[BRussell]

There's been an awful lot of talk lately about how the US is so polarized politically. The vast majority of the population live in basically uncontested states like New York and Texas, and the vast majority of voters this election have already made up their minds about who they're voting for. This whole upcoming election is about the 5% of the voters in the country who are swing voters in swing states. The rest of us are a foregone conclusion.

The divide is largely by region/state. Republicans live in the South and the Rocky Mtn West, and Democrats are in the North East and West Coast. Northeastern liberal Republicans are going away and Southern conservative Dems are going away. Specter barely hung on and Zell Miller has already endorsed Bush.



Here's a pretty good series of articles about it.

There are lots of cultural differences, like guns - the South and the West have 'em, the coasts and cities don't as much. And the death penalty - the South does it, most other places don't. And religion. I heard on a TV report recently that the best predictor of voting prefs in the last election was whether you go to church: Repubs do, Dems don't. And race. Whites vote Repub, other races vote Dem.

Not sure I have a point to this other than to wonder what's happening. Why has it happened? What's the difference between us? Are we heading for another civil war? Maybe the civil cold war?

[djohnson]

No civil war coming... Just good 2 party democracy!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Excuse the editorializing and the somewhat excess size. This was the best version I could find. This was the country-by-county map that USA Today did after the election. It shows a more nuanced breakdown than the state-level map.

Basically, the red/blue divide isn't so much by state or even region. It's largely urban/rural. It just happens right now that about 50% of the voting public live in the urban half, and 50% live in the suburban/rural half. The blue bits are smaller because the population density is greater. But there is blue in pretty much every red state, and vice versa. We aren't as divided as the big state level map implies.

[snickerdoodle]

Gee, who woulda thought that city dwellers are probably poorer/minorities and more likely to be liberal? The kind of people who want the government to do everything for them and take care of them cradle to grave.

While those in the rural areas are independent minded, don't want to rely on the government, and are more likely wealthier and white?

[zigzag]

I wouldn't know what to say that the article doesn't already cover - it strikes me as spot on. My background probably makes me a Rockefeller Republican - I'm a moderate-to-liberal WASP and have no real connection to the Democratic ethnic/labor base. But like Jeffords I don't see a place for myself in the Republican Party - IMO it's been commandeered by extremists and religious zealots. I tend to vote Democrat more because I oppose those trends than because I identify with the Democratic base. At the same time, I can see why moderate-to-conservative Democrats don't feel at home either.

I wasn't aware of the districting scheme the article talks about. That's basically a method of politicians assuring themselves of re-election. Some things never change.

One thing the polls don't mention is that even if Bush leads the popular vote, Kerry leads in the swing states, and those will determine who wins the electoral count. If Bush fails to win key Rust Belt states, he could end up like Gore, and Republicans will take their turn complaining about the electoral system. That's why Bush has spent so much time in Pennsylvania and why he implemented the steel tariffs - pure politics.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by snickerdoodle:
Gee, who woulda thought that city dwellers are probably poorer/minorities and more likely to be liberal? The kind of people who want the government to do everything for them and take care of them cradle to grave.

While those in the rural areas are independent minded, don't want to rely on the government, and are more likely wealthier and white?

Isn't this slightly stereotyping? I do see your point however. But here is a problem... I am not considered wealthy yet I am completely conservative. Oh and I do live in the city; however, most of my state is red. Hmm... All but 1 major metropolitan area in my state is white. This includes two 1-million+ cities and their >1 million suburbs...

[djohnson]

Originally posted by zigzag:
...One thing the polls don't mention is that even if Bush leads the popular vote, Kerry leads in the swing states, and those will determine who wins the electoral count. If Bush fails to win key Rust Belt states, he could end up like Gore, and Republicans will take their turn complaining about the electoral system. That's why Bush has spent so much time in Pennsylvania and why he implemented the steel tariffs - pure politics.

Ahh, but I doubt Bush will lose. Notice all of the bad publicity Kerry and the Democrats are getting right now?

