Today’s entry is the last in our series reviewing the 2010 midterm electoral results. Our final chapter covers the Midwest. This region has been swinging electoral outcomes in the United States for more than 200 years. It was a key element in the Jeffersonian majority from 1800 to 1824, then it was also a vital element in the Jacksonian coalition from 1828 to 1860. Lincoln and the Republicans realigned it in 1860, but the Democratic revival in Indiana and Ohio made for a competitive party system from about the Panic of 1873 to the Panic of 1893. After that, McKinley and the Republicans won it back, and it stayed Republican until the Great Depression. For the last 60 years, both parties have traded leads in this important region, which has facilitated the regular changeover in party power since the death of Franklin Roosevelt.
The reason for this is the diversity of the region. Consider, for instance, Ohio in the 19th century. Southern Ohio was full of migrants from the South, and thus was tilted to the Democrats. Northern Ohio was full of Yankee migrants from New England, and thus tilted Republican. But it also had a mix of farming as well as industry, giving the two parties economic bases of support. (This is why so many “no name” Republican presidents from the 19th century were from Ohio. It was an easy way to capture the Buckeye State’s crucial electoral votes!) While our understanding of the phrase “political diversity” is very different in the 21st century, it remains true that states like Ohio are stil very diverse, and very well balanced. Both parties have solid bases of support that rarely fall below 45 percent, making the small share of Ohio voters swing voters very important.
In 2010, Ohio and the rest of the Midwest swung heavily toward the Republican Party. We can see this most immediately by looking at the map. The Census Bureau divides the Midwest Region into two divisions — the East North Central and the West North Central. Let’s look at each in turn.
Here’s the House breakdown of the East North Central in 2008.
[img nocaption float=”center” width=”598″ height=”640″ render=”<%photoRenderType%>”]12457[/img]
For the Democrats, this is really about as good as it gets. We see strong domination of the major cities in the division — Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, and Missouri. On top of that, the party has control over many suburban districts, as well as more rural districts in places like Southern Indiana and Ohio.
But 2010, for the Democrats, was about as bad as it gets in the region.
[img nocaption float=”center” width=”598″ height=”640″ render=”<%photoRenderType%>”]12458[/img]
We see a Republican surge in the rural areas as well as many suburban areas, leaving the Democrats hanging on basically in their core urban base. The party’s decline is just as stark when we examine a chart of the two party House vote.
[img nocaption float=”center” width=”598″ height=”640″ render=”<%photoRenderType%>”]12459[/img]
In 2008, the Democrats won the House vote in every state in this division, including historically Republican Indiana. But the switch in 2010 is dramatic. The GOP dominates the vote in every state but Illinois, where it was only the heavily Democratic districts in Chicago that delivered the Democrats a bare victory.
And as Sean Trende notes here, the Democratic decline was broad-based. It wasn’t just the suburban and rural districts where the votes moved, although those were the places where the movement was typically enough to flip the seat. It was also in white working class districts, which we can see in particular around MIchigan. Dale Kildee of Flint and John Dingell of Dearborn managed to hang on to their seats, but Kildee only won 53 percent of the vote and Dingell just 57 percent. Similarly, in the Democratic strongholds of Northern Ohio, only Marcia Fudge — who represents a majority-minority district — exceeded 60 percent of the vote.
What about the West North Central? This is a very diverse region. The states that run up the spine of the country — Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota — have historically been Republican, and actually were the first states to return to the GOP’s fold after the FDR surge of 1932. Missouri used to be more Democratic, but has shifted to the Republicans. So has Minnesota. Iowa remains as independent of national trends as ever. It was the only state in the union to deny Franklin Roosevelt a majority in 1940 and 1944, but give Harry Truman more than 50 percent of the vote in 1948. Similarly, Iowa swung heavily against George H. W. Bush in 1988 but gave George W. Bush a narrow majority in 2004.
Here is the map of House districts in this division in 2008.
[img nocaption float=”center” width=”598″ height=”640″ render=”<%photoRenderType%>”]12460[/img]
Again, we see the Democrats at a kind of high water mark here, with only resolutely Republican Nebraska going completely for the GOP Now, here is the shift in 2010.
