain, only a call from a random local candidate.

[Beet]

I would add that McCain and the RNC never ran ads in the Chicago media market (which reaches, what, 20% of Indiana's population?) and were never really competitive in the other media markets either.  I think Obama's campaign was the only one to run ads in Louisville media market too...

The interesting thing though is that almost all the Obama/Daniels vote was downstate, especially around Indianapolis. The northwest populated areas near Chicago were very much straight up Obama/Long Thompson.

[memphis]

It still shocks the heck out of me.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I just can't believe he won Indiana and North Carolina, but not Missouri or West Virginia.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Also, note (Al spotted that ages ago) that Obama did very well in areas with a lot of (non-new) manufacturing and not a lot of poverty.

Why is an interesting question.

[Mr.Phips]

I think this is one state where Democrats and Obama are going to have a near impossible time replicating, unless their name is Evan Bayh.  Obama is probably the first Democrat ever to carry the state without carrying the two Southern Congressional districts(IN-08 and IN-09).  His margin came completely from unsustainably high turnout in Marion county and Lake county.  This is probably a once in lifetime thing for Democrats.  

[Stranger in a strange land]

I think this is one state where Democrats and Obama are going to have a near impossible time replicating, unless their name is Evan Bayh.  Obama is probably the first Democrat ever to carry the state without carrying the two Southern Congressional districts(IN-08 and IN-09).  His margin came completely from unsustainably high turnout in Marion county and Lake county.  This is probably a once in lifetime thing for Democrats.  

Indiana was the one state where the Obama campaign's spending and organization overwhelmed the Republican tilt of the state. Had McCain made even a slight effort here he probably would have won. Of course, that would have meant siphoning resources away from must-win states.

[Wiz in Wis]

While I agree that it would be surprising for Obama to repeat in Indiana in 2012, it is also fair to say that the Republican dominance of Indiana is history too. Once a state swings, certainly so substantially, it hardly ever reverts back... look at West Virginia... Once it made up its mind to vote Republican in 2000, it never looked back... same with any other state where demographics are not changing rapidly. For the same reason, the Republicans can probably count on New Hampshire going Dem for the next few cycles too.

Once a majority of Indianan's voted for a Dem, they will be open to the concept, if not likely to do so systematically. Combine that with generational and demographic (black and hispanic) trends, Indiana is now a swing state for the forseeable future.

[minionofmidas]

I think this is one state where Democrats and Obama are going to have a near impossible time replicating, unless their name is Evan Bayh.  Obama is probably the first Democrat ever to carry the state without carrying the two Southern Congressional districts(IN-08 and IN-09). 

Almost certainly, but that's largely because no Democrat has narrowly won Indiana for 120 years. And no Democrat has won it at all for 45 years.

[Brittain33]

While I agree that it would be surprising for Obama to repeat in Indiana in 2012, it is also fair to say that the Republican dominance of Indiana is history too. Once a state swings, certainly so substantially, it hardly ever reverts back... look at West Virginia... Once it made up its mind to vote Republican in 2000, it never looked back... same with any other state where demographics are not changing rapidly.

Oh goodness, I don't have anything like your confidence. I think West Virginia could well swing back to the Democrats in the future, given the right environment and the right candidate. Indiana's swing to the Democrats was built partly on strong ground--the economic issues of a manufacturing state, the simple fact that competing in the state gives people the opportunity to consider voting Democratic--but also on ephemeral qualities relating to Obama's unique regional appeal, youth appeal, and superb campaign organization while the Republicans sat it out. I would expect Indiana to be closer than it has been, moving into the future, but I would be surprised if Obama wins it again in 2012 if the Presidential race is reasonably competitive. I don't know how future candidacies and issues would have to shake out for Indiana to continue to drift Democratic, but I know I simply can't imagine it.