[itai195]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Ahh, but I doubt Bush will lose. Notice all of the bad publicity Kerry and the Democrats are getting right now?

It's early yet.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Ahh, but I doubt Bush will lose. Notice all of the bad publicity Kerry and the Democrats are getting right now?

You mean Bush isn't getting any bad publicity right now?

It's very early in the game.

[snickerdoodle]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Isn't this slightly stereotyping? I do see your point however. But here is a problem... I am not considered wealthy yet I am completely conservative. Oh and I do live in the city; however, most of my state is red. Hmm... All but 1 major metropolitan area in my state is white. This includes two 1-million+ cities and their >1 million suburbs...

City dwellers also don't tend to own as much land. I bet that the more land you have the more Republican you tend to be.

Take WA, OR, and CA. Mostly liberal in just a few counties...places where there's large cities. Mostly conservative in most of the counties...places where there are small towns and large farms.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by itai195:
It's early yet.

Ahh but not that early! Only a little more then 6 months to go?

[djohnson]

Originally posted by snickerdoodle:
City dwellers also don't tend to own as much land. I bet that the more land you have the more Republican you tend to be.

Take WA, OR, and CA. Mostly liberal in just a few counties...places where there's large cities. Mostly conservative in most of the counties...places where there are small towns and large farms.

Take Texas. Lots of large cities and lots of large amounts of land. However, the state is mainly Republican.

[itai195]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Ahh but not that early! Only a little more then 6 months to go?

That's pretty darn early. There are still two months until June 30. Wake me up in October.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by itai195:
That's pretty darn early. There are still two months until June 30. Wake me up in October.

Yeah I know. I usually dont pay much attention until November...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Back to the topic, i think there is something else going on here as well. The parties overlap much less than once was the case. Zigzag called himself a "Rockefeller Republican." There used to be another similarly extinct animal called a "Scoop Jackson Democrat." Or Reagan Democrat. They were pretty much the same thing. Either way, both fled their respective parties decades ago.

Now, I'm a little young for this, but people used to grow up in the Republican or Democratic parties but being a Republican didn't necessarily make you a conservative, and being a Democrat didn't necessarily make you a liberal. So you had a huge amount of overlap. That meant the middle of the political spectrum was much better served.

I think it would be complicated to tease out all the factors that changed that. It looks to me like individual party affiliation is more fluid -- people change parties. Kids aren't necessarily in the same party as their parents. I think the primary system has something to do with it. They reward dogmatic politics over less dogmatic politics. The rise of the political anaysts and polling also probably plays a role. Not to mention the power of money. I think generationally the babyboomer generation has a lot to answer for. The sixties and seventies gave us a legacy of litmus test issues that are still dividing us. Abortion and the Vietnam poison being just two.

I'm sure there are other reasons too. Increased personal mobility. Increased social mobility as a result of the post-war education boom. The simple realignment of politics as the parties recover from the distorting effects of the long Roosevelt New Deal era.

Whatever the reason, I do think its the case that the middle is both underserved, and (ironically) overly pandered to. It's underserved because there really isn't a party that represents those in the middle who tend to be socially liberal (or libertarian) but economically conservative, and hawkish on foreign policy. On the other hand, it's overly pandered to because both parties fight over the middle by appealing to wedge issues. It's really in the middle where those wedge issues are felt most keenly and where they hurt. And since a lot of people find themselves there sometimes divided from family and friends, that's the bit that makes politics seem so much more bitter. Whether that's real or illusion is probably something that someone older than me would have to comment on.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Excuse the editorializing and the somewhat excess size. This was the best version I could find. This was the country-by-county map that USA Today did after the election. It shows a more nuanced breakdown than the state-level map.

