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:
Feb '12
Re: Three Maps
I mostly agree with you, Trace. We do need to do a much better job at persuading, at defining terms, at making the big picture, moral argument. As an optimist, I believe that as well, and I'd like to think that if we did that, people would join us.
However:
Trace:
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.
This is where the realist/pessimist in me takes over and says, "I'm not so sure about that."
Sound bites and gotcha moments are what won Obama his re-election. He ran a campaign of zero substance, zero specifics, zero big picture philosophy. It was all childish name calling, mockery and negative broadbrushes, not a whit of "intelligent, persuasive and positive messages."
It worked. Big time. How, I've no idea.
I'd like to think that America would respond to an inspiring, positive center-right freedom philosophy message. I really would. But when I see how the Twitterization of the electorate has dumbed down society to this degree, I think that ship may have sailed.
Mar '11
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. · 2 minutes ago
I think this idea has promise--especially in these large states that are overwhelmingly dominated by urban populations, this idea effectively checks their power to control the election.
Mar '11
Re: Three Maps
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.:
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.
No offense, Mollie, but whenever someone of our persuasion talks about making something more "fair," it sends a slight shiver up my spine.
What is "unfair" about the current system? That winner-takes-all makes any vote for the loser in a state worthless? But our entire electoral system is built on winner-take-all, at all levels: otherwise we would look more like Europe.
The problem is that our electoral system is not based on anyone's vote being equal to anyone else's. If it we start calling for people's votes to "count" more, expect that same argument to be used against the Electoral College as a whole.
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 9:06pmMay '10
Re: Three Maps
Mendel
The problem is that our electoral system is not based on anyone's vote being equal to anyone else's. If it we start calling for people's votes to "count" more, expect that same argument to be used against the Electoral College as a whole.
And the Senate.
Next thing you know, they'll claim voting is inherently unfair because it has a "disparate impact" on the poor and minority Americans who don't turn out in the same proportions as other Americans. So we'll have an affirmative action system to give extra weight to their votes in order to make it fair.
Re: Three Maps
Mendel
No offense, Mollie, but whenever someone of our persuasion talks about making something more "fair," it sends a slight shiver up my spine.
What is "unfair" about the current system? That winner-takes-all makes any vote for the loser in a state worthless?
The problem is that our electoral system is not based on anyone's vote being equal to anyone else's. If it we start calling for people's votes to "count" more, expect that same argument to be used against the Electoral College as a whole. · 1 minute ago
Well, states are allowed to award their electors any way they wish. There's nothing sacred about the winner-take-all model, is it? It made sense when legislators were awarding delegates but it couldn't be more broken. It's not even about the unfairness within a state but the way in which "safe" states create bad national politics (more on this later).
And I say that as a Huge Huge Huge defender of the electoral college. I mean, I was worried that if Romney won the popular vote and lost the electoral college, our side would question the virtue of the EC.
Sep '12
Re: Three Maps
I betcha the guns per capita in the red areas are far higher than in the blue areas. We had at least 8 in my house growing up.
As a son of Eastern Washington, I can tell you that it's darn hard for a Democrat to win an election east of the Cascade Mts. I know because I campaigned for several who failed. I can also tell you that few liberals buy memberships in the Bellevue Gun Club, which is cracking every opening hour and located in WA-8, which although mostly located in Democrat stronghold King Cty. reelected Dave Reichert (R).
What I'm getting at is that the U.S. is a big roiling stew of demographic contradictions and conflicts wondering who the heck cooked up this malicious recipe. Those of us who are armed know the answer to this question and can answer it in a language universally understood.
Dec '10
Re: Three Maps
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Mendel
No offense, Mollie, but whenever someone of our persuasion talks about making something more "fair," it sends a slight shiver up my spine.
What is "unfair" about the current system? That winner-takes-all makes any vote for the loser in a state worthless?
