Red vs. Blue?

The personal and geographic bases of cleavages

The map that started it all, 2000

I. Overview of Fiorina

A. The “Red vs. Blue” story1. 50/50 Nation: Americans are split down the

middle into Red (pro-Republican) and Blue (pro-Democrat) voters

2. Polarization: The Red/Blue divide has been growing over time

3. Geographic Divide: Red America is a very different place than Blue America

4. Partisanship: Partisan bickering has been on the increase

B. Fiorina’s Contribution

1. 50/50 Nation: Fiorina agrees

2. Polarization: Fiorina disagrees

3. Geographic Divide: Fiorina disagrees

4. Partisanship: Fiorina distinguishes between elite-driven and mass-driven partisanship, argues that elite polarization produces partisan discord among voters

C. Unanswered Questions

1. Why do some people identify as Republican while others identify as Democrat?

2. Are there regional divides aside from the mythical Red/Blue one?

3. Is elite partisanship increasing?

II. The Individual Divide

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

A. Intergenerational Effect

B. 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.

1. Racial Dividea. About 90% of African-Americans Vote Democratic

‘04

b. Race Trumps Rural Issues: Rural Counties by Race/Ethnicity

County Map of 2004 Results

c. Race trumps gender, age, and income

2. The Ethnic Divide: Latinosa. Latinos favor Democrats

b. Need to control for registration: large differences

c. Latinos are diverse: Country of Origin Effects

d. Effects of income, education, and residency

e. Immigration attitudes cross party lines

3. Asian-Americans: Pro-Democrat

a. Similarities to Latino vote:Majority too young or noncitizensCountry of origin effectsImportance of immigration and language

issuesDecreasing Democratic advantage? Mixed

results due to small sample sizes

b. Election 2004: Asian-Americans vote for Kerry by 3:1 margin

4. Native Americans: Pro-Democrat

No exit polling data – findings based on geographic comparisons

Native American Counties

County Map of 2004 Results

C. Income: Better predictor since 1980s

2004 Exit Polls: Overall Income %R %D

<$15K 36% 63% $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%

1. Effect is not an artifact of race-class connection

2. Inequality has polarized parties

D. Religiosity Fiorina: Salience of religion better predictor than denomination

E. The Gender Gap

1. Early gap was race-based, but recent increase is not

2. Fiorina’s 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

3. Puzzle: Regional variation in the gender gap

F. Population Density

1. Urban areas trend Democratic, Rural areas trend Republican

a. Election 2004: County Map of 2004 Results

County Map of Population Density: Republicans Win Most Rural Counties

b. Shift in Rural Partisanship: Rural support for Republicans (Blue) and Democrats (Red)

c. Rural/Urban Voters Have Similar Priorities…

d. …But Different Ideologies

e. Two Core Divisions: Religion and Guns

f. Rural Voters Reverse the “Gender Gap”

2. The suburban majority: Voting splits on North/South lines

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

G. Age

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

G. Age

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

2. But young are most likely to be independents

3. Gender outweighs age

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

I. Conclusions About Party ID

Republican Self-

Identification

White Race

Anglo Ethnicity

Republican Parents

Male

Highly Religious

Rural

Age 25-40

III. Regional Divides?A. Voting History

B. General Political Regions

1. West Coast

Stereotype: Wealthy, elite liberalism.

Reality: Elite liberal coalition with Latinos

2. Rocky Mountains

Libertarian Conservatives: No

Taxes, No Government Regulation

3. Great Plains

Religious Conservatism But Economic

Populism

4. Great Lakes

In transition from

Blue-Collar (Economically Liberal, Socially Conservative)

to

Suburban (Economically Conservative, Socially

Moderate)

Map of Industrialization – Great Lakes = Old Industry

5. Northeast

Big-Government Liberalism: Both

Social and Economic

a. Sex Ed: Cultural Liberalism in the Northeast

b. Liberal Crime Policy: Northeast and Victims’ Rights

c. Values: Women’s Age at First Marriage (Darkest = 27+)

6. The South

States Rights and Limited

Welfare

but

Big-Government Conservatism (Pro-Business)

a. North-South Divide: Origins

b. The Southern Shift: 1950-1980

Wallace for President 1968

c. Southern uniqueness todayi. The “Bible Belt”

Southern Religious Homogeneity

ii. High poverty, Low welfare

Poverty Rates 2004: Darker = Higher Rate

% Households Receiving Cash Welfare

Medicaid Eligibility by State

iii. Still lower education

Percent Completed High School or GED By Age 25

iv. Hard-line anti-crime policy

Example of Southern Uniqueness: Execution of Juveniles (2004)

