Via Yglesias, counties that went more Republican this time out.
This is officially an award-winning blog
Best group blog: "Witty and insightful, the Edge of the American West puts the group in group blog, with frequent contributions from an irreverent band.... Always entertaining, often enlightening, the blog features snazzy visuals—graphs, photos, videos—and zippy writing...."
64 comments
November 5, 2008 at 4:12 pm
dana
No one wanted what the candyman was sellin’.
November 5, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Erik
Many people get offended when George Wallace and his policies are still associated with the South. And while the South has changed to some extent, maps like this suggest that the Old South remains strong.
November 5, 2008 at 5:06 pm
urbino
maps like this suggest that the Old South remains strong
I’m kinda surprised that this is news to anybody.
Maps like this and the red/blue breakdown, in combination with data showing that Dems do better with better educated people, in combination with the fact that rural Alabama and the Mississippi Delta (on both sides of the river) are among the least educated and poorest regions of the country cause one to wonder if a shrewd Democratic president and/or congressional majority might, in economic circumstances generally recognized to call for greater gov’t spending, be well served by investing heavily in educational and economic development in those regions.
Years ago, there was a bill called the Delta Reinvestment Act or the Delta Development Zone Act or something like that, that bounced around congress for a few years. Maybe it’s time to give that a fresh look. Or come up with something better. But it seems like there are a lot of things that make it a good idea in an awful lot of ways.
November 5, 2008 at 5:08 pm
ben
Changed the sign again, I see.
November 5, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Ben Alpers
And while the South has changed to some extent, maps like this suggest that the Old South remains strong.
Sort of.
The areas that are trending Republican seem to be in the upcountry (Southern Appalachia and the Ozarks), plus North Texas and much of Oklahoma, as well as bayou country in Louisiana (Ari, can you tell us more about the distribution of red-trending counties in that state?).
Most of the Piedmont and the low country is notably not trending Republican. Look at South Carolina (all low-country and Piedmont), for example. The heart of the Confederacy and nearly devoid of red-trending counties.
(FWIW, in the actual Old South, the upcountry was the least secessionist…and in that sense the least “Southern,” no?)
November 5, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Erik
Right, but I think we have to look at the white vote in those areas. Certainly a large chunk of the Democrats performing better in the Deep South was extremely high turnout from the African-American population. The upcountry is (mostly) whiter than the low country.
And if race isn’t playing the major factor in the upcountry votes, I have to ask what is.
November 5, 2008 at 5:36 pm
ari
Altitude.
November 5, 2008 at 5:36 pm
urbino
OTOH, there’s nothing upcountry about eastern or southern Arkansas or Louisiana. That’s delta. (Well, there’s the geological/topographical anomaly of Crowley’s Ridge in northeastern Arkansas, but I don’t think that quite counts as upcountry.) A lot of those counties in TX aren’t upcountry, either.
November 5, 2008 at 5:38 pm
andrew
I was beginning to like that altitude theory.
November 5, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Vance
I was surprised to hear, yesterday, an NPR reporter saying of Indiana (I’m paraphrasing) that it was quite “conservative” — not long ago, blacks had to be careful about going to some towns after dark. The equation between conservatism and racism is indeed pervasive….
This map tells us only that Appalachia (approximately) is becoming more Republican, but not why.
November 5, 2008 at 5:44 pm
andrew
I wonder how the Congressional election data from 2008 matches up with 2006 and 2004.
November 5, 2008 at 5:46 pm
urbino
not long ago, blacks had to be careful about going to some towns after dark
I grew up in that same town in Arkansas. They even turned down having a state university placed there because it would attract blacks from the surrounding counties and towns.
Oh, and I forgot the MO bootheel. Flatter than hammered shit, that is. (With a nod to SEK’s celebrity best friend.)
November 5, 2008 at 5:51 pm
washerdreyer
Ben A. made this point better than I’m going to, but I don’t see what that should stop me: This map shows that almost none of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina went more strongly for McCain than they did for Bush, not to mention new blue states like Va. and N.C. I’m not sure what that says about the South, but surely it’s not the straightforward lesson about it some want to draw.
