Demography, Politics, and Partisan Polarization in the United States, 1828–2016

158 Pages·2019·15.103 MB·English

by  David Darmofal, Ryan Strickler

Spatial Demography Book Series
Series Editors: Jeremy R. Porter · Stephen A. Matthews
David Darmofal
Ryan Strickler
Demography,
Politics, and Partisan
Polarization in
the United States,
1828–2016
Spatial Demography Book Series
Volume 2
SeriesEditors
JeremyR.Porter,Brooklyn,NewYork,USA
StephenA.Matthews,Pennsylvania,USA
Thisseriesexplorestheapplicationofspatialsciencetodemographicinformation,
includingthemethods,theory,andapplicationstosocietalproblems.Itcapturesthe
rapidly expanding knowledge-base of how human behavior and social processes
are both shaped by place and time as well as change localities themselves over
time. The books in this series examine both individuals as well as institutions
and include all methodological, geographical, and topical research or treatments
of the interaction between societies and place. It encompasses racial segregation,
crime,urbansprawl,agriculturalproduction,engagementincommunitylife,migra-
tion, commuting, business location, technology, environmental quality, elections
to public office, and other important societal phenomena. This series adopts an
international and interdisciplinary approach in its detail of the tools, techniques,
and theoretical perspectives used in spatial demography. The individual volumes
will help demographers better understand when, how, and why space matters in
socialbehaviorandinstitutions.
Moreinformationaboutthisseriesathttp://www.springer.com/series/13093
David Darmofal • Ryan Strickler
Demography, Politics,
and Partisan Polarization
in the United States,
1828–2016
123
DavidDarmofal RyanStrickler
DepartmentofPoliticalScience DepartmentofPoliticalScience
UniversityofSouthCarolina ColoradoStateUniversityPueblo
Columbia,SC,USA Pueblo,CO,USA
SpatialDemographyBookSeries
ISBN978-3-030-03999-8 ISBN978-3-030-04001-7 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04001-7
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018964105
©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2019
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartof
thematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation,
broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionorinformation
storageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilarmethodology
nowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublication
doesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant
protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthisbook
arebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsor
theeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforany
errorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardtojurisdictional
claimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG.
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Preface
In his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, then-State
Senator and soon-to-be US Senator Barack Obama rejected the argument that the
United States was becoming a geographically polarized nation when he said “The
punditsliketoslice-and-diceourcountryintoRedStatesandBlueStates;RedStates
for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats.”1 The speech—and Obama’s call for
unity—wouldplaycriticalrolesinpropellinghimtothepresidencyjustalittlemore
than 4 years later. The appeal of Obama’s call for unity across supposed lines of
division and polarization was understandable. The appearance of the blue and red
map on election night in 2000, and persistent references to it in the intervening
years,hadledAmericanstowonderwhethersomethinghadchangedinthecountry,
whether we had indeed become a geographically divided nation. These concerns
were reinforced when, despite Obama’s pleas to the contrary, the map was largely
replicatedin2004.Andasimilarmapappearedin2008,in2012,andin2016.
HassomethingfundamentallychangedinourAmericanpolitics?Isthisredstate,
blue state phenomenon both real and something new? Pundits have seemed to say
yesbutimportantlyhavelargelyarguedthisbyfocusingonlyontheelectionsfrom
2000 to the present. These five presidential elections reflect only a small portion
of America’s electoral history. Indeed, they reflect only a little more than 10% of
all presidential elections since the advent of mass voter participation in the 1828
contestbetweenAndrewJacksonandJohnQuincyAdams.
Wecanunderstandourcurrenterabetter,webelieve,byplacingitinhistorical
perspective.Bycomparingcurrentgeographicpatternsofvotingtothoseinearlier
eras, we can determine whether something has fundamentally changed in our
politics. This was our motivation in writing this book, to place the current period
ofsupposedgeographicpolarizationingreaterhistoricalperspectivebybringingto
beardatafromtheentiretyofthemassvoterparticipationeraintheUnitedStates,
from1828tothepresent.
1TranscriptatTheAmericanPresidencyProject,http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=76988,
accessed3February,2018.
v
vi Preface
By placing our current period in historic relief, we found something that
challengesmanyofthepunditsandmayprovidesolacetocitizensconcernedabout
theirpresumedincreasinglydividednation.We’vebeenherebeforeandthensome.
Theelectionssince2000don’tstandoutasunusuallypolarizedelections,andindeed
we’vebeenmuchmoregeographicallypolarizedinearliereras,suchasduringthe
JimCroweraoftheSolidSouth.Thisfinding,ofcourse,comesaslittlesurpriseto
political scientists and scholars in other disciplines who arguably have been more
attunedtothehistoricaltimelinethanpopularobservers.
Someofourotherfindings,however,likelywillsurprisethesescholars,likethe
spatialstructuringofvoterparticipationthatweuncover,forthefirsttime,utilizing
moderntoolsofspatialanalysis.Thesetoolsallowustoidentifywhereneighboring
counties ofsimilarDemocraticorRepublican (andbeforetheRepublicans,Whig)
allegiances were located in each election. Or the fact that, contrary to the Big
Sort argument, we aren’t living in an anomalous period of geographic sorting. Or,
perhaps most surprisingly, that knowing how a county voted in 1828 for Jackson
