The Republican Party: "We Have More Acreage"

polaroppositepolitics.blogspot.com

Of course the square miles don't demonstrate the literal size differences on voter opinion, but the map is useful for other reasons. The map shows that despite the perception of "the annointed" in Manhattan, who feel that most people are like them, most people are not like them. How many people who voted Kerry own lawnmowers? Few in NYC, Boston, Chicago or SF. How many drive a car to work? It's the liberals who live in small clusters and seek out the company of fellow liberals. They despise intellectual diversity and they are out of touch. That's what the map tells me.

You're welcome, Ace.

Ace, I disagree the only number that matters is the ECV vote of 270 and above.

Ditto steve L

Lucky me, I live in super smarty pants, 100% Osama safe Washington.

Ace--

To paraphrase Bill Lumberg, I'm gonna have to and, ahhh, disagree with you there.

I'm going to offer you what I told Jennifer over at the Temple.

There are two aspects your comments seem to miss.
1. The “blue” cities are often split, especially in the suburbs and near-suburbs. 60% to 40% may be for blue, but that’s still an awful lot of red that’s ignored when people argue the whole “blue state vs. red state” thing.

More importantly for this point, those red states in many respects have much less split than the urban districts. They may have fewer people, but they’re “purer” red.

That's got to be a fact worth noting, for some reason.

2. Give me an urban blue state voter and I’ll show you someone who votes the same way most other urban blue state voters vote, on the same issues. Meaning, I can take someone out of Greenwich Village and drop them in West Hollywood or Chicago’s Gold Coast and they’ll feel right at home.

"Bush lied! War for oil! Worst economy since Hoover!" etc., etc.

However, give me a red state voter in Idaho, and they’re likely to have very different issues than a red state voter in Georgia, or a red state voter in upstate New York.

Like Steve L said above, urban homogenization is stunting the Democrat appeal to a wide spectrum of heterogenous voters nationwide.

For all the MSM attempts to stereotype all GOP voters as low-educated, homophobic Christians, I think the stats would back up a *greater* cultural diversity than your blue state voters.

Remember: there were plenty of different reasons offered to vote for Bush. About the only reason consistently offered to vote for Kerry was "He's not Bush."

Just a thought.

Cheers,
Dave

The map shows that despite the perception of "the annointed" in Manhattan, who feel that most people are like them, most people are not like them. How many people who voted Kerry own lawnmowers? Few in NYC, Boston, Chicago or SF. How many drive a car to work? It's the liberals who live in small clusters and seek out the company of fellow liberals. They despise intellectual diversity and they are out of touch. That's what the map tells me.

Well, point taken, but there's still at least 56 million of them. They may disagree with you, and they may not share your values or the concerns and habits of your life, but they are 56 million strong.

And, to be fair, you don't share their values or concerns or habits, either.

There is a point, I guess, to be made that conservatives can't avoid liberal culture because they control the culture (except for Country music and talk radio), and so why conservatives are forced to be aware of liberal concerns, liberals feel free -- nay, proud -- to be entirely ignorant of conservative lives.

That's almost certainly true, but I don't see the connection between that and the map.

Also, isn't "being smarter" the consolation a lot of gimps like Kos have for never getting laid? The jocks may get all the poon, but I have my Rimbaud to keep me warm.

The “blue” cities are often split, especially in the suburbs and near-suburbs. 60% to 40% may be for blue, but that’s still an awful lot of red that’s ignored when people argue the whole “blue state vs. red state” thing.

Ummm, yeahhh, I'm going to have to go ahead and, ummm, disagree with you there too...

Yes, the blue areas have lots of conservatives in them, but so too do the red areas have lots of liberals.

No matter how you slice it-- 51.5% to 48%.

Also, isn't "being smarter" the consolation a lot of gimps like Kos have for never getting laid? The jocks may get all the poon, but I have my Rimbaud to keep me warm.

Yeahhh... okay, that kinda cuts a little close to the bone, if you know what I mean.

Not all dorks that got no tookie when they were young grew up to be liberals.

I didn't have my Rimbaud. I had something worse. I had a Dungeon Master's Guide.