I understand the point that those states have larger African-American populations, but even taking that into account, this is a county by county map. Do they have larger African-American populations which are spread relatively evenly by county?
November 5, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Ben Alpers
You’re certainly right about the Delta….but not, apparently, in Mississippi itself (do delta counties in Mississippi have significantly higher black populations than eastern Arkansas?).
I wonder how this map matches the infamous “American” demographic (i.e. people who identify their ethnic group as “American” on the census).
November 5, 2008 at 5:54 pm
urbino
Certainly not in MS, and I highly doubt it in the others.
I agree that that’s odd, wd. I wonder if it’s in part a product of the base not being all that crazy about McCain. Or maybe they liked Bush so much, it’s almost statistically impossible for them to trend any further toward the GOP.
November 5, 2008 at 5:56 pm
urbino
My 5:54 meant for wd’s 5:51.
November 5, 2008 at 6:02 pm
urbino
You’re certainly right about the Delta….but not, apparently, in Mississippi itself
I didn’t really make any claims for the Delta, other than that it isn’t uplands, and that pretty much all of those red counties in eastern and southern Arkansas are part of it.
(do delta counties in Mississippi have significantly higher black populations than eastern Arkansas?)
Dunno off the top of my head. My sense is that they’re about the same, with MS a bit higher.
I wonder how this map matches the infamous “American” demographic (i.e. people who identify their ethnic group as “American” on the census).
I’ve never seen that one. My anecdata says the correlation is probably very high in the more westerly states, then drops as you get closer and closer to Appalachia, where people seem to have a keener awareness of their ethnic heritage.
November 5, 2008 at 6:04 pm
andrew
Or maybe they liked Bush so much, it’s almost statistically impossible for them to trend any further toward the GOP.
I was wondering about this too. On the Democratic side, there might be some places where it was difficult to be even more pro-Democratic than in 2004. But maybe they managed to anyway.
November 5, 2008 at 6:06 pm
andrew
If it were not possible to choose more than one category, I would put “American” on my census form. Either that or “other.” I haven’t seen that map, but I suspect most people who put “American” did so for other reasons.
November 5, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Ahistoricality
That map is actually really interesting if you play with it some (go here and click on “voting shifts”), and then look at the difference between the 2008 results and 1992 results. Since Clinton, and in spite of Obama, all the states that McCain are much more Republican than they used to be. The map above tracks changes only since ’04, but the demographics and political entrenchment is a long-term process. What’s really striking about the map above is actually that Obama managed to shift the tide back to Democrats in much of the Plains and Mountain states. The areas still trending Republican are perhaps harder-core, but it’s not an open-and-shut case.
November 5, 2008 at 6:16 pm
John Emerson
It’s specifically Appalachian / Ozark, not the old South or the deep South.
We Americans have been here since the dawn of time.
November 5, 2008 at 6:19 pm
silbey
Don’t forget the I-95 and I-85 corridors; those have been trending Democratic for awhile and the redder counties are shaped around those interstates.
November 5, 2008 at 6:20 pm
jim
People with much the same ethnic background in New England write “English” on the census form, in Appalachia write “American.”
Washerdreyer get it right, I think. This is not “The South.” Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, the heart of the old Confederacy, the center of Jim Crow, are almost unreddened (Northern Alabama, which is sort of Tennesseish, is the exception). The increased Republican counties are in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee and eastern Kentucky; eastern Texas and southern Louisiana and the Florida panhandle: The Edge of the American South?
Does anyone know what the splotch of red in Colorado is?
November 5, 2008 at 6:20 pm
urbino
What’s specifically Appalachian/Ozark? The ethnic American thing?
November 5, 2008 at 6:24 pm
dana
Does anyone know what the splotch of red in Colorado is?
The headquarters of Focus on the Family, I’d guess.
November 5, 2008 at 6:27 pm
andrew
Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but that the New York Times map shows Colorado as all blue.
November 5, 2008 at 6:28 pm
andrew
And now I see that Yglesias got his map from the New York Times. I meant the map Ahistoricality links to.
November 5, 2008 at 6:39 pm
urbino
My theory on Arkansas is that Wal-Mart has a lot to do with it (and, to a lesser degree, Tyson).