[img nocaption float=”center” width=”598″ height=”640″ render=”<%photoRenderType%>”]12461[/img]
This approaches a high water mark for the Republican Party in this division. We see the GOP totally dominate its base states in the center of the country, and push the Democrats to just three congressional districts in Missouri. Also notable is the GOP victory over long-term congressman James Oberstar in MN-08, or the Iron Range in the northeast corner of the state. A Democrat has held that district since 1948, but no longer. The only real disappointment for Republicans is in Iowa, where the GOP had a legitimate shot at IA-01, 02, and 03. Unfortunately, they went 0-for-3, though the party came close in all three districts.
As with the East North Central, a chart of the House vote is equally telling.
[img nocaption float=”center” width=”598″ height=”640″ render=”<%photoRenderType%>”]12462[/img]
The gerrymander in Iowa was very effective for the Democrats this time around, as the party lost zero seats despite a 16-point swing in the popular vote margin.
Exit polling data from the Midwest Region was somewhat sparse, and it is especially unfortunate that no exit polling was taken in Michigan, where there has been an especially dramatic overturn. Nevertheless, the data we have paints a very negative picture for the Democrats.
[img nocaption float=”left” width=”598″ height=”640″ render=”<%photoRenderType%>”]12463[/img]
What we see in state after state is a public that has soured on President Obama. We also see slight but consistent movement away from the Democrats and toward the Republicans.
Republican candidates were able to dominate in this region. In only one contest — the Illinois governor race — did a Democrat defeat a Republican in a two-person matchup, and even then just barely. Republicans were generally able to avoid the problems of Colorado, Delaware, and Nevada and offer candidates with broad appeal. Recall from last time our measure of “breadth of appeal,” with the higher the number indicating the broader appeal. Here’s a rundown of Republican breadth in the Midwest.
[img nocaption float=”center” width=”598″ height=”640″ render=”<%photoRenderType%>”]12464[/img]
No Republicans here had the same kind of trouble that Sharron Angle or Ken Buck had in terms of narrowness of appeal. What is noteworthy is the drop-off from the Ohio Senate race, where Rob Portman was +12, to the Ohio gubernatorial race, where John Kasich was -3. How to explain this? Democratic incumbent Ted Strickland made great hay by linking Kasich to Wall Street, especially Lehman Brothers, as can be seen in this ad.
This is very similar to the problem that Pat Toomey had in Pennsylvania, and it again underscores a point I have been making time and again. Republican candidates who were able to avoid these kinds of caricatures from their Democratic opponents tended to do much better.
In the final analysis, I cannot emphasize the following point enough. The Midwest is going to decide the 2012 presidential contest. This, for now, is good news for the Republicans. The data indicates pretty clearly that President Obama, who performed very well here in 2008, is now in a very weak position. His approval numbers in state after state were terrible, resulting in significant Republican triumphs.
Yet, once again, we see the effects of “candidate quality” in this election. Although I am a fan of John Kasich and think he will make a fine governor, there is a lesson to be learned from the closeness of his victory. Republicans have to be very careful and meticulous in their evaluation of prospective 2012 party nominees, and nominate a candidate whom the Democrats cannot successfully tag as a tool of Wall Street (or, for that matter as an extremist, which is how they defeated Sharron Angle and Ken Buck). In particular, they need to look to the Midwest, and try as best they can to evaluate prospective nominees not only by whether they are sufficiently qualified and genuinely conservative, but whether they will, as the old saying goes, “Play in Peoria.” The Midwest is where the presidency will be won in 2012, and the GOP would be well advised to nominate a candidate who appeals to Midwestern swing voters.
To that end, the party might take a page out of its 19th century playbook, and nominate a candidate who hails from this region. That is probably the best path to victory. To me, the most appealing national ticket in 2012 would be Daniels/Rubio. Assuming that both candidates can stand up to the scrutiny of an intense presidential campaign, I think such a ticket would be sufficiently conservative and would also give the party a fantastic chance of victory. We know Daniels has crossover appeal, as he ran nine points ahead of John McCain in 2008. He is also from the very division — the East North Central — where the GOP has a great chance of swiping nearly 60 electoral votes from Obama. Meanwhile, Rubio would help immensely in Florida, and he might even give the GOP a nationwide boost with Latinos (even though he is Cuban by descent and Mountain Western Latinos tend to be Mexican by descent). Rubio’s charisma and unique story might offer that special x-factor that can turn close elections; I’d especially love to see him debate Joe Biden in 2012!