Basically, the red/blue divide isn't so much by state or even region. It's largely urban/rural. It just happens right now that about 50% of the voting public live in the urban half, and 50% live in the suburban/rural half. The blue bits are smaller because the population density is greater. But there is blue in pretty much every red state, and vice versa. We aren't as divided as the big state level map implies.
\

That's probably right - so it's more urban vs. rural than anything. I wonder why that is, though? Maybe the urban people are more closely packed and therefore more communitarian in their thinking and the rurals are in more wide-open, less populated spaces and therefore more individualistic. OK, maybe that's socio-babble.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
That's probably right - so it's more urban vs. rural than anything. I wonder why that is, though? Maybe the urban people are more closely packed and therefore more communitarian in their thinking and the rurals are in more wide-open, less populated spaces and therefore more individualistic. OK, maybe that's socio-babble.

Or hip young liberals flock to the cities to live their commutarian lives . . . until their car is spat on by some homeless guy, their apartment gets robbed or they are mugged. Plus, they get married and decide that urban public schools are educational black holes and private school is out of reach given that anyway, they can never afford a townhome in any part of town that doesn't require an armed escort to go to the 7/11 after dark.

So as their liberal idealism fades and reality sinks in they head on out to the suburbs where they are no longer subject to the steady propagandizing pressure of their school teacher/social worker/college professor friends. They buy a nice suburban home and quietly change their voter registration.

Can you tell I just moved out of the city and bought a house. All my friends are doing it too.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by BRussell:
That's probably right - so it's more urban vs. rural than anything. I wonder why that is, though? Maybe the urban people are more closely packed and therefore more communitarian in their thinking and the rurals are in more wide-open, less populated spaces and therefore more individualistic. OK, maybe that's socio-babble.

Yup... lots of socio-babble

[djohnson]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Or hip young liberals flock to the cities to live their commutarian lives . . . until their car is spat on by some homeless guy, their apartment gets robbed or they are mugged. Plus, they get married and decide that urban public schools are educational black holes and private school is out of reach given that anyway, they can never afford a townhome in any part of town that doesn't require an armed escort to go to the 7/11 after dark.

So as their liberal idealism fades and reality sinks in they head on out to the suburbs where they are no longer subject to the steady propagandizing pressure of their school teacher/social worker/college professor friends. They buy a nice suburban home and quietly change their voter registration.

Can you tell I just moved out of the city and bought a house. All my friends are doing it too.

Great story! What about those of us who never moved out of the suburbs? Those that refuse to live in a large city? I need my 2+ acres to roam on!!!

Then again... maybe this is talking about people who "grow up"?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Yup... lots of socio-babble

[djohnson]

Originally posted by BRussell:

He doesn't look dumb to me...

[Millennium]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Then again... maybe this is talking about people who "grow up"?

"If you're under 25 and conservatiive, you have no heart. If you're over 35 and liberal, you have no brain."

I think that's how the saying goes, anyway...

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Millennium:
"If you're under 25 and conservatiive, you have no heart. If you're over 35 and liberal, you have no brain."

I think that's how the saying goes, anyway...

Then I suppose I've always been "heartless".

[tie]

Originally posted by snickerdoodle:
Gee, who woulda thought that city dwellers are probably poorer/minorities and more likely to be liberal? The kind of people who want the government to do everything for them and take care of them cradle to grave.

While those in the rural areas are independent minded, don't want to rely on the government, and are more likely wealthier and white?

Minorities are the kind of people who want the government to do everything for them and take care of them cradle to grave?

You on the other hand are independent-minded, wealthier, white and apparently racist.

Here's an interesting statistic: Of the thirty "welfare states" that took in more in federal expenditures than they paid out in federal taxes in 2002, twenty-two went for Bush in 2000. This includes all but eight of the red states in BRussell's original post.

Only seven of the nineteen states which paid more in taxes than took in federal spending voted for Bush in 2000. Conveniently, Florida got back just as much as it received, so we needn't worry how to classify it.

