Saturday, November 06, 2004

Voting: Free versus Slave States

Sensory Overload contributes what is probably the most disturbing map pair of the entire series: How did the Free States vote, and how did the Slave States cast their ballots?


Then_map_2

Now_map_2


Oh, how far we've come...

via Sensory Overload

Posted at 06:06 AM in Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00d83457497e69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Voting: Free versus Slave States:

» Voting: Free vesus Slave States from BOPnews
Sensory Overload contributes what is probably the most disturbing map pair of the entire series: How did the Free States vote, and how did the Slave States cast their ballots? Oh, how far we've come... via Sensory Overload... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 6, 2004 6:09:00 AM

» http://www.petebevin.com/subblog/archives/#002258 from Links
See how far they've come?... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 6, 2004 1:31:05 PM

» moRe: So many conservative christians from tribe.net: bigpicture.typepad.com
Here's another aspect of the situation: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writ... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 19, 2006 2:11:08 AM

Comments

although I am a Bush supporter (mainly because he is Pro Life), I do agree that those maps are a bit disconcerting. In many instances I favor a more liberal agenda such as helping the homeless, education etc. I don'tmuch care for the corporate culture of greed, corruption, explotatin and sleaze that many Bush supporters just adore.....DJR

Posted by: Dennis | Nov 6, 2004 6:29:11 AM

i think the only thing this really shows is that this cultural/geographical division is nothing new. this country has been split along these lines for quite some time and over many different issues.

of course the one thing that is really strange about this map is how while the divisions have been constant the parties have not. if you were to map the parties to the civil war map the blue and the red would have been reversed. Honest Abe was a republican after all.

Posted by: micah | Nov 6, 2004 10:27:22 AM

>I am a Bush supporter (mainly because he is Pro Life)

Can you say duped?

Bush is not Pro Life. Look what he is doing in Iraq (civilian casualties). Look at what he is doing about world hunger (nothing). Look at his energy policy (he's basically counting on the second coming to solve that problem, it looks like).

If you're talking about abortion, everyone is against that. Bush even opposes abortions to save the life of a dying mother. Do you call that Pro Life?

Posted by: Pro-Lifer | Nov 7, 2004 5:46:35 PM

the number of abortions in america has gone up substantially since bush took office, compared to a nearly 20+ year record low by the end of clinton's administration.

Posted by: pirates | Nov 7, 2004 8:50:44 PM

yea, that makes sense, who'd want to raise a kid in this world now?

or it is the foolishness of the powers that be sticking to misleading sex education, and kids getting way to sexy to soon.

don't blame the media when YOUR daughter is the whore. take a look in the mirror.

Posted by: vadvaro | Nov 7, 2004 10:22:50 PM

And, Dennis, don't forget that your pro-life Bush, while governor of the great state of Texas, signed off on 153 executions -- More than any other state in the U.S. Several of these executions were of people whose guilt was legitimately questionable. A couple were of mentally retarded folk.

Let's do the math: 153 executions + 100,000 killed in Iraq + 1,273 "coalition" deaths = 101,426 deaths your pro-life Bush has on his hands. I doubt there's a single abortion doctor who has a similar 8-year record.

Sorry, Dennis, You were duped. Bush is NOT pro-life. In fact, you may have very well voted for the least pro-life candidate the country has ever seen.

Posted by: Queixa | Nov 8, 2004 7:02:07 AM

Why are you people bashing Dennis? That is just mean. You are telling him he is dumb ("you've been duped").

What has energy policy to do with abortions? That is just a plain irrelevant (stupid?) argument.

Look again at his comment. Dennis is a liberal Christian and helping poor people IS the message of Jesus. It's a liberal message. Protecting children both from death and poverty is also his message.

The problem with the Right Wing is that they want to protect children from death (good), but are not going to protect them from hunger and poverty (bad) by making sure that their parents have a decent income (minimal wage, health insurance, etc. ).

Shouldn't that be the Democratic message?

Posted by: just wondering | Nov 8, 2004 9:53:04 AM

Calling Kansas a slave territory is somewhat disingenuous, given their history and the whole Bleeding Kansas war w/ Missouri over the issue of slavery (Kansas, known locally as a Free State -- was determined to remain so). Lawrence, KS (Home of KU) was attacked more than once by Missouri militias because they were opposing slavery in their territory. John Brown defended the city in one battle!

Posted by: Bill | Nov 8, 2004 7:15:15 PM

Dennis doesn't sound dumb to me, nor do I think he has been duped. Rather, the reason he offers for thinking of himself as pro-Bush is a good illustration of why it's dangerous to be a one-issue voter.

Focusing on a single issue seems like an easy way to make decisions. In reality, it only narrows the vision to the point where one ends up overlooking the elephant sitting in the middle of the living room.

