Indiana, Part 1: A Midwestern Dilemma
Indiana's demographics, history, and shifting political norms have cemented its red lean in an otherwise competitive region.
Indiana is situated in the heart of the Midwest, bordered by Michigan to the north, Illinois to the west, Ohio to the east, and Kentucky to the south.
Indiana sits in the heart of the American Midwest, and the Midwest sits at the heart of the United States — geographically, culturally, and figuratively.
The Midwest has long been a focal point in American politics: the region has been among the most hotly contested regions in the United States for the better part of a century and looks to stay this way.
Many of these states have been among the biggest prizes on the electoral board for well over a century. Races, from state legislatures to U.S. House elections, have historically seen intense competition from both parties.
States including Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have been among the most politically competitive, evenly-divided states in the nation. They’ve been consistently contested by both major parties in recent decades, and consistently decided by margins of less than a single point in multiple 21st-century elections.
Ohio, although less competitive in recent years, was a leading presidential bellwether for nearly a century, with its election results closely reflecting national trends.
However, not all Midwestern states follow this competitive pattern.
Illinois, dominated by Chicago, has held a firm Democratic lean since the 1980s. And conversely, Indiana has proven reliably Republican. In fact, in the better part of the 21st century, it's safe to say that Indiana is the most partisan state in the Midwest. In other words, Indiana goes to one party more consistently and by greater margins than any of its fellow Midwestern compatriots.
Do Demographics Tell the Whole Story?
In order to better understand Indiana’s political composition, we’ll explore its baseline demographics, as they can (and often do) help provide a strong indication of a state’s political orientation, especially when compared to national trends.
Indiana’s population demographics differ from the national average in several notable ways that help provide a strong indication of its political orientation.
High Representation of White, Non-Hispanic Voters
One of the defining aspects of Indiana’s demographics is its predominantly white population. 75.5% of Indiana’s population identifies as non-Hispanic white, over 15% higher than the national average of approximately 58%.
This composition positions Indiana more conservatively than the United States at large, which is nearly evenly politically divided. For more than half of a century, it’s been common political wisdom that white voters consistently leaned Republican: the last presidential election where Democrats won white voters was in 1964, when Lyndon B. Johnson swept the entire nation outside of the Deep South.
Now flash forward to the present: in 2020 presidential election, white voters nationwide favored Donald Trump over Joe Biden by a 15-point margin.
Lower Representation of Minority Groups
Indiana’s smaller-than-average Black, Hispanic, and Asian populations further shape its political character. Black Americans make up about 9% of Indiana’s population (compared to 13% nationally), while Hispanic residents constitute around 8% (compared to 20% nationally). These figures help further highlight Indiana’s demographic differences from national averages, as minority groups in the U.S. generally tend to favor the Democratic Party. The relatively low percentages of these demographics in Indiana partially explain its Republican tilt, as the state lacks a large population of groups that typically support Democratic candidates.
The remaining 5% of Indiana’s population consists of multiracial individuals, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and other groups. Indiana’s age and gender demographics, however, closely mirror national averages, with the population slightly more female than male and a median age around 37.4 years.
Differences in Educational Attainment
Notably, Indiana’s educational demographics significantly differ from the national average, which is an important factor in understanding the state’s political alignment. Only about 33% of Indiana’s population has graduated high school, and fewer than a third hold any type of college degree, with even smaller percentages attaining bachelor’s or graduate degrees - and reflects higher educational attainment trends in political coalitions: Democrats have increasingly built support among college-educated, higher-income individuals, while Republicans have strengthened their base among working-class voters with lower levels of formal education.
Education level has become a major predictor of political affiliation. Individuals with higher education levels are generally more likely to support Democratic priorities, particularly on social issues like abortion rights and LGBTQ rights. In contrast, those with less higher educational attainment—often older and living in rural areas—have shown a higher likelihood of prioritizing conservative values that align with Republican policy positions. With over 70% of Indiana’s population without a college degree, this demographic trend can help further explain, in part, Indiana’s unique political dynamics.
Indiana’s Sharp Contrasts to the Rest of the Midwest
A useful, polar-opposites comparison to Indiana is Illinois, a state with a similar degree of partisanship (Joe Biden won Illinois by slightly under 17% while Trump won Indiana by slightly over 16%) and demographics that actually favor the Democratic Party. Illinois is highly educated and extremely diverse, largely due to the influence of Chicago, which, along with its surrounding suburbs, comprises nearly 80% of the state’s population.
