How Similar are Milwaukee and Cleveland???

Coming out of Tuesday's primary in Ohio, I was somewhat surprised that while Obama won Cleveland, his numbers weren't as high as I would have thought. As a Wisconsin native, I've always viewed Milwaukee and Cleveland as, in many ways, sister cities. Therefore, I figured they'd vote the same. They're roughly the same size rust belt metropolises with a history of heavy manufacturing, ethnic based neighborhoods and politics, and a not too pleasant legacy of segregation and racial strife. To be more specific, I've dug up some demographic statistics, as well as the voting data from the Wisconsin and Ohio primaries.

I should note first off that I haven't been able to find the final vote tally for the city of Cleveland yet. Also, for the city of Milwaukee, the best I've been able to find, apart from the overall city totals (89,899 Obama to 34,462 Clinton) is the above map produced by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. So I've decided to go out a level and look at Milwaukee county and Cuyahoga county (essentially the 10th and 11th congressional districts). What we see are two very, very similar metropolitan areas.

While Cuyahoga County is larger (1.4 million vs. 915 thousand), in all other respects these two counties are almost identical. Milwaukee county is 66% white, 25% African American, and 9% Hispanic (Milwaukee city is 44% white, 40% African American, 15% Hispanic). Cuyahoga is 67% white, 27% African American, and 3% Hispanic (Cleveland city is 42% white, 51% African American, 7% Hispanic). The median household income in both counties is $39,000/year. Milwaukee county's poverty rate is a bit higher at 18.5% versus 13% in Cuyahoga.

In the Wisconsin primary, Obama won Milwaukee county 64% to 35% for Clinton. So, going into the primary, what might we have expected?? Given that Clinton was polling ahead of Obama among voters making less than $50,000/year, we might not have expected much advantage to Clinton given the parity of the two counties in terms of median income. In fact, the county's lower poverty rate might have actually been a net benefit to Obama. Cuyahoga county is slightly more African American than Milwaukee, which should have helped Obama, especially within the city of Cleveland.

How did Cuyahoga county go?? While Obama won, his numbers were much smaller than he saw a few weeks earlier in Milwaukee. The final vote was 53% Obama to 46% Clinton. So what happened? There are a number of workable explanations that I'm sure will be fleshed out over the coming weeks. First, given Clinton's success statewide, there was obviously some spillover effect within Cuyahoga county and the city of Cleveland. Just compare the county by county maps of both states to see this. A second hypothesis would by the role that race may have played. The Milwaukee city map above shows that Clinton did indeed win a few wards in the city of Milwaukee, namely on the Polish and German dominated south side. John highlighted a few days ago how this dynamic may have played out in Cleveland, especially with Dennis Kucinich facing a tough primary (which would drive up turnout). Indeed, Clinton won in Kucinich's district. Again using the county by county data, Obama did much better in the overwhelmingly white counties in outer Wisconsin (he won the vast majority of them) than he did in Ohio (he lost the vast majority). Looking at this more historically (see earlier posts), George Wallace did much better in Cleveland than he did in Milwaukee in 1968, so maybe there's some faint remnances of this dynamic still at work. A third hypothesis would be the attention each candidate paid to these states. In the compressed schedule between the Potomac Primaries and Wisconsin, Obama was much more visible and active in Wisconsin than Clinton was. He spent much more money and was on the air to a greater extent. A final explanation might be the role of local leaders and their advocacy for each candidate. In Milwaukee, Obama had the support and network of both Governor Jim Doyle and Congresswoman Gwen Moore. In Ohio, it was Clinton with the advantage, having the endorsement of Governor Ted Strickland and Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones (11th district).

Anyhow, there is a lot of work yet to be done examining these numbers but this offers a jumping off point. It shows, though, that we can't assume all cities--even those that look very similar on the surface--are going to behave the same. There will be other factors at work.

Primary on the MOON!: Cinchy Beats Traffy!

Two Quirky Congressman, both Ohio Dems known for their extraterrestrial mutterings/musings, made quixotic runs for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW in the past 20 years. How'd they fare at home? Future Sec. of the Peace Dept./Rep. Dennis Kucinich mustered just about half the vote to win a competitive renomination bid this week, but, focusing on a reelection in question, he never filed for the Ohio Dem presidential primary.

Four years ago, on the ballot for a late March primary, "UFO cover up 'skeptic'" "'Cinchy" mustered 26.66% to eventual nominee Kerry's 42% - while securing renomination to the House with 85% - in his home CD, OH10, and posted a respectable 23% in neighboring Afro-Am majority OH11 .

In 1988, the Hon. James A. Traficant, Jr., aka Inmate #31213-060, a minor C-SPAN sensation for his "one minute" speeches punctuated with "beam me up," waged a spirited, if quirky, populist bid for the Dem pres nomination, focusing on his home CD, OH17, but only managed a meager 18.4%, just behind the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr., for third place.

Traficant was later expelled from the U.S. House for relatively minor corruption matters and fell to Rep. Tim Ryan (D) in a jailbird indy bid to regain his seat in 2002, gathering only 15% as, despite the name of his hometown newspaper, Youngstown and Mahoning County refused to dub him the "The Vindicator."

To add insult to injury, perhaps the last "favorite son" presidential candidate, former U.S. Rep. Doug Applegate, who only appeared on the ballot in his home CD - next door to Traficant's - racked up 29.3% while losing the CD's apportioned delegates to Dukakis.

What's "Traffy" up to these days? Drop him a line:
James A. Traficant, Jr. #31213-060
Allenwood Low FCI
P.O. Box 1000
White Deer, PA 17887

Buckeye SuperDelegate Standoff

Even though Ohio fell to the HRC "juggernaut," the Buckeye State’s Dem U.S. House Members are keeping their SuperDelegate votes in play. Politico reports that a “a bloc of Ohio superdelegates is withholding endorsements from Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton until” they exact a commitment to take up their economic populist agenda. Needless to say, that includes renegotiating NAFTA, a hot button issue in the Rust Belt.

Pressure to commit to the candidate that won their constituency’s electorate over seems to have backfired. Politico identifies U.S. Reps. Marcy Kaptur and Tim Ryan among this bloc, and notes that the rest of the Dem Ohio U.S. House delegation - save for prominent Cleveland-based Afro-Am HRC surrogate Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones - has yet to commit.

Prof. Murray analyzed OH Dem Pres primary results in CD's 18 & 6 here.