[Smash255]

While I agree that it would be surprising for Obama to repeat in Indiana in 2012, it is also fair to say that the Republican dominance of Indiana is history too. Once a state swings, certainly so substantially, it hardly ever reverts back... look at West Virginia... Once it made up its mind to vote Republican in 2000, it never looked back... same with any other state where demographics are not changing rapidly.

Oh goodness, I don't have anything like your confidence. I think West Virginia could well swing back to the Democrats in the future, given the right environment and the right candidate. Indiana's swing to the Democrats was built partly on strong ground--the economic issues of a manufacturing state, the simple fact that competing in the state gives people the opportunity to consider voting Democratic--but also on ephemeral qualities relating to Obama's unique regional appeal, youth appeal, and superb campaign organization while the Republicans sat it out. I would expect Indiana to be closer than it has been, moving into the future, but I would be surprised if Obama wins it again in 2012 if the Presidential race is reasonably competitive. I don't know how future candidacies and issues would have to shake out for Indiana to continue to drift Democratic, but I know I simply can't imagine it.

Obama won Indiana for numerous reasons (mostly mentioned above), and it will be quite hard to replicate many of those things in 2012 (for one the GOP will try harder).   However, I do think Indiana has moved to become more competitive.   Marion county has moved quite drastically towards the Democrats and the surrounding areas while still GOP aren't nearly as GOP as they once were.

 Its still a generally Republican state, but I think its a state that the Dems have a decent chance of winning in the future with a solid victory on he national level.  A landslide probably isn't needed.

[Jeff from NC]

I just can't believe he won Indiana and North Carolina, but not Missouri or West Virginia.

I think this is an important question.  I would say he lost West Virginia because environmentalism, though I don't think that was a huge theme of his campaign.  It makes me think it was his organization, left over from competitive primaries; and the fact that for once a Democrat actually contested Indiana.

[Tender Branson]

I just can't believe he won Indiana and North Carolina, but not Missouri or West Virginia.

Missouri and West Virginia are states that are trending away from the Democratic Presidential Candidate since at least 1988. Dukakis and Clinton in '92 for example did better in MO & WV than they did nationally.

MO:

1988: 3.7% more DEM
1992: 4.7% more DEM
1996: 2.2% more GOP
2000: 3.8% more GOP
2004: 4.7% more GOP
2008: 7.4% more GOP

WV:

1988: 12.4% more DEM
1992: 7.5% more DEM
1996: 6.2% more DEM
2000: 6.8% more GOP
2004: 10.5% more GOP
2008: 20.4% more GOP

I only find it interesting that Obama didn't win MO by a slight margin, after his 100.000+ crowds in St. Louis ...

[pragmatic liberal]

I just can't believe he won Indiana and North Carolina, but not Missouri or West Virginia.

Missouri and West Virginia are states that are trending away from the Democratic Presidential Candidate since at least 1988. Dukakis and Clinton in '92 for example did better in MO & WV than they did nationally.

MO:

1988: 3.7% more DEM
1992: 4.7% more DEM
1996: 2.2% more GOP
2000: 3.8% more GOP
2004: 4.7% more GOP
2008: 7.4% more GOP

WV:

1988: 12.4% more DEM
1992: 7.5% more DEM
1996: 6.2% more DEM
2000: 6.8% more GOP
2004: 10.5% more GOP
2008: 20.4% more GOP

I only find it interesting that Obama didn't win MO by a slight margin, after his 100.000+ crowds in St. Louis ...

Missouri has enough of an urban and suburban population that I suspect it will stay a contested state. It's definitely a lean-GOP state, but given the right Democratic candidate, it can be won. After all, Obama only lost it by 3000 votes - he almost certainly would have won it if Missouri had early voting like most other states did. Obama will probably carry Missouri if he's the favorite for reelection. And Clinton would likely have won the state - Missouri is one of the states, where I suspect racism may actually have cost Obama the state.

W.V., OTOH, I think is largely lost. It may still be in play in certain elections, based on the candidate and the conditions, but the influence of the religious right is just too strong and the cultural distance is simply too great from the increasingly yuppified-and-minority Democratic base.

