R A CE R E A CT IO N

RACE REACTION
VOTER RESPONSES TO TEA PARTY MESSAGES IN
ECONOMICALLY-STRESSED COMMUNITIES

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

For more information, contact:

Mr. Anthony Giancatarino

The Center for Social Inclusion
New York, NY 10038
agiancatarino@thecsi.org
(212) 248-2785 x1451
 R A CE R E A CT IO N
Executive Summary

The mid-term elections left Democrats in the dust and Republicans claiming a mandate on shrinking
government and repealing health care reform; but after the elections a more complicated picture is
emerging as we analyze election results. Exit polls have shown voters to be divided on specific
policies of the Obama Administration, like stimulus and health care. And some analysts have
pointed out that some Republicans ran and won with few specific policy proposals. To shed more
light on what the results of the mid-term elections suggest for policymakers, the Center for Social
Inclusion examined economic insecurity and racial and ethnic demographics where Tea Party
candidates both won and lost. CSI’s research suggests that Tea Party successes have been driven
by a combination of economic insecurity and race. Our analysis shows that in congressional
districts with economic insecurity, Tea Party candidates won 9 of 10 races where the White
population is above 60%, while losing 7 of 10 races where the population of color is above 40%. Yet,
in districts with higher economic security, Tea Party candidates failed in all but three races –
incumbents representing White populations above 70%.

Center for Social Inclusion analyzed demographic data in 40 congressional districts with the worst
foreclosure rates and 20 congressional districts with the greatest decrease in foreclosures as a
measure of economic stability. CSI’s analysis shows that in congressional districts facing economic
stress, the Tea Party used economic insecurity and growing racial fears to win in majority-White
districts. Importantly, congressional districts not in foreclosure distress that were mostly White did
not tend to support tea party candidates. Race was correlated with Tea Party victory, but not class.
Districts with large numbers of people of color and high foreclosure rates saw few Tea Party
candidate victories.

The Tea Party’s strategy of dividing voters along subtle, and not so subtle, references to race and
ethnicity works in White economically distressed communities, but not necessarily White
economically healthy communities or communities with sizable populations of color. This suggests
that strategies, which address race and economic opportunity, will be critical to policymakers
and advocates. It does not necessarily suggest that the policies of the administration itself are to
blame for voter reactions. Therefore, CSI recommends communities and policymakers must
confront this negative use of race as a wedge in political debate by creating messages that reach
people personally, positively engage them on the impacts policies have on communities of color,
and offer solutions that can benefit all people. Within this frame, CSI has identified a growing
opportunity for cross-race alliance building that will reject the Right’s attempts at dividing a nation
through empty policy discussions filled with racialized messaging.
 R A CE R E A CT IO N
Findings from the 40 congressional districts with the worst or largest increase in foreclosures:

• In 21 of the 40 districts, the Tea Party ran candidates in the primary or general election,
winning a total of 11 general election races.

• The Tea Party won 7 of the 8 Districts that flipped from Democratic to Republican
control, 6 of these 7 victories had White populations greater than 60%.

• Overall, 10 of the 11 Tea Party candidates elected won in districts with a White
population greater than 60%.

• Among the 10 congressional districts where the Tea Party failed to win, 7 are districts
with populations of color greater than 40%.

• Poverty seems less relevant than race and foreclosure rates. In the 40 districts most
impacted by foreclosures, districts with lower median household incomes were no more
likely than their wealthier counterparts to vote for the Tea Party.

Findings from the 20 congressional districts with the greatest decrease in foreclosures:

• In 16 of the 20 districts, the Tea Party ran candidates in the primary or general election,
winning 3 general election races. All 3 Tea Party victories were by incumbents who
currently belong to the Tea Party Caucus and represent districts with a White population
greater than 70%.

• 10 of the 13 Tea Party losses came in districts with a White population greater than 60%,
while the other 3 defeats occurred in districts with populations of color above 40%.

• Similar to the 40 districts with the worst foreclosure rates, median household income
did not play a significant role in the 20 districts with the largest decrease in foreclosures.

Racial Demographic Analysis

In congressional districts with high economic insecurity the Tea Party candidate won where
Whites are overwhelmingly the majority population.