For the record, here’s how OH Dem-held CD’s broke down (note the only Dem held CD to vote Obama was Tubbs-Jones’ and that on-the-fence Kaptur’s CD was pretty even. More on that later…):

OH06 (Rep. Charlie Wilson) HRC 70-27%
OH18 (Rep. Zack Space) HRC 66-31%
OH17 (Rep. Tim Ryan) HRC 63-35%
OH10 ('Cinchy!) HRC 61.5-37%
OH13 (Rep. Betty Sutton) HRC 56-42.5%
OH09 (Rep. Marcy Kaptur) HRC 54-44%
OH11 (Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones) Obama 69.5-30%

Southeastern Ohio

Going into the Ohio primary, Hillary Clinton's hope rested on her ability to stop Obama's momentum among white men and those at the lower end of the economic ladder. She had lost much of this part of her coalition in Wisconsin. When looking at Ohio, the southeastern part of the state, namely the 6th and 18th congressional districts are where you would find the battleground for these voters. Largely rural and dotted with small towns, this is an area that has been acutely hit by the state's declining economic fortunes. It is as much West Virginia as it is Ohio. CQ's Politics in America describes the sixth thustly: "Many of the district's counties, especially those along the Ohio River in old coal mining territory, suffer high unemployment and have difficulty retaining younger people. Meigs county has Ohio's lowest median household income."

This part of the state has also been a battleground for both parties. The sixth district was previously represented by now Governor Ted Strickland (and now held by Dem. Charlie Wilson). A big Clinton backer, he had an incentive to turn out his district for her. During his time in Congress (split following a loss in the Republican landslide of '94), Strickland had to fight a number of close races. President Bush won the district in both 2000 and 2004. The 18th is the home of disgraced former Rep. Bob Ney. Captured by Democrat Zack Space in 2006, the district gave Bush 75% in 2004. In the lead up to yesterday's vote, Bill Clinton was dispatched to the region a number of times, in addition to Senator Clinton's visits.

Looking at the results from yesterday, we see that Clinton was indeed successful in building her firewall in Ohio, especially in this corner of the state. The Athens News breaks down the returns here. While Obama was able to win around Ohio University in Athens, he got trounced in the surrounding areas. Overall, Clinton received 70% of the vote in the 6th district and 66% in the 18th (see results here).

Back to Illinois

On Saturday there will be a special election in Illinois that many suggest will be a test case for this fall (and serves also as a test case of "The Emerging Democratic Majorty" thesis). In the race to fill the seat of retiring Rep. and former Speaker Dennis Hastert, Republican Jim Oberweis squares off against Democrat Bill Foster. Polling suggests a dead heat.

For decades, the district has been solid Republican country but as the Politico notes, it has been changing dramatically in recent years. Becoming less rural and more suburban (especially on the more populated eastern edge), Democrats feel they have a real chance at a pick-up. In the recent Illinois primary, slightly more Republican votes were cast in the district (75,000 vs. 66,000) as both parties had contested races for their nominations. Both Obama and McCain have made appearances and campaigned on the nominees' behalf and the parties' congressional campaign committees are contributing mightily to the effort. As with most special elections, turnout will be the key, especially for a Saturday vote. Never fear though, as there will be an encore performance of this race in November for election to a full term.

Texas First Look

Here is our first look at the results of yesterday's Texas Democratic primary. I'm going to be updating as I get more data and analyze it. Obama counties are in green, Clinton counties in red. At first glance, the candidates appear to have performed as we would have expected. Obama did well in the urban areas with the largest African American or college/young professional presence. He won Dallas county (see map) with 61% of the vote, Travis county (Austin) with 63%, Harris county (Houston) with 56%, and Tarrant (Ft. Worth) with 54%. Obama also won among those casting early ballots. Thus, as the Ohio data is showing as well, Obama lost some steam in the final days of the campaign.

Clinton, however, also did well in the urban context. Her success, as we would have expected given recent trends (and now supported by the exit poll data), occurred in those populous counties with a large Hispanic electorate. Specifically, she received 69% in El Paso county and 56% in Bexar county (San Antonio). Also of note is Hidalgo county, on the far southern tip of the state. One of the fastest growing counties in the country, it cast roughly 85,000 votes, with Clinton garnering 73%. As the map shows, Clinton won the vast majority of the counties statewide but their relative small size compared to the urban centers didn't allow her to run up her statewide total beyond 51%. Nonetheless, it was an impressive win.

Part two of the Texas two-step however are the caucuses. Here, Obama came out on top, as narrowly as Clinton did in the primary. The delegate allocation from the caucuses hasn't been finalized yet but the early reporting seems to suggest that after both the primary and the caucuses, the delegates should be essentially evenly split, if not slightly in favor of Obama.

Hillary's Hail Mary: Ripped from the Koach Karl's (Rove) Playbook?

It’s Ohio primary eve and HRC is pausing, on its 68th anniversary, to “mark the Katyn Massacre of Polish prisoners during World War II” by Soviet troops. Sen. Clinton is also speaking up for Polish Americans and the “Polish nation and for all the peoples of Eastern Europe who have emerged from the darkness of the 20th century,” who also just so happen to enjoy a long and storied legacy in Cleveland’s historically working class white neighborhoods. Turnout in ethnic Cleveland is likely to be boosted even higher in Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s OH10 CD where the former presidential candidate is struggling to win renomination.

When you consider the strategy, it’s hard to not speculate that HRC really is making her last stand in Ohio; even taking a cue from Karl Rove’s playbook. Cuyahoga County is now famous as ground zero in George W. Bush’s reelection campaign, where Rove reportedly stanched steep losses with a ground game that fanned out to Catholic and Orthodox churches on Sundays with leaflets appealing to the conservatism of elderly parishioners in historically labor heavy precincts, tying John Kerry with the opposition to a statewide gay marriage ban initiative on the ballot that year. That minimized loss in urban areas, coupled with heavy gains in rural and exurban counties, the legend goes, saved Ohio, and reelection, for Bush.

It may have pulled a Republican electoral majority out of the fire one more time, but it’s not a very forward looking strategy as it relies on voters who may turnout in big numbers now, but who are literally dying out. Prof. Murray documented how George Wallace identified these voters decades ago - and taught Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan how to win them over - when they were far more numerous. (Check out Ward 14, home to St. Stanislaus Church, an anchor of Cleveland’s Polish community, and nearby wards where Wallace cracked 20%.) But, it was their very “white flight” - and hence, diminishing numbers - that defined their new voting habits.

While working these areas - home to the white working class voters and where HRC’s strongest demographic, older white women, turn out in droves, may pay off one more time - just like it did for Bush in 2004, the socially conservative or anti-foreign trade messages that win votes here are likely to alienate the growing numbers of younger, increasingly college educated white voters moving into the city and swelling the inner suburbs - or bleeding electoral votes to places like Northern Virginia or the Denver suburbs, coloring previously deep red states in a purple hue. More affluent, educated, liberal and integrated Shaker Heights, in contrast, is likely to be Obama territory.

