Indiana, Part 3: A Midwestern Dilemma
Exploring how Indiana's demographics, history, and shifting political norms cement its red lean
Missed it? Read: Indiana Part 2: A Midwestern Dilemma
The Limits of Crossover Appeal in Today’s Indiana
Indiana’s downward spiral for Democrats only worsened after 2012. By 2016, Hillary Clinton lost the state by nearly 19 points, essentially returning Indiana to its pre-2008 position as a state widely regarded as unwinnable for Democrats.
However, there is a key difference between the Democratic landscape in Indiana now and in the early 2000s. This shift is largely part of a broader national trend: the increasing polarization of American politics where voters are increasingly aligned with a single party.
Ten to twenty years ago, it was common to see Democratic House members representing districts that had voted for Republican presidential candidates by large margins.
In the 2000s, ticket-splitting was common, with nearly 50 House members representing districts that voted for a presidential candidate of the opposite party.
By 2024, fewer than 20 members hold such seats, reflecting the shrinking space for Democrats in Indiana’s political landscape.
In Indiana, this polarization means that while Democrats previously had a significant presence despite their losses in presidential elections, it is now nearly impossible for them to win a significant portion of the state, with the state consistently voting for Republicans on the presidential level by upwards of 15 points in the last 8 years or so.
Evan Bayh: A Case Study in Indiana’s Political Shift
Back in the 2000s and early 2010s, Democrats still held down-ballot offices, including conservative House districts and even the governorship and a Senate seat. A prominent example is Evan Bayh, a Democrat who was highly popular during his tenure as governor and senator. However, Bayh’s political decline really mirrors the state's transition ideologically and politically as whole.
After leaving office in 2010, he attempted a Senate comeback in 2016, the same year Clinton lost the state by a large margin. Early polls gave Bayh a formidable lead over Republican Todd Young, a relatively unknown representative. However, as the election neared, Young overtook Bayh as revelations emerged about Bayh’s role as a corporate lobbyist and his extended out of office tenure had surfaced. In the end, Bayh lost by nearly 10 points, despite polling ahead earlier, illustrating that a strong candidate on paper is not enough to shift Indiana’s political leanings in favor of Democrats.
Indiana’s strong Republican orientation now means that Democrats can no longer afford to forfeit presidential races while relying on crossover support in Senate, House, or gubernatorial contests, as they did in the early 2000s. For example, the contrast between the 2012 and 2020 gubernatorial elections highlights this change.
John Gregg’s Near Wins and the Erosion of Democratic Competitiveness
Indiana’s gubernatorial races provide a unique lens on its political dynamics. In 2012, Democratic candidate John Gregg, a former Speaker of the Indiana House, came surprisingly close to defeating Mike Pence. He won 46.6% of the state's vote to Pence's 49.5%, representing around a three-point margin of defeat, an impressive performance, which is even more outstanding considering that the election was held concurrently with the presidential election in the Hoosier State. Gregg ran again in 2016 but lost by a larger six-point margin to Eric Holcomb.
Despite mounting a fierce challenge, Gregg still faced an uphill battle as Indiana continued trending Republican. Gregg was ultimately defeated by a wider margin in his second run, securing only 45.4% of the vote compared to Eric Holcomb’s 51.4%, resulting in a roughly 6-point loss. This outcome was still impressive, considering that Gregg was competing in a deeply Republican state where Hillary Clinton had lost by a landslide. However, despite his strong performance, Gregg remained far from victory.
Indiana’s 2020 Gubernatorial Race: A Further Shift to the Right
It's important to keep in mind that gubernatorial elections can deviate from and continue to be very flexible compared to the state's partisan lean.
For example, Democrats currently govern in Kansas and Kentucky, both states that backed Donald Trump by over 15 points in 2020. Conversely, Republicans hold the governorships in Vermont and, until 2023, Massachusetts—two of the most Democratic states in the country. These four elections highlight that it’s not uncommon for gubernatorial races to diverge from presidential outcomes, and it’s not implausible to imagine John Gregg outperforming Democratic presidential candidates in Indiana, given his popularity and long history as a state politician.