Source: the Tax Foundation http://www.taxfoundation.org/pr-fedt...dingratio.html

Code:
Expenditures per dollar of taxes, fiscal year 2000
New Mexico	2.03
North Dakota	1.86
Mississippi	1.78
West Virginia	1.75
Alaska		1.68
Montana		1.59
Hawaii		1.56
Alabama		1.54
Virginia		1.48
South Dakota	1.46
Oklahoma		1.46
Kentucky		1.41
Louisiana		1.39
Arkansas		1.38
Maryland		1.32
Maine		1.32
Idaho		1.30
South Carolina	1.27
Missouri		1.26
Tennessee		1.20
Arizona		1.18
Rhode Island	1.18
Nebraska		1.09
Wyoming		1.09
Vermont		1.08
Utah		1.06
Pennsylvania	1.06
North Carolina	1.06
Iowa		1.04
Kansas		1.02
Florida		1.00
Georgia		.99
Ohio		.97
Texas		.96
Oregon		.93
Indiana		.92
Washington	.87
Massachusetts	.86
California	.86
New York		.86
Colorado		.85
Delaware		.84
Wisconsin		.83
Michigan		.81
Minnesota		.76
Illinois		.74
New Hampshire	.71
Nevada		.69
New Jersey	.66
Connecticut	.62

[fireside]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Or hip young liberals flock to the cities to live their commutarian lives . . . until their car is spat on by some homeless guy, their apartment gets robbed or they are mugged. Plus, they get married and decide that urban public schools are educational black holes and private school is out of reach given that anyway, they can never afford a townhome in any part of town that doesn't require an armed escort to go to the 7/11 after dark.

So as their liberal idealism fades and reality sinks in they head on out to the suburbs where they are no longer subject to the steady propagandizing pressure of their school teacher/social worker/college professor friends. They buy a nice suburban home and quietly change their voter registration.

i don't get it. so instead of fixing the problem (by staying rather liberal), you run away from it? yes, where i live my school is rather crappy by MY standards (i lived in one of the wealthiest places in america before hand), but its not to say its because most of the people are on welfare. maybe if we put in more money to schools (so you know, they'd be newer and wouldn't have 11 year old textbooks in them) and extracurricular activities, the urban public schools wouldnt be a black hole, and you wouldn't need an armed escort to go to the 7/11 after dark.

[dtriska]

Originally posted by Millennium:
"If you're under 25 and conservatiive, you have no heart. If you're over 35 and liberal, you have no brain."

I think that's how the saying goes, anyway...

"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." -- Winston Churchill

[voodoo]

Originally posted by dtriska:
"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." -- Winston Churchill

Oh *that* guy!

He smoked stogies and drank whiskey and stuff. He was probably a bleedin' heart liberal in his youth.

Not everyone loses hope when they get older. What we know today as right-wing conservatism is a bit more cynical than I'll ever be.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Millennium:
"If you're under 25 and conservatiive, you have no heart. If you're over 35 and liberal, you have no brain."

I think that's how the saying goes, anyway...

... And if you are of any reasonable age, and have both a heart and a brain simultaneously, you are (or should have been) an anarchist - probably, anyway...

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Either the Liberals are being pushed out or the Conservatives are surrounded. Which is it?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Either the Liberals are being pushed out or the Conservatives are surrounded. Which is it?

I guess you didn't read the key. The red on the map is the Republican vote. So if anyone is surrounded, that would be the Democrats (except for that little corner in New England).

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
... if anyone is surrounded, that would be the Democrats (except for that little corner in New England).

Tell me about it. Here in Hartford there are eight Democrats for every Republican. The First Congressional District hasn't elected a Republican since the fifties and that was just for one term from 1957-1959. The last Republican who held this seat for two successive elections left office in 1933. And just about the only Republicans that do get elected in this state are Rockefeller Republicans. The most reliably GOP district is the Fourth, represented by Chris Shays. If he's not the most liberal Republican in Congress, he's close.

The only member of our Congressional delegation worth a damn is Rob Simmons of Stonington. He holds Connecticut's Second. And he'll have a tough fight to get reelected. That seat is always up for grabs. Almost nobody wins the second with a comfortable margin. If Bush loses the state badly, that'll be a tough headwind for Simmons to overcome.