The fantastic map above highlights this divide starkly by overlapping the 2004 presidential vote with results from the gay marriage referendum on the same day. It includes all of Cuyahoga County, but Cleveland’s cleavages are clear, too. HRC will try to maximize her performance with “Blue Collar Whites” and “Rural/Exurban Whites” - dwindling demographics in decimated precincts - and minimize her own losses in areas heavy with black voters and among “rich conservatives” and “urban liberal sophisticates,” groups that have performed well this cycle for Obama.

Maryland Primary--Assessing PG County

Before we get into the results that will be coming from Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island, I want to spend a bit more time on some results from an earlier primary--Maryland. One county that's political history is quite interesting and that has been undergoing noticeable change in recent years is Prince George's County. Encompassing the suburban area directly east of the Washington, DC line, PG County is notable in that it is the wealthiest county in the country with a majority African-American population. Currently, in a population of close to 900,000, PG County is roughly 63% African American, 27% Caucasian, and 7% Hispanic. A recent Brookings Institution study gives a nice overview of the county. It is summarized in this Washington Post story.

As you would expect from these demographics, PG County is solid Democratic territory now, especially in presidential contests. In 2004, Kerry won 82% of the vote; in 2000, Gore got 80%. However, PG County wasn't always so Democratic in its leanings. Nixon got nearly 60% in 1972, for example and Carter received just a slight majority in 1980. So who gave these Republicans such numbers? The culprits would seem to be the county's white working class population. Cities like Bowie, Laurel, Hyattsville, and Suitland had sizable numbers of such voters going back generations. In fact, it was in PG County that George Wallace did particularly well--he received 19% of the vote in 1968 (compared to 13% nationwide). Moreover, Wallace won the 1972 Democratic primary in Maryland, despite being shot while campaigning in Laurel.

It is this background that got me wondering about what the recent primary results would show. More specifically, are there any remnants of this white working class community left? If so, how would they vote? Are their numbers sizable or concentrated? The natural heir to Wallace's economic populism would seem to be Mike Huckabee. Southern, culturally conservative, and anti-establishmentarian in temperament, Huckabee is in many ways a modern version (absent the racial appeals) of Wallace. So, what do the numbers show???

First off, we need to reckon with the vast disparity between the Democratic and Republican contests in terms of turnout. While some of this disparity was certainly due to the relatively settled nature of the Republican contest, the fact remains that county wide, 160,000 Democratic votes were cast compared to 12,000 in the Republican primary. Thus, this is an overwhelmingly Democratic county (as the presidential results cited above attest).

In the Democratic race, Obama received 79% compared to Clinton's 20%. Clearly, the demography of the county (African-American) propelled Obama's numbers as he outperformed his statewide total of 61%. On the Republican side, Huckabee out performed his statewide total of 29% by receiving 33% of the vote in the county. So does this mean that Huckabee has inherited Wallace's legacy? Not so fast. A few days ago, John pointed to a Washington Post article about Huckabee's success in Washington, DC's overwhelmingly African-American wards 7 and 8. Did the same thing happen in PG County? I decided to look at the Republican race more closely and there seems to be some reason to suspect this.

One thing that should be noted right off the bat is not only the small number of Republican votes county wide, but how small these numbers get when you go precinct by precinct. Across the 216 precincts in the county, there was no precinct in which more Republican votes were cast than Democratic. The average precinct cast 687 more Democratic votes than Republican. There were an average of only 56 Republican votes per precinct. What this does is not only amplify the party leanings of the county but it makes it difficult to make definitive conclusions about how strong a pro-Huckabee trend might be. Only a small handful of votes (oftentimes less than 5) determined whether Huckabee won a precinct versus McCain. Nonetheless, of the 216 precincts, Huckabee won 41 of them.

So what can we say about these precincts? To determine whether these were in mostly white or mostly African American areas, I decided to look at the Democratic vote versus the Republican vote in each precinct. Specifically, I compared the number of total Democratic votes with the number of total Republican votes per precinct and used this as a proxy for how "black" or how "white" the precinct is. I'm assuming that there are relatively few highly integrated precincts. This is obviously a crude measure but absent more detailed demographic portraits of each precinct, this will have to do for now. So, those precincts with a greater difference of D to R votes was deemed more "black" and those with a lower difference of D to R votes was deemed more "white."

I next divided these 216 precincts into 5 quintiles based on this continuum. What do we see about Huckabee's performance? In the "blackest" quintile, Huckabee got 9 of his 41 precinct wins; in the second quintile he got 12 of his wins; the middle quintile produced 8 of his wins; the fourth quintile produced 7 of his wins; and finally, the last and thus "whitest" quintile produced 5 of his wins. Thus, we generally see that the more Democratic the precinct was, the more likely it was to go for Huckabee. Why might this be? One thing we must realize is that whatever group of people we look at, there will be some political diversity. In a lot of these precincts, Huckabee is getting a dozen or so votes. You can find a dozen people to support just about anything. However, there might be some reason to expect some African American support for Huckabee. As the Washington Post story shows, Huckabee's evangelical, Baptist faith and social conservatism would be expected to play well in the African American community. The key is to find enough African American voters, in a vast sea of Democrats, willing to pull the Republican lever. For all practical purposes, it wouldn't really make sense for a Republican presidential candidate to campaign in PG County. However, digging into the numbers unearths some interesting tidbits.

Buckley and New York, 1965

Continuing our remembrance of William F. Buckley, I wanted to write more on his 1965 mayor's race. As this masterful portrait of the race in the New York Times Magazine recalls, Buckley entered the race almost on a whim. Running on the recently established line of the Conservative Party, Buckley didn't so much "campaign" in the traditional sense as use the race as an opportunity to give voice to the maturing conservative ideology that he had spent years developing. He knew he had no chance of winning and joked about the realities of the race. In retrospect, one sees that the race was rather an opening shot in the ascendancy of modern conservatism. In order for this new order to rise, the old order had to be vanquished.

This old order was, of course, a technocratic and bureaucratic liberalism that had become universally accepted by the political, academic, and journalistic classes. Social problems could be solved, society could be perfected, and government was the instrument. For Buckley, it was John Lindsay, the Republican congressman and mayoral candidate who embodied all that was wrong with this regime and who drew most of his fire. As Walter Lippmann commented at the time, Buckley was "determined to wreck the party in order to rule the wreckage."