The problem is that our electoral system is not based on anyone's vote being equal to anyone else's. If it we start calling for people's votes to "count" more, expect that same argument to be used against the Electoral College as a whole.
Well, states are allowed to award their electors any way they wish. There's nothing sacred about the winner-take-all model, is it? It made sense when legislators were awarding delegates but it couldn't be more broken. It's not even about the unfairness within a state but the way in which "safe" states create bad national politics (more on this later).
Maine and Nebraska already allocate their electors by Congressional district.
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. · 1 hour ago
Okay, fine, it's naive. But is there another way to win? We've ceded metropolitan areas -- cities and suburbs -- to the other side. No what? They have more people, and "more people" is what you need to win elections.
Jun '10
Re: Three Maps
Do we really have work to do? Consider this from Marc Thiessen:
The people didn't vote for this President because they like his policies. They don't understand the policies, and don't care. They voted for someone who makes them feel good and has the same skin color as they do.
Enough with the 65 year old white guys. Start putting young, attractive diverse people on the ticket. THAT is how you win Presidential elections in the 21st century. I'm not saying it is necessarily good, but it is reality. Romney lost 80% of the young (18-30) minority vote, which cost him the election.
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 9:58pmMay '10
Re: Three Maps
Mendel
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.:
...
No offense, Mollie, but whenever someone of our persuasion talks about making something more "fair," it sends a slight shiver up my spine.
Edited 38 minutes ago
Instead of "unfair" how about "crazy?"
It would force candidates to campaign to a wider spread of the country instead of tailoring a message, and spending $100 million to deliver it, to 50,000 low information "swing" voters in Ohio who vote for a candidate because he looks cool in a bomber jacket at a disaster relief photo op (or because of the libidinous relief that comes from pulling his lever, or whatever).
Re: Three Maps
If the big cities have the votes, then how does one get this change?
Mar '11
Re: Three Maps
LOL. From now on, I'm calling Montana and Wyoming the Rub' al Khali.
I posited in another thread that we're not really a red nation and a blue nation, but several nations inside an increasingly artificial political construct that no one is really comfortable in. When nations get too big, their people get too disparate, and they often break up.
Mar '11
Re: Three Maps
Rob Long
Mendel
Okay, fine, it's naive. But is there another way to win? We've ceded metropolitan areas -- cities and suburbs -- to the other side. No what? They have more people, and "more people" is what you need to win elections.
Great. I shoot my mouth off thinking that Rob is on his way to the NR cruise and will never respond, then get my bluff called.
Well, I don't have a cure-all. I do think the suburbs should be the main battleground for the GOP - especially young families who have recently moved from the city. I sense there are a number of well-educated, responsible thirtysomethings who are knee-jerk Democrats but open to reason.
Downtowns are probably more difficult. I think here it might be best to find a city (Detroit?) that is in desperate need of some conservative principles and attempt a turn-around. The example effect might be much more powerful trying to persuade people in NY or Oakland on principle alone.
The best we can hope for might not be GOP victories, but Democrat politicians warming up to more conservative policies.
Mar '11
Re: Three Maps
Mark Wilson
And the Senate.
Next thing you know, they'll claim voting is inherently unfair because it has a "disparate impact" on the poor and minority Americans who don't turn out in the same proportions as other Americans. So we'll have an affirmative action system to give extra weight to their votes in order to make it fair. · 42 minutes ago
They've had ideas before on how to give more weight to minority votes, mainly stuff like a race-based version of proportional representation. Say Hispanics are 15 percent of an electorate. PR would guarantee them 15 percent of the political representation. You get the idea.
Mar '11
Re: Three Maps
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Well, states are allowed to award their electors any way they wish. There's nothing sacred about the winner-take-all model, is it? It made sense when legislators were awarding delegates but it couldn't be more broken. It's not even about the unfairness within a state but the way in which "safe" states create bad national politics (more on this later).