It’s by far the biggest company in the state. The biggest company the state has ever produced, actually. It isn’t exactly known for its progressive corporate culture, obviously.
Aside from its economic impact, and resulting impact on state politics, etc., it has a cultural impact. Arkansans do not like hearing you hoity-toities from elsewhere bitch about their homegrown success story. Not one bit. The Rust Belt states got all those high paying factory jobs; Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma got the oil money, the northeast was/is still fat on old money, the Old South still had wealth generated by the old plantation economy.
States like Arkansas and Mississippi pretty much got left behind. So when Wal-Mart became this multibillion dollar juggernaut, a lot of Arkansans though, “Yes, it’s finally our turn.” They take pride in Wal-Mart’s success, and, frankly, despite Wal-Mart’s famously lousy pay and benfits, those jobs were a step up for a LOT of Arkansans. Throw in the added benefit of having a local store where you can buy darn near anything at everyday low prices :), and doggone it, they feel pretty good about Wal-Mart.
There’s an awful lot of, “Fuck you!” in Arkansas conservatism.
November 5, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Vance
urbino @5:46: I grew up in that same town in Arkansas.
Yeah, I wasn’t questioning the veracity of the comment — only the facile equation of such racism with “conservatism”. I’m happy to believe bad things about conservatives, of course, but this seemed like an example of Erik’s complaint at 4:19.
November 5, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Brad
Does anyone know what the splotch of red in Colorado is?
Apparently it is Saguache, which has about 6000 people.
November 5, 2008 at 6:46 pm
urbino
Yeah, I wasn’t questioning the veracity of the comment
Oh, I didn’t read your comment that way. I was just adding a bit of local color . . . the Dickensian aspect. (I seem to be on an HBO series kick this evening.)
Does anyone know what the splotch of red in Colorado is?
Rosacea?
November 5, 2008 at 6:54 pm
grackle
It’s hard to understand how Oklahoma, which according to the graph has moved the most Republicanward, could have done so, as it has been solidly Republican in most respects for years. I am surprised that both the counties with major universities showed no Obama lean. In most red states one can pick where the universities are by ythe blue coloring on the Times graphics. The Oklahoma city newspaper, owned by the extremist Gaylord family when I last looked is pretty influential but the Tulsa World also admits to having always supported Republican presidential candidates. It might be only what Will Rogers long ago noted: when the Okies went to CA, it raised the IQ’s of both states, but then they’ve had 80 years to recede since then. Maybe Ben A has a more nuanced view than this ex-Okie.
November 5, 2008 at 6:58 pm
jim
Saguache. Is that where Christo and Jeanne-Claude want to cover the river?
November 5, 2008 at 7:13 pm
andrew
Saguache was more Democratic in 2008 vs 2004. Fewer total votes for McCain than for Bush, too.
November 5, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Ben Alpers
Well, grackle, I often say that Oklahoma votes like the Deep South on a twenty-year tape delay (though it’s demographically quite unlike the South: fewer African Americans, more Native Americans, more whites). Until the big Republican gains of the 1990s, the Congressional delegation was largely Democratic (mostly conservative, but with the occasional Synar or Fred Harris). Dems still outnumber Republicans in registrations. And this election put the State Senate in Republican hands for the first time since statehood (the House has been controlled by the GOP for four years already; they also had it for a few years in the 1920s).
So we’re about at 1988 now; I expect we’re only beginning to see the peak of Republican dominance in the state. Six counties went for Gore in 2000. Not a single county went for Kerry or Obama. However, the counties containing the major university towns (Cleveland and Payne) as well as Tulsa are among the white counties on that map above (i.e. they didn’t vote more heavily for McCain than they did for Bush in 2004). Oklahoma is one of the very few states that was better for McCain than for Bush. This year was really pretty sweeping for the GOP: two corporation commission seats, Inhofe’s reelection, capturing the Senate, gains in the House (extending their majority to 61-40). About the only bright spot for the Democrats, I suppose, was Congressman Dan Boren’s reelection. But his district is overwhelmingly Democratic. And he’s pretty much the worst Democrat in the House.
