Myth: Red-Blue States

[Moneyguy1]

In response to some of our more "impassioned" posters here, I offer the following article and references:

"Beginning in the 2000 presidential election, the broadcast networks began showing Republican-won states in red and Democratic-won states in blue. Soon pundits were talking about the red states and the blue states as if they were two different countries, one dominated by evangilists, and the other by secularists. The nation, some claimed, was engaged in a culture war.
The 2004 presidential election map followed much the same pattern, reinforcing the notion. But the split is not an intrinsic feature of U.S. politics. (map shows 12 states in white, in which the winning margin was 5% or less) These 12 states counted for 25% of the electoral vote, showing that the election geography could change substantially with a relatively small shift in votes.
Survey data show that the two sides are closer together than usually thought. On some economic issues, Americans agree. For example, almost two-thirds in red and blue states think that corporations have too much power. Furthermore, in both sections a substantial majority want to protect the environment. On "gut " issues, the red and blue are not that far apart either, with survey differences running up to 12% on gun control, school vouchers, homosexual adoption and the death penalty. On the most contentious issue-abortion- about 20% believe it should be legal under all circumstances,and about 20% believe it should be illegal under all circumstances. For the rest, abortion may be important, but it apparently does not rise to the level of a fighting issue.

Harvard University economists Edward L. Glasier and Bryce A. Ward have extensively analyzed the historical data on cultural and voting differences. They find little evidence that the red states are becoming more Republican or the blue states more Democratic, and they have determined that the two parties are no more spatially segregated now than in the past. They see no signs of a culture war, noting that most people are in the middle on most issues. They do note, however, that the U.S. is in a strongly partisan period because of opposition to President George W. Bush and that the alliance of the Republican party with evangicals is fairly new. That alliance, however, is not necessarily a sign of increased divisiveness, considering that religious groups historically can swing from one party to another-evangicals used to be more closely allied with Democrats.

As Glaiser and Ward note, the U.S. is remarkable for the geographic diversity of habits and beliefs. Those, for example, who believe in the Rapture do not live exclusively in Kansas: they live all over.About 45% of voters in red states are more liberal on economic issues than the typical blue state voter, whereas 40% of blue dtaters are more conservative on cultural issues than the typical red stater."

November Scientific American article

further reading:

Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America; Morris P. Florina

Myths and Realities of America Political Geography: Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol 20 No 2 Spring 2006

Purple America: Journal of Economic Perspectives; same issue

[fastpat]

I think your authors are correct when you take the states as a whole, but when you break down the 2004 results by county and take a look at the county demographics, you see a wide dichotomy in voting patterns. Of course, many people voted against Kerry by voting for Bush, a huge mistake that's not reflected in the data on this web site

This map uses a color scale that ranges from red for 70% Republican or more, to blue for 70% Democrat or more. This is sort of practical, since there aren't many counties outside that range anyway, but to some extent it also obscures the true balance of red and blue.


I trust you'll find this interesting.

[Nathans_Dad]

Wow, that is a cool map, Pat.

The blue areas on the left and right coasts and along the Mexican border makes sense, but what about the stripe that follows the Mississippi River valley? I'm assuming the curve that follows the mountains in the south (Appalachians?) is due to coal mining industry.

Very interesting map. Still, one thing is apparent to me. Even with the color scale, I think anyone looking at that map would say "Gee...that country is pretty red." Of course the high population areas are blue, but that's why we have an electoral college, no?

[BlueSkyJaunte]

This country really needs more than red, blue, and combinations thereof.

[cool_chick]

This map also doesn't take account population density.

Big spotch of "red" may have 1,000 people in it.....big splotch of "blue" may have 1,000,000 people in it.

Any map of this nature is misleading, period.

[Moneyguy1]

That, CC, is the whole point. People can read into the map anything they want. NYC would be blue and 200 square miles (just as an example). Bumfudge County in Utah might be red and 1,000 square miles. NYC has millions in population, Bumfudge boasts 10,000. So....What does the map tell us?

