Indiana 2008 – County by County - Part I
by Mark Rosenthal
I have done a county for county analysis of the GE 2008 for the state of INDIANA.
Obama, who took the Hoosier state by a +1.03% margin, was the first democratic candidate to win this state since 1964. This means that two complete generations of citizens from Indiana had voted in the majority for the republican presidential candidate until 2008.
A number of myths and angry retorts have gone around (mostly from the GOP and the extreme right) about what happened in INDIANA since election day, so I decided to do an exact analysis to get to the facts and to dispel myth and rumour. The results of this analysis are quite amazing.
First, some important background information on INDIANA:
Since the GOP was first on the national ballot in 1856, there have been 39 election cycles, of which the democratic party has won 9 cycles (23.08%), and the GOP has won 30 cycles (76.92%).
Here the 7 democratic winners (9 cycles) in INDIANA:
|
Year |
Candidate |
D % |
R % |
I/O % |
Margin |
Part. Shift |
|
1856 |
Buchanan |
50.41% |
40.09% |
9.51% |
+10.32% |
-- |
|
1876 |
Tilden |
48.65% |
47.39% |
3.96% |
+1.26% |
+7.67% |
|
1884 |
Cleveland |
49.46% |
48.15% |
2.39% |
+1.32% |
+2.73% |
|
1892 |
Cleveland |
47.46% |
46.17% |
6.37% |
+1.29% |
+1.73% |
|
1912 |
Wilson |
43.07% |
23.11% |
33.81% |
+18.32% |
+19.81% |
|
1932 |
Roosevelt, F |
54.67% |
42.94% |
2.39% |
+11.72 |
+31.81% |
|
1936 |
Roosevelt, F |
56.63% |
41.89% |
1.48% |
+14.74 |
+3.02% |
|
1964 |
Johnson |
55.98% |
43.56% |
0.46% |
+12.42% |
+22.85% |
|
2008 |
Obama |
49.91% |
48.88% |
1.21% |
+1.03% |
+21.71% |
We see that the democratic party has won INDIANA 4 times in each century.
Not to slight either Buchanan or Wilson, but the GOP was just getting off the ground in 1856, and that was shortly before the civil war. INDIANA, being a northern state, was pro-emancipation and therefore learned quickly to lean toward the GOP of those days. Wilson won INDIANA in a three way against incumbent Taft and Taft's predecessor, Teddy Roosevelt. In a two-way race, Wilson would have surely lost INDIANA, which happened to Wilson 4 years later.
The only democratic candidate to win INDIANA in a re-election campaign was FDR.
Yes, Grover Cleveland won INDIANA twice, but those were 2 non-consecutive terms. Cleveland won INDIANA in 1884 partly because his vice-presidential candidate, Thomas Hendricks (see: Hendricks county!) came from IN. He lost IN in 1888 mostly because the Republican candidate, Harrison (see: Harrison county!), came from IN. Cleveland got his revenge over Harrison in 1892.