Ace--

Of course the vote is the only thing that matters. But the underlying demos matter a lot when trending things out for the next election.

Like Zell Miller said in his op-ed today:
"The most recent failed nominee for president stands as proof that the national Democratic Party will continue to dwindle. The South has gone from just one-fourth of the Electoral College in 1960 to almost a third today.

To put this in perspective, that gain is equal to all the electoral votes in Ohio. Yet there was not a single Southern state where John Kerry had any real chance. Would anyone like to place bets on the electoral strength of the South by 2012? Maybe they should tax stupidity."

That "Red Belt of Justice" extending from SoCal to Georgia continues to grow. And for all practical purposes it's being ignored by the Democratic Party. Hell, they're *insulting* those voters.

Not a long-term strategy for victory, I think.

Hey pal, on to more important business: is Friday Hawaiian Shirt Day around here, or what?

Cheers,
Dave

Well, looking at the Michigan map ... I highly doubt that the "blue" counties are those with the higher IQs. And, yes, I am specifically referring to Detroit. Detroit went blue neither because of it's IQ nor it's level of education.

Ace,

The map simply tells me that blue is not as widespread as red, that it is concentrated in certain population centers. The map does not misrepresent the divisions in the country, it actually shows where the divisions lie.

Well, that's another point, Dave. Yes, the Dems are in an electoral pickle (at least at the moment), but again, I don't see how that map connects up with that.

Not only that Ace, but in addition to your Dungeon Master's Guide you also have a Super Spiffy Blog that is beginning to fill your wallet with all that crazy blog money. The end result though? Still no poon.

That's 56 million weak, actually.

The map is nothing more than a rather-effective prop for gloating.

I'm responding with the map every time I get a "Bushisaretardedchimpfacistonazi" email from a co-worker.

It's so easy to piss some people off.

Bush won over 50% of all college educated voters, the first time ever for a Republican. So much for the "dumb" vote.

That map overstates the extent to which the nation is polarized, because it's winner-take-all.

This map (linked by The Corner recently):

http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ervdb/JAVA/election2004/

represents the distibution of Rs and Ds a little more accurately.

The map is VERY important.

First it shows how concentrated Dem support is - in only a few areas.

Second it shows Rep strength in GROWTH areas. Virtually all growth is in burbs,suburbs & exurbs; NOT in cities - especially older cities: the old Dem strongholds.

The highest growth area of the country is the South - solid red. Much of the Mortheast, if you discount immigration, has lost population over the last 20 years. Without immigants, New York City would have about 2 million FEWER residents than it did in 1970. Want to buy a town? Travel to upstate NY. You can buy whole blocks of boarded up houses in essentially abandoned towns.

New York City, the "banking capitol of the world" is now home to exactly one major bank, Citibank. Charlotte, NC is home to 2 of the largest banks. That says something.

The second highest growth area is the West - AZ, UT, TX, etc. - all red.

So that map, not only shows the DEM concentration now, it also portends for the future. It's very important.

The map is VERY important.

First it shows how concentrated Dem support is - in only a few areas.

Second it shows Rep strength in GROWTH areas. Virtually all growth is in burbs,suburbs & exurbs; NOT in cities - especially older cities: the old Dem strongholds.

The highest growth area of the country is the South - solid red. Much of the Mortheast, if you discount immigration, has lost population over the last 20 years. Without immigants, New York City would have about 2 million FEWER residents than it did in 1970. Want to buy a town? Travel to upstate NY. You can buy whole blocks of boarded up houses in essentially abandoned towns.

New York City, the "banking capitol of the world" is now home to exactly one major bank, Citibank. Charlotte, NC is home to 2 of the largest banks. That says something.

The second highest growth area is the West - AZ, UT, TX, etc. - all red.

So that map, not only shows the DEM concentration now, it also portends for the future. It's very important.

The map DOES matter. It's a reality check for the majority who receive scant feedback from the MSM that they are normative and normal.

I live in LA where it is quite likely my tire was punctured for the sin of having a Bush bumper sticker.