Bupkis.

Those nice red areas in the mid and south west are for the most part so sparcely populated that one or two metropolitan areas equal their entire vote count. The point is that the terms like "culture war" are baseless and championed by people like O'Rielly with his new book "Culture Warrior".

[fastpat]

I take it you didn't go to the web site to see the maps adjusted for population density, that is to say a cartogram. Those maps look like this, which has the same data on the map I posted above adjusted for population density:



Yes, the electoral college's existence is to dampen out high population centers effects on how the country is run. It's one of the last vestiges of federalism left.

Repeal the 17th Amendment for more federalism, and much more control of the US government.

[Moneyguy1]

Kinda evens out the colors a bit as to area.

[snowman]

Like people tend to flock togather. Commies like dense, well controled regions, Americans like wide open areas and tend to be self dependant.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by snowman
Like people tend to flock togather. Commies like dense, well controled regions, Americans like wide open areas and tend to be self dependant.

Someone sold you the line of ***** that half the country's "commie" now? And you bought it?

LMFAO.


Edit: you do realize rural areas aren't valued like urban areas, and that those "self dependent" people couldn't afford to live in the city like us self-dependent people can (maybe that's why they live in the rural areas?), and those rural areas pay less and receive more in taxes and the cities pay more and receive less? So much for your half-baked "self dependent" theory....

[Jim Richards]

LOL! Jack's med's must've just kicked in. I wonder if his doctor realizes the side effects he's experiencing.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Edit: you do realize rural areas aren't valued like urban areas, and that those "self dependent" people couldn't afford to live in the city like us self-dependent people can (maybe that's why they live in the rural areas?), and those rural areas pay less and receive more in taxes and the cities pay more and receive less? So much for your half-baked "self dependent" theory....

Wow, how very elitist of you.

Glad to hear you don't VALUE the rural people as much as your fellow city dwellers.

[Icemaster]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
LOL! Jack's med's must've just kicked in. I wonder if his doctor realizes the side effects he's experiencing.

Snowman's off his meds again? Shyte. Who had the tranquilizer gun last?

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Wow, how very elitist of you.

You're damn right. When you have dumbass people trying to imply that we, who have professional jobs here in the city, educate ourselves, work hard here......are not self dependent, you're damn right I'm "elitist." I"m damn proud of what I"ve accomplished, and it wasn't from being "dependent".

Glad to hear you don't VALUE the rural people as much as your fellow city dwellers.

Who said people? The property! The property doesn't have as much value in rural areas.

Costs a hell of a lot more to live around here.....

You can't sponge off the government and be able to live here like you can in a rural area.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Who said people? The property! The property doesn't have as much value in rural areas.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. You still are making quite a generalization about the incomes of the people who live in rural areas. That's pretty surprising coming from the PPOT anti-generalization champion (any thread about Muslims, hello). In fact, I know a lot of people who live in rural areas. They are ranchers and farmers. Guess what? Lots of them are millionaires. In fact, a relative of mine owns a quarter horse ranch in rural Texas and she is worth several million at least.

Originally posted by cool_chick
You can't sponge off the government and be able to live here like you can in a rural area.

No, most people who sponge off the government live in urban areas, they just have to live in the slums. Here's an interesting stat for you:

Urban Poverty rate: 20%
Rural Poverty rate: 14.6%

Perhaps you might rethink your preconceived prejudices against rural folks.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
[B]Ah, thanks for the clarification. You still are making quite a generalization about the incomes of the people who live in rural areas. That's pretty surprising coming from the PPOT anti-generalization champion (any thread about Muslims, hello). In fact, I know a lot of people who live in rural areas. They are ranchers and farmers. Guess what? Lots of them are millionaires. In fact, a relative of mine owns a quarter horse ranch in rural Texas and she is worth several million at least.

Talk to Snowman about generalizations. But you DIDN'T, did you? Why NOT?

I know farmers ALSO receive welfare too. I DON'T.