Despite Gregg’s familiarity and appeal, he was unable to secure victory in either 2012 or 2016. Notably, by 2020, Indiana’s gubernatorial results shifted even further right than its presidential results. Democrats, who had previously contested gubernatorial races vigorously, effectively forfeited in 2020.
William Myers, a former New York City Health Commissioner, ran against incumbent Republican Eric Holcomb but lost by over 24 points—a far greater margin than Joe Biden’s 16-point loss in the presidential race that same year. While Myers slightly improved on Clinton’s 2016 share, the result was still a far cry from Obama’s 2008 win or even his 10-point loss in 2012, underscoring Democrats' deepening struggles in Indiana.
Indiana’s Quiet Political Landscape Since 2020
Since 2020, Indiana has remained politically quiet—a situation that is reassuring for Republicans but disheartening for Democrats. In states dominated by the opposition, it falls to the minority party to vigorously contest each election and invest in outreach and get-out-the-vote efforts. Without this commitment, an already "safe" state becomes even safer for the dominant party, a trend seen nationwide.
This pattern held true in Indiana during the 2022 midterms, when Republican Senate incumbent Todd Young, a fairly center-right and relatively uncontroversial candidate, bested his Democratic opponent by north of 20 points in a race effectively ignored by both national and state Democrats. Similarly, Democrats lost the total House vote in Indiana by slightly over 20 points, with Republicans on seven congressional districts and seven congressional incumbents remaining largely unchallenged.
Indiana's First District: A Bright Spot for Democrats
The only real bright spot for Democrats in the state would be Indiana's First District, centered around the city of Gary in the northwestern part of the state. Gary, remains a rare Democratic stronghold, a Rust Belt city similar to Detroit, grew significantly during the rise of industrialization and has since experienced gradual population decline. Democratic incumbent Frank Mrvan, who hailed from a political dynasty in the state, faced a strong challenge from Republican newcomer Jennifer Green. Despite alot of buzz from forecasts predicting a potential upset, Mrvan won reelection by 5.6 points, offering Democrats a glimpse of hope in a generally red state.
Despite Mrvan's victory being contained to a single district and not the state as a whole, it does suggest a glimmer of hope for Democrats in the future because Mrvan’s success stemmed not only from his performance in Gary but also from strong support in suburban areas surrounding the city, which are part of the broader Chicago metropolitan area. These suburbs, predominantly white yet more educated than much of Indiana’s rural areas, leaned Democratic due to rising concerns about Republican extremism after Donald Trump’s 2020 loss and the subsequent January 6th Capitol insurrection. Additionally, the 2022 Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, galvanized many suburban voters, particularly women, who were alarmed by Indiana’s decision to ban abortion entirely in August 2023.
This trend reflects a larger shift we’ve seen nationwide, especially in Midwestern states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, where growing suburban populations have increasingly supported Democrats. If Indiana Democrats can continue to build on this momentum, particularly in suburban and urban areas, they may eventually expand their influence in the state.
Indianapolis: The Democratic Core
Beyond Gary, Indianapolis is the most critical urban center for Indiana Democrats. As the state capital and largest city, Indianapolis proper has a population of around 900,000, similar in size to Jacksonville, Florida, making it one of the top 20 most populous U.S. cities. Its metropolitan area, with over 2.1 million residents, ranks as the 34th largest nationwide.
Indianapolis is the heart of Indiana’s Democratic coalition, characterized by its racial and ethnic diversity, with substantial Black, Hispanic, and Asian populations. Without Indianapolis, Democrats would likely be shut out of Indiana almost entirely, making the state resemble conservative strongholds in the Mountain West, like North and South Dakota or Wyoming. Indianapolis, however, remains the center of the Democratic coalition in Indiana. It is a highly diverse city, with substantial Black, Hispanic, and Asian populations. Furthermore, its suburbs have trended leftward in recent elections, a pattern seen in other Midwestern states, including Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Indianapolis’s economy, driven by tourism (especially its renowned racing scene) and a robust financial sector, attracts residents whose interests often align with Democratic priorities.