It also shows that the epicenters of the MSM are demonstrably and provably parochial. NY, LA, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, DC and Boston, are surrounded by like-minded idiotarians who probably don't know many Republicans nor have spent more than a dozen hours in a house of worship in the last year.

Ace--

I'm a stupid man. We all know this. I don't profess to understand what, precisely, the map means. But I suspect that it *must* mean something. It's the mashed potatoes in the shape of Devil's Tower of American politics.

That said, I think one question ask is, if the divisions don't tell us a lot, what if the map showed no divisions? What if the map was universally purple? What would the "counterfactual" teach us?

That USA Today map doesn't tell the accurate story anyways. You should look at this map:

http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ervdb/JAVA/election2004/

Actually, the best maps I saw were in today's Washington Post (wish I could find it online). They showed an isometric view of the country split by red and blue counties, but they raised the red and blue counties off the map to show the margin of victory for either red or blue counties.

It's dramatic, much more so than these 2-D maps. The popular vote tallies are *radically* skewed by the impact of just a handful of urban areas, particlarly in the NE, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

The concentration-- for whatever reason-- of Dem voters over Republican voters becomes pretty clear when seen with these scales.

I'll try to find a copy of that map, or barring that, scan it in.

Cheers,
Dave

I think it's cool how trickles of blue liberalism appear to follow the rivers through the red states as well as the coasts. perhaps it is transmitted through water, or turtles, or wharf rats or something.

Thank you,
You've confirmed to me that over half (51.5%) of the American population are complete morons. Your future is doomed. I can't wait to see how Bush fucks up, it's gonna be sweet.

Ace--

I sent you an email with a PDF of the margin maps in today's Washington Post, in case you're interested.

Anyways, whatever. I'm a polisci guy, but I did an emphasis in international relations and national security, not political statistics.

You need an expert on throw weights and Circular Error Probable, talk to me. I'll leave this number crunching stuff up to someone with a helluva lot more No-Doze than I.

Cheers,
Dave

dave, the last map you posted contains no elevation. It's just the purplish map again.

Oh, I would like to make one related-yet-distinct point.

I think this whole red/blue thing is terrible, but probably unavoidable, for one major reason:

Gerrymandering.

Yeah, sure, there are a lot of demographic reasons out there responsible for the split, but I can't help but imagine that bad gerrymandering is ruining traditional American democracy, especially over time.

Creating Republican and Democrat districts are obviously in the interest of incumbents, but they tend to polarize the electorate. If I live in a "safe" Republican district, the election comes down to primaries, and the general elections become afterthoughts. Thus, it's between "mainstream guy" and "fringe girl" at the polls-- no diametrically opposed alternatives are presented, no one is ever forced to consider an alternative, and parties tend to homogenize.

Zell Miller's retiring, Lincoln Chaffee is leaving. Loyalists tend to think this is a good thing, but in the long run, it may make it harder to garner votes.

If you look at the red states, you begin to realize that, as people move out of the cities, they come into states that are red, run by red politicians.

Now, most people don't choose their states based on political affiliations, but enough probably do to have some Darwinian effect over repeated elections and censuses. That, and in red states, red legislatures usually dominate, controlling redistricting (witness Texas).

All of this serves to prop up the current trend, and even perhaps accelerate it.

Eventually, we may find ourselves in a position where there are *no* swing states left, and like a game of musical chairs, one party or the other will be left standing without a seat when the song comes to an end.

I wonder if such a train wreck is coming.

Cheers,
Dave

Ace--

I know that. . . my posting had the map that DLTV posted earlier (I hadn't seen it).

The map I *emailed* to you is the isometric map from the Washington Post.

As I said, I can't seem to find it online. Sorry.

Cheers,
Dave

Hmm...Democrats are always talking about letting felons vote. I wonder what their average IQ's are?

I have heard that the IQ/voting chart is a hoax. A convincing arguement can be found here:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/brown_debate.htm

Also, WTF with the editor?

To paraphrase - "Editor? Ace of Spades don't need no stinkin' editor".

Ken J:

Also, isn't "being smarter" the consolation a lot of gimps like Kos have for never getting laid? The jocks may get all the poon, but I have my Rimbaud to keep me warm.

