County-by-County Election Map
 

We've all seen the State-by-State election map. It's really misleading. This County-by-County map gives a much more accurate view of where the votes came from:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1099627400.jpg

Depressing.

How sad... and so close... too bad. Makes you wonder...

Bush and key members of Congress are proposing changes to the Patriot Act. They want to repeal the Patriot Act in all counties that fell for Bush. It's a small reward...http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/nahnah.gif

That pic would appear to support the theory that the race boiled down to the city folk -vs- hick factor.

Who would have ever guessed that green acres would end up becoming a metaphor for the political polarization of america.

Heeee Hawwwww.....Farm livin is the thing for me forget Park Avenue....

Hey betcha didn't know that Zeb on Green Acres was really Dan Quayle... former Vp under George the 1st....

Speaking of heehaw . .did anyone catch Dan Rathers ridiculous condescending remarks during the election coverage?

. . .some elitist condescending remarks like "hitch a wagon to that combine as it plows thru Iowa."

He had a slew of them. The guy has lost it.

Yes, I find this rural vs urban (or maybe rural+suburban vs urban) divide pretty fascinating. You're right, it tells a lot more than just looking at a state-by-state map. Even in the South, the most densely populated areas tended to Blue while even in California and Oregon, the least densely populated areas tended to Red.

I don't buy the explanations that some people here give, that urban people are amoral gay welfare queens so they vote Dem while rural people are hard-working self-sufficient Christians so they vote Rep. That is silly.

What's with the blue zone in southern Texas?

Isn't that part of Bush country or is that part of Mexico now?

Sherwood

<i>"the race boiled down to the city folk -vs- hick factor"</i>

That's really it. Many think that because the race was close, there is a relatively even distribution of voters all across the country. In reality, there are simply 2 different cultures in this country. One is conservative and rural, the other liberal and urban. No news there. Neither understands the other. Particularly when the rural dwellers are referred to as 'hicks'. That's laughable. Most of us 'hicks' live in affluent, upscale suburbs ...... :cool:

Theres quite a few "smaller than LA or NY" cities ancompassed in red there to; I'm sure they'd be glad to learn that they are "hicks"

Actually, the block of blue in the Midwest-South is along the Mississippi River. There are several very poor counties in that bunch. It's definitely not densely populated or wealthy. I'm not sure what's going on there. Must be the muddy water they drink. :)

The only major cities I can identify within the blue are Memphis, Nashville, Atlanta, and whatever is down by Miami. The stripe of blue across lower Alabama is rural.

Anyone have maps for 1996 and 1992?

Also, did anyone else notice percentage-wise more registered Democrats voted for Bush than registered Republicans vote Kerry? CNN had a voter breakdown, but that may have been exit polls.

I recall from the exit polling (for what that is worth) that large cities went clearly for Kerry, small cities were split 50/50, and suburbs/rural areas went clearly for Bush.

There is something about living in a large city that makes you more likely to vote Dem, and something about living in a suburb or rural aea that makes you more likely to vote Rep. What is it?

I know some won't be able to resist jumping in and saying that it is because large cities are full of commie gay drug addicts etc etc, but I am really hoping for a more sensible discussion.

Do you think it is simply because people are mobile and choose to live where they feel comfortable? So that liberal people tend to live together and conservative people tend to live together?

Do you think it is because the job opportunities in large cities tend to push a diverse group of people into a small place, and this affects their attitudes, while in suburban and rural areas people have more space and more ability to choose who they associate with, which affects their attitudes?

Do you think it is because people tend to live in large cities when they are younger, and move to suburbs when they are older? Don't think this applys to rural areas, maybe it does.

Just some ideas, maybe right, maybe totally wrong - what do others think?

Does someone have a map showing where the colleges and universities are located?

This would answer why smaller towns and cities would vote Kerry. Not only were most people under 30 years old voting Kerry, but ones exposed to new ideas and learning to think for themselves voted Kerry. The sheep of the flock did what they were told and voted Bush, voted for more war and death.................great moral values?

Does anyone have a map showing relative zones of education?

I bet educated people are more likely to be earning a living in a city than on a farm.

I bet the isolated, ignorant and undereducated living in fear of a world they do not understand voted in droves for Bush.

Kach, are you refering to places like Massachusetts, where all this high level independent thought leads to one senator who is an old drunken murderer & another who is a socialist buffoon? Or maybe NY where you have that whining schumer & the ***** from hell? Or maybe Kahlyfornya with Feinstien & Boxer. Your theory blows.

I was thinking more of Blackburg Virgina, home of Virgina Tech, just as an example.

http://www.vt.edu/

Here is a college town, on the outskirts of the Appliacian Mountains.