Here the same table, arranged by winning percent, descending:
|
Year |
Candidate |
D % |
R % |
I/O % |
Margin |
Part. Shift |
|
1936 |
Roosevelt, F |
56.63% |
41.89% |
1.48% |
+14.74 |
+3.02% |
|
1964 |
Johnson |
55.98% |
43.56% |
0.46% |
+12.42% |
+22.85% |
|
1932 |
Roosevelt, F |
54.67% |
42.94% |
2.39% |
+11.72 |
+31.81% |
|
1856 |
Buchanan |
50.41% |
40.09% |
9.51% |
+10.32% |
-- |
|
2008 |
Obama |
49.91% |
48.88% |
1.21% |
+1.03% |
+21.71% |
|
1884 |
Cleveland |
49.46% |
48.15% |
2.39% |
+1.32% |
+2.73% |
|
1876 |
Tilden |
48.65% |
47.39% |
3.96% |
+1.26% |
+7.67% |
|
1892 |
Cleveland |
47.46% |
46.17% |
6.37% |
+1.29% |
+1.73% |
|
1912 |
Wilson |
43.07% |
23.11% |
33.81% |
+18.32% |
+19.81% |
And the same table, arranged by winning margins, descending:
|
Year |
Candidate |
D % |
R % |
I/O % |
Margin |
Part. Shift |
|
1912 |
Wilson |
43.07% |
23.11% |
33.81% |
+18.32% |
+19.81% |
|
1936 |
Roosevelt, F |
56.63% |
41.89% |
1.48% |
+14.74 |
+3.02% |
|
1964 |
Johnson |
55.98% |
43.56% |
0.46% |
+12.42% |
+22.85% |
|
1932 |
Roosevelt, F |
54.67% |
42.94% |
2.39% |
+11.72 |
+31.81% |
|
1856 |
Buchanan |
50.41% |
40.09% |
9.51% |
+10.32% |
-- |
|
1884 |
Cleveland |
49.46% |
48.15% |
2.39% |
+1.32% |
+2.73% |
|
1892 |
Cleveland |
47.46% |
46.17% |
6.37% |
+1.29% |
+1.73% |
|
1876 |
Tilden |
48.65% |
47.39% |
3.96% |
+1.26% |
+7.67% |
|
2008 |
Obama |
49.91% |
48.88% |
1.21% |
+1.03% |
+21.71% |
Again, the same table, this time arranged by partisan shift, descending:
|
Year |
Candidate |
D % |
R % |
I/O % |
Margin |
Part. Shift |
|
1932 |
Roosevelt, F |
54.67% |
42.94% |
2.39% |
+11.72 |
+31.81% |
|
1964 |
Johnson |
55.98% |
43.56% |
0.46% |
+12.42% |
+22.85% |
|
2008 |
Obama |
49.91% |
48.88% |
1.21% |
+1.03% |
+21.71% |
|
1912 |
Wilson |
43.07% |
23.11% |
33.81% |
+18.32% |
+19.81% |
|
1876 |
Tilden |
48.65% |
47.39% |
3.96% |
+1.26% |
+7.67% |
|
1936 |
Roosevelt, F |
56.63% |
41.89% |
1.48% |
+14.74 |
+3.02% |
|
1884 |
Cleveland |
49.46% |
48.15% |
2.39% |
+1.32% |
+2.73% |
|
1892 |
Cleveland |
47.46% |
46.17% |
6.37% |
+1.29% |
+1.73% |
|
1856 |
Buchanan |
50.41% |
40.09% |
9.51% |
+10.32% |
-- |
And finally, the table to measure the partisan shift for the state over the national partisan shift for that year:
|
Year |
Candidate |
Margin |
Part. Shift |
Nat. Part shift |
Diff. |
|
2008 |
Obama |
+1.03% |
+21.71% |
+9.73% |
+11.98% |
|
1884 |
Cleveland |
+1.32% |
+2.73% |
+0.67% |
+2.06% |
|
1964 |
Johnson |
+12.42% |
+22.85% |
+22.42% |
+0.43% |
|
1892 |
Cleveland |
+1.29% |
+1.73% |
+2.18% |
-0.45% |
|
1912 |
Wilson |
+18.32% |
+19.81% |
+22.97% |
-3.16% |
|
1932 |
Roosevelt, F |
+11.72 |
+31.81% |
+35.18% |
-3.37% |
|
1936 |
Roosevelt, F |
+14.74 |
+3.02% |
+6.49% |
-3.47% |
|
1876 |
Tilden |
+1.26% |
+7.67% |
+12.10% |
-4.43% |
|
1856 |
Buchanan |
+10.32% |
-- |
-- |
-- |
Note that in only 3 of 9 cycles, the difference is a postive difference.