CSI found a statistically significant correlation between race and Tea Party victories and defeats.
Below, the map highlights the Southwest region of the country, where 13 of the top 20 “Foreclosed
Congressional Districts” are located.
 R A CE R E A CT IO N
The most active Tea Party congressional challenges occurred in Arizona and Nevada, both of which
were extremely hard-hit by the foreclosure crisis. Nevada ranks the worst in the country overall as 1
in every 69 properties are in foreclosure, while Arizona ranks 4th with 1 in 159 properties in
foreclosure. The results are staggering. Nevada’s 3rd District flipped from Democratic to Tea Party
control, and three Tea Party candidates won in seats in Arizona. As the map shows, these districts
(represented in red with cross-hatches) all have White populations above 60%. In contrast, in
districts where Democratic incumbents defeated Tea Party challengers (light blue Districts), the
White population is less than 50% (small purple dots).
 R A CE R E A CT IO N
When analyzing congressional districts with the largest decline in foreclosures, the results are
strikingly different. The three Tea Party candidates that were victorious did win in congressional
districts with White populations above 70%; however 10 of the 13 Tea Party candidate losses were
also in congressional districts with White populations above 60%. In the only three districts with
populations of color above 40%, the Tea Party lost. It appears that in districts where economic
insecurity is not high, districts with majority White populations are not overly jumping at Tea Party
messages. These results suggest that when Whites who live in racially isolated districts face
economic insecurity, they are more responsive to racial messages that exploit economic fears and
implicit racial biases.

Income Analysis
In the congressional districts analyzed, median household income—both of Whites and of people
of color—varied considerably. However, districts with lower median household incomes were no
more likely than their wealthier counterparts to vote for Tea Party candidates.

Acknowledging that many of these districts are facing significant economic concerns, one would
expect to find that voters would respond based on economic standing. However, CSI’s analysis finds
no statistically significant correlation that explicitly links economic situations to electoral outcomes.
Wealthy, middle-income, and poorer districts varied voting decisions. Unlike the strong impact that
race appeared to play in these heavily foreclosure-impacted districts, White income and poverty
rates did not seem to significantly impact the electoral success of Tea Party candidates. For more
details please see the appendix of the report.

Messaging Analysis
CSI research has shown that race is increasingly used as a wedge, resulting in a decrease in white
support for investments that even they would benefit from.

The correlation between majority-White districts experiencing economic angst and overwhelming
support for Tea Party candidates elevates the role that race plays in our policy debates and political
behavior. As we have seen in recent policy debates on critical public investments like healthcare and
financial reform, race is increasingly used to wedge white support for investments that even they
would benefit from. For example, the fear that “illegal aliens” would benefit from healthcare reform
wedged White support for the bill, despite the fact that the number one cause of bankruptcy for
middle-class Americans is medical debt.
 R A CE R E A CT IO N
The dominant rhetoric Tea Party candidates and activists used in the mid-term elections argued for
the shrinking role of government, public spending, and lowering taxes. Images of people of color
and coded words such as “welfare queen” “illegal alien” and “freeloader” have all been used to
convince White voters that it is “those people” unfairly benefiting from government spending. These
very voters face unemployment, foreclosure, and crises in healthcare, needing the very public
investment that they oppose. Given the high correlation between White-majority districts,
economic distress, and the success of Tea Party candidates in these districts, it appears that the race
wedge has been highly effectively at convincing many White voters to support candidates who
express extreme anti-government sentiments and, in some instances, overt racism.

Not only were congressional districts with populations of color above 40% more likely to reject Tea
Party candidates, they also did so even amidst the way that race was used as a wedge. In districts
where the Tea Party was victorious, race played a significant role in political messages that were
both explicit and symbolic. The chart below highlights examples of messages that used race as a
wedge during the campaign, by district.

Congressional District Candidate Message Elected

Abolish public schools and return the
country to "the way things worked
California 11th Harmer No
through the first century of American
nationhood"
He has no place in any station of
Arizona 6th Franks government and we need to realize that Yes
he [Obama] is an enemy of humanity.

