Could the Rust Belt become the New South?

[President Mitt]

I look at the map, The Northeast, Southeast, and the West all seem to be trending Democratic, but the Rust Belt seems to be staying where it is. The one Demographic the Republican Party did better with seems to be Lower income white voters (look at Appalachia, 2008). But lets face it, the Rust belt is a very poor area, losing people and business very fast.

So could the Old Rust Belt become the New "South" for the Republican Party?

And by Rust Belt, I mean Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Well Indiana is a Republican state, Ohio is lean-Republican, Pennsylvania is toss-up and Michigan is lean-Democrat, so as it is, it's a very balanced region. The South never had the kind of demographic variation that the Rust Belt has.

[President Mitt]

Yes, but im wondering if down the line, since the Rust Belt's cities are losing population fast to the South, that the South could become the manufacturing base, and the Rust Belt becomes the New South: Rural, White, and relatively Republican.

[DariusNJ]

Maybe in 10 or 15 years, Indiana & Ohio will be pretty safely Republican, while Pennsylvania & Michigan will be toss ups.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, not the new South. Just a GOP-leaning region, but no more.

[pbrower2a]

Well Indiana is a Republican state, Ohio is lean-Republican, Pennsylvania is toss-up and Michigan is lean-Democrat, so as it is, it's a very balanced region. The South never had the kind of demographic variation that the Rust Belt has.

Michigan -- firmly Democratic. The state ordinarily votes "barely Democratic" in a close election (2000, 2004) and by a large margin in a Democratic blowout. It has proved essential if inadequate for Democratic Presidential victories since the 1960s.  It hasn't voted for a GOP nominee in a close election since 1976... and then with a Favorite Son candidate.

Pennsylvania -- slightly-less Democratic than Michigan, but essentially the same pattern. In 2008 it went for Obama by 10% despite McCain pulling out the stops.

Ohio is slightly more Republican than the national average, and a genuine swing state. It has voted for the winner in every Presidential election since the 1970s.

Indiana is decidedly more Republican than the national average, voting for only three different Democratic nominees -- FDR and LBJ in blowouts, and Obama must have been a perfect fit for the state this time, almost a Favorite Son. Almost any other Democratic nominee loses Indiana.

The South is not so monolithic as it seems. Texas is very different from Arkansas,  Arkansas is very different from Mississippi, Mississippi is very different from Florida, Florida is very different from Georgia... Obama won the Rust Belt except for West Virginia, and this time he split the South.

[Nym90]

Considering these states are if anything moving toward the Democrats, no, I don't think so. Much of the blame for the economic decline of these regions is still placed squarely on the Republicans, a phenomenon that doesn't exist in the South.

[pbrower2a]

Yes, but im wondering if down the line, since the Rust Belt's cities are losing population fast to the South, that the South could become the manufacturing base, and the Rust Belt becomes the New South: Rural, White, and relatively Republican.

One huge difference: the Rust Belt has relatively few Christian Fundamentalists willing to vote for some right-winger whose puppet preachers tell their flock

"Vote Republican because your salvation depends upon it!"  

That works in Tennessee, but not in Michigan. I can see these states becoming more like Vermont in their politics; Vermont is very rural and now very Democratic.

[12th Doctor]

I challenge the premise.  The Rust Belt is not really that poor.  Basically, the people who have good jobs have them and there are alot of other people who have no jobs.  The region is still in a period of adjustment.  Granted, Michigan and large parts of Ohio, and western New York are basically like the East Germany of the United States, but Pittsburgh, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, and the Twin cities are either just fine, or in the process of recovery.

[12th Doctor]

Really, there were a couple of major cities that have never really recovered from the end of the Midwest industrial era... Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, Flint, but it was the small cities that were totaled; places like Altoona, Johnstown, most of the area within a hundred miles north and south east of Pittsburgh, Youngstown is probably the worst, and really any other city of fewer than 150,000 people in the region, except Erie.  Those places have become massively depopulated, because the one or two major manufacturing firms that employed half the town have pulled out, and they really didn't have that much else going for them.

[Nym90]

Many parts of Michigan are doing just fine as well, actually. The state's economy, while bad, is not nearly as bad as portrayed, at least relative to other states. It's mostly metro Detroit that's been hit really badly by the combination of the housing crisis and slumping automobile industry.

