Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For starters, the Midwest is more educated. We also have a long history with labor unions. Plus our heritage is Germany, Scandinavian, etc. and we're much less religious.
I also agree with the bold and especially with the labor union portion. Our white union members in Ohio in particular truly do understand that Union means better pay and better benefits and better treatment for the working man. That alone does make the area more inclined to be open to voting for Democrats than a similar white man in the south.
The religion is also very important. Much of the GOP rhetoric today is religious xenophobia about Muslims. We also rely a lot in the agricultural industry in Midwest states on migrant workers so many here are not as concerned about "caravans" that more than likely won't even get here lol.
I'll also note as a black person who has lived in the Midwest/Great Lakes and the South that black voters in these regions are very different as well.
In the Midwest, black voters will vote for a more conservative candidate if that candidate comes "correct" basically. Like Kasich who got about 30% of the black vote in his last election in Ohio. He did so because he focused on things that are important to black voters - education, healthcare, entrepreneurship.
In the south, many of the GOP candidates too often fall into racial rhetoric and that puts off black voters.
Black voters in the south put up a lot with racial ridiculousness and that makes them less likely to even trust a non-black candidate at all. I'll note I was the same way in the south, which was different for me. Too many of the candidates just had too much racial dirty. The GOP in GA in the early 2000s in particular when I first started voting there was TOTALLY different than the GOP I was used to in Ohio - the first governor in Ohio I ever voted for was Voinovich - who many GOPers today would consider a "RINO" because he wasn't a conservative nut job.
Nope a good chunk of those from the South are descended from those that were considered undesirable that the Brits wanted to get rid of they dumped them in the colonies. Enough of them settled in isolated pockets that they retained undesirable characteristics.
True enough. The Union should have kept their boot on the throat of the south for 150 years until they learned to behave in a civilized fashion. Banned the Confederate flag and erased all of their "heroes" from the history books.
I'll also note as a black person who has lived in the Midwest/Great Lakes and the South that black voters in these regions are very different as well.
In the Midwest, black voters will vote for a more conservative candidate if that candidate comes "correct" basically. Like Kasich who got about 30% of the black vote in his last election in Ohio. He did so because he focused on things that are important to black voters - education, healthcare, entrepreneurship.
In the south, many of the GOP candidates too often fall into racial rhetoric and that puts off black voters.
Black voters in the south put up a lot with racial ridiculousness and that makes them less likely to even trust a non-black candidate at all. I'll note I was the same way in the south, which was different for me. Too many of the candidates just had too much racial dirty. The GOP in GA in the early 2000s in particular when I first started voting there was TOTALLY different than the GOP I was used to in Ohio - the first governor in Ohio I ever voted for was Voinovich - who many GOPers today would consider a "RINO" because he wasn't a conservative nut job.
But that would beg the question, why is the Midwest pro-union and the South anti-union?
South was agrarian historically and didn't have the manufacturing base to ever get any momentum for unions.
They were democrats since before Andrew Jackson and switched to republican when blacks got the vote in 1960s and signed up overwhelmingly democratic. In the south it's a threat to whites for blacks to get political power as long as they lean liberal.
The north the democratic base was strong until the unions got crushed in the 70s and 80s. Dwindling manufacturing jobs and the same threat of minority empowerment has solidified republican support in the midwest starting with the so called "Reagan democrats" of the early '80s. It's also important to note that there was a lot of republican support in the midwest traditionally from way back even during the labor heyday.
I think deep down the manufacturing/mining base was hoping that republican policy would bring jobs back. If it doesn't happen they may go back to democratic for a cycle or two to give the dems a chance.
The upper Midwest is different than midwestern states like mine, Indiana and even Iowa...
There are really two Midwests: upper and lower. The Upper Midwest is more “Yankeeâ€: the portion of Ohio adjacent to Lake Eire; most of Michigan, except for its SW corner; the portion of Illinois around Chicago; Wisconsin and Minnesota. The Lower Midwest is more “Southernâ€: the rest of Ohio and Illinois; all of Indiana, Missouri and Iowa.
It is likely that the voting patterns of the Upper Midwest trend more like those of New England or Mid Atlantic states, while those of the Lower Midwest trend more like those of the South.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
But that would beg the question, why is the Midwest pro-union and the South anti-union?