Nevada - Senate Angle Black is the color of evil. No

But the President has demonstrated that

he has a default mechanism in him that
Iowa 5th King Yes
breaks down the side of race - on the side
that favors the black person.
“So, what you have to do, is keep faith with
the people that are already in the system, that
don't have any other options, we have to keep
faith with them. But basically what we have to
Minnesota 6th Bachmann Yes
do is wean everybody else off. And wean
everybody off because we have to take those
unfunded net liabilities off our bank sheet, we
can't do it.”
 R A CE R E A CT IO N
Conclusion
After analyzing the 2010 electoral results in the 40 Districts most affected by foreclosures, it is clear
that race coupled with economic pain may have played a significant role in Tea Party candidate
elections. Though voters are split on issues such as healthcare reform and job creation, our analysis
suggests that the Right is manipulating white voters’ insecurities around economic well-being.
Instead of demanding a smarter and more responsive role for government, many swing white voters
are electing candidates who promise to shrink government. As this is unchallenged, the policy
discourse in this country has failed to thoroughly debate solutions to our problems and has stoked
intolerance and even overt racism.

Recommendations
CSI recommends that communities, advocates, and policymakers need to confront the Right’s use
of race as a wedge to support meaningful and informed policy discussions.

CSI is currently engaged in communications testing, which tracks how race is used as a wedge in the
public discourse on public investment and action (such as healthcare and foreclosures) and tests
messages that confront that wedge. Results show that the Right is winning the dialogue not
through policy debates but through racialized messages that pit American’s against each other.
However, in a series of tests around messaging, CSI finds messages that proactively confront the
race wedge are more effective at opening up meaningful dialogue with white audiences than those
that avoid reference to race. CSI, with Westen Strategies, LLC, tested Race-explicit messages head-
to-head against anti-government messages that used racial cues and pit Americans against each
other. The race explicit messages outperformed the conservative messages by significant margins.

Advocates should use the following approach to craft effective messages that attack the race
wedge:

Formula Race Explicit Subprime message Race Explicit Healthcare message

1) Describe problem “Over six million hard working “We’re all one tumor away from financial
universally and in Americans have lost their jobs, and disaster”
emotional terms millions more have had their homes and
dreams foreclosed”
 R A CE R E A CT IO N
2) Explain “shared “The pain of losing your home doesn’t “The health care problem facing
fate” in racially- come in different colors. It feels the Americans cuts across class, race, and
explicit terms same whether you’re white or black, ethnicity. White men are losing their jobs
Hispanic or Asian” in record numbers, and black and Latino
Americans tend to have lower-paying jobs
and can’t afford insurance no matter hard
they work”

3) Take on the race “But instead of blaming the bankers,
wedge and reframe some people want us to blame the
enemies and victims borrowers [image of African American
homeowners]. It wasn’t these guys, who
just tripled our credit card interest rates
and paid themselves record bonuses out
of our tax dollars”
“This isn’t about illegal immigrants, it’s
about American citizens. It isn’t about
welfare, it’s about people who work for a
living and still can’t afford insurance—or
who lost their insurance when they lost
their job”

4) Present universal “We need tough new regulations to “It shouldn’t be up to insurance companies
solution in prevent this from ever happening again. to decide who to cover, what to cover, and
emotional terms If banks and credit cards companies how much to charge for it”
have something to say they shouldn’t
be allowed to say it in fine print or to
triple our interest rates without notice.”
CSI is currently conducting another round of communications testing to support the field’s ability to
confront the use of race as a wedge and will share these results in the coming months.

CSI strongly advocates for more engagement with communities of color in policy, economic, and
social arenas.
 R A CE R E A CT IO N
The maps above highlight the overlap in which congressional districts have increasing diversity and
face worse economic health. These areas: South, Southwest, and the lower Coastal regions are also
facing increased messages that use race as a negative way to pit Americans against each other on
policy issues. Promisingly, our analysis shows that in congressional districts with larger populations
of color, voters seemed to reject intolerance. This means that voters exposed to racial diversity
provide an excellent opportunity to build alliances among all races to find ways for innovative policies
that will benefit all. CSI recommends that these alliances use CSI’s messaging style in order to
confront the race wedge in their communities and begin to create inclusive opportunities of growth
that will benefit all.