While I haven't been able to find precinct level returns yet, the borough by borough numbers are available. Lindsay, of course, won followed closely by Democrat Abe Beam. Buckley received 13% city wide. Breaking down the numbers further, Buckley's totals were:

Queen's--17.3%
King's--12.7%
Richmond--25.2%
New York (Manhattan)--7.2%
Bronx--13.9%

So who were Buckley's voters and why are they important? In his portrait of the race, Sam Tanenhaus argues: "Though he failed to capture any single district, he finished second in parts of Queens and fared especially well among Irish and German Catholics. Once again, ethnic group interests and values--'who hates who,'--in the shorthand used by Kevin Phillips, author of 'The Emerging Republican Majority'--held true. The difference was that those aggrieved white ethnic voters now appeared to be Republicans..." In his biography of Lindsay, Vincent Cannato comes to a similar conclusion: "The twelve strong Buckley districts were in the white Catholic outer boroughs." Thus, Buckley expanded on the project begun earlier, as so ably described by Phillips, of giving voters a reason to use fear as the basis for their vote. Even though Buckley claimed to not want to divide the electorate into groups and pander to each in order to build a coalition, the result of his campaign was that just such a strategy would be viable in the future.

The importance of the race, I believe, was not so much felt in New York--although there were certainly repurcussions as Lindsay found it virtually impossible to govern a disintegrating city. What is of greater import is what this race said about the future of American politics. These Buckley voters were in fact all across the country. They lived in big cities that were in decay. They felt they were being left behind and that other groups were being given privileges--affirmative action, busing, etc. While they had at one time been the backbone of the New Deal Coalition, they would soon begin casting votes for George Wallace and comprise part of Nixon's "Silent Majority." Finally, they would provide the margin for Reagan's ascendancy. In metropolitan areas like Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Chicago, they were on a path toward realignment. There can be no doubt that this process was, in many ways, an ugly one. Race was used as a cleavage and latent fears and prejudices were exploited. Crime, welfare dependancy, and illegitmacy were used as metaphors for liberalism's failure. In retrospect, the tactics and language these candidates (including Buckley) often used were deplorable. However, if we want to be honest about our political history, we must reckon with them. As someone interested in why people vote the way that they do, I have to acknowledge that these reasons are not always admirable. But they must be studied.

In earlier posts on this blog, I have shown a number of examples of this, focusing on George Wallace. I wondered how a small state governor from the deep south, despite never winning the presidency, could change American politics so much. The answer, I believe, is that he gave voice to the rage and alienation of millions of Americans. At certain times in history, individuals are a perfect reflection of their times. They are the vessel in which others' aspirations, and sometimes fears, are placed. Here we have a Yale educated, patrician, son of an oil magnate drawing large numbers of votes from blue collar, lunch bucket carrying voters in Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. Tempermentally and intellectually, Buckley was the polar opposite of Wallace. Reflecting on his death this week, I have to conclude that Buckley, like Wallace, was a crucial actor in this play. His influence on our politics over the past half century is incalculable.

Update: Here is a column by Buckley that I just found, written just prior to the 1968 election, on the subject of Wallace. The crux: votes for Wallace are votes that would otherwise go to Nixon. Thus, Buckley seems to agree that these were voters on the path to becoming Republicans, away from the Democrats. Here is a longer column from the same year, laying out his objections to Wallace at greater length.

Coal Country: Molly Maguires Sympathy Never Spiked Labor's Vote

Republicans are talking up pickup possibilities in PA11, which would be quite a coup given the Dems' long hold on the seat and the bleak outlook for the House GOP this fall.

More on this race to come, but when researching this CD, the Almanac of American Politics' noted that this Pennsylvania Coal Region's "honest jobs with long hours, modest pay, poor working conditions and high death rates" are "facts of life that made the violently pro-union Molly Maguires popular here." Wikipedia's (albeit never quite authoritative) entry on the "Mollies" includes a map (above) of Coal Region counties, noting their influence here.

PA11 doesn't quite overlap with these five counties - Lackawanna, Luzerne, Columbia, Schuylkill, Carbon, and Northumberland - but it takes in parts or all of three of these counties (Shuylkill falls in PA11 and Northumberland in PA17).

Curiously, for a region with a tradition of sometimes violent labor unrest, none of these counties have returned a notable left wing vote. Only in Northumberland did Eugene Debs' crack double digits and push incumbent Republican president Wm. Howard Taft into fourth place in 1912, his Socialist Party's banner year. And that year, Teddy Roosevelt failed to carry the whole region even as when he captured the Keystone State's electoral votes. Only in Luzerne did LaFollette outperform his statewide average in '24. Luzerne and Luckawanna were two rare mid-Penn. counties to go vote Dem in 2004, and generally have Democratic traditions, but the other three have voted GOP for the most part, excepting '64 and FDR's reign, though Columbia voted Dem during around the turn of the century.

For a socially conservative, labor-heavy white working class region, George Wallace's populist appeal fell flat in Coal Region in '68, with just around 5% in this area, unlike the Philly and Pittsburgh areas where he racked up more impressive numbers in similar prectincts.

More evidence of the region's social conservatism and the apparent ability of the coal companies to suppress labor's electoral success here: the Prohibition Party outvoted the various Socialist and labor parties in Coal Region during their 1890's and 1900's heyday.

"West Texas (No data*)" but Still in Play

UPDATE on our "West Texas (No data*)" post.

Here's an indication of just how close the battle for every available delegate has become in the Dem presidential nomination contest:

Even though the WaPo/ABC News polls couldn't rustle up enough respondents for its "West Texas" region to make up a statistically significant sample size, that state's byzantine delegate allocation - by state Senate district and Dem performance - apportions a few, valuable delegates up for grabs there. Bill Clinton ventured up to Amarillo to woo the few Dems there.

Texas's few historically Republican counties won't be found here. (They're the German settled cluster in Hill Country, near Austin.) And the region has a history of Democratic congressmen, up to the 1990's, so we'll see if some folks who still consider themselves "Yellow Dog" Democrats - though have rarely voted that way for years - will still turn out for HRC.

Huckabee's Helper

Update: How Huckabee Happened in the 'Hood.

WaPo profiles Huckabee's secret weapon in the DC primary: Brian Summers, a dogged campaign worker from Ward 5 who took Huckabee's message of social conservatism and economic populism to churches and bible study groups, targeting Wards 7 & 8, "in Southeast Washington, where he hoped to strike a chord with black Republicans who are Christians and who he thought could identify with Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister."

Updated results, counting absentees and special voters, continue to prove that Summers' shoe leather campaign bore fruit. Huckabee's margin over McCain slipped by one to 35-37 in Ward 8, but he picked up two in Ward 7, spreading his margin out to 61-58.

