Three Maps
Mark Newman posted a bunch of interesting maps over on his site, one of which Drudge is using as his banner illustration. Here's the way Tuesday's vote broke down, by county:
But here's the way it looks when it's squished and expanded to express population densities -- i.e., where people who live in the most populated states voted:
You can see the problem. We're sweeping the states where not a lot of people live -- Texas excepted -- and they're sweeping the states where lots of people live.
So, add onto the list of things Republicans need to do to win elections: have a strategy to win the cities and especially the larger exurbs.
Finally, over at New Geography, Joel Kotkin -- who is always interesting -- has another way to look at the electorate:
We keep wondering here about what Republicans should do to win the next big election. I don't have the answer. But these maps are telling us something. We don't have to win the cities, but we do need to win the suburbs and exurbs of metropolitan areas. We don't have to win the Bailout Belt, but we do need to connect to blue collar whites in Ohio and Michigan. We don't have to win the Old Country, but we do need to connect to libertarian Live-Free-or-Die types in New Hampshire.
Lots of work to do.
- Comment (59)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (15)
Comments:
Aug '12
Re: Three Maps
This is the same problem evangelical churches are facing. For the past 8 or so years, there has been a concentrated effort from churches to reach out to cities.
It's probably worth studying the tactics and success levels of evangelical start-up churches in major city centers.
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 7:57pmNov '12
Re: Three Maps
The difference between maps #1 and #2 is easy to explain - it's called the Electoral College distortion.
The fix is even easier - have Republican Governors start pushing legislation in their states (Constitutional amendments would be better), that electors will be apportioned by county rather than winner takes all for the entire state. PA almost did that after the 2010 midterms.
This will fix the problem where dense population centers get to determine the entire state's choice for POTUS.
Sure, it's a gimmick, but it will do a lot to fix the problem of every election being decided by 6 or 7 "battleground" states.
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 8:04pmOct '10
Re: Three Maps
"We keep wondering here about what Republicans should do to win the next big election." I don't.
"I don't have the answer." I do - http://bit.ly/SIfxyT
May '10
Re: Three Maps
But Rob, this is the map from that series that was interesting to me:
We are not divided into red and blue. We are purple. Even Texas. Which I think reinforces your point. It's not about winning over states or even counties. It's about winning over individuals. About being persuasive. And that's where we failed. We didn't define the terms well enough, and we didn't make the case well enough.
Sound bites and gotcha moments are insufficient for this challenge. This is about intelligent, persuasive and positive messages. Not about what we don't like, but about what we do like.
And it means engaging where it matters -- out in the wide world of the mainstream media, not inside the bubble. So kudos to you for writing for TIME. And I think it's time for more of the National Review glitterati to get onto the main stage.
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 8:05pmMay '11
Re: Three Maps
I resent Washington state being considered Ecotopia in its entirety. Those of us east of the mountains still have a little bit of sanity!
May '10
Re: Three Maps
P.S. How is Alaska in Ecotopia and not Empty Quarter?
Oct '10
Re: Three Maps
SunnyOptimism: The difference between maps #1 and #2 is easy to explain - it's called the Electoral College distortion.
The fix is even easier - have Republican Governors start pushing legislation in their states (Constitutional amendments would be better), that electors will be apportioned by county rather than winner takes all for the entire state. PA almost did that after the 2010 midterms.
This will fix the problem where dense population centers get to determine the entire state's choice for POTUS.
Sure, it's a gimmick, but it will do a lot to fix the problem of every election being decided by 6 or 7 "battleground" states. · 7 minutes ago
Edited 5 minutes ago
I actually would love to see someone like Adam S. analyze what the outcome of past elections would have been if this were the case. Nebraska and NH or Maine have something like this. Obama actually one some electoral votes in NE in 2008 as a result.
Dec '10
Re: Three Maps
That big blue balloon at the left of the middle map -- the one we call California -- is leaking. I'd be interested in seeing this population-weighted map for the years 1992, 2000, and 2008 as well.
I expect that in the wake of this year's state elections in California, which have delivered all of the state government into a veto-proof Democratic majority, the population of California will accelerate its decline as Democratic policies accelerate the decline of the state's economy.
Mar '11
Re: Three Maps
Rob Long:
So, add onto the list of things Republicans need to do to win elections: have a strategy to win the cities and especially the larger exurbs.
With all due respect, I find this statement quite naive.
Ever since humans began to congregate around navigable waters, urban residents have favored stronger central governments than rural residents. To say that all we need to do is win over cities is akin to saying all we need to do to stop dying is eliminate disease.
Nov '12
Re: Three Maps
Stuart Creque: That big blue balloon at the left of the middle map -- the one we call California -- is leaking. I'd be interested in seeing this population-weighted map for the years 1992, 2000, and 2008 as well.
I expect that in the wake of this year's state elections in California, which have delivered all of the state government into a veto-proof Democratic majority, the population of California will accelerate its decline as Democratic policies accelerate the decline of the state's economy. · 1 minute ago
Our family (along with our evil 1% income) decamped from CA to AZ back in July. When we drove out on I-8, I made a point to stop at the sign near Yuma saying that we were leaving CA and I got out on the side of the road and shook the dust from my sandals (a little Biblical reference there). My wife and kids thought I was nuts.