[voodoo]

I think American politics aren't really about issues. It's all about teams. The election in November is like the Superbowl: You just pick your team, your quarterback and go vote! Nevermind that the other team may hold closer to your 'issues' or that you just generally agree with them more because if you start talking about 'this year the candidate for the other team is looking good' then you're just branded as a betrayer, spineless, swing-voter or something inane. I think the same applies a lot for politics everywhere, but it becomes less apparent in multi-party nations. Mostly because there is a broader 'spectrum' of parties and you're not changing your stance much if you vote for the next party to the left or right to the one you usually vote for.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I think American politics aren't really about issues. It's all about teams. The election in November is like the Superbowl: You just pick your team, your quarterback and go vote! Nevermind that the other team may hold closer to your 'issues' or that you just generally agree with them more...

Nope. The parties HAVE become more ideologically polarized. Ella Grasso was the absolute top Democrat in this state back in the 70's. She was pro-life on the abortion issue. I don't think she could get elected today. Pro-life Democrats have been steadily marginalized over the years. As a result they've been tending Republican. They are the Reagan Democrats. Abortion is just one of the issues that caused them to forsake their "team".

[voodoo]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Nope. The parties HAVE become more ideologically polarized. Ella Grasso was the absolute top Democrat in this state back in the 70's. She was pro-life on the abortion issue. I don't think she could get elected today. Pro-life Democrats have been steadily marginalized over the years. As a result they've been tending Republican. They are the Reagan Democrats. Abortion is just one of the issues that caused them to forsake their "team".

If one issue like that is so important that you forsake everything else in your party, then there can't be any noticeable difference between party policies. One issue isn't going to move anyone from their party unless the other party is virtually the same. Hence the team pickings on a few issues. I mean if someone roots for the 49ers and say, they sell Garcia to the Bucs then you might consider going to see Bucs games because that person was a big Garcia fan. One issue changes and you change teams. That's not a lot of difference between the parties.

I reckon you were oversimplifying, but the point still stands that if you can change because of one issue then you are either very much out of sync with the rest of the party policies or there simply isn't any remarkable difference between the party policies.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by voodoo:
... I reckon you were oversimplifying, but the point still stands that if you can change because of one issue then you are either very much out of sync with the rest of the party policies or there simply isn't any remarkable difference between the party policies.

If the one issue is important enough, that will undermine your allegiance to the party but yes, I was oversimplifying. There are other issues that could cause one to drift. For example, JFK was very much a cold warrior. After his death, the Democrat party dramatically shifted way from that position. Since then national security has been an issue that consistently favors Republican candidates. Likewise, if education is the issue or if you think affirmative action is a good idea, Kerry's your man.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I think American politics aren't really about issues. It's all about teams. The election in November is like the Superbowl: You just pick your team, your quarterback and go vote! Nevermind that the other team may hold closer to your 'issues' or that you just generally agree with them more because if you start talking about 'this year the candidate for the other team is looking good' then you're just branded as a betrayer, spineless, swing-voter or something inane. I think the same applies a lot for politics everywhere, but it becomes less apparent in multi-party nations. Mostly because there is a broader 'spectrum' of parties and you're not changing your stance much if you vote for the next party to the left or right to the one you usually vote for.

I mock swing voters because, as others have said, the parties are quite clearly differentiated, and if you don't know what party to vote for, I have to wonder exactly what kinds of factors are influencing their decisions. I know there are some principled independents, but the vast majority of them are just people that don't think about political issues much and vote for whomever seems to up in the CW in the last week before the election.

[mo]

Originally posted by snickerdoodle:
Gee, who woulda thought that city dwellers are probably poorer/minorities and more likely to be liberal? The kind of people who want the government to do everything for them and take care of them cradle to grave.

While those in the rural areas are independent minded, don't want to rely on the government, and are more likely wealthier and white?

