It's the Culture, Stupid

I know you might think from the title that I am going to attack Romney for his fairly stupid remarks vis a vis Palestinian versus Israeli development, but you would be wrong.  Actually, what I am expressing skepticism of is the oft repeated mantra from the 1992 Clinton campaign that "it's the economy stupid" and the economic determinism that leaves some puzzled as to why Obama continues to hold a small but persistent lead in the polls. 

Here's my heretical notion.  It's not.  I think we are at an unusual but not unprecedented moment where it is people's overall world views rather than the economy that is going to dictate electoral behavior in 2012.  Moreover, I think that this has largely been the case since 2000 and that, in this respect, the era we are in is akin to the post-Reconstruction era, where, I would argue, attitudes about the Civil War continued to dominate presidential elections notwithstanding that the country was mired for virtually this entire period in substantial economic turmoil and instability, including what is known as the "Long Depression."  And as in that era, we are at a point of rough equilibrium between the parties, while paradoxically few states are ever really in play. 

If you look at the elections between 1876 through 1892, the electoral parity is remarkable.  (Two of the five elections saw the popular vote winner lose the electoral college.)  By and large the Republicans controlled the north, while the Democrats dominated the south.  The Democrats tried to break through this block by nominating New Yorkers in four of the five elections -- Tilden in 1876, Cleveland in 1884-1892.   New York's 35/36 electoral votes were dispositive in three of the five elections; only Tilden managed to carry it and lose due to the loss of Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana in hotly contested and highly controversial battles.  (Tilden was also the only candidate in this era to break the 50% mark, garnering 51% of the popular vote, but losing the electoral college by one, the only man ever to do so with a majority of the popular vote.)

From 1868 through 1892, every Republican nominee, except James G. Blaine in 1884, served as a general in the Civil War -- Grant, Hayes, Garfield, and Benjamin Harrison.  (Followed in 1896 and 1900 by McKinley who served as a captain.)  By contrast, the Democrats three times nominated Cleveland who paid for a replacement to serve in his stead and Tilden who was a wealthy lawyer during the war.  Only Winfield Scott Hancock, the nominee in 1888, served in the Civil War.

In 1876, Hayes prevailed in the electoral college by a margin of 185-184, while losing the popular vote by about 250,000 out of 8.4 million votes case, garnering 47.9% of the popular vote to Tilden's 51%.  In 1880, James Garfield won an exceedingly narrow victory in the popular vote, defeating Winfield Scott Hancock by 1,898 votes out of 9.2 million votes cast (48.3% to 48.2%) -- the closest popular vote margin in American history.  Garfield won the electoral college by 214 to 155, a deceivingly large margin, which basically reflects his victories in New York and Pennsylvania, which between them had 64 electoral votes.   In 1884, Cleveland led the Democrats to victory for the first time since 1856, the longest electoral drought for either major party since the Republicans first ran a national candidate. He won the popular vote by a margin 25,685 out of 9.2 million votes cast (48.5% to 48.2%), while winning in the electoral college 219 to 182, by carrying New York by 1,047 votes out of over 1.1 million votes cast.   In 1888, Cleveland suffered a Gore-like defeat, winning the popular vote by 90,000 out of 11.3 million votes cast (48.6% to 47.8%), but losing in the electoral college by 233 to 168 as a result of losing New York, his home state, by 15,000 out of 1.3 million votes cast. Finally, in 1892, Cleveland prevails again, beating Harrison in a three way race by a margin of 380,000 out of 12 million votes cast (46% to 43%, the landslide win of the era).  James Weaver of the People's Party took 8.5% of the vote and four western states, reflecting the shift away from the concerns and voting patterns that had dominated the post-Reconstruction period.  Cleveland won a substantial victory in the electoral college in a now greatly expanded U.S.  It would be the last time a Democrat would win for twenty years.

The pattern of exceptionally close presidential races and of extreme national parity between the two major parties in the period 1876 to 1892 is itself unusual in American politics.  Historically one party has tended to dominate presidential races for peiods of time, with close races occuring often during times of third party insurgencies -- 1912, 1948, and 1968 for instance.  Truly close two candidate races were fairly limited in the Twentieth Century -- 1916, 1960, and 1976 are all that leap to my mind. 

We started the Twenty-first Century with two exceptionally close races in 2000 and 2004, including the first time in which a loser of the popular vote prevailed in the electoral college since 1888.  The 2008 race was not terribly close in terms of the popular vote, but John McCain still prevailed in twenty-two states, reflecting the Republican Party's strong regional base.  I suspect that Romney will take at least twenty-four states this time around and will almost certainly garner in excess of 200 electoral votes, even if he loses.  There will be only a handful of states in which the outcome is in doubt as of election night.