But there are several local factors that helped McCain in particular this year. First, this is an overwhelmingly military state and McCain’s biography plays very well here. Secondly, it’s an oil-and-gas state, so “drill baby drill” was a very popular message (one of those GOP corporation commission candidates even had his young son chant it in a campaign ad). The Palin pick and McCain’s opposition to ethanol play very well here. Third, the state has the perfect size African American population to fall into what Greg Sargent labeled the race chasm in the primaries: Obama did best this spring in states with huge or tiny African American populations. Oklahoma is 7.8% Black, perfect to encourage racism not cancelled out by large numbers of black votes. And because Obama was clearly not going anywhere in this state (both Edwards and Clinton were much more popular among OK Dems), I think he never had much presence here, so he never built his brand.
Add some classic Oklahoma xenophobia and this race was kind of a perfect storm for the Oklahoma GOP. Thank goodness they’re out of step with the rest of the country.
November 5, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Robert Halford
I think this map just confirms a long-standing trend in declining Democratic strength in the Appalachian South, since the 1990s, that became very apparent in 2000, when formerly solid blue West Virginia went for Bush. I think the simplest the explanation here that there were a significant number of white up-country Southerners who voted Democratic long after whites in places like southern Mississippi had become solidly Republican, stayed voting Democratic through the Clinton era, and then have switched increasingly over time to resemble the low-country white southerners more closely (Clinton and Gore both, of course, were an upcountry Democrats and West Virginia was one of the most reliably Democratic states in the Union until 2000).
Obviously, Obama’s race played a part in his losing this block in this election, but the trend has been visible for a while.
And I have no idea how to explain or think about Oklahoma.
November 5, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Matt Weiner
I am surprised that both the counties with major universities showed no Obama lean.
If I didn’t screw up the map, both Cleveland County (UO) and Payne County (OSU) did shift toward Obama a little, though not as much as Oklahoma County. Or do you mean that Obama didn’t carry them? Because if those schools are anything like Texas Tech, I wouldn’t be surprised if the students start out pretty conservative.
November 5, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Ben Alpers
Well OU students are pretty conservative, but most Cleveland County voters are not connected with OU. It’s a big county by our standards–around 210,000 people. And OU is a small flagship university (under 30,000 students).
Payne County (pop. c. 68k), on the other hand, is more dominated by OSU (c. 23k students), whose student body is almost certainly more conservative than OU’s.
November 5, 2008 at 7:44 pm
urbino
It’s hard to understand how Oklahoma, which according to the graph has moved the most Republicanward
Really? From the map, it looks to me like AR gets that particular booby prize.
Well, grackle, I often say that Oklahoma votes like the Deep South on a twenty-year tape delay
Heh. I often say AR is 10-20 years behind the rest of the nation. Whatever the big new thing is in the rest of the nation (voting Republican, the George Foreman Grill, indoor plumbing, you name it), it’ll start arriving in AR in 10 years.
I think this map just confirms a long-standing trend in declining Democratic strength in the Appalachian South, since the 1990s, that became very apparent in 2000, when formerly solid blue West Virginia went for Bush. I think the simplest the explanation here that there were a significant number of white up-country Southerners who
I still don’t see the upcountry connection. Nor does it seem to be particularly Appalachian. I mean, clearly it is Appalachian in Appalachia, but most of the area of the red counties isn’t in Appalachia.
November 5, 2008 at 7:48 pm
grackle
Nice analysis, Ben. Thanks. I suppose that the fall of the Democratic party in OK parallels the fall from power of Gene Stipe, who was the subject of a very amusing New Yorker profile a number of years ago.
November 5, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Ben Alpers
….parallels the fall from power of Gene Stipe…
Yes. In fact, the big catalyst for GOP gains in the state legislature were the term limits that Oklahoma adopted in the late 1990s. The legislature had been full of rural Democrats who’d been in office forever. Stipe was an extreme case, serving in the legislature from 1949-53 (in the House) and from 1957-2003 (in the Senate).
I think he was just recently ruled incompetent to stand trial on corruption charges.