Do you have even the slightest clue as to who Markos Zuniga is? He and his family fled El Salvador for the States during the Civil War down there. After graduating from High School he enlisted in the US Army at age 17 and became a MLRS/Lance Fire Direction Spec. during his 3 years service.

Oh he's married, and has a 2 year old son.

Is cheap ad-hominem all you got?

I dont think gerrymandering has any effect on that 3d map - you'd be able to tell the effects of it if each place was *really* close - as (from what I understand) the intent of gerrymandering is to spread out your votes in such a way to ensure victory. Well if you only have X voters, you're gonna make sure they're spread around to be as effective as possible - massive spikes (like you see in LA and San Fran) are a "waste" of votes per se.

And Dave, if you wouldn't mind, could you drop me a copy of that scanned thing? I'll shoot you a private email.

Fat kid--

Oh, I wasn't saying that gerrymandering and the "elevation" map have much to do with each other. You'd need a map that shows vote totals by congressional districts, over time, to see if there's any correlation.

But, you don't gerrymander unless you want to ensure there's a correlation, at least at the local level, and party line voting is still plenty common, so I'd be surprised if the district maps don't tell a similar story.

Lemme shoot you the map.

Cheers,
Dave

Rimbaud, the Dungeon Master's Guide-- eh bien, why do you think you must choose between them? They are both just texts, containing many of the same signifiers, their meaning or "meaning" transformed in terms of the same subject. And what does it matter in the end? You kill the kobolds, the kobolds kill you-- is the adventure either more or less absurd either way? It is the hand of blind fate that rolls the 2D10, and nothing can change it-- not strength, not dexterity, not your 12th-level Amulet of Alienation. All you have to hold onto is the meaningless struggle. And your 1/7 share of whatever was in the three chests the kraken was guarding.

I'd like to see a map scaled to show population -- more population makes for bigger areas on the map -- combined with the red / blue. That could actually mean something.

Thank you, Ace, for pointing out the stupidity of this map--or at least the stupid way it's being used. This is the kind of map that can leave you dumber than when you first saw it. I voted for Bush and I'm elated that he won but I see perfectly wonderful conservatives getting high. We have one guy in Wyoming who voted for Bush surrounded by 30,000 acres. Hooray for the topsoil!

The Washington Post deadtree had one of those proportionate maps (dave way above calls it isometric) that gives a much better sense of what happened, and I'd like to see that all over the place but I couldn't find it online (and damned RR). Also good is a "purple" map by county, similar in concept to the one you're talking about but with shadings for strengh-of-vote.

But enough with the fake trimumphalism already. Let's have reality-based triumphalism instead.

The Washington Post deadtree had one of those proportionate maps (dave way above calls it isometric) that gives a much better sense of what happened, and I'd like to see that all over the place but I couldn't find it online

electoral-vote.com calls it a cartogram

http://www.electoral-vote.com/carto/nov04c.html

Lisa, don't worry, we won't fuck it up. I mean, we have the red/blue map ... so we know where we are gonna start drafting from.

muuaa haa haa haa

Excellent, Batman, and here's the "purple" map I was talking about. Guess it's Princeton, via National Review Online.

(Of course, blue is for the democrats, red is for the republicans, and green is for all other. Each county's color is a mix of these three color components in proportion to the results for that county.)

The observation that the Southern and Western states have lower average intelligence is probably true. It's also racist--not that there's anything wrong with that if the data on the correlation between race and intelligence back you up. The list of states allegedly ordered by average IQ bites the Democrats on the behind, because the people bringing down the averages in the "red" states are notable not for voting Republican but for supplying what little base the Democrats still have in those states. What's sweetest about the circulation of this chart is that everyone who cites it approvingly as supposed proof of the stupidity of "rednecks" and cowboys is really, unwittingly, aligning himself with Charles Murray, Richard Herrnstein, and their book--The Bell Curve.

If you go to the CNN map ACE linked, note the acreage. Then check out the 2000 map. Republican control up 74,000 square miles from 2000.

The isomeric map is excellent. As Dave says, you don't appreciate it until you see it.

