Red vs. Blue

1
Red vs. Blue?

• The personal and geographic bases of cleavages

2

• The map that started it all, 2000 ?

3
I. The Red vs. Blue Narrative

• The Pundits Story
• 50/50 Nation Americans are split down the middle
  into Red (pro-Republican) and Blue (pro-Democrat)
  voters
• Polarization The Red/Blue divide has been
  growing over time
• Geographic Divide Red America is a very
  different place than Blue America

4
B. The Data

• A 50/50 Nation Is the Country Closely Divided?
• Fiorina (in earlier chapters) Yes. Elections
  2000 and 2004 were close, and

5
Voting Almost evenly split
2006
2006
6
Partisan Leanings Nearly Even
7
2. Polarization Are Americans Deeply Divided?

• Fiorina No. What evidence does he produce? See
  Figures 3.2 and 3.4 Centrism on ideology and
  major issues
• Hillygus and Shields No. What evidence do they
  produce? See Tables 3.1 and 3.2 most partisans
  disagree with own parties on at least one major
  issue. Partisans most like to disagree with
  parties on abortion, gay marriage

8
Abortion Most in the middle
9
(No Transcript)
10
Gay Marriage Also dominated by centrists
11
(No Transcript)
12
c. Changes in Party Identification Show
Moderation Not Polarization
2000 2004 2008
13
d. Ideology Public much less divided than
politicians
14
e. Comparative Evidence Larger gaps between
partisans than other countries
15
3. Geographic Divide Are people in different
states profoundly different?

• The Jesusland Map Red vs. Blue as a
  fundamental divide

16

• Ideology no evidence of sharp divide. Centrists
  dominate most states
• Fiorina Gap is an artifact of winner takes all
  voters similar in both kinds of states

17
C. If we arent polarized, why do so many think
we are?

• Confusing closely divided with deeply divided
• Elite opinion is much more polarized than public
  opinion (previous slides, parties in government
  lecture)
• Puzzle Where does the idea of a growing divide
  come from?

18
D. Is Elite Partisanship Increasing?

• Introducing NOMINATE scores An unbiased method
  for measuring political differences
• Assumption 1 Political decisions are connected
  position on one issue helps to predict position
  on other issues
• Assumption 2 Whatever connects issue positions
  is a continuum, so we can rank people on this
  underlying dimension

19
2. Finding the underlying dimension An example
Three legislators, four bills (A through D).
What rank-ordering best explains these voting
patterns?
20
a. Rank-Order the legislators
Options JKP JPK KJP KPJ PJK PKJ
21
a. Rank-Order the legislators
Options JKP JPK KJP KPJ PJK PKJ
22
a. Rank-Order the legislators
Options JKP JPK KJP
23
b. Rank-Order the Bills
Options ABCD ABDC ACBD ACDB ADBC ADCB BACD BADC B
CAD BDAC CABD CBAD
24
c. Evaluate the Rank-Orderings to Predict Votes
25
i. Check each combination

• First combination to check JKP and ABCD

J
K
P
A B C D
Implications J more likely to vote for A than K
? 0 J more likely to vote for A than P ? 1 K more
likely to vote for C than J ? 0 K more likely to
vote for D than J ? -1 K more likely to vote for
A than P ? 1 K more likely to vote for B than P ?
-1 P more likely to vote for D than K ? 1 P more
likely to vote for D than J ? 0
26
ii. Now re-check with different policy positions

• First combination to check JKP and ABCD

J
K
P
ABC D
A BC D
A BCD
A B CD
Etc
27
iii. Repeat for every possible combination

• NOMINATE scores generated using a supercomputer
• Note that none of the possible orderings is
  likely to be correct all of the time, given
  dozens or hundreds of legislators and bills (all
  roll-call votes in which 2.5 or more disagree)

28
d. Which combination performs best?
Possible Implication K loves B and hates C,
while P loves C and hates B. Everyone and
everything else is moderate.
29
Example 110th Congress by NOMINATE Scores
30
e. Now suppose there are multiple dimensions.