Data Source: Authors Analysis of Hotpads.com, NYTimes Election Results, US Census ACS Data 2006 – 2008.

Methodology: CSI used Hotpads.com collection of “Top 20 Foreclosed Congressional Districts,”

“Foreclosure Percent Change 2008 – 2010 (Worst),” and “Foreclosure Percent Change 2008 – 2010 (Best).”
Race and Economic income was gathered for these Congressional Districts from the 2006 – 2008 ACS
data. CSI identified which Congressional Districts had Tea Party Candidates in a general or primary
election using media and political resources. To check for statistical significance, a chi-square statistical
test on race, income, and race and income combined was performed. The results showed that there was
not a significant correlation between income and Tea Party victory, or income and race and Tea Party
victory. However, race showed a strong correlation - significant at the 97.5% level.
 R A CE R E A CT IO N
Appendix

Demographics of Selected Congressional Districts with “Most Foreclosures” an Tea Party Outcomes

Foreclosures
2008 2010 112
-September Tea Party District White
District Foreclosures/ Foreclosures/ Congress Party White Black Latino Asian
2010 Victory MHI MHI
Household Household Person
(Estimates)

Nevada 3 2,100 4.45% 5.18% Heck R Yes 60.18% 6.50% 21.28% 8.42% $62,725 $66,466

Nevada 1 12,000 3.23% 3.48% Berkley D No 43.15% 12.37% 35.06% 5.42% $51,100 $58,010

Arizona 5 3,000 0.92% 1.71% Mitchell D No 71.39% 3.24% 16.84% 4.35% $62,733 $67,029

Arizona 7 1,685 1.31% 1.70% Grijalva D No 33.96% 3.35% 54.62% 1.68% $40,179 $58,639

Illinois 14 1,400 0.83% 1.62% Hultgren R Yes 68.52% 4.75% 22.51% 2.94% $67,504 $73,950

Illinois 8 1,781 0.52% 1.55% Walsh* R Yes 71.39% 3.83% 15.86% 7.37% $75,552 $79,641

Arizona 1 917 0.70% 1.47% Gosar R Yes 57.70% 18.80% 1.40% 2.10% $45,198 $45,861

Demographics of Selected Congressional Districts with Worst and Best Changes in Foreclosure Rates and
Tea Party Outcomes

112th Tea Party

District White
District % Change Congress Party Candidate White Black Latino Asian
MHI MHI
Person Elected
Kansas 3 3627% Yoder R Yes 60% 34% 2% 2% $63,427 $68,698
Alabama 4 2160% Aderholt R Yes 88% 5% 5% - $37,405 $39,378
Virginia 5 1500% Hurt R No 72% 23% 2% 1% $47,727 $43,125
Louisiana 3 1400% Landry R Yes 77% 8% 9% 3% $52,555 $44,887
Virginia 9 1000% Griffith R Yes 92% 4% 1% 1% $36,453 $36,824
Minnesota 6 956% Bachmann R Yes 92% 2% 2% 3% $61,074 $70,764
Connecticut 3 -91% DeLauro D No 71% 12% 4% 11% $62,306 $67,378
Iowa 5 -73% King R Yes 91% 1% 1% 5% $45,616 $46,238
California 11 -67% McNerney R No 53% 5% 13% 25% $79,322 $87,258
Florida 19 -65% Deutch D No 67% 10% 3% 18% $51,018 $51,512
California 18 -63% Cadoza D No 32% 6% 9% 50% $43,675 $48,213
 R A CE R E A CT IO N
The Center for Social Inclusion (CSI) is a national policy advocacy organization. CSI’s mission is to build a
fair and just society by dismantling structural racism, which undermines opportunities for all of us.
CSI partners with communities of color and other allies to build a strong multi-racial movement for new
policy directions that create equity and opportunity.

The Center for Social Inclusion

65 Broadway, Suite 1800 New York, NY 10006
(212) 248-2785

www.centerforsocialinclusion.org

Copyright © November 2010 by The Center for Social Inclusion

All rights reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without the
permission of the Center for Social Inclusion