Democrats like to pretend that Oregon, like Wisconsin, isn't really a swing state because they've usually managed to win it in the end. But a swing state it is -- Al Gore won there by less than 7,000 votes, and John Kerry improved on those numbers, but not by much. And yet Oregon also has a reputation for being extremely progressive: people think of its assisted suicide law or its decriminalization of marijuana, or the bohemian atmosphere of Portland, and naturally enough come to that conclusion. How to reconcile these two things?
There are two ways to be a swing state. One is to have a lot of moderates. That doesn't really describe Oregon; a moderate state like Ohio would never pass an assisted suicide law. The other way is to have both a lot of conservatives and a lot of liberals, who happen to roughly balance one another out. Oregon is one such state.
Exit polls from 2004 contain a basic question about the ideology (conservative/liberal/moderate) of each voter. We can apply a Likert scale to these responses, assigning 10 points to every liberal, 5 to every moderate, and 0 to every conservative. We will call this result a Liberalness Score. The average voter in Oregon has a Liberalness Score of 4.65, which ties it with Minnesota as the 13th most liberal state in the country. (Massachusetts is the most liberal state at 5.65, and Utah the most conservative at 3.30. Note that only a handful of states have a rating above 5 -- that is, have more self-identified liberals than conservatives.)
But here's where it gets interesting. The average Kerry voter nationwide had a Liberalness Score of 6.20 -- just slightly left of center. However, in Oregon, the average Kerry voter was a 7.17. This, as it happens, is the highest score in the country; the Kerry voters in Oregon were more liberal than the ones in Vermont (7.11) or even the District of Columbia (6.97).
Meanwhile, the average Bush voter nationwide had a Liberalness Score of 2.58 -- pretty darn conservative. But in Oregon, the average Bush voter was a 2.01 -- very conservative. And guess what? That is the lowest Liberalness Score for Bush voters anywhere in the country. The Bush voters in Oregon were as conservative as the ones in Tennessee (2.02) or Utah (2.15).
So the liberals in Oregon are as liberal as any in the country, whereas the conservatives are as conservative as any in the country. This is how you wind up with the weird political soup wherein Oregon has decriminalized marijuana but has also passed a gay marriage ban, or how it allows assisted suicide but also has one of the nation's lowest effective tax rates.
A graph of the Liberalness Scores of Bush and Kerry voters in each state is below.
As you can see, there's really not all that much relationship between the Liberalness Scores of Bush voters and Kerry voters in a given state. But there are three basic regional clusters:
1. In the South, where Republicans are very conservative and Democrats are moderate;
2. In New England, where Republicans are moderate and Democrats are liberal;
3. Finally, some western states like Oregon, Washington and Colorado, where the Democrats are liberal but the Republicans are still quite conservative.
There aren't really any states where both Democrats and Republicans are moderate, although Rhode Island almost meets that description. Part of the reason is that the moderate wing of the Republican party is on life support everywhere outside of New England, and even that suffered a big symbolic blow when Linc Chafee was voted out of office in 2006.
But getting back to Oregon, this is a relevant factor in light of the state's closed primary, because the Democratic electorate in Oregon is in fact quite liberal, even though the state as a whole is not. The Democrats in Oregon aren't especially wealthy and they aren't especially well-educated -- but they are pretty darn liberal.
We've gotten so used to talking about demography in the primaries that we've forgotten about plain old ideology -- partly because, until fairly recently, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama were in any particular hurry to run to the political center. But with Clinton having increasingly run to Barack Obama's right, we will have an interesting experiment on our hands in Oregon. More on this when we do our Oregon delegate preview tomorrow or Monday.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Oregon: Swing State or latte-drinking, Prius-driving lesbian commune?
-- Nate at 6:20 PM
Labels: ideology, meta, oregon, party identification, swing states
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments
People tend to forget there is more to Oregon than just Portland. And when the think of anything else, it might be the I-5 corridor. This does cover three-quarters of the population or so, but it leaves out all of Eastern Oregon, which has more in common with Utah than Portland.