This foundation gives Democrats room to grow, with the potential to increase voter turnout in urban and suburban areas. Although a statewide win may remain challenging, sustained get-out-the-vote efforts in Indianapolis and other urban centers could yield progress. Barack Obama’s 2008 success in Indiana, as the first Black presidential nominee, demonstrated the importance of urban support, with cities like Indianapolis and Gary contributing significantly to his narrow victory. Democrats’ future efforts might benefit from similar strategies, focusing on maximizing their urban coalitions as a stepping stone for broader gains across the state.
Urban Growth Alone Won't Turn Indiana Blue
It would be a mistake for Democrats to assume they could win Indiana solely by boosting urban margins. Marion County, home to Indianapolis and its suburbs, has indeed shifted significantly left over the past 20 years. In 2000, George W. Bush narrowly won Marion County over Al Gore, but by 2020, Joe Biden carried it by 29.1 points—a massive, nearly 30-point leftward shift.
An even more revealing comparison is between the 2020 and 2008 results in Marion County. While Barack Obama performed far better than Joe Biden statewide, in Marion County, the story is different: Obama won the county by around 28.3 points in 2008, but Biden slightly outperformed him in 2020 with a 29-point margin. This difference of less than one point may seem small, especially considering the urban and suburban growth over the past decade, but it indicates that Democrats still had room to expand their support even in a county that Obama had dominated.
This local growth is noteworthy, especially as Indiana shifted nearly 20 points to the right overall between 2008 and 2020. Marion County’s slight leftward movement during this period points to a favorable trend for Democrats, suggesting potential opportunities in suburban areas beyond Indianapolis. To make Indiana more competitive in the future, Democrats will need to fully leverage this suburban shift toward liberalism. This requires strong get-out-the-vote efforts in both urban centers and suburban regions, and even in rural areas, despite their conservative lean, if Democrats hope to make gains in the state.
Strategic Approach to Indiana’s Electoral Landscape
Democrats must approach electoral politics strategically, especially in states like Indiana. In 2022, many Democratic candidates in suburban districts outperformed expectations by positioning themselves as the “normal” candidates amidst a wave of perceived Republican extremism. Rather than adopting conservative policies or attacking prominent Democrats, these candidates made themselves universally approachable and likable, particularly to swing and moderate voters in suburban areas.
Elissa Slotkin is an example of this strategy in action. She successfully defended a district that had voted for Trump by more than five points by emphasizing her relatability and portraying herself as the reasonable choice. This rhetorical positioning allowed her to gain support across the aisle without alienating her core Democratic base.
Traditionally, Democrats in competitive or conservative areas have faced a choice: pivot left to energize their base or shift heavily to the center or right to attract swing voters. However, the success of candidates like Slotkin in 2022 suggests it may be possible to find a middle ground—a strategy that could be game-changing in Indiana. This dual approach could be particularly valuable in Indiana, where Democrats need to consolidate support in urban strongholds like Indianapolis and Gary, while also expanding their reach in suburban and even some rural areas.
To succeed, Democrats must prioritize not only the most charismatic and capable candidates but those who genuinely fit the state’s unique political landscape. Often, success lies in the candidate’s persona rather than their ethnicity, background, or specific policy profile. This does come with limitations, of course. For example, nominating highly progressive figures like AOC or Ilhan Omar in a conservative state like Indiana might not be ideal. However, a progressive yet pragmatic candidate could balance the need to mobilize the Democratic base while making a persuasive case to more conservative-leaning voters.
Ultimately, Democrats’ success in Indiana lies more in the personal appeal and effectiveness of their candidates than in predetermined factors like race or ideological purity.