November 11, 2004

Mandate

We're all familiar with the red/blue map of the Presidential election, showing the President winning in "flyover country" while Senator Spitball claimed the "urban states" through the power of their higher percentage of urban residents to rural. This map is relevant because the winner of each state is credited with all of that state's electoral votes. As it was, the map looked pretty lopsided in favor of the president if you count land mass. But what if you consider the map by county?

Election 2004 by county.bmp

Even in the states that Kerry won the total land mass he represents is a minority of the state. How little of California, Oregon, Washington, Pennsylvania, Minnnesota, New York... did Kerry actually win? Very little.

Even more revealing is this statistic: Population of counties won, Bush 150.9 million, Kerry 103.6 million. If you assume that the winner of all counties is representative of the values of all residents of all counties then if every American voted Bush would have had a 50 million voter mandate. (This compares to a 148 million to 133 million advantage for Bush over Gore in 2000.)

Posted by JohnGalt at November 11, 2004 09:27 PM
Comments

Good thing land masses don't vote.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 12, 2004 02:00 PM

Touché. What interests me is that the urban-rural divide that created the Federalist Republican system is still so pronounced 200+ years later.

I can't think this map insignificant, however. If the red counties continue to outgrow the blue, as I suspect, there is real opportunity for realignment and a Republican majority.

Posted by: jk at November 12, 2004 02:16 PM

Yes, you're right, of course Silence - and I meant to make that disclaimer but it was left in the back of my mind during the rushed late-night posting. But JK is only scratching the surface of my true point here. The old "silent majority" of the 80's is still out there. Bush beat Kerry by 4 million votes, but the population of the counties he won beats Kerry's three to two. A Republican majority doesn't need to be created, or gerrymandered, just motivated to go vote.

One thing I will say about the tremendous disparity in red vs. blue turf is that if there really are "two America's" then ours is bigger, and ours is the one that feeds and powers the other. (All the liberals who vowed they'd leave the country if Bush won don't have to go that far. Just move from whatever red state you live in to one of the blue ones. Please!)

And finally, in light of Osama bin Lardass' "threat" against American states that vote for Bush, I think it's safe to say that those of us in flyover, gun totin', pickup drivin', stupid ass hick country have spoken and we told that Islamo-fascist son of a bitch to "bring it on."

Posted by: johngalt at November 12, 2004 11:11 PM

You could be very right JK, the red counties are growing faster than the blue, but I think there are two issues here that could affect your conclusion that a more pronounced Republican majority will result. Fist, some of the growth is de-urbanization, those pesky blue folks moving out into the red zones. Whether they will adopt more Republican stances or bring their Democratic views with them is the question. The second is that growth also brings a new generation, who may or may not agree politically with their parents.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 13, 2004 08:22 PM

Why on earth would pesky blue folks want to move away from urban blue nirvana? It's a world created in the image of everything they hold dear.

Anecdotally, I'm continuously amazed that there seem to be a representative number of conservative offspring in every generation, given that the only youth opinions we seem to hear about are those of the blue kids.

Posted by: johngalt at November 14, 2004 08:50 AM

Really? I have been amazed in the last few years how many young conservatives I meet. I used to consider youth and liberalism twins. I think JK has the most probable reason that they are motivated by the optimism of Reagan and the bright future he preached. Sadly I think the liberals have won some good battles and are now searching a bit too far and wide for windmills to tilt at. Ideas like racial and gender equality have become mainstream, but many liberals who could have embraced the mainstream with them have instead continued to search for causes to rail against.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 15, 2004 08:48 AM

I have always believed in Plato's "Generation of opposites" but the statistics are contrary. I recall seeing that 80 or 85% of people keep the party affiliation of their parents.

Many of those leaving the blue counties, by the fact of their leaving, might be a little redder by nature.

As I have mentioned, I am a broken-glass Republican but I enjoy the accoutrements of living in a blue county. The politics of Boulder are between insane and inane, but the coffee shops and restaurants produce a better quality of life. I still have not figured out why the great gifts of conservatism and good coffee seem to be mutually exclusive. Vexing.

Posted by: jk at November 15, 2004 11:18 AM

I agree that coffee shops and restaurants produce a better quality of life than if they weren't there, but whether urbanity is more or less livable than rurality is a matter of considerable opinion.

The dearth of designer coffee houses in red counties is strictly a market phenomenon: Republicans are more likely to brew their bean of choice at home and save the three-dollar premium of having it done for you, while you wait, and delivered in one of two and a half billion paper cups annually (and that's just Starbucks!) The same dynamic that compels some to rent instead of owning their home apparently has the same effect on their coffee preparation logistics.

Lifestyle advice from Toyota: "You can have a brand new pickup truck for less than the cost of three soy-mocha-latte's per day!"

Posted by: johngalt at November 18, 2004 01:18 PM

hate to say this JK, but I think you might be a member of the elite, just not conservative. I'm liberal but a bit of a coffee hick as I go into Starbucks and order "coffee". In fact I am not even sure of the meaning of "I raise my super-dry-breve-half-caf-cappucino to you! " I understand how a martini can be dry, but coffee escapes me.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 18, 2004 01:26 PM

Guilty, guilty, and guilty. I would hav0e moved to a red county long ago except I know I would miss the coffee shops and restaurants. Lafayette, Colorado gives me a small town feel (although it is growing like mad), some accoutrements (six places to get a cappuccino), and I am 11 miles from Boulder and 25 miles from Downtown Denver.

I have always toyed with the idea of moving to Socorro, NM but I have come to realize that I would not be happy. I'm stuck in the blues...

I once suggested to Sugarchuck that the answer was to start my own coffee shop in Crofton, NE. He assured me they would run me out of town if I tried to sell a cup of coffee for $3. And I do like that Toyota commercial -- it's funny and the actress is stunning.

Today's tip: a cappuccino is espresso topped with milk foam. In the US, it typically includes some steamed milk as well. Breve means it is made from half-and-half or table cream instead of milk, dry means all foam and no liquid milk. Mmmmm, I think I'll walk across the alley to the Trident -- now I am thirsty!

Posted by: jk at November 18, 2004 01:52 PM

Full agreement on the Toyota commercial, it is very funny! Hey, we have to celebrate full agreement when we get it, no matter how small a concept. So, let's see that would be full agreement on good beer, good coffee, good humor, and beautiful women. As guys that could keep us in conversation for hours.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 19, 2004 08:34 AM
| What do you think? [11]