So, based on these tables, here are undeniable facts about Obama's win in INDIANA in 2008:
Obama won INDIANA with the leanest margin for a democratic candidate since 1856. His winning percent was the 5th highest of the nine cycles in which a democratic candidate picked-up the state, but the partisan shift from his win is the third highest in democratic history and the difference between the partisan shift in IN and that of the nation for 2008 (+11.98% over the national shift) is the largest postive difference for a democratic candidate in US history. For FDR in 1932, the difference was a NEGATIVE value, which means that INDIANA did not help FDR get to his national +35.18% partisan shift, but rather, was a drag on it. This time around, it is the opposite. The +21.71% partisan shift in IN was a contributing factor in Obama's national +9.73% partisan shift over 2004. This partisan shift is especially stunning when we consider how bitterly divided and, for all intents and purposes, landlocked, the US-american electorate has become over the last 16 years. I will be coming back to this fact at the conclusion of the analysis - the ramifications for the GOP in the future.
Also is to note that in INDIANA, the Secretary of State and the State Board of Elections do not publish voter registration statistics by party affiliation. However, based on the voting record for this state, we can safely assume that the majority of registered voters in INDIANA either see themselves as republicans and of those voters who see themselves as democrats, a good deal of them are centrist democrats who traditionally vote republican in national cycles. This explains Evan Bayh and his success as a centrist democrat in a traditionally deep red state - to a certain degree. That Obama was able to literally peel off 10.7% of the voters in INDIANA to his team while McCain lost 11.1% of voters (in relation to 2004) at a time when the nation is so bitterly divided among party lines, is nothing less than amazing. And that this partisan shift is more than twice as high as the national partisan shift from 2004 to 2008 will surely be a subject for future electoral history books.
It is also interesting to note that the media networks, in spite of the closeness of the race, were all able to comfortably call INDIANA for Obama at about 1 AM in the night between November 4th and 5th, 2008. And no recount was needed.
Shortly after the election, right wing websites and media outlets started giving the following „explanations for the GOP's loss in INDIANA. Here are some of them:
1.) The blacks in Indianapolis stole the election for Obama.
2.) The chicago media market controlled the upper NW corner of the state of INDIANA and therefore tipped the election.
3.) The centers of liberalism have grown greatly (IU, Indy), therefore endangering the GOP majority in the state.
4.) Barr spoiled the race for McCain.
In order to find a factual explanation for all of this, I took the county-wide data for the entire state for both 2008 and 2004 and plugged it into an excel document, which you can find HERE . Subsidiary data for all 92 counties in the state of INDIANA can be found here.
Of those 92 counties, Obama won 15 counties (4 DEM retentions, 11 pick-ups), McCain won the other 77 (all GOP retentions.) In the excel document, everything is color-coded: red= GOP, blue = DEM, green= OTH. In the case of DEM pick-ups, those counties are also highlighted in light-blue.
And now comes the good stuff:
|
Party |
% loss |
% gain |
Num. loss |
Num. Gain |
Margin loss |
Margin gain |
|
GOP |
92 |
0 |
85 |
7 |
92 |
0 |
|
DEM |
0 |
92 |
0 |
92 |
0 |
92 |
|
OTHER |
1 |
91 |
1 |
91 |
-- |
-- |
This means that the GOP lost ground in all 92 counties, without exception. And that the Democratic party gained ground in all 92 counties, without exception.
Here the 7 counties where McCain scored more votes than Bush (2004):
Clark, Dearbon, Floyd, Franklin, Hamilton, Hancock and Hendricks. However, in these counties, Obama scored so many more votes over Kerry's take from 2004 that it still ended in a statistical loss for McCain and the GOP in 2008.
Here the one county where the „OTHER“ vote suffered a numeric and percentual loss: Marion County (Indianapolis). Note: more votes were cast in Marion county, IN (380,090) than in DC (265,853), ND (317,722), VT (325,046) or WY (254,658).
From this statistical data, we can see that Obama's win was statewide, in every single county.
Much more in part II .