| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| 2004 Election Explained: Red state population increasing, Blue states declining |
| 2004-11-09 |
| Don't have all the data, but these two maps, plus one killer data point, showing the county-by-county results from 2000 and 2004 most likely tells the story. In short, the red-blue split, by county, was almost exactly identical in 2004 to 2000 (with the notable exception of a few Florida Gulf Coast counties). In other words, the map remains the same as in 2000. However, note one telling statistic above the 2000 map: "GROWTH IN 1990-1999 OF COUNTIES WON: Gore = 5%, Bush = 14%." Assuming that this trend continued in 200-2004, simply straightlining it over these four years yields growth in blue counties of ~2.2% and growth in red counties of ~6.2% for a net gain in votes of 4% by the red states, especially those in the southwest and Colorado. Assuming that turnout by Dems increased at roughly the same rate as turnout by Republicans, this would largely explain Bush's shift from being down 500,000 popular votes to winning by 3,500,000 popular votes. Implication: the sunbelt rules, especially the high growth states like Florida, Colorado, and the other southwestern states. A party that, aside from the left coast, is competitive only in the declining rustbelt and northeast is a losing party. |
| Posted by:lex |
| #10 OldSpook: my husband suggests that your comment beautifully demonstrates the application of Darwinism to Secular Humanism. |
| Posted by: mom 2004-11-09 11:25:30 PM |
| #9 Abortion. Liberals have them, conservatives do not. Middle class Families. Conservatives have them, Liberals do not. Long term married people - live longer. Conservatives do, Liberals do not. Regular churchgoers tend to live longer. Conservatives do, Liberals do not. Any wonder Conservatives are outnumbering Liberals? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-11-09 11:17:12 PM |
| #8 Here are some very cool maps showing states and counties by population, rather than physical size, and the "color" of counties based on percent red or blue (in other words, most are purplish). Click to enlarge. Two surprising things to me: 1) There is a tiny, bright blue blob in the middle of the Mississippi River Valley. That's St. Louis. I was surprised at how it differed from the surroundings. 2) Using GIMP's color picker, I have determined that bluest California is not as blue as bluest northern New Mexico. 3) Furthermore, thanks to GIMP, I can reveal the bluest county in the country (within the limits of the map resolution). That honor goes to (may I have the envelope, please?):Buffalo County, South Dakota. Yes, indeed, blue staters looking for the warm embrace of kindred spirits can go to beautiful Buffalo County, Population 2,032 souls (2000 census), nearly 82% of them Indians. (I detect the odor of rat.) |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2004-11-09 11:10:49 PM |
| #7 true, angie, which is why most sunbelt cities are not the hotbeds of religious fervor that northern liberals suppose them to be. Seems pretty obvious that, in the future, the winning formula for the sunbelt will be more libertarian than lib or conserv. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-11-09 9:00:10 PM |
| #6 Do not forget that part of the population growth is due to migration from other parts of the US. When blue staters move to a red state, they do not automatically adopt red state attitudes. |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2004-11-09 8:01:23 PM |
| #5 There are things that even conservative Californians like myself would miss if we left here. Being a Native Son of the Golden West I refuse to be run out of my own state by a bunch of liberals that mostly wern't born here. It's too much fun screwing with them. We are slowlty taking the state back. I am all for turning the Bay area and LA area into city states as a solution. Look at the Red counties. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-11-09 5:38:20 PM |
| #4 Bomb-a-rama, I'm sure with your skills you could get a good job in another beautiful tech-focused area that pays as well as your current one. Utah, Colorado, Texas Hill COuntry: all have outstanding tech companies and you can own a nice house there. I left the Peninsula a year ago and haven't looked back. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-11-09 5:11:08 PM |
| #3 No, it's the New Economy effect, combined with refugees from f*cked-up high-tax anti-business blue states like California. Which states are growing rapidly and will continue to grow rapidly over the next four years? Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico. All of these went for Bush, and all are tied to hgih-growth new economy employers. Other high-growth states include Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia. Again, all of these are weighted increasingly toward new economy and service jobs, and all went for Bush. Only Washington State breaks this rule. Which states are shrinking and will continue to shrink over the next four years? The high-tax, low-growth states dominated by our industrial dinosaurs: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Jersey, New York. Bush won Ohio because of Columbus and the southern counties, which, like western suburbs of Chicago, are increasingly aligned toward pro-growth economic policies and which are attracting new companies and new employees. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-11-09 3:45:36 PM |
| #2 The wacky lefties in large metro areas are driving non-lefties away. I myself can barely tolerate being so close to SF. If it weren't for the friends I have here and the decent-paying job I have (high-tech engineering), I'd have left long ago. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-11-09 3:38:20 PM |
| #1 Taranto's Roe Effect? |
| Posted by: BH 2004-11-09 3:25:00 PM |