In the end, this voting pattern reflects a hardening of attitudes in terms of political identity that I suspect is likely to persist for some time -- probably for another few elections until demographic changes possibly alter the political character of places like Texas, Georgia, and Arizona, making them more like North Carolina or Virginia in the east or Colorado or Nevada in the west. 

Let us hope -- and do everything we can -- in the meantime to see to it that the know-nothings who constitute today's Republican constituency cannot prevail.

 

Comments

[Corvus]

I think this is a mostly right but also a little bit wrong. I think this kind of polarization definitely accounts for why Obama is holding above 45% support even with a shitty economy, and why Romney is likewise holding around 45% even though nobody really likes the guy and he is a terrible candidate who keeps having to retract his qualifications for the office. But that still leaves somewhere between 5 and 10 percent (polls vary) who I think are completely out to lunch on a lot of this cultural stuff, or at least don't have enough of a vested or philosophical interest to favor one party over the other, and they are making decisions on things like the economy or whether Romney seems like an asshole or which candidate they would prefer to have a beer with. While cultural mores are resulting the close races we are seeing, it still might be things like the economy that determine the actual outcome, because for the mushy middle things like the economy still matter.

[beckya57]

I also think this is mostly right, but I don't fully agree with Corvus. The mushy middle are disengaged voters who don't follow politics; anyone who does has long since made up his/her mind. Whether the economy is critical for this group depends on who is in it. Remember that the recession has hit members of different classes very unequally. The working classes have been the primary victims; many people in the upper classes haven't been affected at all and don't know anyone who has. A lot of the recession's victims won't be voting at all: they disproportionately include people who don't often vote, and I'm guessing a lot of them will be too discouraged and alienated to vote this time, even if they usually do. The working class members who do vote will probably be in a throw them all out mood, given how badly they've been screwed the last few years, and of course a lot of them are Republicans and/or don't like Obama for other reasons. People in the mushy middle in the upper classes are more likely to vote, and to respond to cultural markers, because the recession hasn't affected most of them at all.

[beckya57]

P.S. Romney's culture talk was gross and disgusting. I've read both of the books he cites, and as Jared Diamond has already pointed out he got them totally wrong. Of course Romney doesn't care: that was all a dog whistle to the nationalistic and/or racist right wing.

[Sir Charles]

Corvus,

I agree with you as well but I think it is a decidedly small part of the electorate that has no partisan inclinations.

[Corvus]

I too think it is a small part of the electorate that holds no partisan inclinations. It's just that since neither of the sides with partisan inclinations cross 50%, its the group without them who end up deciding the election.

Personally, I doubt that the economy will be the only issue critical to these voters. I think thinks like the beer test, and personality, and maybe even some policy proposals will have some effect. That's why I expect Obama to win. I just don't think that The Romney campaign, given the massive handicaps it's dealing with, will be able able to get enough of mushy voters on their side to crack 50%, or, more importantly it seems this year, 270.

Romney sucks as a candidate! He has little Charisma, no sense of humor, he can't discuss his time in office, can't discuss his time in the private sector, can't talk about the Olympics without raising the specter of pissing off all of the United Kingdom, can't talk about his policy proposals (because they are so unpopular, most people won't even believe a candidate is running on such a platform), can't even release his friggin tax returns. There is just no way he will be able to debate policy with Obama during the debates and not look heartless and rich. In the end, while the economy is the reason Romney is doing as well as he is, I don't think it will be enough get him over the top.

[Bill H]

"The mushy middle are disengaged voters who don't follow politics;"

Don't know that I would necessarily disagree with that, but I would posit that a significant portion of the dedicated Republicans and Democrats are also disengaged voters who don't follow politics and merely punch the name that has the appropriate letter following it. Present company excepted, of course.

[nancy]

Let us hope -- and do everything we can -- in the meantime to see to it hat the know-nothings who constitute today's Republican constituency cannot prevail.

Boy howdy. Some graphics, illustrations and long-read know-nothing recent history at 'Vagabond Scholar', a tour de force which I almost missed. Suggest y'all don't. Hie thee. "Four Types of Conservatives": 'Reckless Addicts, Proud Zealots, Stealthy Extremists, Sober Adults.'

Waiting with bated breath to hear back from my *House leadership* congresswoman as to her reaction. We're one-way twitter companions. I send her [staff] lots of stuff. She's too young to remember Gov. Dan Evans, Scoop Jackson, certainly Ike. Possibly even the Gipper. Now we've got governance by script-readers who can't even explain the script *notes. Where to next? Sad question. Stone soup all 'round for too many. Depends on where you sit, as becky pointed out.

[nancy]

Where's KN covering up my Saturday late day last person in line? KN, come home.

[nancy]

Prup, you too.

[Crissa]

see to it hat?

