Where McCain Did Well: Poverty, Race, and the Vote against Obama
Via Yglesias, check out this interesting map showing where McCain did well in ’08 in relation to Bush in ’04.
It makes sense that he would do better in Arizona and Alaska, as well as in the Florida panhandle and parts of Georgia (given his military record), but his strength was clearly in that dark-red swathe that, from west to east, begins in Oklahoma, sweeps across Arkansas, Tennessee, and northern Alabama, dipping down into northern and eastern Texas, as well as most of Louisiana, and then moves to the northeast into eastern Kentucky, West Virginia, the western tip of Virginia, and, ultimately, southwestern Pennsylvania.
What to make of this? Well, it’s not entirely clear. Why northern Alabama but not, so much, northern Mississippi? In fact, why Mississippi hardly at all? (Without looking into it closely, I suspect that high black turnout had a lot to do with it.) Similarly, why not South Carolina? (Perhaps because Obama did well there in the primaries and there was lingering anti-McCain sentiment from 2000.)
Well, I would suggest that it has more to do with Obama than with McCain. In a word: race.
The dark-red swathe doesn’t correspond to Appalachia strictly speaking, and of course there is racism all over America (in Idaho, for example, where there is no red at all), but these are states with substantial working-class white populations, and where Obama had problems during the primaries — Hillary won Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, and, of course, Pennsylvania (although there were other factors at work there, such as the fact that she had the Democratic establishment behind her). The only exception is Louisiana, which Obama won, and where there is a large black population, even post-Katrina, in New Orleans. In fact, other than Louisiana, these states don’t have any major urban areas with large black populations — other than Memphis, Tennessee, perhaps. There is no Atlanta in Arkansas or West Virginia, for example.
North Carolina, which isn’t red, is an interesting exception. Obama seems to have won it narrowly, significantly outperforming Kerry. Along with Virginia, it seems to be trending blue.
One other thing: The dark-red swathe isn’t just predominantly white, it’s also exceedingly poor. So it seems that McCain did well — actually, did his best — in a part of the country that is poor and white. Again, though, that no doubt had much more to do with the colour of his opponent’s skin than with anything about McCain himself.
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
8 Responses to “Where McCain Did Well: Poverty, Race, and the Vote against Obama”
Your guess on northern Mississippi versus northern Alabama is essentially correct. The northwest corner of Mississippi is dominated by suburbs of Memphis and the Delta. The Delta counties in particular are heavily black (many are majority black). As you move East to Tupelo and farther, the percentage of whites increases and that's true across northern Alabama. Pulaski, TN, just over the border from northern AL was once a center of the Klan.
Via the LA Times, Presidential voting results county-by-county. Still surprisingly red/pink overall:
http://projects.latimes.com/graphics/2008-presi…
Great link, AR. Thanks.
I guess since Utah is already one of the “reddest” States, I'm not surprised it didn't show up this type of comparison. Well, that and support for McCain seemed more lackluster if I was to judge by the strange dearth of McCain bumper stickers and yard signs.
AustinRoth – sure, the map is red, if you go by the size of the county, instead of the population.
Here's a similar map, where the size of the counties are skewed based on their population: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/20…
And another map, where there are gradations of purple instead of just red and blue: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/20…
Suddenly the map isn't so red anymore.
More here: http://matthigh.livejournal.com/330305.html
And especially here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/
ml -
Um, if you are trying to point out that Obama received more votes, and more of the electoral college, well, duh.
I was making no point, just printing a map from that bastion of Conservatism, the LA Times, that shows that urban areas are more Democratic and rural areas more Republican.
I just hadn't expected it to still be so geographically disparate still. I had expected more blue was all, hence my modifier of 'surprisingly'.
It is an intriguing map, still. When I first looked at it, I thought about making some claim about “perhaps the greatest cultural divide now is between rural and urban voters.” But that's not quite right either. There are many rural areas as well that are blue, such as the Delta or South Texas. So one might be tempted to say it's a cross-section of race (with the Delta being largely black and S. Texas being largely Hispanic) and “ruralness”, but that's not quite right either. After all, Vermont is almost entirely a rural state and it's as blue as it gets, while the upper midwest has many blue rural counties. There's not simple explanation for the map.
Those who are blind or mentally ill will never see things clearly. Race was obviously not the issue the wacko left assumed it would be (and the worst of whom probably still believe it is). Have you ever seen (clearly) a depiction of the black population distribution in the USA, Mike?
Like this one, that some of us have known about for _years_?
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/images…
No, and it wouldn't be of any use in your case, probably.
To be more specific here, look closely (other readers; it's over Mike's head) and realize that in large part it's the Bible Belt, and what is one group that voted strongly for McCain, the GOP candidate?