Democrats, once ranging the country, are down to a few redoubts. Like lynx or whooping cranes. No wonder they are such environmentalists!

And in those cities, there is much for Republicans to harvest if they just put in the effort and continue to be a Big Tent Party, rather than just pander to the Angry Religious Right. Hispanics are acting like other immigrants instead of acting like blacks or Jews (89% and 77% Democratic) - clearly moving Republican in growing numbers. If the Republicans put in the effort and do things for the Hispanic community, they will be rewarded far better than their black & Jewish outreach has been.

Batman--

That's also an interesting map, but that's different than the one I saw.

The isometric map in the WaPo is actually *two* maps, one for Bush, and one for Kerry (If one had a big enough map, you could read both, but given the size limitations, it's easier to see the sides split out).

Each map shows the counties that went for each candidate like the USA Today map, but elevates each county above the map (like a pole) depending upon the margin of victory.

Thus, if Bush won by one vote, the map would be essentially flat. But if he won by a million votes, you'd have a giant tower of power elevating that county.

The Bush map is pretty stable throughout the country-- everywhere he won, it looks like it was close. But, he won in a whole lot of places.

Kerry's map, however, has these tall pillars in the cities. He did really well there. L.A., Detroit, Cleveland, Philly, Boston, etc.

Manhattan was a real surprise, being within a few hundred thousand votes. Guess 9/11 made a difference.

Some of these areas look like lost causes-- while some look real competitive. I'd love to see a comparable map from 2000, to see where Bush improved, or where Kerry improved. That should tell you all you need to know about the trend lines, and point to places to exploit in the next election (for either party).

Anyways, if anyone wants a PDF copy emailed to them, just write me at garfieldridge@lycos.com. I'm a little busy tonight, but I'll ship everyone a copy eventually.

Cheers,
Dave

Take the Princeton map ( http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ervdb/JAVA/election2004/ ) and modify it by shading each county (preferably each precinct!) with white, according to population density. The deserts and mountain peaks would end up white (or nearly so) while the dense inner cities are fully colored. Think of it as a white map with a red or blue pixel for each vote. 144 million votes at 1200x1200 would be one hundred square inches of ink; a legal size sheet of paper is 119 sq. inches. Hmm. This would work a lot better if you used a red or blue for each (say) ten votes, or fraction there of.

11/04/04

???????????????????????

I thought that Mr. Kerry, Mr. Edwards, President Bush and Vice President Cheney had all agreed that the map of the UNITED States of America is now RED, WHITE, and BLUE, equally proportioned in every singe precinct, in every single state, throughout the entire nation. There are enough flags to go around so that every one can have one to wave. If not, then we can order some more from China (but that is another issue).

Bottom line - Dem (dim?) voters can't punch a hole in a piece of paper without screwing it up. Wasn't any republicans whining about that in 2000...

If you can't punch a hole in piece of paper, that doesn't say much about your intelligence IMO.

Dave,
I am unsure what you're looking at on Manhattan - Kerry took 82% of the vote here (of the 600,000 or so).

This map, or better still the one broken down by voting precinct (which I can't find this year) is the only thing that matters. It defines what the Dems problem is. They are defined by their constituency which resides almost entirely within heavily populated urban areas. It's the reason they "don't get" the rest of us. It's why they think gun control is of utmost importance and gay marriage is a must. The more people you live around, the more attitudes/opinions you find to be SOOO important.

This division (the real one, not the canard of red states vs. blue states) is what Jefferson feared most and was realized in the Civil War. Did it ever occur to you that the North never really did anything to encourage the South to give up slavery besides taking the moral high ground, looking down on the South and saying, "we control the Federal government, so screw you". Economic incentives and yielding of governmental control would have went a long way to end that despicable practice without a civil war.

If you really want to see the GOP destroy the DNC, watch it encourage the population to move out of the large urban areas with business/tax incentives, etc. The DNC would be finished. The battle lines of the Culture War are drawn along those voting precints/city limits.

If you look, no DC on there. But if you click on the bottom, whoops, there's DC...at #51 for SAT/ACT scores...and it went 90% Kerry.

