In 1960, San Mateo County voted for Nixon over Kennedy. On Tuesday, this highly affluent suburban county near Silicon Valley voted 4 to 1 for Biden.
In 1960, West Virginia voted for Kennedy. This time around it went 68% to 30% for Trump.
These two areas were “canaries in the coal mine” that is, early indicators of broader national trends. The affluent, highly educated and socially liberal people of Silicon Valley moved sharply to the Democrats in the 1980s, while West Virginia moved sharply to the GOP in the early 2000s. Other similar areas have been following along more recently.
If you try to analyze America politics with 20th century conceptual frameworks you’ll be hopelessly confused. Why do blue collar areas vote for an anti-union party, while affluent areas vote for a party promising to raise taxes on the rich?
Some people argue that the GOP now appeals to uneducated voters, but that’s way too simple. People who run 2000-acre farms producing corn and soybeans are highly skilled. So are petroleum engineers. You need to be highly skilled to run a large Ford dealership. I wouldn’t be very good at any of those jobs. And all three job categories are very likely to vote Republican. Industries where people work with “things” are much more Republican than industries where people work with ideas.
We’ve seen politics change dramatically over my lifetime, with the South going from Democrat to Republican and places like California and New Jersey moving in the opposite direction. Expect further such changes in the future. Southern states with big “post-industrial” cities like Atlanta, Austin and Charlotte will gradually become more blue, while declining Midwestern Rust Belt states will continue to trend red. As recently as 1988, Iowa was one of the two or three bluest states in the country—that’s how fast things can change.
Illinois and Ohio used to be similar Midwestern “swing states.” Now Illinois is very blue because Chicago has become a post-industrial city, an “idea city”, not the old “city of broad shoulders” that Carl Sandberg wrote about. In contrast, most Ohio cities (except Columbus) have not been able to successfully re-invent themselves, and thus Ohio has become quite red.
In the recent election, we’ve also seen Hispanics shift somewhat toward the Republicans, and even black voters have moved modestly in that direction (albeit still overwhelming Democratic.) This Hispanic shift may be important for the future, given America’s large and growing Hispanic population, the high rate of intermarriage with other groups, and the tendency of many Hispanics to work in the same sort of industries as non-college white voters. A situation where low-skilled whites vote Republican and low-skilled Hispanics vote Democratic is not stable in the long run. Think of the earlier migration of working class Catholics from the Democratic to the Republican Party.
The only constant in American politics is continual change.
READER COMMENTS
Odessey
Nov 10 2020 at 12:31pm
One interesting implication of your forecasting is that if Hispanic voters continue to trend Republican, then the two parties would likely shift their views on immigration. I guess the risk in that case would be for a Democratic version of Trump who would campaign to build the wall instead of the Republican version.
Overall, the more fluid allegiances are, the weaker the case for extremism on either the left or right. Claims of mandates should ring hollow.
Chris
Nov 10 2020 at 1:16pm
Your claim about Iowa in ’88 obscures more than it clarifies. 1988 is a unique data point. Iowa went for the GOP nominee in every presidential election from 1940-1984, except for 1948 (Truman was from bordering Missouri) and 1964 (when no state outside of Arizona and the Deep South went for Goldwater). Indeed, 1988 was only the sixth time EVER Iowa didn’t vote for the GOP candidate (out of 34 opportunities).
“As recently as…” is not wrong, but it misleads. More accurate to say “Over the last 80 years, it is ONLY in 1988 that Iowa appeared to be one of the bluest states.”
If anything, it was only “beginning in 1988…” that Iowa could be considered a blue state at all. It went for the Dem nominee is six of seven presidential elections between 1988 and 2012, though that is clearly no longer the case.
Iowa was inordinately blue in 1988 for two reasons. One, George H. W. Bush simply wasn’t popular in Iowa. Not only did he finish behind Bob Dole in the Iowa caucus, he ran third behind Pat Robertson, too. Second, Iowa was still in the depths of the farm crisis and the incumbent party took most of the blame.
MarkW
Nov 10 2020 at 1:36pm
One of the things that may scramble these trends somewhat is that a lot of ‘ideas’ people are becoming location-independent (a trend that was already underway before Covid but has been accelerated by the pandemic). What happens when the ‘ideas’ people who work for Silicon Valley companies increasingly live, work and vote elsewhere?
robc
Nov 10 2020 at 1:41pm
In a two party system, the two parties will always be in rough equilibrium. Ideas and positions will shift to maintain that split. Whatever trends we see will be entirely different in 20 years.
Interestingly, because parties primarily define themselves on the national level, we end up with states and areas that are predominantly red or blue. If the power of the federal government was reduced greatly, the split within states would be different. California would have two parties that were roughly 50/50, but they would be two left wing parties.
Alan Goldhammer
Nov 10 2020 at 2:16pm
The major demographic trend is desertion of rural areas and growth of urban metro areas. This cannot lead to good results in the long run as the Senate will increasingly represent small population areas and the House big metro areas. This will be further skewed following reapportionment after the 2020 census. It was not all that long ago that both Dakotas had 3 of 4 Senators from the Democratic party. I doubt we will see one in years to come. By my count there are 19 states right now where it is almost impossible for a Democrat to win a Senate seat (I put Texas and Florida in the toss up category). The run-off election in Georgia this January should prove interesting in that regard.
There is a long history of Americans voting against their self interest. Thomas Frank’s ‘What’s the Matter with Kansas’ is a good primer on this.
MarkW
Nov 11 2020 at 7:38am
The major demographic trend is desertion of rural areas and growth of urban metro areas. This cannot lead to good results in the long run as the Senate will increasingly represent small population areas and the House big metro areas.