Of course, Indiana is not without its own urban areas. In addition to containing a large chunk of Chicago’s surrounding suburbs (colloquially known as Chicagoland), Indiana is anchored by its largest city and state capital: Indianapolis. Indianapolis, historically a major transportation hub much like Chicago, has a population of 887,000, positioning it as the third-largest metro in the Midwest. Still, its population is less than half as large as Chicago’s and far less diverse: more than 50% of the city’s population is non-Hispanic white, contributing to the city’s relatively-smaller Democratic lean. Furthermore, Indianapolis’ votes are diluted by its surrounding suburbs, which are far less liberal than Chicago’s.
Non-Hispanic whites comprise slightly more than 60% of Illinois’ population, a far cry from Indiana’s 75%. Even more telling, Hispanic, Black, and Asian Americans comprise the remaining 40% of Illinois’ total populace — nearly double that of Indiana’s non-white population.
Illinois’ urban and educated demographic base positions it as a Democratic stronghold, in contrast to Indiana’s more rural, predominantly white, and less-educated population that aligns more closely with Republican policies, especially in the wake of Donald Trump’s populism-fueled rise to the forefront.
These stark differences create a sort of demographic mirror in which Illinois and Indiana serve as regional opposites in the Midwest’s political landscape — while ironically enough, the states are geographic neighbors.
It’s obvious now that Indiana is a redder state than Illinois, a liberal bastion; but this still doesn’t explain why Indiana is such a conservative state in general.
Indiana, As Compared With The Red Midwest
A more fitting comparison for Indiana, based on demographics, party leanings, and political trends, would be its neighboring states of Iowa and Ohio.
Both Iowa and Ohio are less Republican than Indiana: while Indiana supported Trump by a 16% margin, both Iowa’s and Ohio’s margins were kept under double digits by Joe Biden. In fact, until about 2016, Iowa and Ohio were among the nation’s most competitive states.
Iowa was once considered by most forecasters and analysts to be a Democratic-leaning swing state, having voted for Obama by convincing margins in 2008 and 2012.
Ohio, too, voted for Obama twice, likely owing to his appeal among minority voters and a small but significant faction of white rural voters who crossed party lines.
However, starting in 2016, both states shifted significantly toward the Republican party, voting for Trump by eight- to nine-point margins. Since then, they have consistently backed Republicans in both state and federal elections. Neither state has elected a Democratic governor since, despite multiple opportunities, and Ohio has only managed to elect one Democratic senator—Sherrod Brown, whose success was largely due to a favorable national climate and his strong incumbency.
Believe it or not, both Iowa’s and Ohio’s political trajectories closely mirror Indiana’s.
In 2008, Barack Obama coasted on a tide of resentment towards the Bush Administration — both generally towards the prolonged Iraq War, and concentrated in the Midwest as backlash towards the financial crash — to win Indiana, a feat not achieved by a Democrat since 1964. Obama only won by 1%, but it was a resounding affirmation of his success — and an era of Democratic dominance across a usually-divided region.
Unfortunately, these hopes quickly faded for Democrats: in 2010 alone, Democrats lost dozen of House, Senate, and governor’s races in the Midwest. These losses were especially concentrated in Ohio, Iowa, and — you guessed it — Indiana. Democrats lost Senate elections in all three states, and lost a combined 7 House seats in Indiana and Ohio.
In the following elections, Indiana continued to slip out of Democrats’ grasp: the state backed Mitt Romney by 10% in 2012 and handed Trump a whopping 19% margin of victory in 2016.
Between 2008 and 2016, Indiana shifted 20 points to the right — similar to Iowa’s 18% and Ohio’s 12%. So indeed, these states share a common red thread.
Furthermore, the demographic and economic factors contributing to their rightward shifts possess numerous similarities.
Demographically, both states very much mirror Indiana: they are whiter, less highly educated, and more predominately-rural than the nation overall. Ohio does have major urban centers like Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus. Howerver, much of the state is dominated by a sea of overwhelmingly-conservative rural areas and persistently-red suburbs which haven’t undergone the leftward shift seen in other suburban areas like Chicago and Atlanta’s collar counties.
Iowa presents an even more amplified version of these dynamics. Outside of Des Moines, which contains a medium-sized population of 214,000, the state is overwhelmingly rural and similar to the highly-conservative, inner Midwestern states such as Nebraska and Kansas. Notably, the state contains a high percentage of white farmers who tend to be less formally educated, have strong religious affiliations, and have enthusiastically supported Trump’s worker-centric rhetoric.
Today, Indiana, Ohio, and Iowa share strikingly similar political and demographic profiles, though Indiana remains slightly more Republican. This is largely due to Indiana’s demographics: it has a slightly higher proportion of rural areas and lower levels of educational attainment, both of which favor Republicans.