When attemting to explain voting behaviour, there are many factors which can be considered as to why a person may vote either Democrat or Republican, particuarly with the USA being so vastly diverse. This can make it harder to predict voting behaviour, however when looking at significant factors such as region, race and religion trends can definitely be seen in core voters, something of which the two major parties can often rely on.
The USA has always been a melting pot of immigrant groups with differing cultures and traditions, and so as a certain race increases in the electorate, they become more important to win over.The African American vote has never been less than 83% for the Democrats between 1980-2012. With the Democrats known for their support during the civil right era, and with policies in welfare favouring the less affluent, minority groups are bound to support the Democrats, particularly with the first black presidential nominee. In 2012 the black vote made up 13% of the electorate, a figure which had risen from the 11% they made up in 2004. Given that in 2012 87% of black men voted for Obama, and 96% of black women did, the increase in the black turnout makes them even more significant than they already were.
This is similar when considering the hispanic vote. In the 2000 census, hispanics made up 12% of population however in 2010 this had risen to 16%. At the moment, while hispanics are still important in that they currently make up 10% of the electorate, a large proportion of the hispanic population are still too young to vote, meaning that when they eventually become part of the voting-age population, the hispanic vote will be very important to whoever recieves it. In 2004 the Bush administration made a push for the hispanic vote, highlighting their importance.Given that Bush himself spoke spanish and his brother is married to a hispanic women, the hispanic vote for Republicans rose from 20% in 1996 to 34% in 2004. Since then it has declined, and in 2012 Republicans only recieved 27% of the hispanic vote with Obama having a 44 percentage point advantage.
However while considering all these minority groups are significant to the Democrat vote, the white vote still remains strongly Republican, and given that they made up 72% of the electorate in 2012, with 59% of this voting for Romney, despite them being "pale, male and stale", the white vote is very important in Republican voters, showing that race is important in explaining voting behaviour.When considering region, the red-blue divide can be considered as a major factor in explaining voting behaviour. While the south used to be a solid voting block for the Democrats, the Democrats now rely on the 'solid North-East'. Every North-Eastern state voted for the Democrats in 2012, however given that the North East is the one region with a declining proportion of the nation's population would suggest that perhaps the Electoral College votes in the North East will soon decline.The South on the other hand are now very supportive of the Republicans.
In 1996, the Democrat ticket of Clinton-Gore won every region except the South, and given that they were both southerners, and neither of the Republican ticket of Dole-Kemp were, shows the strength of support for Republicans in the South. Having said this however, in 2008 Obama managed to win back the Southern states of Virginia, North Carolina and Florida, but then lost North Carolina again in 2012, again showing the extent of the 'solid south' for Republicans.On the other hand though, blue and red America isn't always clear in explaining voting behaviour. In 2008 again, 9 states that had voted for Bush in 2004 had voted Obama in 2008, including Indiana which Bush had won by 21 percentage points. This perhaps shows that region isn't as solid of a factor as race, and that perhaps 'shades of purple' can be seen making region a harder factor to use in explaining voting behaviour.
Another factor in assessing voting behaviour is religion. It is often known that protestants vote Republican, making up 53% of the electorate in 2012, with 57% of this voting for Romney.It is also known that Catholics are more likely to vote Democrat, however with the Democrat's 'pro-choice stance on abortion going against Catholic faith, sometimes favour wanders between the two parties. In 2004 for example, George W. Bush managed to gain 52% of the catholic vote.
However with such a marginal difference in percentage points, 50% voting Obama in 2012 and 48% voting Romney, the Catholic voters only making up 25% of the electorate could be argued to be of a small significance in explaining voting behaviour. Jewish people on the other hand always vote solidly Democrat.They voted 78% in 1992 and 1996, and 79% in 2000 despite Gore's running mate (Joe Lieberman) being the first Jew to appear on a national ticket. This shows the strength of support Democrats recieve from the Jewish electorate, and while they only account for 2% of the electorate, their votes can be counted upon even after their vote dipped in 2012. 2012's Jewish vote declined to 69% clearly reflecting their unease about Obama's first-term policy positions towars Isreal, and the fact that the Israeli Prime Minister actually endorsed Romney.
Even despite this though the strong majority the Jewish vote give to the Democrat makes predicting their vote easy.This is similar with White Evangelical Christians who can be solidly relied upon to give their vote to the Republicans. Making up 26% of the electorate, they are an important voting block, and even despite Romney's Mormon background, they could be counted upon to give the Republicans 78% of their vote. This means that much like race, religion is significant in explaining voting behaviour generally, as the blocks of voters tend not to falter, and the two major parties can rely on their solid support.
Overall, I would argue that while race and religion is important in explaining voting behaviour, region is perhaps a less significant factor.Whereas with race and religion, even if a party manages to sway a particular voting block, while their vote for their usual party declines, their usual party still gains mass support from that block. Region however is different as the red-blue divide is not as divided as it seems. With a changing population in states, in that people can move from state to state, or different generations of voters come and go from a state, opinions differ, and so region perhaps recquires reinforcing factors to explain voting behaviour.
For example, a white southern male is much more likely to vote Republican than a black women from the South. This is the same for all factors concerning voting behaviour. While race and religion, I would argue, are significant factors in explaining voting behaviour themselves, if the two were to reinforce each other their vote would be completely predictable. This is shown in 2012, as while Romney gained 57% of all protestant votes, he recieved 69% of the white protestant vote, showing that the two factors reinfocring makes explaining voting behaviour alot easier.