Ever heard of farm subsidies? The crop reduction program? There are entirely rural counties in my (red) state in which the majority of family income comes from one form or another of transfer payments from the federal government. (My home county, for instance.)

Sorry to blow a hole in your "wealthier and white" thingy.

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by mo:
Ever heard of farm subsidies? The crop reduction program? There are entirely rural counties in my (red) state in which the majority of family income comes from one form or another of transfer payments from the federal government. (My home county, for instance.)

Sorry to blow a hole in your "wealthier and white" thingy.

Yes this exact same thing in my county and many others in my republican state.

...you see this all means that republicans are a drain on the economy....and therefore Bush is bad for the economy

P.S. To who ever said minority groups vote democrat. Thats not always true. In the case of immigrants from central america they primarily vote republican, I'm guessing for religous reasons.

[hyteckit]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Might as well say Gore won the popularity vote than this useless map.

Square miles of counties won... Haha... Gore won the Pacific and Atlantic ocean.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I think American politics aren't really about issues. It's all about teams. The election in November is like the Superbowl: You just pick your team, your quarterback and go vote!

You took the words right outta my mouth (though I usually refer to politics here being like WWF wrestling than the Superbowl). I'm amazed at some of the political discussions I get in with people I know. Their actual beliefs are as wide and varied as you could imagine ... but come voting time, its all about team loyalty even if their "team" doesn't really stand for what I've heard them espouse the whole rest of the year.

My thoughts on the voting divisions in this country:
1) despite what electoral maps by state or district show, we all have to realize that this is partially due to the electoral college system in the US where a simple majority carries a whole district and whole states. If you look at the actual percentages of votes cast you'll see a lot more of a mix. For example, "wildly liberal" states may only vote 55% Dem where as "staunchly consevative" states will vote 55% Rep . I know when I lived in NC, the senatorial election between old-school Republican Jesse Helms and the liberal African-American Harvey Gantt was won by Jesse Helms 51%/49% (or maybe 52%/48%). His victory was attributed the "highly conservative" constituency in NC yet in reality, there was a nearly even split of liberal and conservative votes cast.

2) With a few notable exceptions (such as New England), the rural/urban distinction is basically how things are divided up in US politics. My pet theory is that people who live in large urban areas see EVERY DAY the necessity of communal expenditure (mass transit, city parks, etc.) without which their cities would fall apart (could you imagine moving millions of people around NYC if everyone had to drive personal automobiles ?) and are thus more inclined to vote for candidates who will spend money on these sorts of things. In rural areas, people don't see this sort of infrastructure as much ... so the whole rhetoric of cutting taxes and slashing "big government" makes more sense. A quick scan of voting percentages in the 2K presidential election supports this: States with small populations and lots of land (Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska) cast the highest percentage of Republican votes (67, 68, and 62% respectively) while more populous conservative states (GA, NC, VA and FL which rank , 10th, 11th, 12th, and 4th in population) cast much a more moderate percentage of republican votes (55, 56, 52% , and ... well we know about the vote in FL).

[Timo]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I think American politics aren't really about issues. It's all about teams. The election in November is like the Superbowl: You just pick your team, your quarterback and go vote! Nevermind that the other team may hold closer to your 'issues' or that you just generally agree with them more because if you start talking about 'this year the candidate for the other team is looking good' then you're just branded as a betrayer, spineless, swing-voter or something inane. I think the same applies a lot for politics everywhere, but it becomes less apparent in multi-party nations. Mostly because there is a broader 'spectrum' of parties and you're not changing your stance much if you vote for the next party to the left or right to the one you usually vote for.

voodoo, god knows we don't see eye-to-eye much (such can be the case with people more similar than different, you ****) but in this case I think you're spot on. It's all about teams, and which President you'd be more comfortable with at your backyard B-B-Q.