While visiting there 12 years ago, they talked of the cultural divide. Stories of long bearded hill folk occasionaly making their way on to campus like ice-age era visitors comfounded by modern man and machines.

I just wonder what the voting map of that area looked like.

i heard there was some deal that showed average IQ on this same map, and there was quite a discrepancy. i will not relate the hear-say of the report but you can imagine how that went. anyone ever sawed dukes of hazard?

My theory is that those who live in the city tend to be less self-reliant and look to government for help. Those who live in the country tend to be more self reliant. It has nothing to do with IQ (or maybe it does ;).

Rural people like independence, the outdoors, shooting and hunting, burning their garbage... They like less regulation and want to just live as they choose. They care less about what the Hollywood elite have to say and more what the grange hall is doing Friday night. This is why they tend to vote Republican.

Troy

Very nice, the very building blocks of most prejudice and racisms openly displayed for all to see; think about it.

prolly like theys dental line up, big gaps.

or i am thinking the caveman lawyer from SNL some years ago.

and lastly the the irony of my lack of spelling prowess, and writing ability has not slipped by me,, or you, that i am sure of,,, jed........

What exactly do you mean by “look to government for help”? Can you be more specific?

I would agree that rural dwellers do prefer less regulation as they are in a position to be self-sufficient for things like water supply, electricity, garbage disposal etc. It’s a two-edge sword though, say if any significant amount of rural dwellers were gay, or had gay friends or family members they may not feel that the government is acting in their interests to live as they choose.

What percentage of the US lives in a truly ‘rural’ environment though? I think we are talking more about the ‘urban’ to ‘low-density-suburban’ differences.

the country folks' gay, free spirited, or forward thinking friends/family look to get out of the sticks as soon as possible. how many stories (book or other media) start with the main charcter looking to "get out of this one horse town" so they dont have to continue to be in that world.

My friends who voted for Kerry tend to carry a lot of fear. Fear of illness, fear of crime, fear of what the world will think of the US if certain actions are taken. Often they express the opinion that "the state should..." or, "the government needs to stop...."

In general, those people I know that voted for Bush tend not to carry a lot of fear. They don't look to governmnet to protect them from the threat-of-the-week. They do blame the government when it gets in the way of doing what they believe are their rights though. Examples tend to be resource use, hunting and shooting, land use, over regulation, etc.

My $0.02. This is by no means hard facts, just thoughtful opinion.
Troy

jyl, I hope you're still watching this thread.

I've been searching for voter demographics, but I'm only finding stuff for past elections.

Here's an interesting article:
http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/Joined.pdf

Clinton and the Democrats gained support from those with less education. Based on posts in the OT forum, I was led to believe the educated elite preferred the Democrats....

Also, from another thread, Aurel points out that Democrat-leaning states had higher income than Rep-leaning states (obviously implying Democrats are wealthy or better-off). From http://www.maitreg.com/politics/elections/2000/exitpolls.asp
(wish I had some real stats):

Both Gore and Nader did well with voters of lower incomes, and Bush did well among voters with higher incomes.
Gore won a large majority of voters who consider themselves to be "upper class", while Bush won a large majority of those who consider themselves to be "upper-middle class"

Thanks, turbo6, I am still trying to follow the thread although work was so busy this is the first time I've looked at PP BBS since getting to the office.

The stuff you posted is interesting. Actually, this whole issue is really interesting.

I've mostly been a big-city person - born in NYC, moved around a lot as a kid (US, Canada, Europe), then settled in CA. These are mostly "blue" places.

But I've also spent a lot of time, for the last 12 years or so, in a smaller city in Central WA. The town is Yakima, for those who know the state. There's a lot of agriculture (hops, apples), some light industry, a good bit of timber, some good fishing (Yakima River through the canyon), a big military base nearby (Army tank warfare training center) Yakima is definitely a "red" place.

Some people grow up in Yakima and love it, and some grow up there and don't love it. The latter usually leave - often they go find work in Seattle or other "blue" places. I know Seattle somewhat well too - lived there for a while. I was thinking about the difference between those two places, and what makes one a "red" place and the other a "blue" place. That's kind of what this thread is about, which is why it is so interesting to me. I'm glad cegerer posted the map.

the map is somewhat misleading due to population differences in counties

I thought that was the purpose of the map.

Maybe it's not city people vs. hicks. Could it be as simple as the dense population areas having a greater concentration of bureaucrats as a %age of area population? People who get their paychecks from government tend to vote liberal. The "unions" mentioned in the press are really teacher's and public employee "unions". In the Oregon map..it's the Portland area and further South, Lane county...Eugene, the home of the U of O, a huge economic power down there.