Rich State, Poor State, Red State, Blue State: What's the Matter with Connecticut?

35 Pages Posted: 11 Sep 2007

See all articles by Andrew Gelman

Andrew Gelman

Columbia University - Department of Statistics and Department of Political Science

Boris Shor

University of Houston - Department of Political Science

Joseph Bafumi

Dartmouth College - Department of Government

David Park

George Washington University

Date Written: November 2005

Abstract

We find that income matters more in "red America" than in "blue America." In poor states, rich people are much more likely than poor people to vote for the Republican presidential candidate, but in rich states (such as Connecticut), income has a very low correlation with vote preference. In addition to finding this pattern and studying its changes over time, we use the concepts of typicality and availability from cognitive psychology to explain how these patterns can be commonly misunderstood. Our results can be viewed either as a debunking of the journalistic image of rich "latte" Democrats and poor "Nascar " Republicans, or as support for the journalistic images of political and cultural differences between red and blue states—differences which are not explained by differences in individuals' incomes. For decades, the Democrats have been viewed as the party of the poor, with the Republicans representing the rich. Recent presidential elections, however, have shown a reverse pattern, with Democrats performing well in the richer "blue" states in the northeast and west coast, and Republicans dominating in the "red" states in the middle of the country. Through multilevel modeling of individual-level survey data and county- and state-level demographic and electoral data, we reconcile these patterns. Key methods used in this research are: (1) plots of repeated cross-sectional analyses, (2) varying-intercept, varying-slope multilevel models, and (3) a graph that simultaneously shows within-group and between-group patterns in a multilevel model. These statistical tools help us understand patterns of variation within and between states in a way that would not be possible from classical regressions or by looking at tables of coefficient estimates.

Keywords: availability heuristic, ecological fallacy, hierarchical model, income and voting, multilevel model, presidential elections, public opinion, secret weapon, varying-slope model

Suggested Citation

Gelman, Andrew and Shor, Boris and Bafumi, Joseph and Park, David, Rich State, Poor State, Red State, Blue State: What's the Matter with Connecticut? (November 2005). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1010426 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1010426

Andrew Gelman (Contact Author)

Columbia University - Department of Statistics and Department of Political Science ( email )

New York, NY 10027
United States
212-854-4883 (Phone)
212-663-2454 (Fax)

Boris Shor

University of Houston - Department of Political Science ( email )

Houston, TX 77204-3011
United States

Joseph Bafumi

Dartmouth College - Department of Government ( email )

Hanover, NH
United States

David Park

George Washington University ( email )

2121 I Street NW
Washington, DC 20052
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
884
rank
24,215
Abstract Views
4,051
PlumX Metrics