Also, as California was 'invaded' by an influx of Hispanic immigrants in recent decades, many of the worst California conservatives moved from Orange County and elsewhere up to Oregon and set up shop. They've had an undue influence on the political process since, helping to fund and pass intolerant and regressive ballot measures while piling up personal wealth. Ironically, this helped some Oregon Republicans move towards calling themselves Independents or even Democrats.
apologies for this general question (unrelated to this oregon topic).
how do i interpret the latest results which show obama having a higher average # of EVs (just barely) but clinton having a higher "win percentage"? does this mean that clinton wins simulations more frequently but by small margins, while obama wins fewer simulations but some by very big margins, hence a higher average EV? would the median EV, rather than average, therefore more closely reflect the win % difference?
Yep...Washington and Oregon are both half California and half Idaho.
It's no surprise that North Dakota has the most liberal conservatives.
Idaho's Kerry voters are more liberal than Wisconsin's Kerry voters?
interesting!
I'm in Idaho and I'm not that surprised because in the past 20 years the working class Truman-style Democrat in Idaho has faded away due to (I think) the age cohort has gone to that great ballot box in the sky, and secondly the loss of mining and lumber manufacturing jobs in many of the small communities. That's whay a state that elected a Frank Church and a Cecil Andrus once upon a time is now Republican dominated. Those moving to Idaho who happen to be Democrats are more liberal and are found in Boise and Sun Valley.
Poblano, it sounds like you're prepping us for another variable to be slotted into your regression thingy.
At this rate, by Novemeber there'll be no need for the GE to be held, you can just simulate it for them with an error margin of <500 votes.
Up until recently, party registration was very close, Dems always ahead but not by much so that created the toss-up categorization.
As of April 08 however, the difference in party registration has grown from a 3% Dem advantage to about 9 1/2% now. Lots of new Dems in the state. Less of a toss up now I would imagine.
@anonymous at 3.11 AM:
Yes, and that margin of error would be smaller than that of the actual results.
Poblano, I´ve got a question (or maybe two): Do you plan to decrease the range of random numbers with time?
And the second one is more important:
You assume that McCain and Obama have both a chance of 50% to improve their current polling numbers. When the Obama random numbers are negative, things get worse for him and when they are positive, they get better.
But is it a fair assumption that McCain and Obama have the same campaigning skills, the same danger of getting into another scandal etc.?
I know, it is almost impossible to get that into numbers, but is it fair that the range of random numbers is for example (-4;4)?
Shouldn´t we account for the missing media coverage of Obamas past and make it (-5;3) or for Obamas great campaigning skills (when he travels around the US for the next 5 1/2 months, he´ll have a lot of rallies and he´ll get a lot of people to vote, donate, call and canvass, and more than McCain) and make it (-3;5)?
That is just something that was in my head the last week.
Note that the South was solidly Democrat as late as the early 60s despite the fact it would have been more presumably Republican by ideology. This was so for reasons that required some knowledge of 19th century history. The West, having a shorter history, is populated by those who vote for more readily appreciable or intuitively obvious reasons that don't require some sort of historical explanation of how its identity developed. "pure play" ideology has more appeal out here, and so libertarianism, which is perhaps the purest in terms of a coherent philosophy divorced from or undiluted by particular, concrete antecedents, has more appeal in the West.
Why Appalachia votes like it does, to take a contrasting example, is un-obvious to me and seems to require some sort of ethno-history account to make sense of it. I think the West is more contemporary in that you'll see the polarization out here spread to the rest of the US in the future, with, for example, anti-abortion, pro-gun Democrats, now rare in the West, becoming rarer in the East as well.
It seems to me that the axis on your graph is a little confusing. While you go from left to right people get more moderate, as you go from down to up people get less moderate. I know that it is a scale of "liberal-ness," but it seems like the graph would be more intuitive if we were deviating from the "center."
Just my two cents.
Hey, Poblano, could you do a special look at Nebraska and Maine, and their electoral vote splitting by congressional district? I know that'd be hard, considering that I can only think of one poll which I've seen which broke things up by congressional district, (that national SUSA poll), but you could probably use demographics from other pollsters to make a projection about the CDs.