or Adams is a better predictor of how it voted for Trump or Clinton in 2016 than
is how it voted for Carter or Ford in 1976. Our book, in short, places our current
period in historical relief and in doing so seeks to help us better understand our
presentmomentaswellasthepastandhowbotharelinkedtogetherinageographic
continuitythathasmarkedourpresidentialelectionsintheUnitedStates.
We thank Chuck Finocchiaro, James Gimpel, Eitan Hersh, Nathan Kalmoe,
Susan Miller, and Chris Witko for helpful conversations on this project and Luc
AnselinandWendyTamChoforhelpfulconversationsonspatialanalysisoverthe
years.Wealsothankananonymousreviewerforcommentsthathavestrengthened
ourbook.WethankoureditorsattheSpatialDemographybookseriesatSpringer,
Frank M. Howell and Jeremy R. Porter, and Bernadette Deelen-Mans for their
help throughout the process of writing this book. We thank Peter F. Nardulli for
the county-level data used in this book and the staff of the Rutherford B. Hayes
PresidentialLibraryinFremont,Ohio.
Columbia,USA DavidDarmofal
Pueblo,USA RyanStrickler
Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................. 1
1.1 ModernPartisanPolarization........................................... 2
1.2 PolarizationandGeography............................................ 6
1.3 OutlineoftheBook..................................................... 8
References..................................................................... 10
2 Beyond “Red State, Blue State”: The Political Geography
ofPresidentialCompetition,1828–2016................................... 15
2.1 Partisanship,Voting,andPolarization ................................. 16
2.2 PolarizationandGeography............................................ 17
2.3 ThePoliticalGeographyofPresidentialVoting....................... 18
2.4 AnalysisofCounty-LevelVoting,1828–2016......................... 21
2.5 PoliticalGeographyandtheAmericanPartySystems................ 27
2.6 Conclusion .............................................................. 75
References..................................................................... 79
3 GeographicPolarizationinHistoricalPerspective....................... 83
3.1 Bishop’sArgument...................................................... 84
3.2 RecentAssessmentofTheBigSort.................................... 85
3.3 HistoricalExaminationofGeographicPolarization................... 88
3.4 EducationandtheGeographyofPresidentialVoting ................. 93
3.5 Conclusion .............................................................. 95
References..................................................................... 99
4 ModelingthePoliticalGeographyofPresidentialVoting ............... 101
4.1 DiagnosticsforSpatialDependence ................................... 103
4.2 AnalysisofVotingBehavior,1828–2016.............................. 104
4.3 TheSecondAmericanPartySystem................................... 106
4.4 TheThirdAmericanPartySystem..................................... 108
4.5 TheFourthAmericanPartySystem.................................... 110
4.6 TheFifthAmericanPartySystem...................................... 111
4.7 TheSixthAmericanPartySystem ..................................... 114
vii
viii Contents
4.8 TheInteractionofRacialandImmigrantDemographics ............. 115
4.9 Conclusion .............................................................. 120
References..................................................................... 121
5 Clintonvs.Trump:BacktotheFuture? .................................. 123
5.1 TheRelationshipBetweenthe1828and2016Elections.............. 130
5.2 LookingFurtheronthe1828and2016Relationship.................. 132
5.3 TrumpandJackson:ACloserLook.................................... 133
5.4 AdamsandClinton:ACloserLook.................................... 136
References..................................................................... 140
6 Conclusion.................................................................... 143
6.1 PredictingtheFutureofPoliticalGeography.......................... 146
References..................................................................... 148
List of Figures
Fig.2.1 Within-statevariationinpartisanvoting ............................ 22
Fig.2.2 2016Moranscatterplot .............................................. 27
Fig.2.3 Thepoliticalgeographyofcounty-levelvotinginthe1828
presidentialelection .................................................. 29
Fig.2.4 Thepoliticalgeographyofcounty-levelvotinginthe1832
presidentialelection .................................................. 31
Fig.2.5 Thepoliticalgeographyofcounty-levelvotinginthe1836
presidentialelection .................................................. 32
Fig.2.6 Thepoliticalgeographyofcounty-levelvotinginthe1840
presidentialelection .................................................. 33
Fig.2.7 Thepoliticalgeographyofcounty-levelvotinginthe1844
presidentialelection .................................................. 34
Fig.2.8 Thepoliticalgeographyofcounty-levelvotinginthe1848
presidentialelection .................................................. 35
Fig.2.9 Thepoliticalgeographyofcounty-levelvotinginthe1852
presidentialelection .................................................. 36
Fig.2.10 Thepoliticalgeographyofcounty-levelvotinginthe1856
presidentialelection .................................................. 38
Fig.2.11 Thepoliticalgeographyofcounty-levelvotinginthe1860
presidentialelection .................................................. 39
Fig.2.12 Thepoliticalgeographyofcounty-levelvotinginthe1864
presidentialelection .................................................. 40
Fig.2.13 Thepoliticalgeographyofcounty-levelvotinginthe1868
presidentialelection .................................................. 40
Fig.2.14 Thepoliticalgeographyofcounty-levelvotinginthe1872
presidentialelection .................................................. 41
Fig.2.15 Thepoliticalgeographyofcounty-levelvotinginthe1876
presidentialelection .................................................. 42
Fig.2.16 Thepoliticalgeographyofcounty-levelvotinginthe1880
presidentialelection .................................................. 43
ix