November 5, 2008 at 8:56 pm
bitchphd
I think the Appalachia thing is attributable to class. A lot of Appalachia is still grindingly poor and shockingly uneducated, and my guess is that people there are probably more anxious about change, more inclined to fear blacks (or black achievement) as a threat to their own social standing (the whole “I might be at the bottom but there’s someone I can look down on” thing), and, if women have more children earlier in life (which would be my guess), more defensive about the perception that the pro-choice movement looks on early childbearing as a moral wrong. Plus possibly the role of the churches there.
Those are all guesses, though.
November 5, 2008 at 9:05 pm
bitchphd
And I don’t get the Colorado thing at all–you’d think it would be Colorado Springs, which I guess is in El Paso county, but it’s Saguache county, which according to the Rocky Mountain News, went for Obama. Maybe someone colored the wrong county red?
November 5, 2008 at 9:14 pm
urbino
Maybe the mapster was just getting into the Obama spirit — red states are blue states, blue states are red states, …
November 5, 2008 at 10:23 pm
grackle
My guess is that its the areas of Fremont and Custer counties, not Saguache? Those two were solidly for McCain with the big state prisons and ranching areas. In Colorado, it’s fascinating that there are contiguous paths of counties, south to north on the west that were for Obama, surrounded on both sides by Republican counties. Probably liberal mountain-second-home double voters from California and the East.
November 5, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Louis
To me, this doesn’t look like a map of the South. It’s the Old Southwest – - ARK, OK, LA, TN, KY- – with East TX and Appalachia. That’s a very different region from SC, NC, AL, MS, etc. So we’re missing something if we blame it all on the continuing success of the notorious Southern Strategy.
To deconstruct it further: the Mississippi Delta got hammered by Katrina in ’05 and is now more Republican. I’m not the least surprised by that. Indeed, isn’t the deep red at the very terminus of the Delta in fact New Orleans?
November 5, 2008 at 11:19 pm
ari
To me, this doesn’t look like a map of the South. It’s the Old Southwest — ARK, OK, LA, TN, KY — with East TX and Appalachia. That’s a very different region from SC, NC, AL, MS, etc.
This seems right to me. Though I’m not sure where to go from there.
Indeed, isn’t the deep red at the very terminus of the Delta in fact New Orleans?
Nope, New Orleans is further inland. That’s probably Plaquemines or St. Bernard Parish. Without being able to blow up the map, I can’t tell for sure.
November 5, 2008 at 11:21 pm
ari
I’m hurting my eyes here, but I’m pretty sure it’s Plaquemines Parish.
November 5, 2008 at 11:21 pm
eric
That’s a very different region from SC, NC, AL, MS, etc.
Yes: fewer black people, I think.
November 5, 2008 at 11:22 pm
ari
Sorry, I should have said “upriver” rather than “inland” above.
November 5, 2008 at 11:31 pm
urbino
It’s the Old Southwest — ARK, OK, LA, TN, KY — with East TX and Appalachia. That’s a very different region from SC, NC, AL, MS, etc.
Here I go being Negative Nate, again. Northern Alabama is actually very similar to eastern Tennessee, and northern Mississippi to western Tennessee.
Or. Wait. Your point is not that every subregion in each of your two lists is dissimilar to every subregion in the other list, but that the two collections of states, taken as whole regions, are historically cohesive and distinct, right?
Circle one: Yes No
November 5, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Colin
less detail, but another nice aggregate presentation:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/11/a-simple-swing.html
once you strip out favorite son/daughter effects the story is pretty stark. Brad credits this to http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/blog/
and while I can’t find quite the same graph there, Gelman’s blog is a geek’s delight.
November 6, 2008 at 12:07 am
Colin
found it, I think.
http://redbluerichpoor.com/blog/?p=206
November 6, 2008 at 8:42 am
John Emerson
The map graphs movement between 2004 and 2008, right? These are not maps of the most-Republican areas, or the places where white people are the most Republican. Just the ones that reently became more Republican than they had been. Overwhelmingly white counties populated by Southerners explains most of it. Delayed Republicanization of the uplands, part of it. Geographically, it’s Appalachian-Ozarkian.
Oklahoma isn’t upcountry, but Okies and Arkies seem to be spoken of together a lot.