7. Summary: Alignments

Exception to Region

C. How stable and homogenous are these regions?

1. Abortion: Legal everywhere, but laws differ…

“Partial Birth” Abortion Bans

2. Alternate Family Structures: Gay Adoption Banned (Blue) or Allowed (Orange)

3. Crime Policy: Imprisonment Rates

4. Economic Issues: Right to Work

5. Liberty vs. Safety: Gun Control

6. Multiculturalism: “English Only” Laws

D. What underlies the regional divide?

1. Smaller cultural regions?

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

regulationGreat Lakes values economic

performance/policy over social issuesGreat Plains values religiosity over economic

populism

IV. Is Elite Partisanship Increasing?

A. Introducing NOMINATE scores: An unbiased method for measuring political differences

1. Assumption 1: Political decisions are connected – position on one issue helps to predict position on other issues

2. Assumption 2: Whatever connects issue positions is a continuum, so we can rank people on this underlying dimension

B. Voting based on an ideological continuum

C. Finding the underlying dimension: An example

A B C D

Jose Y Y N Y

Keisha Y N N N

Pat N Y Y Y

Three legislators, four bills (A through D). What rank-

ordering best explains

these voting patterns?

1. Rank-Order the legislators

A B C D

Jose Y Y N Y

Keisha Y N N N

Pat N Y Y Y

Options:JKPJPKKJPKPJPJKPKJ

1. Rank-Order the legislators

A B C D

Jose Y Y N Y

Keisha Y N N N

Pat N Y Y Y

Options:JKPJPKKJPKPJPJKPKJ

1. Rank-Order the legislators

A B C D

Jose Y Y N Y

Keisha Y N N N

Pat N Y Y Y

Options:JKPJPKKJP

2. Rank-Order the Bills

A B C D

Jose Y Y N Y

Keisha Y N N N

Pat N Y Y Y

Options:ABCDABDCACBDACDBADBCADCBBACDBADCBCADBDACCABDCBAD

3. Evaluate the Rank-Orderings to Predict Votes

Iss. Rank JKP JPK KJPABCD

ABDC

ACBD

ACDB

ADBC

ADCB

BACD

BADC

BCAD

BDAC

CABD

CBAD

A B C D

J Y Y N Y

K Y N N N

P N Y Y Y

a. Check each combination

A B C D

J Y Y N Y

K Y N N N

P N Y Y Y

First combination to check: JKP and ABCDJ K P

A B C D

Implications: J more likely to vote for A than K 0J more likely to vote for A than P 1K more likely to vote for C than J 0K more likely to vote for D than J -1K more likely to vote for A than P 1K more likely to vote for B than P -1P more likely to vote for D than K 1P more likely to vote for D than J 0

b. Now re-check with different policy positions

A B C D

J Y Y N Y

K Y N N N

P N Y Y Y

First combination to check: JKP and ABCDJ K P

ABC DA BC DA BCDA B CD

Etc…

c. 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)

4. Which combination performs best?

Iss. Rank JKP JPK KJPABCD 17 7 4

ABDC 23 11 -2

ACBD 11 -2 12

ACDB -5 0 17

ADBC 14 9 13

ADCB 9 12 9

BACD 4 17 22

BADC 2 6 26

BCAD 13 11 2

BDAC 19 -2 21

CABD 21 21 -4

CBAD -1 24 13

Possible Implication:

K loves B and hates C, while P loves C and

hates B. Everyone and

everything else is moderate.

5. 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!

5. 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)

Example: 91st House (1969-70)O

ppos

ition

to

Civ

il R

ight

s

Conservatism

B. What can NOMINATE tell us about polarization?

1. Whether there are two dimensions or one: Is the liberal-conservative continuum a good way to categorize politicians?

2. How far apart each party’s legislators are from each other (party unity)

3. How far apart one party’s legislators are from the other party’s legislators (polarization)

4. Whether the parties have dramatically changed (realignment)

Video: Plotting NOMINATE scores over time by Party

C. Further Evidence of Party Polarization

D. Explaining party polarization

1. Mass polarization? Fiorina says no.

2. Politicians becoming more extreme? Self-defeating to move away from median voter

3. Hypothesis: Party activists have become more extreme

a. Explains lack of mass shift

b. Also explains elite shift – activists are key to candidate success and are known to be more extreme than either the public or candidates themselves!

4. Evidence: Activist polarization

V. Assessing Red vs. BlueA. The regional divide(s):

1. Fiorina: “Red America” and “Blue America” are myths2. Regional divides do exist, with important differences

between regions3. Regions are not monolithic; even within regions there are

important differences4. Smaller regions = more accuracy but less parsimony

(choice of six regions seems to balance these concerns)B. Party Strength:

1. Fiorina: Parties about equal -- closely divided2. Party ID: Demographic and personal factors alter party

strength over timeC. Polarization:

1. Fiorina: Low public polarization – not deeply divided2. NOMINATE: High elite polarization on one dimension3. Best explanation: Nomination system has drawn in

extreme “issue activists” who have pulled parties apart