William F. Buckley R.I.P.

William F. Buckley, the father of modern American conservatism, passed away today. The New York Times' obituary is here. While Buckley is best known for his founding of the National Review and his prolific writings that managed to unify American conservatism into a core set of ideas, what is also of great interest to us at this site is his 1965 candidacy for the mayorality of New York. The Times has a remembrance of that race here.

In the '65 race, Buckley entered the contest as the voice of what he believed to be authentic conservatism and also disenchantment. Running against liberal Republican (and eventual winner) John Lindsay and Democrat Abe Beam, Buckley tapped into the frustrations of many New Yorkers (white, ethnic, outer boroughs) with the urban decline of the city. As the failures of the war on poverty and 60's liberalism were being realized in the urban context, Buckley gave voice to those who felt left behind by this social experiment. I've always felt that Buckley's candidacy must be viewed as an important stopping off point for many urban, white ethnic Democrats who eventually ended up being "Reagan Democrats." Starting with Goldwater, through Buckley, George Wallace, and finally Reagan, you can trace this realignment of a large segment of the American electorate. While Buckley never won office, he provided the ideas and the forum for the movement.

In the next few days, John and I will attempt to unearth some data from that '65 race to highlight what was going on, though not fully appreciated, at the time.

Lone Star Preview

Today's New York Times has a nice overview of the complicated geography, demography, and delegate math in next week's Texas primary. Also, a nice graphic to go with it.

One of the best blogs on Texas politics provides a look today of early voting results (in terms of turnout) so far. The numbers clearly suggest a much larger electorate than in previous Texas contests, mirroring what we've been seeing across the country. He also provides an excellent discussion of the allocation and distribution of delegates for the Democratic race.

Katrina Diaspora--A Boon to Obama??

Today's Washington Post has an article about the displaced population of New Orleans, much of which relocated to Texas. The question this article raises, and which is almost impossible to answer now given the lack of available data, is how the several hundred thousand new Texans will affect next week's Texas primary. At first glance this would seem to bode well for Obama given the demographics of this population--overwhelmingly African American. Nonetheless, until we get some hard numbers next week we won't know for sure. Even then, we'll have to do some pretty intense number crunching, I would think, to conclude anything definitively. Anyhow, it will be worth watching Houston and Dallas returns especially.

"West Texas (No data*)"

"* Sample size in West Texas too small to report."

There's a gaping blank hole in WaPo's graphic mapping out the regional breakdown of the Obama vs. HRC Lone Star rumble. Data is from it's latest WaPo/ABC News poll.

Here's why:
That "windswept" region that reaches from the Panhandle down into hardscrabble Texas oil country is almost as sparsely populated as it is heavily Republican. (Note how the counties that tend to be lighter orange - tiny populations - are also the deepest shades of blue - going for Bush in 2004 upwards of 90%+.)

The graphic's "West Texas" limns the borders of Texas' CDs 11, 13, 19 and 21, home to four GOP incumbents who often fail to draw strong Dem opposition, if any at all.

WaPo's "West Texas" is not all ghost towns and ranching crossroads, however. Sizable small cities like San Anglo, Odessa, Midland, Lubbock and Amarillo anchor the region that promises to shore up the GOP's base as Dems become increasingly competitive statewide based on growth in the Austin, Houston and DFW metro areas and among an ever growing Hispanic electorate.

WI 08: Going Blue?

Over the past few election cycles, Wisconsin's 8th congressional district has been getting more competitive. For decades a Republican stronghhold, in 2006 the 8th elected Democrat Steve Kagen to the House. The previous incumbent, Mark Green, vacated the seat to run unsuccessfully for governor. In the process, he underperformed quite dramatically in his home district. This got me thinking about whether or not the 8th was changing. I must admit that traveling to the area several times per year (I grew up in the neighboring 6th), I haven't noticed any striking change. Nonetheless, the numbers don't lie. The 8th is anchored by two of Wisconsin's larger cities, Green Bay (Brown County) and Appleton (Outagamie County). I've plotted the Democrats' performance over the past four most competitive statewide elections: 2006 governor, 2004 president, 2002 governor, and 200 president. The county is on the x axis and the Democratic percentage of the vote is on the y axis. Note the extremely high Democratic performance in Menominee County. This is in fact on of Wisconsin's Indian reservations so it acts as an outlier.

I should note that I had to do a bit of number massaging to allow me to plot Democratic performance. In the 2002 Wisconsin governor's race, independent Ed Thompson (brother of former governor Tommy Thompson) ran as an independent and performed quite well, largely along Libertarian lines. I decided to divide up his vote between the Democratic candidate (Attorney General Jim Doyle) and the Republican (Governor Scott McCallum) to allow for some comparison between the two major candidates aside from a calculation of the two party vote that would have excluded Thompson. Given Thompson's lineage and platform I decided to award McCallum 2/3 of the Thompson vote and Doyle the remaining 1/3. I had a similar dilemma for the 2000 presidential race and the Nader vote. Here I awarded Gore the entire Nader vote on the assumption that he would have received these votes without Nader in the race.

What we see is that over the 2000-2006 timeframe Democrats have indeed improved their performance with the exception of a downtick with Kerry in 2004. This is especially notable in Outagamie County but is seen clearly across the entirety of the 8th district. This would seem to bode extremely well as Congressman Kagen seeks to be the first Democrat re-elected in this district in thirty years. The data from the 2008 Wisconsin presidential primary would seem to add more creedence to this tentative conclusion. While we obviously can't directly compare the Democratic and Republican primaries given how relatively settled the Republican race is, the turnout disparities between the parties is nonetheless worth paying attention to. Turnout in the Democratic race was over two times the Repubican (133,940 vs. 57,303). On the Democratic side Obama beat Clinton 56%-44% which was slightly below his statewide total of 58%. On the Republican side, McCain beat Huckabee 56%-44% which essentially mirrored his statwide total of 55%.

AZ 01 Showdown: Flagstaff vs. Prescott

This CD was famously drawn by Arizona’s nonpartisan redistricting commission to give rural Arizona a voice in a rapidly suburbanizing state. Today, DOJ announced a widely expected indictment against the incumbent, Rep. Rick Renzi (R). As Renzi’s legal woes mounted, he abandoned reelection plans. This cycle, the Cook Political Report lists this race as a “toss up.”

In 2006, to my surprise, neither Cook, CQ nor National Journal would rate this CD any more competitive than “Likely Republican,” and only in the last weeks, despite a very narrow Cook Partisan Voting Index of a mere R+2, demographic shifts and voting trends that pointed to increased Democratic competitiveness, not to mention the first reports of scandal dogging the incumbent.

