Last week's Dem primary in PA revealed some familiar results: it was red voters vs. blue voters with Hillary representing red and Obama blue. It was the same old urban vs. rural and suburban we've come to know so well, with a few additional twists. The empirical evidence:
In both 2000 and 2004 George Bush won with the strong support of rural and married voters. In Pennsylvania, Clinton has done the same. The mean population density for Bush counties was 108 inhabitants per square mile in 2000 and 110 in 2004. This compared to 739 inhabitants for Gore and 836 for Kerry. In Pennsylvania, counties won by Clinton have a mean density of 238 inhabitants versus 2290 for those won by Obama. Married voters strongly preferred Bush by 53% against 47% for Gore and 57% against 42% for Kerry. Likewise, as measured by county census shares, married households leaned toward Clinton.
A few other factors came into play in Pennsylvania: race, age, income and gender. In 2000 and 2004 black and white populations were correlated with the vote, but a regression model revealed that the proportion of female heads-of-household had greater explanatory power than the proportion of blacks voting Democrat. In Pennsylvania this was no longer true as race rendered female heads-of-household meaningless as an explanatory factor. This was mostly due to the overwhelming number of blacks who voted for Obama (92%), regardless of household status, and the concentration of black voters in PA urban centers.
On income, Clinton counties had a median family income of $44K while Obama counties had a median of $54K. Age was skewed as older voters preferred Clinton while younger and more educated voters favored Obama. As expected, older white women identified and voted heavily for Senator Clinton. On religion, exit poll data shows that religious voters supported Clinton, especially among more orthodox Catholic and Jewish voters.
To parse this all out we can use a simple regression equation matching county characteristics against vote outcomes in 67 Pennsylvania counties. The results reveal that the most important demographic factors determining the results were population density, median family income, and race.
Sounds familiar, no? It seems the two Democratic candidates somehow managed to slice and dice Pennsylvania into red and blue enclaves with nary a Republican strategist or Bush conservative in sight. It’s tough to blame this on Karl Rove.
How could this happen? The answer is the same as it was in 2000 and 2004. Our partisan polarization is not determined by party ideologies, strategists or media stereotypes, but by more enduring lifestyle choices that vary between cities, suburbs and small towns. (See research at www.redstatebluestatemovie.com) Clinton and Obama line up perfectly on the ideological scale and their differences in policy are negligible, but the competitiveness of a tight nomination race pressured both candidates to divide and conquer Pennsylvania’s Democratic voters by introducing wedge issues like guns, religion, race and gender into their campaigns. Thus, Clinton became the candidate of an older, white, embittered working class “clinging to guns and religion,” while Obama became the black urban elitist who cannot grasp small-town American values. Applying these wedge issues pushed voters towards ideological extremes most consistent with their lifestyle preferences. Voilà– red vs. blue all over again. Silly? Certainly. Guns and church attendance are correlated with rural traditions, not determined by partisan ideology.
Senator Clinton clearly won the Pennsylvania primary because she was able to take the outer suburbs by almost a 20% margin. With the overwhelming support of rural areas she was able to claim 60 of 67 counties across Pennsylvania. If this had been a national election with Clinton as the conservative and Obama as the liberal, she would have won in a landslide.
So, will liberal activist Democrats absorb the lessons of Pennsylvania? After the Bush presidential elections it was accepted wisdom among urban liberal elites that the Bush Republicans were solely to blame for polarization. But such rationalizations have been far too convenient and self-serving. Pennsylvania’s results reveal serious damage to Obama in identifying himself so closely with urban liberal and identity group interests. The Wright episode and the chiding of gun owners and church-goers will continue to haunt him unless he’s able to demonstrate that he understands and has learned from these mistakes. It should even be more disconcerting to liberal sensibilities that race played far more of a factor in a Democratic primary than it did in the past two presidential elections.
Red and blue polarization in American politics is more prevalent and deeply rooted than we suspect. And it has become fundamental to electoral politics. The escape route must bridge disparate communities through ideological positions based on more universal principles that can transcend narrow identity politics. But the most recent results prove candidates, parties, media pundits and most important, voters have yet to demonstrate they will reject this electoral dynamic, despite the obstacles it creates for democratic governance. An appreciation for these realities is perhaps the first step toward change.
No comments:
Post a Comment