Today, in the Baltimore Sun there was a graphic of the election results by county nationwide. Of course, the entire Midwest and the South looked as if someone spilled red ink on the page. What's interesting though, is that the states like CA that Kerry did win were Republican red by county too. However, you could see the counties near the large metro areas like the Bay Area and LA were Democrat blue. I think it's a testament to large metropolitan areas generally vote for Democrats.
I am recognizing that the voice inside my head
is urging me to be myself but never follow someone else
Because opinions are like voices we all have a different kind". --Q-Tip
I agree, wasn't NY like that? I think I saw that on CNN.
Colorado was like that too, although not the size of CA or NY, Denver and Boulder each had the strongest Kerry turnout.
You get all squeezed up inside/Like the days were carved in stone/You get all wired up inside/And it's bad to be alone
You can go out, you can take a ride/And when you get out on your own/You get all smoothed out inside/And it's good to be alone
-Peart
Of course, rural Democrats at the national level are almost a thing of the past...Democrats can take heart, though, in that urban centers -- including not only the central cities but also inner, more urbanized, suburbs -- are solidly Democrat, and becoming more so.
Take, for instance, the DC metro area. DC itself was 90% for Kerry. Prince George's Co., Md. -- 82% for Kerry, Montgomery Co., Md. -- 66% for Kerry, Arlington Co., Va. -- 68% for Kerry, Alexandria, Va. -- 67% for Kerry. Even Fairfax County, Va. went for Kerry at 53%. The first time in generations that Fairfax, population over 1 million, has gone Democrat in a presidential election.
Of course, the sprawling, exurban counties, especially in Virginia, are heavily Republican.
The lesson to Democrats from a planning perspective -- build more dense, urban neighborhoods. This is what attracts, and perhaps creates, Democrats. One of the unintended consequences of our 50+ year national suburban experiment has been to push the country to the right. Those of us who find this unfortunate can take solace in the likelihood that this model isn't sustainable. Personally, I am troubled far more by sprawl than conservatism as such; my point is that the two go together hand in hand.
Question, didn't D.C. go to Bush? Or am I thinking of something else?
A guy once told me, "Do not have any attachments, do not have anything in your life you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you spot the heat around the corner."
Neil McCauley (Robert DeNiro): Heat 1995
pas du tout - Kerry polled over 40% in most states. In fact, the states he polled under 40% aren't in the traditional South - the Plains states and Texas and Idaho,Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Alaska and the lone "southern" state Alabama.Originally posted by Kovanovich
You can clearly see tobacco country in northeastern North Carolina with it's majority black population and you can see cotton country that arcs from southern North Carolina and stretches through South Carolina through Central Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and northwards into Arkansas.
Coal country also jumps off the map as do a few indian reservations.
Check out the data for yourself . . .
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic.../countymap.htm
Indeed you can usually tell when the concepts of democracy and citizenship are weakening. There is an increase in the role of charity and in the worship of volunteerism. These represent the élite citizen's imitation of noblesse oblige; that is, of pretending to be aristocrats or oligarchs, as opposed to being citizens.
The Cook County of Illinois (Chicago) had the highest margin voting for Kerry in the Union.
Rumpy- DC went kerry by about 80%.
These maps from NYT should put the colors more into perspective:
Interesting. The reported margins in the Bay Area included San Francisco (which is a COUNTY as well as a city) went 85% for Kerry. And, urban (Oakland, Berkeley, older suburbs) Alameda County went 75% Kerry. Was Cook County even higher? Wow!
My County (Solano) went only 54% Kerry. Exurbs, retired and active military, etc.
Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, Eugene, Madison, Boulder, Burlington, Gainesville, and Austin all voted for Kerry... who would have guessed?The Creative Class votes Democratic!
Anyone want to adopt a dog?
I took my figure from the NYT (it's in that graphic I posted). It measures margins based on vote totals. Over 800,000 votes seperated Kerry from Bush in Cook County, which is more than the entire population of San Francisco.
Kerry got 70% of the vote in Cook County. Bush got 29%.
If only 150,000 or so of those votes had been in Cleveland.
I guess that Indianapolis and Cincinnati can expect to gorge themselves at the federal trough for a while.
I have seen
old ships sailing
like swans asleep
Nice find, statler!
I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?