[Bernard]

i know too many who care less what happens for they are comfortably set within their bubble. and until that bubble bursts, they care not a whit for any of those less fortunate.

the Calvinist attitude of God blesses the "good" and damns the poor or unfortunate, and they are that way because of their own failings, is what makes America so immoral and the prey to such Republican ideas. so called Christians, and not the fundies who run things in the R party.

[Sir Charles]

Bernard,

What is fascinating though is that these attitudes are not really found along class lines. They are far more likely to be associated with race, geography, and gender. The odds of one holding right wing views as a southern white male are pretty overwhelming whether you are a banker or a truck driver.

As we have discussed here often -- and is really the point of the post -- tribe is now what seems to matter most in politics. Liberals, by the way, are not exempt from this tendency.

[oddjob]

And that has much more to do with the craving of the approval of one's family, friends, and neighbors than anything else (hence tribalism).

Sir C., I get where you're coming from, but do you really think that under a typical economic cycle (i.e. one where there would have been much more government stimulus than has been the case, primarily thanks to the Senate GOP, and thus where by now a clear recovery would be underway) that you would be able to successfully argue that it wasn't the economy that was causing Romney to be facing a landslide loss?

[oddjob]

(It's not that I disagree that at least 1/4 of the population is paranoid, nutty right wing and all in on a tribal identity cast in concrete, but that's not new, either. It was that way when Nixon was president.)

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

Not to sound like I am contradicting myself, I actually think there was a scenario in which Obama -- aided by a robust economic recovery -- could have been able to solidify an electoral realignment. I think if the economy had boomed we might well be talking about which states he could have added to his win column this go round as opposed to which ones he is likely to lose. I think had this happened Obama would be the beneficiary of greater and more enthusiastic turnout by the young and (probably) Hispanics. I also think he would have done better with the white working class and may have been able to duplicate victories in places like Indiana and possibly added a Missouri or Montana to his win column.

These things are dynamic of course.

Having said that, I think the trend that saw diminishing Democratic votes in places in the band from West Virginia across the country to Oklahoma likely would have continued.

And I think Romney still would have had at least a solid 15 - 20 states go his way.

[ikl]

I get the sense the Missouri is heading in the wrong direction. It is a mix between the midwest and the upper south and with the decline of St. Louis, the upper south part is getting bigger, it seems. Moreover, even the midwestern parts aren't culturally Yankee in the way that the upper midwest is. I'm more interested in Montana and Arizona in the short to medium term. These seem like a more natural fit for the Democratic coalition (which is losing ground in the upper south / lower midwest, but gaining ground in the interior west).

[Davis X. Machina]

The Confederacy is just slowly gaining back at the ballot box some of the real estate it lost in combat -- Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, the renegade part of Virginia that was coaxed away from her true home...

It's always 1858 in America.

[oddjob]

Unfortunately from what I gather it's also acquiring Ohio (or at least southern Ohio), which was never really a part of all that before so far as I'm aware.

[Sir Charles]

ikl,

Welcome back. Haven't seen you in these parts for a while. Yes, I, too, get the sense that Missouri is following in the path of the "hill country" states -- West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee (which has become extraordinarily wingnutty despite its once moderate past), Arkansas, northern Louisiana, and Oklahoma. These are all places where in 2008 Obama did worse than John Kerry had done, despite his gains everywhere else.

I think you are right about Montana and Arizona being more likely fits. Hell, Georgia might turn out to be as well.

DXM,

Ha! I am reading a book about strategy during the Civil War and one of the recurring memes in the Confederacy is the need to reclaim Tennessee and Kentucky (and Maryland!) because they naturally belong to the CSA.

Oddjob,

I think southern Ohio, like the southern parts of Indiana and Illinois, has long had a semi-southern quality to it. That being said, the overall polling in Ohio seems very good for Obama. Nate Silver has his odds of winning there at a pretty decent place, which is huge. There is virtually no Romney path to victory without Ohio. It is the whole ball of wax.

[oddjob]

and Maryland!

Spend some time driving around the Eastern Shore and that idea doesn't seem as shocking. In 1993 I lived in Dover for six months and having grown up in the Philadelphia area I couldn't help noticing how different the culture and history was just that little bit further south. To me some of the old farmhouses I drove by very much looked like old plantation homes.

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

Of course, the ironically named "Free State" was a slave state and very hostile to the Union. U.S. troops were beaten by a mob at Baltimore when on their way down to Washington during the early stages of the Civil War.

Maryland is one of those places that has both the hill culture -- the area around Cumberland is really indistinguishable from West Virginia -- and the plantation culture -- the Eastern Shore, which is also a big hunting place. Fortunately, it is overwhelmed by the combination of the big city, Baltimore, and the two huge DC suburban counties, Prince Georges, the first majority Black suburban county in America, and Montgomery County, which combines the classic affluent, educated, upscale suburban constituency with a growing Hispanic population.