[DS0816]

I look at the map, The Northeast, Southeast, and the West all seem to be trending Democratic, but the Rust Belt seems to be staying where it is. The one Demographic the Republican Party did better with seems to be Lower income white voters (look at Appalachia, 2008). But lets face it, the Rust belt is a very poor area, losing people and business very fast.

So could the Old Rust Belt become the New "South" for the Republican Party?

And by Rust Belt, I mean Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

I thank you for citing specifically the four, in bold, among the nine Rust Belt states. They're pretty much at the heart of the Rust Belt, and one thing some of us may not know: Ever since the Republicans and Democrats first matched up in Election 1856, there has never been a case in which one candidate won all four…but lost the Election.

Barack Obama winning Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania made him the third Democrat to do so over the last 100 years—following 1936 Franklin D. Roosevelt and 1964 Lyndon Johnson.

In answer to your question, the Republican Party will have to change its platform if they want to get back in the game in Michigan and Pennsylvania, who see eye-to-eye with each other in presidential elections—and are in sync with a string of populous states.

I can connect a lot of states with similar voting patterns since, say, the first post-World War II election of 1948. In this period of 16 elections, Mich. and Pa. have disagreed only once—in 1976, when Mich.'s own, Gerald Ford, was the Republican nominee while Pa. sided with his winning Democratic challenger, Jimmy Carter. But in that election, every state shifted/swung toward Carter. Carter didn't swing Mich. hard enough to collapse the 15 points by which Richard Nixon carried Mich. in 1972. Of the 18 points by which 1972 Nixon won Pa., Carter swung it 25 points, plenty enough to flip it. (Hey, it's essentially the same thing with Election 2008 concerning Barack Obama successfully swinging and flipping Colorado while collapsing 90 percent of the 20.5 margin by which George W. Bush had carried Montana in 2004. Other than the 2008 "disagreement," Colo. and Mont. have paired up since 1948.)

The way I see the four of Ind., Mich., Ohio, and Pa.: Ind. is a Republican bastion that has been only four times blue since 1932 (and for special circumstances, like the Great Depression, the aftermath of the assassination of JFK, and everything Election 2008).… Ohio is the nation's top bellwether. It and Florida go in the same direction (disagreement in 1992 when Bill Clinton flipped Ohio but came up under 2 points shy of doing the same with Fla.).… Mich. and Pa. side with a string of other populated states such as California, Illinois, and New Jersey. Vice President Joe Biden's home state of Delaware has agreed with his birth state of Pa. on all 10 previous elections of 1972-2008. Calif., Ill., N.J., and Vermont have agreed as well. And New Englanders Maine and Connecticut have agreed with Mich. (All 10 refers to 1968-2004.) But with 1972-2008, Calif., Conn., Ill., Me., Mich., N.J., and Vt. have agreed on all ten beginning in 1972. Come to think of it: Mich. and Conn. have voted the same since 1948. In that same time, Calif. and Ill. disagreed only in 1960—and it was a humdinger that had both in question for the Nixon-vs.-Kennedy race (after backing the 1956 re-election of Dwight Eisenhower, both shifted/swung Democratic). From 1968 forward, New Hampshire has disagreed with them just once, in 2000. Bellwether New Mexico disagreed with Calif., Conn., Ill., Me., Mich., N.J., and Vt. only once, in 2004.

That's a string of states already over 200 electoral votes that tend to see eye-to-eye on the elections—and they currently limit the GOP electorally (which speaks loudly just one reason why the party is having problems!). Bare in mind: The Republicans had Mich. and Conn. in the 1950s (Dwight Eisenhower), 1970s (Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford), and 1980s (Ronald Reagan, George Bush) while the Democrats won them in the 1960s (John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey), 1990s (Bill Clinton), and 2000s (Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama). How interesting that, in a 40-year period, we've had 38th president Gerald Ford, 40th president Ronald Reagan, and 44th president Barack Obama representing a Mich./Calif./Ill. connection—and that each state, naturally, supported the other's candidate in every election.

My point in this excessive detailing of connecting the dots is this simple: It'll take a changed Republican platform, and a goldmine of a candidate, to win back these states. That GOP gold would translate not just in winning Michigan and Pennsylvania…but nearly all—or, in fact, every single one—of the clusters in states mentioned above. The proof: Bill Clinton, as a Democrat, delivered just that in 1992—and Calif., Ill., Mich., N.J., Pa., et al. all fell in line.