The United Purple States of America
A reader pointed out that that many Red States in the 2004 Election only went for Bush by a slim margin (and vice-versa for Kerry), and I have seen many columns which point out that the entire U.S. is really all comprised of purple states.
Look at a county-by-county election map. On November 3rd, a Republican I know chortled (yes, he actually did chortle) that Bush won in a landslide. He told me to look at how most of the country was red counties. He also said to get Mt. Rushmore ready for Bush, but I digress.
Well, let’s take a look. Just three states were 100% Red: Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Alaska. Only three states were 100% Blue: Vermont, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. The other 44 had varying degrees of mixture.
In Texas: we all knew Bush would win by a wide margin. He did (61% overall), but he did not win every county. The southern part of the state, the El Paso area, is lined with Blue counties.
In the South: Bush also won Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas. However, there are a significant number of adjacent Blue counties, from Shelby County in TN (which has Memphis), down into Louisiana and encompassing both eastern Arkansas and western Mississippi. There are a number of adjacent Blue counties running through central Alabama.
Bush won most of the counties in Pennsylvania and Illinois, but lost the Philadelphia and Chicago areas, respectively, and that cost him each state. That pattern is evident throughout the country. If Bush wins ten counties of 5,000 people each, and Kerry wins one that has 500,000, which is more significant? Kerry won heavily in the Northeast, which is more heavily populated than, well, everywhere else.
The bottom line is that within each county there is an unknown number of swing voters. Bush appealed to enough of them to win. Kerry did not. In 2008, can any Democrat? Certainly. Hilary Clinton? John Kerry? Al Gore? Howard Dean? That’s a topic for another day, but suffice to say that very few states are only Red or only Blue.
Look at a county-by-county election map. On November 3rd, a Republican I know chortled (yes, he actually did chortle) that Bush won in a landslide. He told me to look at how most of the country was red counties. He also said to get Mt. Rushmore ready for Bush, but I digress.
Well, let’s take a look. Just three states were 100% Red: Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Alaska. Only three states were 100% Blue: Vermont, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. The other 44 had varying degrees of mixture.
In Texas: we all knew Bush would win by a wide margin. He did (61% overall), but he did not win every county. The southern part of the state, the El Paso area, is lined with Blue counties.
In the South: Bush also won Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas. However, there are a significant number of adjacent Blue counties, from Shelby County in TN (which has Memphis), down into Louisiana and encompassing both eastern Arkansas and western Mississippi. There are a number of adjacent Blue counties running through central Alabama.
Bush won most of the counties in Pennsylvania and Illinois, but lost the Philadelphia and Chicago areas, respectively, and that cost him each state. That pattern is evident throughout the country. If Bush wins ten counties of 5,000 people each, and Kerry wins one that has 500,000, which is more significant? Kerry won heavily in the Northeast, which is more heavily populated than, well, everywhere else.
The bottom line is that within each county there is an unknown number of swing voters. Bush appealed to enough of them to win. Kerry did not. In 2008, can any Democrat? Certainly. Hilary Clinton? John Kerry? Al Gore? Howard Dean? That’s a topic for another day, but suffice to say that very few states are only Red or only Blue.
posted by Wounded Liberal at 10:32 AM
<< Home