red state, blue state, rich state, poor state - why ...nmiller/poli423/gelmanpres.pdfwhites only:...

1/36

Geography, Income, and VotersTrends

ExplanationsBonus

Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor StateWhy Americans Vote the Way They Do

Andrew Gelman

Department of Statistics and Department of Political Science, Columbia University

22 September 2008

Andrew Gelman Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State

2/36


ExplanationsBonus

The ParadoxJournalists Get It Wrong (and Right)

Red and Blue States

2004 election

Andrew Gelman Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State 2/36

3/36


ExplanationsBonus


Rich States are More Democratic...

Average income within state

Vot

e sh

are

for

Geo

rge

Bus

h

AL AK

AZAR

CA

CO

CTDE

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KS

KYLA

MEMD

MA

MI MN

MS

MO

MT

NE

NVNH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

ORPA

RI

SCSD

TN

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WI

WY

$20,000 $30,000

30%

50%

70%

Republican vote by state in 2004


4/36


ExplanationsBonus


...But Rich People are More Republican!

Vot

e sh

are

for

Bus

h

0 $100,000 $200,000

30%

50%

70%

Individual income

Bush vote in 2004 by income 2006 House exit polls

Income

Rep

ublic

an v

ote

shar

e

low middle high 30

%50

%70

%

Northeast

Midwest

South

West


5/36


ExplanationsBonus


The Book


6/36


ExplanationsBonus


David Brooks and Maryland

I “Like upscale areas everywhere, fromSilicon Valley to Chicago’s North Shoreto suburban Connecticut, MontgomeryCounty supported the Democraticticket by a margin of 63 percent to 34percent.”

I “In Red America churches areeverywhere. In Blue America Thairestaurants are everywhere. In RedAmerica they have QVC, the ProBowlers Tour, and hunting. In BlueAmerica we have NPR, Doris KearnsGoodwin, and socially consciousinvesting.”

Median household income within county

Vot

e sh

are

for

Geo

rge

Bus

h$20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000

0%25

%50

%75

%10

0%

Montgomery

Baltimore

Income and voting in Maryland counties


7/36


ExplanationsBonus


Starbucks and Walmart

Wal−Marts per capita Starbucks per capita


8/36


ExplanationsBonus


Counterexample: Texas

Median household income within county

Vot

e sh

are

for

Geo

rge

Bus

h

$20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000

0%25

%50

%75

%10

0%

Collin

Zavala

Austin

Income and voting in Texas counties


9/36


ExplanationsBonus


The Key to the Answer: Context Matters

I How wealthy you are affects how you vote (and think)I But how much it does depends on where you live — context

mattersI “Varying slopes”

I Where people live conditions the individual effect of things likeincome differently

I In some states the rich are very different from the poor but notin other states

I Explains Maryland and Texas


10/36


ExplanationsBonus


Anna Karenina and the Paradox SolvedP

roba

bilit

y of

vot

ing

for

Bus

h

Poorvoters

Middle−incomevoters

Richvoters

25%

50%

75%

Mississippi

Ohio

Connecticut


11/36


ExplanationsBonus


These Effects are Systematically True

2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Avg Income vs. Var Slope 2000

Avg State Income ($10k)

Slo

pe−

0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

AL

AZ

AR

CACO

CT

DEFLGA

HIIDILIN

IAKS

KY

LA

ME

MDMA

MI MN

MS

MOMT

NE NV NHNJ

NM

NY

NCND OHOK

ORPA

RISC SDTN

TXUT VT

VAWA

WV

WI

WY


12/36


ExplanationsBonus


What if Only X Voted?State winners (rich voters only)

vote

sha

re fo

r G

eorg

e B

ush

$20,000 $30,000

30%

50%

70%

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KSKYLA

ME

MD

MA

MI MN

MS

MO

MT NE

NVNH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR PA

RI

SC SDTN TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WI

WY

rich voters

State winners (middle−income voters)

vote

sha

re fo

r G

eorg

e B

ush

$20,000 $30,000

30%

50%

70%

AL AK

AZAR

CA

CO

CTDE

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KSKYLA

MEMD

MA

MI MN

MS

MO

MTNE

NV NHNJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR PA

RI

SCSDTN

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WI

WY

middle−income voters

State winners (poor voters only)

average income within state

vote

sha

re fo

r G

eorg

e B

ush

$20,000 $30,000

30%

50%

70%

AL

AK

AZ

ARCA

CO CT

DE

FLGA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KS

KYLA

MEMD

MA

MI MNMS MO

MT

NE

NV NH NJ

NM NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

ORPA

RI

SCSD

TN

TX

UT

VT

VA

WAWV WI

WY

poor voters


13/36


ExplanationsBonus


How Journalists See the Country

I “One of the Republican Party’s major successes over the lastfew decades has been to persuade many of the working poorto vote for tax breaks for billionaires.” — Nicholas Kristof,New York Times columnist