• Examples
• Social freedom vs Economic freedom
• International cooperation and international
  militancy
• All of the above (4 dimensions!)
• Authors find one or two dimensions are all that
  is needed
• Currently just one (liberal vs. conservative).
• Very high (.81) correlation with hand-coded
  scores of liberalism vs. conservatism the
  computer found something that matches our
  understanding!

31
(No Transcript)
32
e. Now suppose there are multiple dimensions.

• Examples
• Social freedom vs Economic freedom
• International cooperation and international
  militancy
• All of the above (4 dimensions!)
• Authors find one or two dimensions are all that
  is needed
• Currently just one (liberal vs. conservative).
• Very high (.81) correlation with hand-coded
  scores of liberalism vs. conservatism the
  computer found something that matches our
  understanding!
• Sometimes a second dimension (Regionalism
  North-South power balance, bimetalism/free
  silver, civil rights)

33
Example 91st House (1969-70)
Opposition to Civil Rights
Conservatism
34
3. What can NOMINATE tell us about polarization?

• Whether there are two dimensions or one Is the
  liberal-conservative continuum a good way to
  categorize politicians?
• How far apart each partys legislators are from
  each other (party unity)
• How far apart one partys legislators are from
  the other partys legislators (polarization)
• Whether the parties have dramatically changed
  (realignment)

35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
3. What can NOMINATE tell us about polarization?

• Whether there are two dimensions or one Is the
  liberal-conservative continuum a good way to
  categorize politicians?
• How far apart each partys legislators are from
  others in the same party (party unity)
• How far apart one partys legislators are from
  the other partys legislators (polarization)
• Whether the parties have dramatically changed
  (realignment)

38
(No Transcript)
39
3. What can NOMINATE tell us about polarization?

• Whether there are two dimensions or one Is the
  liberal-conservative continuum a good way to
  categorize politicians?
• How far apart each partys legislators are from
  others in the same party (party unity)
• How far apart one partys legislators are from
  the other partys legislators (polarization)
• Whether the parties have dramatically changed
  (realignment)

40
Video Plotting NOMINATE scores over time by Party
41
4. Further Evidence of Party Polarization

• Party-line votes (previous lecture)

42
b. Filibusters and Cloture
43
c. Issue Positions
44
5. Explaining party polarization

• Mass polarization? Fiorina says no.
• Politicians becoming more extreme?
  Self-defeating to move away from median voter
• Hypothesis Party activists have become more
  extreme
• Explains lack of mass shift
• Also explains elite shift activists are key to
  candidate success and are known to be more
  extreme than either the public or candidates
  themselves!

45
Median Voter (M) Beats All other positions!
46
5. Explaining party polarization

• Mass polarization? Fiorina says no.
• Politicians becoming more extreme?
  Self-defeating to move away from median voter
• Hypothesis Party activists have become more
  extreme
• Explains lack of mass shift
• Also explains elite shift activists are key to
  candidate success and are known to be more
  extreme than either the public or candidates
  themselves!

47
d. Evidence Activist polarization
48
e. What polarized activists?

• Competing explanations
• Realignment of the South in 1960s/1970s ? fails
  to explain continued polarization in 1990s
• Primaries Internal democracy allowed party
  capture by activists using primaries
  (especially Congressional ones)
• Media change End of fairness doctrine and rise
  of new media (from talk-radio to the Internet)
  allow politically-aware to hear only fellow
  ideologues

49
Ideologies of website readers
50
II. The Individual Divide

• What causes people to support one party instead
  of the other?

51
A. Race and Ethnicity

• If you can pick one characteristic about a person
  and then predict their own party identification,
  ask about race and ethnicity better predictor
  than age, sex, income, education, geography, etc.