[AKcrab]

The electoral college needs to go away.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Tell me about it. Here in Hartford there are eight Democrats for every Republican. The First Congressional District hasn't elected a Republican since the fifties and that was just for one term from 1957-1959. The last Republican who held this seat for two successive elections left office in 1933. And just about the only Republicans that do get elected in this state are Rockefeller Republicans. The most reliably GOP district is the Fourth, represented by Chris Shays. If he's not the most liberal Republican in Congress, he's close.

The only member of our Congressional delegation worth a damn is Rob Simmons of Stonington. He holds Connecticut's Second. And he'll have a tough fight to get reelected. That seat is always up for grabs. Almost nobody wins the second with a comfortable margin. If Bush loses the state badly, that'll be a tough headwind for Simmons to overcome.

I thought CT had a really popular Repub governor?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I guess you didn't read the key. The red on the map is the Republican vote. So if anyone is surrounded, that would be the Democrats (except for that little corner in New England).

Which key are you reading? The Dems appear more on the coasts and the Repubs are more in the center.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Which key are you reading? The Dems appear more on the coasts and the Repubs are more in the center.

OK, I guess that's one way to look at it. I was looking at it the other way. There seem to be little spots of blue surrounded by a lot of red.

I think that is closer to how it feels on the ground too. Urban islands (that tend to be Democratic strongholds) surrounded by suburban and rural areas (that tend to be Republican). I don't think most of us perceive the pattern on a continental scale, rather its the local and regional divide that most people are aware of.

[finboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
We aren't as divided as the big state level map implies.

I wish there was a map showing blue for those places that receive more federal dollars than they pay, and red for those that pay more than they receive. THAT would give us insight into voting trends.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by finboy:
I wish there was a map showing blue for those places that receive more federal dollars than they pay, and red for those that pay more than they receive. THAT would give us insight into voting trends.

It must be possible to create such a map. Get to it!

But if you create it, make sure that West Virginia (home of Senators Byrd and Rockefeller) isn't just blue, but flashing, jumping up and down with sirens honking blue.

[BRussell]

I'd be interested in seeing that too, but I'm not sure it would show what you think finboy. Where's the wealth in the US? I'd guess it's highly concentrated in cities. Therefore they pay a lot of taxes. I bet roger ramjet's highly Democratic, and extremely rich, state of CT pays more federal taxes per capita than any other. And there's not much wealth concentrated in the rural areas. But as others have mentioned, a lot of federal aid goes to the wide-open areas in the form of agricultural subsidies and the like. I'd be willing to bet that the better the federal aid/taxes paid ratio, the more Republican the region.

[itai195]

Maybe you missed tie's post -- but most of the states that paid more in federal taxes than they spent in 2000 were blue states. I guess Republican voters like handouts after all?

[BRussell]

Oh yeah, that's a great post tie. I'm sure I read that and was thinking about it when I posted that, but I guess I couldn't remember where I read it. And it was from our very own tie! I took the liberty of ranking them by how favorable their federal tax expenditures were, and put how they voted in 2000 next to it.

Of the top 25 federal aid receivers, 7 voted Democratic and 18 voted Republican.

Of the bottom 25, 13 voted Democratic and 12 voted Republican.

I did a correlation between federal aid received per dollar taxes and how the vote went. The correlation was .34, the more money they get per tax dollar paid, the more likely they are to vote Republican.

D New Mexico
R North Dakota
R Mississippi
R West Virginia
R Alaska
R Montana
D Hawaii
R Alabama
R Virginia
R South Dakota
R Oklahoma
R Kentucky
R Louisiana
R Arkansas
D Maine
D Maryland
R Idaho
R South Carolina
R Missouri
R Tennessee
D Rhode Island
R Arizona
R Wyoming
R Nebraska
D Vermont
D Pennsylvania
R Utah
R North Carolina
D Iowa
R Kansas
R Florida
R Georgia
R Ohio
R Texas
D Oregon
R Indiana
D Washington
D Massachusetts
D New York
D California
R Colorado
D Delaware
D Wisconsin
D Michigan
D Minnesota
D Illinois
R New Hampshire
R Nevada
D New Jersey
D Connecticut