Part of the assumption of Renzi’s invulnerability rested on his assiduous work on behalf American Indian issues in a CD that is 22% Indian and his history of over performing in heavily Democratic and Indian Navajo and Apache counties. But, significant increases in turnout in those two counties from 2000 to 2004 signaled that many newer Democratic voters might not be familiar enough with Renzi to cross party lines.

Perhaps the most telling indicator was how preposterous it was for Renzi to bill himself as “a hometown, Flagstaff boy” - based on his captaining Northern Arizona University’s football team years before he returned to run for Congress - in a city that grows farther away from Renzi’s social conservatism, the more it grows in population. Coconino County’s new residents turn it redder every cycle.

Also growing is the more reliably Republican Yavapai County, where Renzi racked up his largest vote totals. The Almanac of American Politics notes “Barry Goldwater always began his Arizona campaigns” in historic downtown Prescott - Yavapai’s county seat - and it still retains a Republican base, but one that is eroding slightly as its streets start to resemble those of Flagstaff, whose once seedy "Whiskey Row" is now dotted with art galleries and B&B's.

Throw in a growing Hispanic population and Sedona - Arizona’s “little Sante Fe” - and the AZ01’s Republican base of the Phoenix most remote exurbs, ranching crossroads and dying mining towns - the latter, hotbeds for Eugene Debs a century ago, but heavily Republican in last half century - is diminishing. Take away Renzi’s strength among Indian Democrats, and you have 2008's "tossup."

If Wisconsin Presages Ohio, Will Appleton Presage Lima?

Like similar sized “Rust Belt” cities, Lima, Ohio has seen a post-war economic boom followed by a period of industrial decline and sporadic racial violence. However, unlike many of those organized labor-heavy cities, Lima has remained rock ribbed Republican. Allen County - Lima hosts the county's seat - even stuck with Goldwater in ‘64, one of only five Ohio counties to do so that year, and wavered in its fealty to the GOP only narrowly in FDR’s Depression era landslides of ’32 and ’36. In this regard, the heavily Republican and 1920's KKK redoubt of Lima has been closer, electorally and geographically, to Richmond, Indiana than Flint, Michigan.

Given that history, it’s curious that last Sunday’s Washington Post chose Lima to feature as reporter Ricky Carioti investigated whether Hillary Clinton can hold onto her waning majorities among white working class voters as the primary season progresses, and if Obama can excite a previously politically sedate Afro-Am minority. (The Post noted that Democratic Governor Ted Strickland did carry Lima in ’06 and Kerry picked up very slightly in Allen County over Gore’s performance four years earlier.)

Pundits are poring over Wisconsin’s primary results for clues as to how Ohio might vote on March 4. Lima’s demographics and electoral history resemble that of Appleton, Wisconsin. Indeed, the cities of both Lima and Appleton split nearly evenly between Bush and Kerry, while the surrounding counties of Allen and Outagamie, Wisconsin returned healthier Bush margins. In Appleton, Obama replicated his statewide margin, but Huckabee nips at McCain’s heels in many wards.

Stay tuned to this post for an update after Ohio votes to see if Lima shows evidence of further Obama gains among white working class voters and if Huckabee can post a respectable conservative base protest vote again here.

Who Knew? Huckabee's All Good in da 'hood

As Prof. Murray noted, while McCain swept DC's GOP presidential primary, Huckabee fought him to a draw among the few voters who turned out in heavily Afro-Am precincts. East of the Anacostia River, Huckabee bested McCain by one vote 58-57 in Ward 7 and lost Ward 8 by a 35-36 - votes, not percentage points, mind you (this, despite "Former Mayor for Life" and incumbent Ward 8 DC Council Member Marion Barry's tongue in cheek endorsement on MSNBC's "Tucker.")

More evidence of strong Huckabee performance among black Republican primary voters can be found on a map of the Republican primary in Milwaukee city. Prof. Murray breaks down Milwaukee ward demographics at this post.

This trend is further confirmed in heavily black precincts in majority African-American Prince George's County, Maryland, where Huckabee captured District Heights and Bladensburg and nearly tied McCain in Oxon Hill. Also of note: Alan Keyes, a two time GOP Senate nominee in the Free State, waging a half-hearted campaign this cycle, made it a three way race in Seat Pleasant and Capitol Heights.

Badger State Primary IV--The College Vote

Here is a map of the University of Wisconsin system. Its is made up of 13 four year universities and 13 two year campuses. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a story today about the extremely high college turnout in Tuesday's primary and the gigantic victory that Obama got among these voters. The story is based on a study done by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Of the 26 schools in the system, Obama won in all of their home counties except two (Douglas--UW Superior, and Marinette--UW Marinette). While Obama's attractiveness to college students has been written about extensively, its nice to finally be able to put some flesh on this assertion. It should also be noted that this rise in turnout can also have repurcussions beyond the presidential race. As I wrote about in one of the first posts on this blog back in 2006, increased turnout on UW campuses as a result of Wisconsin's gay marriage proposal was credited, in part, with switching control of the Wisconsin state Senate to the Democrats. The change in party control was brought about by winning two seats in the western part of the state.

Badger State Primary III

From today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a nice breakdown of the statewide turnout and how each of the candidates fared in some of the major counties. The biggest take from the story is the massive turnout disparity between the Democratic and Republican primaries. While having the Republican race somewhat more decided was certainly a factor, its clear that despite this there is an "enthusiasm gap" between voters for both parties now.

Badger State Primary II

Here's a map of the Democratic vote in the city of Milwaukee. Obama, as would be expected, cleaned up in the central, north, and northwest parts of the city. This is the part of Milwaukee with the largest concentration of African American voters. On the south side, which is overwhelmingly white and working class, he did less well, with Clinton winning a few aldermanic districts.

Badger State Primary I

I'm going to be doing a number of posts on the Wisconsin primary as the numbers come in and more maps are available. Obviously, a big win for Obama. Looking at the county by county results map and returns one sees how widespread his win was. Of the 72 Wisconsin counties, he only lost 10. There wasn't really a concentration of weakness other than the fact that these were overwhelmingly rural counties with a significant elderly population--the one demographic that he is still not performing well with. His big source of strength, as one would expect, was in Milwaukee and Dane counties. Also, though, as the exit polling is suggesting, Obama cut significantly into Clinton's support among working class and union voters. If you look at the counties where one finds significant numbers of these types of Democratic voters--Brown, Kenosha, Rock, Racine, Sheboygan, one sees that Obama won all of these.