Forget the geogrpaher’s name of it, but Appalachia and the Ozarks are places where, if you stop there for a generation, your family will never be able to afford to leave. Newfoundland is another such place. “Sink” and “sump” are the names that come immediately to mind, but I know that they’re wrong.
November 6, 2008 at 11:10 am
In the provinces
Those counties are also the heartlands of American evangelicalism, where a lot of people believe that Obama is the Antichrist, or at least a portent of the coming of the Antichrist. They weren’t going to vote for Satan.
November 6, 2008 at 11:24 am
silbey
hese are not maps of the most-Republican areas, or the places where white people are the most Republican. Just the ones that reently became more Republican than they had been. Overwhelmingly white counties populated by Southerners explains most of it. Delayed Republicanization of the uplands, part of it. .
Second that analysis. This is the finalization of the regional realignment that brought the South firmly into the Republican camp. A similar realignment now has the northeast firmly in the Democratic camp.
November 6, 2008 at 12:47 pm
xaloc
Emerson and Silbey sound right to me.
It’s also worth noting that these are places, especially OK, AR, and TN, that the Obama campaign hardly contested, in the primaries or after. Not to take much comfort from this, since these are surely hard places for Obama to win, but the fact that this is precisely where the campaign chose to expend very little effort is surely relevant. Take a look at the Delta counties along the Mississippi in southeast Arkansas, compared to the demographically very similar counties across the river in Mississippi.
November 6, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Larry Cebula
It is map of Scots-Irish settlement–I am surprised it did not jump out at anyone else! Look at this:
http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/maps/ancestry/us/irish.gif
November 6, 2008 at 1:09 pm
andrew
Considering that Colorado seems to be wrong – are there other errors? – and that some of the “more Republican” areas actually voted for Obama but by less than they voted for Kerry, and that some of the changes are only 1-2%, I wonder if any firm conclusions can be drawn from this map.
November 6, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Laura
Okay, I’m not through all the comments, but I have to butt in. Some of you may be right about Appalachia–poor, uneducated, racist, whatever. But it’s also true that the Dems don’t go there. My dad, who lives in East Tennessee and votes Democratic (despite his county going 65/35 McCain), said that if the dems would just show up in these places once in a while, they might make some headway. But the dems all make these assumptions about what these places are like and don’t want to go near them with a 10-foot pole.
For the record, Appalachia was less like the Old South during the Civil War because they just didn’t want to be involved. They were really more libertarian than anything.
I lived in Arkansas for 6 years in the late 90s. Another trend there has been local Republicans. Mike Huckabee has been governor there and many other local politicians are Republican. So they’re hearing a Republican message more often. In Indiana (another place I’ve live), they’ve been trending toward some Democratic politicians for local positions (including governor for a while).
Because the people are poor, the states are poor. Arkansas is ranked 48th or 49th in public education. In many ways, it’s a vicious cycle.
I still think that more Democrats need to go to these places. No, they’re not likely to win at first, but the more people hear the message, the more likely it might be the message will get through.
November 6, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Dan S.
“I wonder how this map matches the infamous “American” demographic (i.e. people who identify their ethnic group as “American” on the census).”
Pretty well, if not quite as perfectly as the Scots-Irish (ok, “Irish”) one Larry links to – after all, in a lot of cases we’re talking about the same groups. See Webb’s Born Fighting, Bageant’s Deer Hunting With Jesus – for popular works, or esp. Fischer’s Albion’s Seed.
November 7, 2008 at 2:55 pm
clew
I don’t have a geologist’s map of coal and oil resources, but if I were shown the redshift map without context, it’s probably what I would guess.
The Scots-Irish correlation is quite something.
November 7, 2008 at 3:01 pm
urbino
if the dems would just show up in these places once in a while, they might make some headway. But the dems all make these assumptions about what these places are like and don’t want to go near them with a 10-foot pole.
I agree with you and your dad, Laura.
November 20, 2008 at 9:41 am
Planet NITLE » Blog Archive » Appalachia and Other Reflections
[...] discussion of the blue/red map of the 2008 election at Edge of the American West. I think the commentary is very much on the money that the areas which went more strongly to McCain [...]