I “Who are the trustfunders? People with enough money not tohave to work for a living, or not to have to work very hard.These people tend to be very liberal politically. . . . ” —Michael Barone, author of the Almanac of American Politics


14/36


ExplanationsBonus


Thomas Frank and Kansas

Individual income

Vot

e fo

r B

ush

low mid high

40%

60%

80%

2000

2004

Kansas

Kansas


15/36


ExplanationsBonus


Thinking Like a Scientist

I What’s your evidence?I How does this fit in with what else you know?I What have you found beyond what people thought before?I How did all those smart people who came before get things

wrong?


16/36


ExplanationsBonus


Pauline Kael and Availability Bias

I “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anybody who votedfor him.” — attributed (in error) to Pauline Kael, movie criticfor the New Yorker

I Availability bias: the tendency to generalize based on nearbyinformation


17/36


ExplanationsBonus


Michael Barone and Availability Bias

I “It evidently irritates many liberals to point out that their partygets heavy support from superaffluent ‘people of fashion’ anddoes not run very well among ‘the common people.’” —Michael Barone

I Second-order availability bias: generalizing from observedcorrelations

I The people you know are high-income and vote Democratic.Therefore . . .


18/36


ExplanationsBonus

30 Years Ago, Things Were Different

1976 election

Average income within state

Vot

e sh

are

for

Ger

ald

For

d

AL

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DEFL

GA

HI

ID

ILIN

IA

KS

KYLA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

MS MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJNM

NYNC

NDOHOK OR

PA

RISC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VT

VAWA

WV

WI

WY

$15,000 $20,00030

%50

%70

%

Republican vote by state in 1976


19/36


ExplanationsBonus

Rich Voters Remain Republican

Diff

eren

ce in

Rep

ublic

an V

ote

1940 1960 1980 2000

020

%40

%

All Voters

1940 1960 1980 2000 1940 1960 1980 2000

Non−Southern Voters

Vote among rich voters minus Republican vote among poor voters

Southern Voters


20/36


ExplanationsBonus

Rich States Now Vote for Democrats

Republican vote in rich states minus Republican vote in poor states

Diff

eren

ce in

Rep

ublic

an v

ote

1940 1960 1980 2000

−20

%0

20%

All states

1940 1960 1980 2000

Southern states

1940 1960 1980 2000

Non−Southern states


21/36


ExplanationsBonus

Putting It Together

Rich−state, poor−state gap in Republican voteamong poor, middle−income, and rich voters

Rep

ublic

an v

ote

in p

oor

stat

es, m

inus

Rep

ublic

an v

ote

in r

ich

stat

es

1952−1968 1972−1988 1992−2004

0%10

%20

%

High−

inco

me

vote

rs

Middle−income vo

ters

Low−income voters


22/36


ExplanationsBonus

Incomplete Explanations for the Change in State Vote

I Is it rich people who are changing?I No. We showed that in the beginning

I Is it race?I Mostly no. Excluding blacks from the analysis diminishes the

effects we see only partlyI Is it the South?

I No. We see the effects in the South and outside of it.I Is it inequality?

I No. Interstate income inequality has changed little, andintrastate income inequality is more tied to immigration trends


23/36


ExplanationsBonus

Our explanation I

I The poor are similar across states; but the rich are differentI In poor states, the rich are more socially and economically

conservative than poor people.I In rich states, the rich are more economically conservative than

poor people, but they’re more socially liberal, too (and lessobservant).


24/36


ExplanationsBonus

Our explanation II

I Voters haven’t changed within states — and states havn’tchanged much either, but parties have

I Parties are more polarized than they’ve ever been.I Democrats and Republicans are further apart than ever before.I Positions by elites are more uniform than they’ve been in the

past. The end of Rockefeller Republicans and Blue DogDemocrats.

I Wealthy people in rich, blue states are conflicted in their partychoice; hence the flat slope. Wealthy people in poor, red statesare not conflicted in their party choice; hence the high slope.