No, most people who sponge off the government live in urban areas, they just have to live in the slums. Here's an interesting stat for you:

Urban Poverty rate: 20%
Rural Poverty rate: 14.6%

That's because farmer's welfare pays better.

Perhaps you might rethink your preconceived prejudices against rural folks.

Maybe you might rethink reprimanding Snowman for same about us professional, well-off, hardworking, NEVER EVER SPONGED EVER...not even a little bit of farm "subsidies" (as they call it) city-folk.

[Nathans_Dad]

CC:

Seriously, so because Snowman (who is a well known instigator and troll here) said that people in urban areas were "commies", you decided to dengirate half of the population of the US?

I'm glad you've never sponged off the government, neither have I and I suspect many here haven't either. It really isn't very becoming to make generalizations about rural people in this country, who put food on your table every day and play just as big a part in making this country run as urban people, just because you don't like what Snowman said.

[Rodeo]

Yea, kinda funny how he goes after you with a vengence, while Snowman, fint and the rest of the myopic bigots get a free pass.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
CC:

Seriously, so because Snowman (who is a well known instigator and troll here) said that people in urban areas were "commies", you decided to dengirate half of the population of the US?

No, because he decided to denigrate half of the US by implying the people in urban areas aren't self dependent. Didn't you notice? How could you not notice?

I'm glad you've never sponged off the government, neither have I and I suspect many here haven't either. It really isn't very becoming to make generalizations about rural people in this country, who put food on your table every day and play just as big a part in making this country run as urban people, just because you don't like what Snowman said.

Ask snowman about that. Without cityfolk, you wouldnt' have things liek the latest medicine technology, etc.

Truth of the matter is, I'm seriously tired of this *****. This ***** is exactly what this thread is about. Truth of the matter, I don't give a rats ass what the f@ck rural people do. all I know is that I pay a *****load of taxes in the city and this money goes to rural areas.......they put in less and receive more, we put in more and receive less. That's because we make more money.....that's because we have to.....that's because things cost more here....and then you have dumbasses that dis us chi-ching taxes taxes moneybags in my city.....accusing the subsidors of not being self-dependent.....

The are so many dumbasses like Snowman that actually believe the ***** that Snowman espouses, and it's getting VERY, VERY OLD since it's NOT EVEN TRUE!

[Rodeo]

Here's a little fuel for the fire, from today's Washington Post. If this were going on with welfare mothers, Rick would be absolutely furious. Rural and corporate welfare is a non-issue with the "party of personal responsibility," I guess.

Crop Insurers Piling Up Record Profits
Why? Subsidies and No Competition

By Gilbert M. Gaul, Dan Morgan and Sarah Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, October 16, 2006; A01

In 2002, a small upstart insurance company approached the federal government with an idea. The company, Crop 1, was one of 16 firms that sold federally subsidized crop insurance policies to farmers under rates set by the government.

Crop 1's plan was modest. It wanted to introduce a slight amount of competition by offering farmers discounts of up to 10 percent on their premiums.

An eruption ensued. The other companies quickly turned to Congress to quash the idea. In congressional testimony and letters to lawmakers and regulators, they complained that competing on price threatened the "unique public-private partnership" that the companies had with the government.

With the help of several powerful members of Congress, the program was eventually derailed.

"Why would you want to kill a program that saves farmers money unless you don't like to compete?" asked Steve Baccus, chairman of the company that now owns Crop 1. "This is about keeping the status quo."

The episode illuminates the power of a collection of niche insurance companies that have made billions in profits from the federal crop insurance program, even as the government has lost billions covering the riskiest claims, a Washington Post investigation has found.

Last year, the companies made $927 million in profit, a record. They received an additional $829 million from the government in administrative fees to help run the program. On top of that, taxpayers kicked in $2.3 billion to subsidize premium payments for farmers.

All of that to pay farmers $752 million for losses from bad weather.

"We would probably be better off just giving the farmers the money directly," said Bruce A. Babcock, an agricultural economist at Iowa State University who recently published his own study of the program. "That way we would save on all of the fees going to the private insurers."