52
Racial Dividea. About 90 of African-Americans
Vote Democratic
53
b. Race Trumps Rural Issues Rural Counties by
Race/Ethnicity
54
County Map of 2004 Results
55
c. Race trumps gender, age, and income
56
2. The Ethnic Divide Latinos a. Latinos favor
Democrats
57
b. Need to control for registration large
differences
58
c. Latinos are diverse Country of Origin Effects
59
(No Transcript)
60
(No Transcript)
61
d. Effects of income, education, and residency
62
e. Immigration attitudes cross party lines
63
3. Asian-Americans Pro-Democrat

• a. Similarities to Latino vote
• Majority too young or noncitizens
• Country of origin effects
• Importance of immigration and language issues
• Decreasing Democratic advantage? Mixed results
  due to small sample sizes
• b. Election 2004 Asian-Americans vote for Kerry
  by 31 margin

64
4. Native Americans Pro-Democrat

• No exit polling data findings based on
  geographic comparisons

65
Native American Counties
66
County Map of 2004 Results
67
B. Income Better predictor since 1980s 2004
Exit Polls Overall

• Income R D
• 15-30K 41 58
• 30-50K 48 51
• 50-75K 55 44
• 75-100K 53 46
• 100-150K 56 43
• 150-200K 57 43
• 200K 62 37

68
1. Effect is not an artifact of race-class
connection
69
2. Effect holds within racial/ethnic groups
70
3. Inequality may drive party polarization
71
4.Class Affects Perceptions of Business Within
Parties
72
C. Religiosity

• Fiorina Salience of religion better predictor
  than denomination

73
Republican Vote by Religion
74
Compare to Religiosity
75
D. The Gender Gap
76
1. Early gap was race-based, but recent increase
is not
77
2. Fiorinas Explanation

• Women more dovish on security
• Women more pro-government on social programs
• Since 1970s Democrats have been both more dovish
  and more pro-government on social programs ?
  gender gap

78
3. Puzzle Regional variation in the gender gap
79
(No Transcript)
80
E. Population Density

• 1. Urban areas trend Democratic, Rural areas
  trend Republican

81
a. Election 2004 County Map of 2004 Results
82
County Map of Population Density Republicans Win
Most Rural Counties
83
b. Shift in Rural Partisanship Rural support for
Republicans (Blue) and Democrats (Red)
84
c. Rural/Urban Voters Have Similar Priorities
85
d. But Different Ideologies
86
e. Two Core Divisions Religion and Guns
87
f. Rural Voters Reverse the Gender Gap
88
2. The suburban majority Voting splits on
North/South lines

• Suburbs split 50-50 in 2000, 53-47 in 2004

89
F. Intergenerational Effect
90
G. Age

• 1. Democrats do well among the very young and the
  old

91
(No Transcript)
92
G. Age

• Democrats do well among the very young and the
  old
• But young are most likely to be independents

93
(No Transcript)
94
3. Gender outweighs age
95
4. Age increases voting
96
H. Education? Little effect

• Education appears to increase Republican ID,
  but..
• Education increases income, which may be
  responsible
• Controlling for income results in no effect or
  even pro-Democratic shift
• Very high levels of education (PhD) dramatically
  increase Democratic ID
• Education does tend to bring party ID in line
  with professed ideology

97
I. Conclusions About Party ID
White Race Anglo Ethnicity Republican
Parents Male Highly Religious Rural Age
25-40 Higher Income


Republican Self-Identification






98
IV. Regional Divides?

• A. Voting History

99
B. General Political Regions
100
1. West Coast
Stereotype Wealthy, elite liberalism. Reality
Elite liberal coalition with Latinos
101
2. Rocky Mountains
Libertarian Conservatives No Taxes, No
Government Regulation
102
3. Great Plains
Religious Conservatism But Economic Populism
103
(No Transcript)
104
4. Great Lakes
In transition from Blue-Collar (Economically
Liberal, Socially Conservative) to Suburban
(Economically Conservative, Socially Moderate)
105
Map of Industrialization Great Lakes Old
Industry
106
5. Northeast
Big-Government Liberalism Both Social and
Economic
107
a. Sex Ed Cultural Liberalism in the Northeast
108
b. Liberal Crime Policy Northeast and Victims
Rights
109
c. Values Womens Age at First Marriage (Darkest
27)
110
6. The South
States Rights and Limited Welfare but Big-Governme
nt Conservatism (Pro-Business)
111
(No Transcript)
112
a. North-South Divide Origins
113
b. The Southern Strategy