Here's a county by county map that uses shades of purple to show the proportion of votes to Bush and Kerry. I'd love to see a cartograph version by for a county map, that would be very diificult to do and keep something resembling the US.
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. - H.L. Mencken
These maps from NYT should put the colors more into perspective:
It is interesting that Tarrent County, Texas had the second largest margin for Bush since it was that county that had malfunctioning voting machines that changed a vote for Kerry to a vote for Bush if the voter selected a straight Democratic ballot and then failed to make a selection on the one amendment on the ballot. Apparently it only happened during the early voting period but it makes you wonder what really is going on inside these voting machines.
As a software engineer, it appears to me this problem has the signiture of the classic "Off by one" defect that is very common in computer programs.
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. - H.L. Mencken
Ah. I understand what you meant by "margin" now.I took my figure from the NYT (it's in that graphic I posted). It measures margins based on vote totals. Over 800,000 votes seperated Kerry from Bush in Cook County, which is more than the entire population of San Francisco.
Kerry got 70% of the vote in Cook County. Bush got 29%.
If only 150,000 or so of those votes had been in Cleveland.
Still, the SF number is amazing: 85% for Kerry.
What are your thoughts on having the electoral college vote being split up based on % of state polulation that voted for each candidate.
Winner takes all really sucks, so I would vote for this.
I suppose one argument against it would be that it weakens the role of the Electoral College in reflecting "State" units as a block. Your system still retains some focus on the states, just not quite as much.
My head hurts. Anyone else have a response?
I've heard all the arguments about small states versus large states, maintaining balance, etc. but any system to causes one citizen's vote to be worth more than another citizen's vote to me is not Democracy.
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. - H.L. Mencken
I would go for that.
Also, the biggest threat to democracy, is redistricting based on voter profiles. Politicians see it as a tactic. But it really is the elected representatives choosing their voters, rather than the voters electing their representatives.
pas du tout - Kerry polled over 40% in most states. In fact, the states he polled under 40% aren't in the traditional South - the Plains states and Texas and Idaho,Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Alaska and the lone "southern" state Alabama.
You can clearly see tobacco country in northeastern North Carolina with it's majority black population and you can see cotton country that arcs from southern North Carolina and stretches through South Carolina through Central Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and northwards into Arkansas.
Coal country also jumps off the map as do a few indian reservations.
Check out the data for yourself . . .
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic.../countymap.htm
I didn't say, at least I don't think that I said, that the rural south was the most Republican part of the country. As you point out, parts of the rural south are majority African American and once again they went overwhelmingly Democrat. Rural whites are overwhelmingly Republican. One interesting (partial) exception is Iowa, where Kerry was competitive in the rural parts of the state (which is most of the state). He did much better in rural Iowa than in rural Illinois (where Kerry, admittedly, didn't campaign because of the huge advantage in Cook County). I have no idea why Democratic presidential candidates, even those who are more liberal than the country as a whole, continue to be competitive in Iowa.
That's actually the main reason why the republicans did so well in the house. All of the democratic seats in Texas were redistricted away.
If any split-up is done to the electoral collage, then the two vote bonus that favors small states needs to go away. Everyone gets assigned electors based upon their population only.
....which is frankly a bad idea. It's really condescending to people in small states to, in essence, say "You're not one of the major population hubs (who don't understand the first thing about anything that goes on in your area) and thus, you don't count." Would you be in favor of letting someone who doesn't have a clue what you do micromanage you? Have a popular vote for the director of your department - put in a conservative radio talk show guy as the head of the planning department.. that's exactly what that sort of idea feels like to people in small states.
The small states would still get a vote, just not the two vote bonus that gerrymanders the college towards rural states..
What do you tell to people in California whose votes are worth 1/6th of a vote in Wyoming?
You, yourself, have suggested that public transportation is worthless. Obviously, you don't understand the realities of big city life. Rep. Istook doesn't either, being from Oklahoma, yet he is in charge of the house transportation committee. That committee allocates federal money to transportation projects, and he has consistently used it to oppose the transit systems that we here in the big cities need, so he could use the federal money (that comes mostly from taxing the cities) towards more highways in the sticks.
Fact is, what is in power in Washington right now is a Rural government stocked with people of Rural concerns. They don't know what we need, and considering that we are the economic engines of this country, that is a very bad way to do business.
One person, one vote.
Quote
