Red State/Blue State Paradox

Introduction

In recent US presidential elections we have observed, at the macro-level, that higher-income states support Democratic presidential candidates (eg, California, New York,) and lower-income states support Republcan presidential candidates (eg, Alabama, Mississippi). However, at the micro-level, we observe that higher-income voters support Republican presidential candidates, and lower-income voters support Democratic presidential candidates. What explains this apparent paradox?

Journalistic Explanation

Journalists seem to argue with the second half of the paradox, namely, higher-income voters support Republican presidential candidates, and lower-income voters support Democratic presidential candidates.

Brooks (2004) points out that a large class of affluent professionals are solidly Democratic. Specifically, he notes that 90 out of 100 zip codes where the median home income was above $500,000 elected liberal Democrats.

Barnes (2002) find that 38% of voters in “strong Bush” counties had household incomes below $30,000, while 7% earned only $100,000; and 29% of voters in “strong Gore” counties had household incomes below $30,000, while 14% was above $100,000.

Wasserman (2002) also finds similar trends. Per capital income in “Blue” states was $28,000 vs. $24,000 for “Red” states. Eight of the top 10 metropolitan areas with the highest per capital income were from “Blue” states; and 8 of the top 10 metropolitan areas with the lowest income levels were from “Red” states.

The journalistic explanation is that higher-income individuals, and as a result, wealthly areas are Democratic; and lower-income individuals, and as a result, lower-income areas are Republican. Therefore, journalists would argue that there is no paradox.

Are Journalists Right?

McCarty, et al. (2003) in their examination of political polarization and income inequality show that partisanship and presidential vote choice have become more stratified by income. It was true that income was not a reliable predictor of political beliefs and partisanship in the mass public. Partisanship was only weakly related to income in the period following World War II. According to McCarty et al. (2003), in the presidential elections of 1956 and 1960, respondents from the highest quintile were hardly more likely to identify as a Republican than respondents from the lowest quintile. However, elections of 1992 and 1996, respondents in the highest quintile were more than twice as likely to identify as a Republican than were those in the lowest quintile.

If the Journalists are Wrong, What Explains the Paradox?

One possible explanation. Lower-income individuals in higher-income states turnout in higher rates; and higher-income individuals in lower-income states turnout in higher rates producing the Red State/Blue State paradox. In short, an aggregation problem.

So how do we prove this? To be continued…

1 thought on “Red State/Blue State Paradox

  1. ? commented:

    That’s an interesting paradox, and a good explanation.

    This “comment” is changing the subject a bit, but it relates to the upcoming election so I thought I’d post it here. I’ve heard that undecided voters usually break more for the challenger. Do you think this is real, or just data mining?

    When I first heard about this a couple weeks ago I figured it was probably just data mining. And maybe wishful thinking by Bush haters. Do you think so, or do you think this effect is real? I wonder what your take is. Also, I wonder if this effect holds true for state-by-state predictions, or does it just apply to predictions for the national popular vote?

    I have no idea about the 2nd question but after looking at some data today, here’s my take on the 1st: it looks like the national effect is incredibly substantial.

    It seems to me that if you’re gonna look at the past to judge these things, only the fairly recent past is probably relevant, especially since CBS, ABC, and NBC have only been polling for about 30 yrs. So really you’ve got to look at incumbents running in 1996, 1992, 1984, 1980, and maybe 1976 and 1972, but that’s really it. So that’s all I looked at.

    Ok. In 1996, Clinton got 49%. CBS’s poll put Clinton at 53%, ABC 51%, NBC 49%, Gallup 52%, Harris 51%.
    RESULT: incumbent was overestimated.

    Let’s go to 1992. Bush ended up with 37%. CBS said 37%, ABC 37%, NBC 36%, Gallup 37%, Harris 38%.
    RESULT: incumbent’s percentage was right.

    Now 1984. Reagan got 59%. CBS said Reagan would get 58%, ABC 57%, Gallup 59%, Harris 56%.
    RESULT: incumbent’s percenatage was slightly underestimated.

    Now 1980. Carter got 41%. CBS said Carter would get 43%, ABC said 41%, NBC said 36%, Gallup 44%, Harris 41%.
    RESULT: incumbent’s percenatage was right.

    Now 1976. Ford got 48%. Harris/ABC said 47%, Gallup 49%.
    RESULT: incumbent’s percenatage was right.

    Every single time, the polls are very accurate at estimating the incumbent’s percentage.

    Now look at the challengers.
    * In 1996, Dole got 41%, and they underestimated him (CBS 35%, ABC 39%, NBC 37%, Gallup 41%, Harris 39%).
    * In 1992, Clinton got 43%, and they slightly overestimated him (CBS 45%, ABC 44%, NBC 44%, Gallup 49%, Harris 44% — strangely Gallup was way off here).
    * In 1984, Mondale got 41%, and they got it right (CBS 37%, ABC 39%, Gallup 41%, Harris 44%).
    * In 1980, Reagan got 51%, and they badly underestimated him (CBS 44%, Harris/ABC 46%, NBC 42%, Gallup 47%).
    * In 1976, Carter got 50% and they underestimated him (Harris/ABC 48%, Gallup 48%).

    I don’t feel like this is data mining. It’s basically the same thing every single time. They get the incumbent’s percentage exactly right, and the undecided voters go to the challenger. Especially the tv station polls. In these 5 elections collectively, Gallup overestimated the incumbent by a total of 7 points and was even on the challengers. So we might say their score is (+7, 0). For CBS it’s (+1, -15). ABC is (-1, -10). NBC is (-6, -12). Harris is (+1, -5).

    As a whole, in these 5 elections, the mean of these polls is almost exactly right every time for the incumbent (in an average year they’re overestimating the incumbent by 0.14%), but in an average year they’re underestimating the challenger by 2.28%.

    Here’s the other thing that’s a good sign for Kerry fans: it’s only the main challenger that they underestimate. The polls don’t really seem to underestimate 3rd parties. In fact they overestimated Anderson in 1980, same for McCarthy in 1976, and same for Nader in 2000. They underestimated Perot for some reason in 1992, but they got him right in 1996. So it seems unlikely that undecided voters will go to Nader.

    All of this data is at http://www.ncpp.org/1936-2000.htm .

    What do these polls say now, for likely voters?
    —————————-
    CBS: Bush 47%, Kerry 45%.
    ABC: Bush 49%, Kerry 48%.
    NBC: I can’t find anything.
    Gallup: Bush 51%, Kerry 46%.
    Harris: Bush 47%, Kerry 48%.
    —————————-
    Average: Bush 48.5%, Kerry 46.75%.

Comments are closed.