Largely because in the heyday of union-formation, 1870-1910, the South had comparatively little heavy-industry, whereas the Midwest was highly industrialized. By the time that industry migrated towards the South, unions were already past their prime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
But that, too, would beg the question: Why do they consider themselves more self reliant and individualistic?
Yes, it is at least partially ethnicity... not in the sense that genetic makeup is destiny, but in the intergenerational conveyance of culture. To be simplistic, it's Scotch-Irish vs. Scandinavian/German.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618
...The Southern Baptist church is deeply entrenched in the South and Baptists vote Republican primarily...
That is also a factor. The Midwest is heavily Catholic, and Catholics in America - far more so than Protestants - have a tradition of strong institutions and community cohesion.
And in the Midwest the culture is very different. I am from Ohio and lived in the south for nearly 20 years. I never got used to the culture there. People get upset when I say it but IMO "southern hospitality" is basically "telling lies" (such as "bless your heart" when they don't like your a$$ lol). Midwesterners are more open and don't beat around the bush and we don't like it when people lie to our freaking faces - which is what a lot of Trump's supporters in the Midwest feel that he did.
One exception to the Midwestern protocol you mentioned above - "Minnesota nice". There is that courteousness, reserve and superficial politeness, but also a bit of passive aggression.
One exception to the Midwestern protocol you mentioned above - "Minnesota nice". There is that courteousness, reserve and superficial politeness, but also a bit of passive aggression.
stop with the hypocrisy of gerrymandering......it is done by both parties. The majority party in the state gets to draw the district lines and both parties do it to their benefit. It happens in blue states and red states for decades.
Blah blah blah. In the 2018 election in Wisconsin, Democratic candidates pulled no less than 53% of the votes for state assembly - that is, 53% of the voters in Wisconsin wanted to be represented by Democratic legislators - but they only won 36% of the seats.
In Michigan, Democrats won 52% of the votes, Republicans won 53% of the seats.
In the North Carolina House election, Republicans won 48% of the vote but 55% of the seats, maintaining a majority in that chamber even though the majority of voters voted for Democrats. In the state Senate, Democrats won 51% of the vote, but the Republicans won 65% of the seats.
In Ohio, Republicans won 52% of the vote but 70% of the seats.
The question we're discussing here is not whether both sides do it, or even whether it's right or wrong. The point was simply that gerrymandering makes an enormous difference in who holds the political power in southern and midwestern states. The numbers I just posted make it clear that it does. If you want to dig up some numbers showing where Democrats used gerrymandering to gain unfair advantages in last year's elections, feel free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prophet619
True enough. The Union should have kept their boot on the throat of the south for 150 years until they learned to behave in a civilized fashion. Banned the Confederate flag and erased all of their "heroes" from the history books.
Looking back through the lens of history, allowing the Confederacy to come back into the Union with minimal penalties was one of the worst mistakes in the history of our nation. We should have crushed them for the rebels and traitors that they were. The ignorant, racist inbreds have been dragging this country backward ever since.
The south engages in voter supression on a much larger scale than other states. Once the federal review process was overturned (a peel back of the old CRA and VRA) they implemented lots of laws to deny primarily poor and minority voters access to the polls.
Also, even though I do think that racism is all over the US. I do think it is different in the south and race is a huge factor in elections down there. The GOP in Midwestern states also usually do not engage as much in racial rhetoric - this is one of the differences. And in the Midwest the culture is very different. I am from Ohio and lived in the south for nearly 20 years. I never got used to the culture there. People get upset when I say it but IMO "southern hospitality" is basically "telling lies" (such as "bless your heart" when they don't like your a$$ lol). Midwesterners are more open and don't beat around the bush and we don't like it when people lie to our freaking faces - which is what a lot of Trump's supporters in the Midwest feel that he did.
ITA with the portion in bold. I talked about this in another thread. I grew up in the Midwest, and am now in the South. I've been accused of being argumentative, even aggressive, simply for requesting a clear answer to a very simple question, and been shocked and disappointed to discover that a few people who were quite friendly to my face actually despised me. I'm all for good manners, but this is not how I was raised to define them.
Anyway, back to the question at hand. I think race plays a part, but I think religion does, as well. Southern conservatives, at least from what I have seen, tend to be more socially conservative than those in the Midwest. Not all red states are the same. Case in point: Alaska. It's a red state, but it's also one of the most secular states in the country, Sarah Palin aside. It's a completely different kind of red, more libertarian than Christian right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