Posted by: Gayle | Nov 8, 2004 8:25:16 PM

This country was founded because our founding fathers were trying to escape religious control in Europe. Religion was never meant to ever be an issue on why the people vote on a president. Yet it was in this election along with fear. The Wall Street Journal said that the majority of Americans are more concerned with morals than they are concerned with domestic policy or foriegn policy. That's ridiculous! Our founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if they knew our president was elcted out of fear and religious beliefs. Look at the results of his actions. Look at everything, really look at it. Don't be driven by emotions. We are in a deficit when we had a surplus, price of gas is almost doubled, our country is truely divided, our rights are being threatened, I could keep going for awhile. If you don't believe in abortion than don't have one! Don't take away others rights because you think it's a sin. Religion has no place in government. We need to run this country on logic and balance and not shove chritianity down everyone's throat. A truely great leader would never add religion, selfish desires, and the good of the minority (upper class) before the good of the entire people as a whole. He would have a pure desire to improve this country as a whole and become more advanced and reliant on foriegn imports (such as oil!)Republicans bitch that they don't want to pay for unemployment, welfare, and on on, but what would happen if they had everything taken from them. I know damn well they would take full advantage of what our system has to offer and they should. This country is like one big tribe and we need to look out for each other and if you are only interested in yourself than go move to a secluded island and get the hell out of here. You wouldn't survive because we need other people to survive and make our lives content. So stop being so damn selfish and have a little empathy and be willing to share. It's only money and material things, do you really need it, besides the minimum to survive? You can't take it with you, the only thing you really have is the person you choose to be and you can take that with you.

Posted by: sam | Nov 9, 2004 2:59:04 PM

We've lost Ohio and Indiana. Damn. Gene Debs is groaning in his grave in Terre Haute.

Posted by: Marc Brazeau | Nov 10, 2004 1:33:56 AM

It's a disservice to the idea of coherent discourse to suggest that the 2004 Presidential voting patterns are related to race to the degree these maps are purported to suggest.

If you want race related election maps, look at 1964 and 1968 and the impact Johnson had on the political landscape.

1964
http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/thumbnail452.html

1968
http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/thumbnail469.html

Posted by: Alzahr | Nov 10, 2004 9:25:58 AM

To ensure peace and tranquility in North America, we need to change borders.

The Blue States and Canada should merge into a new country, the United States of Canada. The Red States can then become The Military Theocracy of Jesusland.

Posted by: Sweet Jesus | Nov 10, 2004 10:56:11 AM

Click here to see the correlation between each State's Average I.Q. and which Presidential candidate they voted for:

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

Posted by: Swwet Jesus | Nov 10, 2004 11:13:01 AM

And how exactly do these two correlate?

Posted by: Toast | Nov 11, 2004 5:13:59 PM

Read http://www.thestranger.com/2004-11-11/feature.html , then look at the I.Q. chart again. I suspect that any apparent lack of correlation is explained by higher-I.Q. urbanites in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Oregon.

Posted by: Kate | Nov 15, 2004 6:22:17 PM

Having a fair background in debate, i was often able to talk my conservative friends out of most of their arguements: pro-life (using Pirates and Quexia's arguements), seperation of church and state, economic policy... but the final stronghold of conservative belief that seems always inviolable is the notion that somehow, GWB has a record of being tough on terrorism, tough in general, and a good commander in chief.

i think the idea is moronic to say the least! but perhaps because of some macho idea, or because it was always the last one left, i could never persuade a single conservative to see my perspective. and these peers generally aren't stupid or blind- they're students and Johns Hopkins for Christ's sake...

well, that is my disclaimer, that what i say may be completely fruitless, but i have to keep trying. Now, assuming we don't even bother to consider the substantial failures of GWB in the campaign thus far, is he really the necessary commander in chief? Bush, it seems, is a little more than gung-ho about waltzing right in to anywhere to fuck up some shit. All in the name of preventing the proliferation of (nonexistent) WMD's to terrorists and protecting America from attacks. This is why he began this country's very first pre-emptive war. War is his staple. His re-election message. It's about all he can do. now, change gears and read something by somebody a lot smarter than me:

"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, scince for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despiceable an ignoreable war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." -- Albert Einstein

The TRUTH, especially relevant to all the Christians out there, and fyi i too was raised episcopal, is that the world needs peace. Terrorists are born out of the crucible of hate and fear that accompanies war and injustice. This country, if indeed we have a need like a small child to have our hand in other people's business, needs for the Iraq war to be the LAST war we ever start. Our resources would better go to fight for the poor, hungry and uneducated in our own country, so that all with the desire can achieve the means to make something of themselves. Abroad, there is still Genocide, albeit in countries without oil reserves. There are numerous places where every election spells heinous persecution for the losing party. Let's send our armies THERE if anywhere. And if our nation wants to retain a foothold as the pinnacle of economic success and power in the world, then we need to stop wasting our resources in a sinkhole like War. China isn't quickly approching superpower status, it's already there! And if our message as a country is War, then we are doomed to reap it sooner or later.

Everyone who reads this, i beg of you, please keep an open mind and try to truly understand the world. Listen carefully to the opinions of everyone who disagrees with you, without exception.

Posted by: James Barker | Nov 18, 2004 1:21:07 PM

If only we had been able to keep that pre civil war distribution, then Kerry would have won. Amazing that Ohio and Indiana are more conservative than they were in 1860. The map shows that Lincoln wouldn't win today.
Interesting.