I’m not following your theory here wrt to the Dakotas. Yes, rural areas in those states have lost population. But the states themselves have not. So the Dakotas have been both urbanizing and trending Republican — isn’t that a contradiction of your theory?
I’d suggest that the Dakotas have trended Republican in part because the Democratic Party has moved strongly to the left since Clinton was in office. Back then, there was still such a thing as a pro-life Democrat. Clinton famously declared that “The era of big government is over!” and a few years before he was elected, the NY Times editorialized that the right minimum wage is $0/hr. Things that are all but unimaginable today. And, of course, in the Dakotas, mining and oil production are major industries — wouldn’t voting for Democrats be against their economic self-interest?
robc
Nov 10 2020 at 2:48pm
I agree, we would have 100 libertarian senators otherwise.
But seriously, I disagree. When someone says that, they are almost always judging the other person’s interest from their own perspective. The vast majority of people make rational decisions the vast majority of the time. Their values are just different.
Scott Sumner
Nov 10 2020 at 3:37pm
Chris, I was just trying to give younger readers a sense of how much this country has changed. Iowa was ultra-blue and California voted for the GOP in 1988. That’s not the country we live in today, or most likely in 2024.
robc, I agree that parties adjust until they win about 50% of elections. The Electoral College bias basically forces the Dems to be a bit more conservative than otherwise.
Chris
Nov 10 2020 at 6:46pm
Okay, but if I said something along the lines of “As recently as 2008, housing prices were…” or “As recently as April, the stock market was…,” I would hope you’d point out that the example I chose, while pointing to significant change, isn’t really representative.
Scott Sumner
Nov 11 2020 at 1:40pm
I guess I’d defend it this way. Even in a future outlier election—say one where Iowa trended Democratic because they were unhappy with low farm prices—I can’t imagine them being anywhere near one of the two or three bluest states in the country. But yes, 1988 was a bit of an outlier—fair point.
robc
Nov 11 2020 at 7:43am
I am not sure exactly how the bias pulls. Obviously towards small state issues…but what do Wyoming/Montana/Rhode Island/Delaware have in common? Or Alaska and DC?
There are a few more small EC states on the red side right now, but I don’t think it is as extreme as presented. And mostly the Dems just right off the plains states and focus on the others. Does that make them more conservative in CA?
If anything the Dems are less conservative over the last 30 years with the loss of the Blue Dogs. The south used to be represented by a bunch of Dem senators who were in alignment with Manchin in WV.
Scott Sumner
Nov 11 2020 at 1:33pm
It’s not mostly due to small states, it has more to do with the fact that the Dems “waste” many more votes is big states like CA and NY than the GOP “wastes” in other big states like Texas and Florida.
robc
Nov 11 2020 at 1:57pm
They could easily fix the “waste” in CA by adopting the ME/NE plan.
There would still be some wastage, but a lot less, as some of the districts are competitive.
Sean
Nov 10 2020 at 6:04pm
Ideas or things. Ideas are often zero marginal costs, high margin, and high wealth inequality. Things are often constant costs industries with less wealth inequality. The economics are different. There’s no winner take all issues for people who make things. Which changes completely how you think about social relationships. If you live in a winner take all market then you care much more about government evening out status relationship.
john hare
Nov 11 2020 at 4:08am
One reason I read econlog is to get insights like this. A single paragraph makes a connection that is only obvious after pointed out. I work with things and my attitude reflects it. Idea wealth does grnerate a different outlook than thing wealth.
Scott Sumner
Nov 11 2020 at 1:33pm
Very good point!
Ilya
Nov 10 2020 at 9:47pm
Scott.
I believe the development is mainly city versus rural. This has totally changed the blue state red state paradigm that reigned since the late 60s.
Cities are 70% democrat. Rural is 70% republican. The suburbs are the main battleground. And this is occurring all over the developed world. And I think it is not about class in the material or Marxist sense. But about the cultural mentality of people in such places.
Here’s something good on this topic. Look at the map.
https://www.niskanencenter.org/explaining-the-urban-rural-political-divide/
P.S. I have been reading you since the very very beginning. You have been a major influence on my intellectual development. It is good to see you continuing in good form.
Scott Sumner
Nov 11 2020 at 1:34pm
Ilya, That’s a good point, and one I should have mentioned. Thanks for reading and giving thoughtful comments.
John Hall
Nov 10 2020 at 10:25pm
Fatti maschii, parole femine.
Floccina
Nov 11 2020 at 10:59am
It’s amazing to me that some states Trump got over 60% and in others Biden got over 60%. It seems unlikely to me that people are that different by state. What is going on?
robc
Nov 11 2020 at 11:44am
Density.
The states are far from homogenous on urban/rural split. States like Wyoming basically have no cities (Cheyenne is under 60k population). The smallest county in CT has 117k. Only 5 of 120 counties in my home state of KY are that large. And those either went strongly to Biden or very close split. The rest of the state went strongly to Trump.
whimsicalism
Nov 11 2020 at 12:37pm
It doesn’t seem surprising at all to me that people differ substantially in views from state to state after having been schooled in that same state and many people spending most of their time exclusively in that state.
Then you have to include the differing features of states, some entirely rural, some dominated by urban areas, and different industries that employ people!
robc
Nov 12 2020 at 8:11am
States are way more similar than they were before, say, the Civil War. Its mostly the counties that are different, within a state or across them. NYC and Chicago are more similar to each other than they are to upstate NY and downstate IL. Upstate and Downstate are more similar than different. Wyoming as a whole is more like upstate NY, while CT is more like Chicago.
The rural/urban divided is the clear divide. With suburbs treading the middle ground. If you compared suburbs between states, I think that is where you would find the state-to-state differences. Maybe?
Comments are closed.