25/36


ExplanationsBonus

“Opiate of the Masses” vs. “Postmaterialism”

I “I don’t know that atheists should be considered citizens, norshould they be considered patriots. This is one nation underGod.” — George H. W. Bush

I Opiate of the Masses: Rich people vote their interests, poorpeople vote “Gods, guns, and gays”

I Postmaterialism: Poor people vote based on economics, richpeople have the luxury to vote on social issues


26/36


ExplanationsBonus

“Opiate” No, “Postmaterialism” Yes

Pro

babi

lity

of v

otin

g fo

r B

ush

poor middle−income rich

40%

50%

60%

70% if you attend church more

than once/week

if you attend onceor twice/month

if you neverattend church

Bush vote in 2004 by income and religious attendance


27/36


ExplanationsBonus

Takeaway points

I Democrats win rich states, but Republicans do better amongricher voters within each state

I There really is something new under the political sunI What’s the matter with Connecticut?I If you want to understand the differences between states, study

the wealthyI The culture war is real but is concentrated among

upper-income voters

I It’s easy to get confused: “media center” states don’t look likethe rest of the country


28/36


ExplanationsBonus

End — Time for Your Questions


29/36


ExplanationsBonus

Race Doesn’t Explain Things

Whites only: Rich−state, poor−state gap in Republican vote among poor, middle−income, and rich voters

Rep

ublic

an v

ote

in p

oor

stat

es, m

inus

Rep

ublic

an v

ote

in r

ich

stat

es

1952−1968 1972−1988 1992−2004

0%10

%20

%

High−

inco

me

white

vot

ers

Middle−

incom

e whit

e vote

rs

Low−income white voters


30/36


ExplanationsBonus

Religion and State Income

Average State Income

Ave

rage

Sta

te R

elig

ious

Atte

ndan

ce

$25,000 $35,000

2.5

3.0

3.5

AL

AZ

AR

CA

COCT

DEFL

GA

ID

IL

INIA

KS

KY

LA

ME

MD

MA

MIMN

MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJNM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TXUT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WI

WY


31/36


ExplanationsBonus

Inequality in the States

States with high and low income inequality


32/36


ExplanationsBonus

Polarized Parties: Foreign Policy

2003 2004 2005 2006

0%25

%50

%75

%10

0%

Republicans

Democrats

Independents

Partisan disagreement over the Iraq warP

erce

ntag

e su

ppor

ting

the

war


33/36


ExplanationsBonus

Polarized Parties: Foreign Policy

1951 1952

0%25

%50

%75

%10

0%

Republicans

Democrats

Support for Korean war

1966 1968 1970

Republicans

Democrats

Support for Vietnam war

Per

cent

age

supp

ortin

g th

e w

ar


34/36


ExplanationsBonus

Polarized Parties: Domestic Policy


35/36


ExplanationsBonus

Other Countries: Income and Voting

025

%

Australia

Hong Kong

Israel

Japan

South Korea

New Zealand

Taiwan

Asia and Oceania

025

%

Bulgaria

Czech

Hungary

PolandRomania

RussiaUkraine

BelgiumFrance

GermanyItalyNetherlands

PortugalSlovenia

Spain

Switzerland

Denmark

Finland

Iceland

Ireland

Norway

Sweden

United Kingdom

Europe

GDP per capita

0 20,000 40,000

025

%

Brazil

CanadaChileMexico

Peru

United States

North and South America

Con

serv

ativ

e vo

te s

hare

am

ong

rich,

min

us c

onse

rvat

ive

vote

sha

re a

mon

g po

or


36/36


ExplanationsBonus

Other Countries: Income, Religion, and VotingUkraine Bulgaria Russia Romania Brazil

Poland Hungary Czech Mexico Slovenia

Portugal Korea New Zealand Israel Italy

Belgium Australia France Germany Netherlands

Britain Ireland Sweden Hong Kong Denmark

Iceland Switzerland Norway United States Japan

−25

%0

25%

−25

%0

25%

−25

%0

25%

−25

%0

25%

−25

%0

25%

Poor Rich

−25

%0

25%

Poor Rich Poor Rich Poor Rich Poor Rich

Co

nse

rva

tive

vo

te,

com

pa

red

to

na

tion

al a

vera

ge


red state, blue state, rich state, poor state - why ...nmiller/poli423/gelmanpres.pdfwhites only:...

Documents