I look forward to reading your post on this, so I'll just say that unintended consequences lurk around every corner, and hold off until your post comes.
Re: Three Maps
Mendel
Rob Long
Mendel
Okay, fine, it's naive. But is there another way to win? We've ceded metropolitan areas -- cities and suburbs -- to the other side. No what? They have more people, and "more people" is what you need to win elections.
Great. I shoot my mouth off thinking that Rob is on his way to the NR cruise and will never respond, then get my bluff called.
Well, I don't have a cure-all. I do think the suburbs should be the main battleground for the GOP - especially young families who have recently moved from the city. I sense there are a number of well-educated, responsible thirtysomethings who are knee-jerk Democrats but open to reason.
The best we can hope for might not be GOP victories, but Democrat politicians warming up to more conservative policies. · 12 minutes ago
Hah!
You know, I think you're 100% correct: we need to win the suburbs. Those are Republicans. And they're a little bit more socially liberal than the party, but I think that is okay, provided we seem like we're all living in the same world.
Mar '11
Re: Three Maps
Rob Long
Mendel
Rob Long
Mendel
we need to win the suburbs. Those are Republicans. And they're a little bit more socially liberal than the party, but I think that is okay, provided we seem like we're all living in the same world.
This is exactly my thinking as well.
Based on some of the discussion on social conservatism bouncing around the site today, I admit to some pessimism about whether the party can back off some positions (such as opposition to gay marriage) enough to lower the innate antipathy many new-exurbians may feel toward the GOP.
That's why I could also see a new class of Democratic politicians rise up to capture the "socially-liberal-but-fiscally-conservative" demographic. The question is then, would we accept those politicians into our fold long enough to pass entitlement reform?
Aug '10
Re: Three Maps
Throwing a couple of ideas out there, with no data to back them up, so don't get mad at me if they aren't terribly good ideas:
For the bailout belt, how can Republicans make a distinction between private sector unions and public sector unions? Or, how can Republicans reach out to those unions which are more free-market oriented and/or whose relationship with their members are more democratic and service-oriented?
In other words, what can Republicans do to be seen less as "anti-union", and more as "anti-corruption" or "anti-coercion"?
Mar '11
Re: Three Maps
Nick Stuart
Mendel
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.:
...
Instead of "unfair" how about "crazy?"
Our system certainly has its share of absurdity - and understandly so, as it was not designed to function this way.
But the Congressional District scheme does little to alleviate that problem. It would still involve winner-take-all jurisdictions - so instead of having 50 statewide elections with 8 of them being competitve, we would have 435 elections with 75 of them being competitive.
Candidates would still avoid any wasting time/money in any CD that is heavily slanted toward one party, and would still play the superficial popularity contest in CDs where the R/D ratio approaches 50/50. The main difference would be that rural and inner-city Ohioans and Pennsylvanians would now be ignored, while the suburbs around Chicago and Denver would be innundated.
In other words, same [expletive], different place.
Aug '10
Re: Three Maps
- Obamacare is the law of the land, but that doesn't mean that 2700 pages of onerous regulations and red tape cannot be pared back. In four years when Obamacare's negative effects are felt, how can Republicans promise to make Obamacare work, since the electorate seems to be adamant about some form of federal involvement in health care? How can Republicans promise to get the Obamacare bureaucrats off of citizens' backs, without scaring voters that they're going to lose the perceived benefits of Obamacare?
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 11:18pmTalk less about what you would have done if you had been president, and talk more about what you will do when you are president.
It's no use criticizing the auto bailouts now. They're done. What will you do for rust-belt workers going forward?
There should be a strong, disciplined, cohesive congressional campaign to talk to the electorate about legislative issues, and a strong, disciplined presidential campaign to talk to the electorate about executive issues.
Presidential candidates shouldn't lose because the Democrat is promising stuff that isn't within his jurisdiction. That's when the congressional campaign team can step in to offer Americans their vision.