• Detailed in Hillygus and Shields Note difference
  between Nixons 1960 and 1968/1972 positions
• Democrats able to attack Nixon on NAACP
  membership in South during 1960 campaign
• Note the stop-start nature of the transition
  Ford still writes off the South in 1976
• Why do HS think moral issues replaced racial
  issues in Republicans strategy (see Figure 5.4)?

114
c. The Southern Shift 1950-1980
115
Wallace for President 1968
116
d. Southern uniqueness today

• i. The Bible Belt Moral issues coincide with
  racial issues of 1970s

117
Southern Religious Homogeneity
118
ii. High poverty, Low welfare

• Poverty Rates 2004 Darker Higher Rate

119
Households Receiving Cash Welfare
120
Medicaid Eligibility by State
121
iii. Still lower education

• Percent Completed High School or GED By Age 25

122
(No Transcript)
123
iv. Hard-line anti-crime policy
124
Example of Southern Uniqueness Execution of
Juveniles (2004)
125
v. Income Matters More in the South
126
vi. A Southern Dilemma for Obama?
127
7. Summary Alignments
128
C. How stable and homogenous are these regions?
129
Economic Issuesa. Anti-Union Right to Work
130
Union Membership
131
b. State Minimum Wage Laws

• Green States with minimum wage rates higher than
  the Federal
• Blue States with minimum wage rates the same as
  the Federal
• Red States with minimum wage rates lower than
  the Federal
• Yellow States with no minimum wage law

132
c. State Taxes
133
d. State Balanced Budget Laws
134
e. Energy PolicyRenewable Energy (RPS)
135
2. Moral Issues

• a. Abortion Legal everywhere but laws differ

136

• Partial Birth Abortion Bans

137
State-Funded Abortion
138
Stem Cell Research Support
139
b. School Prayer Moment of Silence Laws
140
State Treatment of Evolution
141
c. Alternate Family StructuresGay Adoption
Banned (Blue) or OK (Orange)
142

• Civil Unions and Gay Marriage Laws

143
Employment Non-Discrimination
144
d. Divorce Rates (Not Laws)
145
3. Liberty vs. Safety

• a. Seat-Belt Laws

146
b. Crime PolicyImprisonment Rates
147
Laws Against Racial Profiling
148
c. Gun Control
149
Gun Tracking
150
4. Multiculturalism English Only Laws
151
D. What underlies the regional divide?

• 1. Smaller cultural regions?

152
2. Patterns of Issue Salience?

• Many regions have multiple loyalties
  (opportunities for change or new regional
  divides). Possible examples
• Rockies values low taxes over less social
  regulation
• Great Lakes values economic performance/policy
  over social issues
• Great Plains values religiosity over economic
  populism

153
IV. Assessing Red vs. Blue

• The regional divide(s)
• Fiorina Red America and Blue America are
  myths
• Regional divides do exist, with important
  differences between regions
• Regions are not monolithic even within regions
  there are important differences
• Smaller regions more accuracy but less
  parsimony (choice of six regions seems to balance
  these concerns)
• Party Strength
• Fiorina Parties about equal -- closely divided
• Party ID Demographic and personal factors alter
  party strength over time
• Polarization
• Fiorina Low public polarization not deeply
  divided
• NOMINATE High elite polarization on one
  dimension
• Best explanation Nomination system has drawn in
  extreme issue activists who have pulled parties
  apart