Posted by: Lymond Young | Nov 18, 2004 6:14:53 PM

If only we had been able to keep that pre civil war distribution, then Kerry would have won. Amazing that Ohio and Indiana are more conservative than they were in 1860. The map shows that Lincoln wouldn't win today.
Interesting.

Posted by: Lymond Young | Nov 18, 2004 6:15:38 PM

"It's a disservice to the idea of coherent discourse to suggest that the 2004 Presidential voting patterns are related to race to the degree these maps are purported to suggest."

Agreed. However, the Civil War had less to do with race than most people imagine. The key thing to recognize is that slavery was primarily an economic issue for the states where it existed because agriculture was their primary economic activity. Meanwhile, the northern states were undergoing major changes caused by industrialization. It is that economic division that is still relevant today.

Posted by: Matt | Nov 18, 2004 11:22:18 PM

The electorate in 2004 was not nearly so sharply divided along regional lines, however — an electoral map just makes it appear that way because of the "winner take all" nature of the U.S. electoral system. Both the popular and electoral vote totals in 2004 were quite close (President Bush won the popular vote by a 51%-48% margin, and a single strongly-contested state such as Ohio could have tipped the electoral vote balance in the other direction), and although the states won by each candidate were largely clumped into regional clusters, both candidates generally ran very strongly even in the states they did not win. An election map with finer gradation (i.e., displaying results on a county-by-county basis rather than a state-by-state one, and providing color shading to reflect the closeness of the vote in each area) would produce a better picture of how strongly both candidates in the 2004 election ran even in states which they lost!

Posted by: TMUNNIE | Nov 19, 2004 11:44:28 AM

Bush is not PRO-LIFE. He is PRO-BIRTH. Once they are born it is then OK to starve them, bomb them, execute them, send them off to WAR ( to protect OIL), and the list goes on. BE

Posted by: Bill Egherman | Nov 21, 2004 2:14:04 PM

I have had enough of the whiny liberals in this nation that publicize asinine links between voting and some obscure demographic data, which in the case of the IQ correlation was falsified and non-existent data.

Liberals boast about being better than the stereotyping republicans, however, liberals stereotype the voters across the country by dividing them into only 52 regions. The real demographic data that the liberals don’t point out is the real reason that Kerry lost the election. Democrats lost because they are not loyal to their party. In the election 11% of democrats voted for Bush while 6% of republicans voted for Kerry.

For those of you who rag on someone about being “duped” into voting for Bush…Why would you vote for someone who was “DUPED” BY BUSH? Kerry voted for the war, and he blames his vote on the fact that he believed Bush. I would rather vote for a leader who might be saying the wrong thing, than the gullible, impressionable, drone who was blindly following the leader. Most liberals never even watched the senate trials on CSPAN, I watched them for school. If you were presented with the same evidence that the senators saw you would have voted for war as well. None of the liberals ever mention that Kerry was for the war before he was against the war before he was before the war before he as against it.

Let me state right now that liberals who label Bush as a slaughterer, use the term when convenient. Liberals blame Bush for going into Iraq for oil and causing so many American casualties. However, at the same time liberals would not allow America to become more independent from Middle Eastern nations by allowing oil companies to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Oil Reserve for fear of killing caribou. Liberals say we can’t drill for oil here and we can’t go elsewhere for it. You have to understand that in the near future we will always need oil and we have to get it somewhere, it does not grow on trees. You whine about the people dying in Iraq, and animals being killed, but they are dying because the way liberals vote they would rather see babies and soldiers die than any animals.

John Kerry was too busy through out the election dragging Bush’s name through the mudd to ever make a solid point on his own issues and evaluate their effectiveness. This is easily seen in his publicized plan to raise minimum wage to $7.00. This would send the nation’s economy down the tubes. Small businesses would collapse and the cost of living would skyrocket.

So please if you want to….go move to Canada. Take your belongings with you, but you will never take any of our states. Go live in the land of handout healthcare where you can be taxed at about 50% of your earnings. Once you lose all your money and go broke remember to keep a dollar and change of your Mountie money laying around. Because it costs a dollar to get back into America, and you will want to so you can suck on the teat of welfare that you voted for before you left.

Posted by: Charles | Nov 21, 2004 11:33:40 PM

Okay first of all the Republican party was founded in 1855 on the basis of anti-slavery. Do a little research before you post a map claiming things like this. Its obvious the country has come a long way when you realize the truth. The democratic party was responsible for the successions of the southern states. In opposition to that was the Republican party.

Posted by: Marc | Nov 22, 2004 2:23:42 PM

It has been VERIFIED over and over that the amount of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Oil Reserve would not be significant AT ALL(couple of years-5 years) and it had be done. So, UNLESS you actually believe that this country is ONLY going to be around here for about 5 more years, yours is NOT A VALID ARGUMENT!! At least bother to get some bare-minimum facts straight before you start your hate-filled rants going.

Posted by: Harven | Nov 24, 2004 9:33:57 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.