[Paula B]

SC---Aha, but as we drove through Baltimore yesterday, my husband and I talked about how, as an important entry port for immigrants, Maryland has always been more culturally diverse than its neighbors, especially Virginia, which used -- and still uses -- its deep-water ports for the purpose of war. Some of my relatives came through the Port of Baltimore in 1780s and 1830s, and never left. In that respect, Baltimore is more like New York or Boston, than Philly or Richmond. In the 1960s and 1970s, Baltimore was rich in immigrant and distinct ethnic neighborhoods and now, I believe that phenomenon has spread to other parts of the state, especially MontCo. In spite of conservative factions still bookending the state, Maryland was first to welcome Catholics and home to one of the first Jewish synagogues built in colonial America. Call it historic memory or just plain fairy dust, what cultural fallout remains, needs to be cultivated. Until the demographics favor younger and more racially/culturally mixed voters, we have to hope the memory of the abolitionist movement, the great waves of immigration and the state's historic choice to stand for racial and religious equality, doesn't fade away. We can't let the hate mongers win, especially in states like Maryland.

[azelie]

The thing that worries me most is that the GOP in Ohio is doing what it can to limit voting access -- they are closing polls in many urban counties early (5pm) while keeping suburban polling places open for another few hours, along with trying to restrict early voting to military personnel and requiring ID. In 2008, I read Nate Silver obsessively for reassurance. This time, I'm worried that potential disenfranchising of voters make polls and Silverian analysis less reliable.

[Sir Charles]

Paula,

I am very confident in Maryland remaining completely solid on a statewide level. I think its more retrograde elements are likely a diminishing part of the population given the strength of the DC region. (The same pull that is making Virginia competitive in the presidential race.)

azelie,

The outrageous voter suppression moves are genuinely a cause for concern. I know that Nate tries to account for this, but I am not sure how well anyone can predict the impact of this sort of thing.

[nancy]

I suspect lots of us will remain unacquainted with the toxicity on the airwaves in many of the states mentioned above. PM Carpenter spent time recently on the road and visiting in the Ozarks where he described the Rush-reverential climate:

The state's primary is tomorrow, and Sen. Claire McCaskill will either run against Candidate #1, whose chief calling card is that he detests President Obama, or Candidate #2, whose chief calling card is that he detests President Obama, or Candidate #3, whose chief calling card is that she detests President Obama.

All other candidates for all other offices--whether federal, state or local--wanted us to know that, in addition to detesting President Obama, they'll support our Second Amendment rights.

Shakespeare himself could not have more artfully ridiculed democracy in Julius Caesar than the strutting, squawking, tub-thumping imbeciles I just witnessed in Southwest Missouri's electoral politics.

Yet these same folks are going to sign on with the Mitt/Ann billionaires club GOP. How nonsensical.

In Ohio, in addition to vote suppression, I'm concerned about people like my brother who may not bother to vote -- apolitical, struggling with circumstances and just plain weary. My understanding is there's plenty of that to go around, in rural and small-town southern Ohio in particular.

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

Yeah, Missouri sounds like a real wingnut fest. The worst aspect of which is that McCaskill is likely to lose to any one of these idiots. McCaskill is not my favorite senator by any means and I think her instincts are often wrong, but I can see how running in such an environment can get tricky.

Ohio may yet go to the GOP, but I am pretty heartened by the consistency of the polling lately. There is simply no Romney path to victory without it.

[oddjob]

It probably fits better in the open thread, but it kinda fits here, too:

Fifty years ago it was black churches.

[Gene O'Grady]

Quite trivial, but I think Garfield was only a colonel -- Rosecrans chief of staff, so influential, but I think he resigned after Chickamagua (where he helped screw up royally) to go to Congress.

I sort of regret that he got shot -- he might have been the best of the bad lot between Grant and TR.

Southern Ohio, as I recall, was the hotbed of the copperheads during the Civil War?

[Sir Charles]

Garfield was a Major General when he left the Army.

He served under two frustratingly reluctant warriors, Don Carlos Buell and Williams Rosencrans.

Garfield saw heavy action at both Shiloh and Chickamagua and I believe distinguished himself in both battles. Garfield was both personally brave and an advocate of aggressive tactics, that the over cautious Rosencrans would not adopt.

I do not believe that the consensus view is that Garfield screwed up at Chickamagua -- again, Rosencrans did. I think Garfield is viewed by most historians as the guy who kept Chickamagua from being a total fiasco.

[Joe S]

I actually thought Benjamin Harrison only rose to a colonel.

[Sir Charles]

Brigadier General.

Also saw action on the Tennessee front of the war.

[Crissa]

It wasn't fifty years ago that churches were burning. That's happened in much more recent decades, too.