Virginia Democrats County Maps

Here we see the county by county results for Virginia's Democratic primary. Obama counties are in green, Clinton in red. To get a better sense of the magnitude of Obama's victory, though, this map (courtesy of Larry Sabato) is perhaps more useful, scaled by population.

Fairfax county is the epicenter of northern Virginia's growth over the past few decades and the driver of Virginia's increasing tilt towards the Democrats. It is also here that Obama gathered the largest part of his statewide total.

Looking Ahead to Texas

I'll be doing a lot of analysis on today's Wisconsin primary as the results come in. Before that, though, some information on Texas' allocation of delegates. Its not done simply via proportional vote at the congressional district level. Rather, its a dual proportional (via State Senate district) and caucus allocation. Fun stuff.

Who Are the Superdelegates???

A list of the Democrats' Superdelegates.

DC Ward by Ward Results

Here are the ward by ward results for yesterday's DC primary. On the Republican side, Huckabee did best in the wards with the highest African American population.

Update: Here's a precinct by precinct map (via Google Earth) of the Democratic race in DC. Obama won every precinct, and most by a huge margin.

Badger State Primary

I'll have a lot to write about Wisconsin following the primary next Tuesday. One thing I noticed today speaks to Obama's willingness and desire to court independents and Republicans. Wisconsin is an open primary so there's obviously an incentive in bringing these voters on board. When looking at his upcoming schedule, one sees a rally scheduled in Waukesha. Waukesha is probably the most Republican city of any size you will find in the state. In fact, Waukesha county is the second most Republican county in the state if you look at voting returns over the past several cycles (2000, 2004). His events in Milwaukee, Madison, Racine, and Janesville make perfect sense, given the population size and political leanings, but the Waukesha event really jumped out at me.

With evidence pointing to a Clinton focus on Texas and Ohio (to the detriment of Wisconsin), Obama looks poised to pick up my home state.

Maine Caucus Results

A nice map showing the breakdown of the Obama victory in Maine.

Super Tuesday County Level Results

For Democrats and Republicans.

Lots of analysis to come.

Michigan I

Some interesting things coming out of Michigan. On the Democratic side, the fact that only Clinton was on the ballot makes interpreting the results--Clinton vs. "Non committed" somewhat troublesome. Namely, we don't know how this affected turnout. With no delegates at stake and the major candidates not campaigning there, its hard to use the results as a gauge for what a true Michigan Democratic primary would have looked like. Nonetheless, Thomas Edsall's look at the exit polls reveals some interesting things vis a vis Clinton vs. Obama. As in the earlier contests, Clinton does better among the less affluent and the older, Obama better among the younger and more affluent. When it comes to race, Clinton fared very poorly. A bad omen for South Carolina?

Interactive maps for both parties. Note that Clinton lost in Washtenaw county, home of the University of Michigan.

Some Interesting Commentary

Yesterday's column by George Will raised some interesting points and brought to the forefront some data I hadn't really realized.

I found these two paragraphs particularly of interest...

Granted, in the past 150 years, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter (barely) are the only Democrats to achieve 50 percent of the popular vote. And this year Democrats might still give Republicans the gift of Hillary Clinton, who probably has a popular vote ceiling of 52 percent. A subliminal -- too much so -- subtext of Obama's message is that Clinton cannot receive the big mandate required for big changes: Enactment of Social Security in 1935 followed Franklin Roosevelt's 57.4 percent victory in 1932, and in 1965 Medicare came after Lyndon Johnson's 61 percent victory over Barry Goldwater.

But even if Democrats nominate Clinton, Republicans must remember that Bush's 2.4-point margin of victory in 2004 was unimpressive: In the 12 previous reelections of presidents, the average margin of victory was 12.9 points. Bush's 50.7 percent of the vote in 2004 was the third-smallest for a reelected president (Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton won 49.2 percent in 1916 and 1996, respectively). Kerry's 48.3 percent was the largest ever against a president being reelected. (In the 12 previous reelections, no losing candidate received more than 46.1 percent; nine of the losers received less than 45 percent.)

New Hampshire Results

County and town level results for the Democrats and Republicans. Interactive map. More data and analysis to come.

Huckabee and Catholics

By way of Polysigh, some number crunching on Huckabee's Iowa win. The more Catholic counties were less likely to support him. Not good news when you think about the national ramifications. If the GOP nominates Huckabee and becomes even more southern-based, this could be a trend working against them in November.

The blue counties are Huckabee counties, the Red are Romney. In the bottom map, the darker the red, the more Catholic the county.

Iowa Caucus Results

County level results for the Iowa Caucuses

A nice interactive map of the GOP results.

Also, interesting results from the entrance and exit polls. Pretty clear across the board win for Obama. The media has already highlighted the women's vote tilting to Obama.

Back to Philly---'76 and '80

As we continue our look at Philadelphia, we focus now on the 1976 and 1980 races. Again, we're interested in what happened to those voters that gave the highest support to Wallace in '68. Our running hypothesis is that the Wallace vote was a step on the way to becoming more Republican in orientation. Our look at 1972 saw evidence to that effect. How lasting was it?

A few things first. In '76, Carter carried the city of Philadelphia easily, winning 66% of the vote and carrying 63 of 66 wards. Therefore, we're not so much interested in whether Ford won "Wallace Wards," but how Republican they were, relatively speaking. In 1980, Carter also won Philly garnering 59% to Reagan's 34% and John Anderson's 7%. Ward by ward, Reagan fared better than Ford, winning 24 of the 66 wards.

Finally, we should note that over the time period we've been looking at, the African-American population of the city has been growing, both in raw number and percentage of the city population. The African-American population grew 24% between 1960 and 1970 and then lost 2% from 1970 to 1980. As a percentage of the overall population, African-Americans were 26% of the city population in 1960, 34% in 1970, and 38% in 1980.

Looking back at our "Wallace Wards," remember that the 10 wards that Wallace did best in were: 40, 7, 45, 31, 33, 25, 41, 66, 65, and 39. Below, I've listed how Republican each of these wards were in '72, '76, and '80 (1 being most Republican, 66 being least Republican).

Ward 40: 25, 28, 26

Ward 7: 18, 31, 25

Ward 45: 22, 23, 19

Ward 31: 13, 17, 24

Ward 33: 17, 20, 18

Ward 25: 15, 24, 21

Ward 41: 11, 11, 11

Ward 66: 2, 4, 1

Ward 65: 12, 18, 13

Ward 39: 5, 15, 5

What we see is that the gains that Republicans made under Nixon in 1972 seem to have held by the time we get to 1980. While these wards are not the most Republican in the city, they have nonetheless given considerable support to Ford and especially Reagan. Any gains that Carter made disappeared four years later.