Best spiritual, cultural, family and financial decision we ever made!
Oct '10
Re: Three Maps
Right. Ecotopia should really just be the counties west of the Cascades in Washington and Oregon, and west of the Central Valley in California.
May '10
Re: Three Maps
Has there ever been a point in human history when population density did not correlate with immorality and centralization of power?
There are many reasons. Among them, big cities rely heavily on trade, which involves importing cultural outsiders. Ever more people of ever more diverse ideological and ritual backgrounds means citizens are constantly confronted with opposing ways and views. Multiculturalism, as it is called today, is the inevitable result. People tire of defending their own views, and few know how to defend them against so many alternatives (let alone understand those alternatives), so those citizens are tempted to give up the struggle and to accept the vague notion that we can all get along by simply ignoring each other. Critical thinking require effort.
Manners often break down with population density. You can't hold the door for everyone or you will be standing there all day. You can't tip your hat to every lady or your hand will never leave your hat. So many losses of the little things add up.
There are a hundred reasons cities tend to be liberal. We should certainly contest for city voters, but don't expect to win big cities except by degree.
Oct '10
Re: Three Maps
Mendel
Rob Long:
So, add onto the list of things Republicans need to do to win elections: have a strategy to win the cities and especially the larger exurbs.
With all due respect, I find this statement quite naive.
Ever since humans began to congregate around navigable waters, urban residents have favored stronger central governments than rural residents. To say that all we need to do is win over cities is akin to saying all we need to do to stop dying is eliminate disease. · in 1 minute
You sure about that or that that means Republicans can't win? I honestly don't know the data. Look at this list of the History of the Mayors of Detroit. There's a lot of history (and as a result a lot of potential explanations) embedded in there, but it does show Republicans once knew how to win cities.
May '10
Re: Three Maps
West Virginia, part of the Confederacy?
May '10
Re: Three Maps
Three nations after the fiscal implosion and breakup:
E Pluribus Tres
Mar '11
Re: Three Maps
SunnyOptimism:
The fix is even easier - have Republican Governors start pushing legislation in their states (Constitutional amendments would be better), that electors will be apportioned by county rather than winner takes all for the entire state. PA almost did that after the 2010 midterms.
I don't think this fix is easy at all - in fact, I imagine it's downright impossible.
Why would voters in Philadelphia cede the relative weight of their vote to the residents of rural counties? I can't imagine any state legislature actually passing a law which gave some of its citizens more voting power than others.
JACK
Nebraska and NH or Maine have something like this. Obama actually one some electoral votes in NE in 2008 as a result.
NE and ME apportion their electoral votes (mostly) by Congressional District, which is much different than apportioning by county - CDs in one state have roughly the same population, counties don't.
Mar '11
Re: Three Maps
JACK
Mendel
Rob Long:
So, add onto the list of things Republicans need to do to win elections: have a strategy to win the cities and especially the larger exurbs.
Ever since humans began to congregate around navigable waters, urban residents have favored stronger central governments than rural residents.
You sure about that or that that means Republicans can't win? I honestly don't know the data. Look at this list of the History of the Mayors of Detroit. There's a lot of history (and as a result a lot of potential explanations) embedded in there, but it does show Republicans once knew how to win cities.
Republicans can certainly win cities - look at Rudy Giuliani. But can conservatives? And even when a conservative does win election in an urban area, it seems to be more an outlier than the norm - at some point, the usual garbage tends to creeps back in.
I don't think urban areas are a hopeless cause, but we should recognize that they inherently push leftward, and a GOP strategy that just says "start winning cities" is probably doomed to failure.
Oct '10
Re: Three Maps
Mendel
JACK
Nebraska and NH or Maine have something like this. Obama actually one some electoral votes in NE in 2008 as a result.
NE and ME apportion their electoral votes (mostly) by Congressional District, which is much different than apportioning by county - CDs in one state have roughly the same population, counties don't. · 0 minutes ago
Yes, I was aware of that. My point in mentioning it is that there is potential to have something other than a winner takes all approach. CD has the benefit of not being open to an accusation of being skewed by population, like county. I'm curious what the map would look like if done by CD.
Re: Three Maps
What we see in these maps is the tyranny of the urban over the exurban, suburban and rural areas of the country.
I'm going to write a separate post on this, but it's high time that states considered awarding electoral votes by congressional district (whether those districts are gerrymandered or not, I don't care). It would just be more fair for everyone.
Also, we wouldn't have the candidates ignoring the country and pandering to voters since all that matters are 4-5 states.
Re: Three Maps
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.: What we see in these maps is the tyranny of the urban over the exurban, suburban and rural areas of the country.
I'm going to write a separate post on this, but it's high time that states considered awarding electoral votes by congressional district (whether those districts are gerrymandered or not, I don't care). It would just be more fair for everyone.
Also, we wouldn't have the candidates ignoring the country and pandering to voters since all that matters are 4-5 states. · 0 minutes ago
This is from a leftist site that doesn't like the plan, but looks like other people are thinking this way already.