So the stupidest people in the country supported the Democrats the most.

Whatever.

The map is not attempting to show acreage.

The map shows the configuration of the population.

As there is so much more red than blue and the numbers are near 50/50 the map can only prove that the blues are stacked much deeper than the reds.

Perhaps someone said this, and I missed it, but doesn't the map simply make the argument for the electoral college?

Dave,

Manhatten: Kerry - 468,841 Bush 95,362

Very sad indeed. They were right there and they forgot :(

My convo with a chick from Manhattan from earlier today (this is her tirade):

I think that blog goes both ways..seriously.Seems like the feelings mutual. I don't see middle america really giving a rats ass that we suffered and new york in turn has given them the middle finger...so what can I do about it?
No one understands truely what 9/11 was like unlessyou were there unless you were trapped in NYC with at what seemed at the time the end of teh world as we knew it.. ..I don't expect people in middle america to understand why we're so angry..why we're getting the royal shaft when it comes to that homeland security budget..or why we didn't vote for Bush.

Just like I'm sure they think we're all whiney liberals..so I'll say this I can't live my life according to what others think of me just because I'm a new yorker,a liberal democrat a catholic..a latino/mixed breed..a woman..or whatever other label want to put on me. It's just an opinion.*shrugs* They'll understand when they get hit by the terrorists too..Oh wait that will never happen because middle america has nothing that could truely cripple the country's economy..like it or not New york is the center of the ecomonic world..if it falls so do other nations ecomonies.Thats why dick face bin laden decided to hit america where it hurts..that son of a bitch whould really be tortured beheaded and then roasts in the deepest pits of hell! (sorry I went off ona tangent there)

When they go to work they don't have to worry about another 9/11 happening in their hometown..I work right next to the citicorp building..target number 3 on their list right after the stock market downtown..I have to worry about it! That tower collaspes it's taking out a helluva alot of people's lives with it..the topic at the water cooler is ..hey what color are we on? did the citicorp get anymore threats?? so I'll just say this..no one should talk until they walk a mile in someone elses shoes.

But I'm glad you at least have the heart to listen to my half of the story...I been really depressed since this whole election thing and I think alot of new yorkers feel the same way..it was sorta a slap in the face..anyways..in other news I am the november KISS(the band) girl hahah. so whats new with you mister blue eyes?? Whoa.

Ok, the blockquote tag got all jacked on that one - sorry about that - and to clarify: that was my "whoa" at the end there. Heh.

By the way, the two quotes were from:

"And that's how we keep score, Bubby!" -- I think this is from Glengarry Glen Ross, but suddenly I'm not sure. It's definitely Pacino.

"rubber chicken graph" -- from a Steve Martin comedy album, maybe Let's Get Small, maybe Comedy is Not Pretty.

Alceste, Brewfan--

My bad on the Manhattan vote. I made a mistake. I was drunk. My car ran out of gas. I had to pick up my suit from the dry cleaners. There was an earthquake-- a terrible flood! It wasn't my fault, I SWEAR TO GOD!!!

That, and I can't read anything anymore since I started smoking crank at work. Man, this shite EFFS. YOU. UP.

Cheers,
Dave

The idea that Democrats are supported by voters with higher IQ's is hilarious. It's a well-known fact (after the 2000 debacle) that Democrats have the high-school dropout vote locked up, Gore got a much higher percentage than GW. Also, it was Mr. Moore who wanted 'slackers' to come out for Kerry. Listening to Walter Cronkite explain how Karl Rove was working in concert with UBL (not to mention Mr. Moore's imaginings), I do believe insanity is more common in Democrat devotees and this may include the belief they are smarter.

Just a note on that chart showing the "Average IQ" of the different states. Any noteworthy psychologist will point out that a person having a Bachelor's degree (which is what the chart is based on) is not necessarily consistent with having a high IQ. There are many people with high IQs that do not have any type of college degree at all. Therefore, all this chart claims to prove is that people who have been college educated are more likely to have been influenced by the mainstream liberals in the world of academia. As the chart shows the states with more college degrees as having voted for Kerry, this should say a lot.