An obvious point to remember, of course, is that population shifts would have certainly caused the demographic portraits of each of these wards to change. Many of the white ethnic voters that we're interested in probably left the city for the suburbs between '68 and '80. However, it doesn't seem as if these voters were replaced by African-American voters. Otherwise we would have expected these wards to become considerably more Democratic. Thus, absent more sophisticated data, it seems reasonable to conclude that our running hypothesis has some validity to it.

Wallace and 1968

"The true cause for concern, however, is not what Wallace might have done, but what he did. When Wallace said he made both the major parties talk his own language of law and order, he was wrong. They would have done it without him. He was not the cause but an effect; he was one way of measuring the growth of resentment...Wallace offered neither palliative nor real cure; just a chance to scream into the darkness. It was a kind of perverse exercise in honesty--a proclamation that the darkness is there.

Garry Wills, "Nixon Agonistes"

More from '68---Charm City

Baltimore is a city that we would have expected Wallace to do well in, given everything we've seen in other cities so far. It is industrial with a large number of white ethnics, yet also very southern in orientation. A true border city. As we see, Wallace's performance in several wards doubles his national vote and triples his "non-southern" vote. We should also remember that in 1968, Baltimore's own Spiro Agnew was on the Republican ticket. Wallace's performance is, thus, all the more impressive.

The Baltimore area also saw a considerable amount of anti-war protesting under the direction of Daniel and Philip Berrigan. One can imagine how well the reaction to this among white ethnics played to Wallace's strengths.

More From Philadelphia

Of interest here is what happened to Wallace's 1968 voters. Did they return to the Democratic fold or did they become Republicans. By looking at the subsequent election, 1972, we see clear movement to the Republican camp.

Philadelphia has 66 wards. In '68, Wallace received 11.95% of the vote in the city. To look at the movement rightward among these voters, I've decided to concentrate on the 10 wards where Wallace did best (wards 40, 7, 45, 31, 33, 25, 41, 66, 65, and 39). If Nixon did well in these wards in '72, there's reason to believe that many of these Wallace voters were becoming more Republican.

In the '72 election, Nixon received 48.3% of the vote in the city of Philadelphia. Thus, despite the nationwide Nixon landslide, McGovern managed to win the city. Of the 66 wards, Nixon won 28.

In looking at the "Wallace Wards" from '68, we see that Nixon won all of them. In fact, 2 of the most Republican wards in 1972 were among the top 10 Wallace wards in '68. Here is a ranking of each top Wallace ward in terms of how Republican it was in 1972 (1 being most Republican, 66 being least Republican) as well as Nixon's vote %.

.

.

Ward 40---25th most Rep. (55.9%)

Ward 7----18th most Rep. (58.4%)

Ward 45---22nd most Rep. (57.0%)

Ward 31---13th most Rep. (59.3%)

Ward 33---17th most Rep. (58.4%)

Ward 25---15th most Rep. (59.0%)

Ward 41---11th most Rep. (60.1%)

Ward 66---2nd most Rep. (65.4%)

Ward 65---12th most Rep. (59.8%)

Ward 39---5th most Rep. (62.9%)

.

.

One might wonder whether this Nixon support is simply a "pro-incumbent" effect. Next up we'll look at what happened in these wards in 1976 and 1980.

Another Way to Look at the Wallace Vote

For the past several posts, I've been looking at the performance of Wallace in several northern cities. In all of these, I've been comparing the Wallace vote against his national performance--13.5%. As we know, Wallace's core strength was in the south where he won five states: Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia.

To look at this another way, I ran the numbers to allow me to look at Wallace's "non-southern" performance. When we separate out Wallace's southern support, his performance in northern cities becomes all the more impressive, and hence worth dwelling on.

In doing this, I used Kevin Phillip's "The Emerging Republican Majority" as the model. His work, which emphasizes the regional dimension of party competition, defines the south as including: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. So, when we take these states out of the equation, Wallace received 8.8% nationwide.

Looking at the maps posted below in this light, we can see just how important Wallace's candidacy was. In many of these northern urban wards, he more than doubled his "non-southern" performance. Wallace's candidacy was important not just for what it said about American politics in 1968, but for years afterwards.

Philadelphia 1968

Here is the Philadelphia map portraying the Wallace vote in 1968. As with many of the northern cities I've shown so far, Wallace meets or exceeds his national performance in several wards. Again, urban white ethnics seemed, despite Wallace's "southernness," drawn to his candidacy.

Wallace in the Northern Cities, Cont.

Here we have the '68 Wallace vote in two northern industrial cities---Pittsburgh and Cleveland. Again, Wallace's nationwide vote total was about 13.5%. He exceeds that support in many of these urban wards.

Cheese and Cracker

Here is the 1968 Wallace vote in the city of Milwaukee. This is a city that I would have initially thought he would have done very well in. Just prior to the '68 race, Milwaukee had been going through some extremely turbulent protests, mostly centered around the issue of open housing, headed by Fr. James Groppi. These protests galvanized much of the urban white ethnic population.

Milwaukee has historically been an extremely segregated city. The urban white ethnic population (mostly Polish and German) is most concentrated in wards 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, and 19. This is where one would expect to see Wallace do the best. In fact, we see that his vote performance, while slightly below his national average, is not as strong as we saw in some Chicago wards. As I'll be showing in future posts, other northern industrial cities, most notably Cleveland, saw Wallace do extremely well.

What may explain Wallace's lower than expected performance here is a greater Nixon share of the vote than one would expect. In other words, rather than stopping off with Wallace on the movement to the Republicans, Milwaukee's urban white ethnics may have skipped the Wallace step altogether. We shall see in future posts.

More From Chicago

Here is a comparison between the Republican vote in the 1964 and 1972 presidential election in Chicago. In each ward I've written the Republican % of the vote. As I argued yesterday, the '68 Wallace vote can be viewed as a stopping point for urban white ethnics from being solidly Democratic to much more Republican. We see some more evidence of that trend here. The wards that I'm most interested in are the south side and north west side. These wards tended to have the highest concentration of urban white ethnics.

Obviously, we must remember that there will have been population shifts and demographic changes between these elections. Nonetheless, using this rough representation, we see some pretty clear movement. As I suggested in my previous post, my suspicion is that there is a strong "backlash" dimension to this trend as urban white ethnics responded to the turmoil of the civil rights movement as well as the "great migration" that witnessed an explosion in the African American population in northern industrial cities like Chicago.

More to come.