Plus, while I wouldn't read TOO much into the SUSA poll showing Obama ahead in CDs 1 and 2 (I hate to think of what the margin of error is on a poll with a sample size of 200), I could certainly see Obama winning CD 2 (Omaha + Suburbs), especially if he picks a VP like Sebelius, who has some regional appeal.
My view of Oregon is that there is a lot of voters tend to have libertarian tendencies; which explains the support for assisted suicide, drugs etc. However views on fiscal policy (especially taxes) is probably what causes the vote to be so close.
Obama2008: that's a good suggestion, to make each dimension + or - from either the midpoint (5) or the mean or median of the state scores.
BTW/ Poblano--this is going to be interesting to play out in other states. It also speaks to the debate among political scientists about whether the polarization of politics is more an elite or mass phenemenon.
Look for discussion of Morris Fiorina's argument about the myth of culture wars and debate around that: http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3010006.html
Poblano, do you actually plan in advance how you roll out your posts, to create suspense and a larger narrative? So that now, for instance, you gradually prepare for the story of Oregon?
I am more and more impressed by this site.
I don't know why it was never really mentioned throughout the primaries that Hillary would have lost Oregon and Washington to McCain. There's really no question about it.
One picture equals 1,000 words.
Your little Kerry-Bush graph illustrates well some key voting trends in Western states. I'd like to see age as a third dimension, because these Western states have been going through some demographic changes, and I'll bet the "sagebrush rebellion" Republicans are aging out of the voting pool. In the West we never really had that many "Reagan Democrats". The Republican coalition was over-represented on the substantial population of business, anti-tax and neo-con.
Also, these high-tech Western states have a lot of Liberal Independents (you might call them small-L libertarians), who never felt comfortable committing to the Democratic Party, but whom Bush's failures and Obama's attraction has put into play.
Pew's Red-Blue Report from 2006
The Clinton-Obama match-up has illustrated the changing demographics and changing coalitions that make up the Democratic Party. Pew did an awesome ideological analysis in 2006 called Beyond Red vs Blue. At the time, I looked into some of the cross-tabs in a MyDD post Regional Differences in Democrat & Republican Coalitions. For me, the take-away point about the Democratic Coalition in the West is the dominance of the Liberal Dem identifiers: In the West fully 27% of the electorate identifies as Liberal Democrat, 53% higher than the National numbers. This 27% becomes 2/3 of the Democratic Party coalition in the West (when compared with 9% Conservative D, 5% Disadvantaged D).
Although the base is pretty Liberal, and the Independents hanging in the wings, the Democratic Party establishment in the West tends to be pretty Moderate, if not downright Conservative. This reflects the historical problem of winning elections in a basically Red state. The growth of the Urban centers in CO, OR and WA is steadily eroding the Conservative threat. At some point, we could see the Party shift to a much more Liberal identification.
This over-identification of Liberal Dem is a key subtext explaining the cluster of WA, OR, CO. I note that VT, MN and NM share the cluster created by Poblano's graph.
Here's something to do some research on: The number of Mormons in Oregon. In the past 20 years, I think there's been a noticeable increase, especially in Bend and in the suburbs of Portland. They are probably the most reliably right-wing voting bloc in the country, and I suspect that they're behind the Republican shift to the right in that state.
My comments do not appear to be showing up. Sorry if this is a double post, but I think you need to do a study of libertarians. Here is a recap of what I posted:
- People with libertarian views compromise about 10-20% of the electorate
- They are concentrated even more heavily in the Northwest (see Ron Paul's donation map)
- One poll asked people if they were libertarian, conservative, liberal, moderate. Only 1% said libertarian. They were then read a definition of libertarian and afterwards asked again - this then increase to 12%. The important finding is that the gains came roughly equally from those who had said liberal, conservative, and moderate.
- Libertarians voted 72-20 for Bush over Gore, but only 59-38 for Bush over Kerry
This is one of the most astute analyses of my fair state I've ever read. Remarkable--thanks.
Reads like just so much mental-masturbation. Liberal this, Conservative that that crap only exists in the heads of political pundits with too much time on their hands.
Post a Comment