[pragmatic liberal]

I just can't believe he won Indiana and North Carolina, but not Missouri or West Virginia.

Missouri and West Virginia are states that are trending away from the Democratic Presidential Candidate since at least 1988. Dukakis and Clinton in '92 for example did better in MO & WV than they did nationally.

MO:

1988: 3.7% more DEM
1992: 4.7% more DEM
1996: 2.2% more GOP
2000: 3.8% more GOP
2004: 4.7% more GOP
2008: 7.4% more GOP

WV:

1988: 12.4% more DEM
1992: 7.5% more DEM
1996: 6.2% more DEM
2000: 6.8% more GOP
2004: 10.5% more GOP
2008: 20.4% more GOP

I only find it interesting that Obama didn't win MO by a slight margin, after his 100.000+ crowds in St. Louis ...

Also, this somewhat depends on how you define "more D" and "more R." You're defining it by margin. If you define it by simply comparing, say, the Republican vote share in the state with the Republican vote share nationally, the results are slightly less jarring, but still illustrate the point, I guess.

For example, in Missouri:

1988: D+2 (MO: Dukakis 48; US: Dukakis 46)
1992: D+1 (MO: Clinton 44; US: Clinton 43)
1996: R+0.5 (MO: Dole 41.2; US: Dole 40.7)
2000: R+2 (MO: Bush 50; US: Bush 48)
2004: R+2 (MO: Bush 53; US: Bush 51)
2008: R+3 (MO: McCain 49; US: McCain 46)

In W.V.:

1988: D+6 (WV: Dukakis 52; US: Dukakis 46)
1992: D+5 (WV: Clinton 48; US: Clinton 43)
1996: D+1.3 (WV: Clinton 51.5; US: Clinton 49.2)
2000: R+4 (WV: Bush 52; US: Bush 48)
2004: R+5 (WV: Bush 56; US: Bush 51)
2008: R+10 (WV: McCain 56; US: McCain 46)

[Kane]

I wasn't all that surprised. I knew Obama had a good chance to win Indiana from the beginning of the year.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Indiana went Democratic due to a perfect combination of factors that are unlikely to be replicated. However, it seems the state is trending Democratic overall, and Bush just did unusually well there for a Republican, while Gore and especially Kerry did unusually poorly.

[RosettaStoned]

Well, I certainly was shocked.

[anvi]

I was really surprised with the Indiana results, and so I decided to do a quick comparisson of Obama's performance in Indiana vs. Kerry's performance there four years ago.  Obviously, all the things mentioned in this discussion played nothing less than pivotal roles, the Chicago media market in the north, the aggressive voter registration drive the Democrats have staged in the state, and the fact that Obama won 75,000 more votes in Marion County than Kerry did while McCain got 25,000 less votes than Bush in '04 were all very crucial.  But, what really impressed me was how much Obama was able to push up Kerry's numbers in rural Indiana.  Obama outperformed Kerry by 10% of the vote or better in 59 counties in Indiana, and, in total, he received somewhere in the neighborhood of 80,000 more votes statewide than Kerry did in the mid-sized to small counties.  What is significant about this figure is that Obama only won the state by 26,000 votes.  This means that, even with Obama's great improvements on Kerry's performance in the northwest and in Marion, he would not have won the state without the powerful upticks in the rural counties.  I agree that '08 was the "perfect storm" for Obama, and I also agree that it is not likely that Obama will be able to replicate the performanceof Indiana this year in '12.  Still, the fact that Obama was able to flip Indiana was, to me, incredible.

[Husker]

At first I was really surprised when IN was a target for democrats as it had been such a republican state for many years. But after I thought about it, I came to the same conclusions many of you guys did. Close proximity to the Chicago media market, a growing urban population, a floundering economy, and mobilization of democrats (particularly the African-American vote) made a difference. I expect that IN could have been closer in recent years had the democratic candidate tried a little  harder there. The latter being  the reason for the democratic shift in eastern NE this year as well.