Red And Blue By County Not States

[cirrus]

I found this map in USA Today to be interesting. Comments?

Here is the free link....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...4/countymap.htm

 

[Seatacus]

Yeah, population density leads to brain damage. ( just kidding)

 

[USAir757]

Yeah, population density leads to brain damage. ( just kidding)

HEY HEY!

No, but seriously... this is an interesting model. This would be a step in the direction of a popular vote..... WHY NOT????

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

What this map tells me is something I have firmly believed for a long time, not that it is any great revelation.....

The Republican party is for the independent. The Democratic party is for the interdependent.

Before someone takes a slap at me, I am not denigrating members of either party. Allow me to explain.

If you live in a densely populated and heavily urbanized area, you are going to have a different outlook on things than someone who lives in a more bucolic, rustic, rugged, wide open sort of space.

Take New York (please). Seriously...you have a heavily urbanized area where everyone relies on public transportation, people are jammed together in apartments, and due to the sheer density of the population people have to cooperate to get along.

In Montana......Lea County, New Mexico.......Brewster County, Teaxs...folks have no such issues. You can drive a hundred miles and never see another vehicle. If you break down...you don't call a cab or AAA. None of that exists. You have to paddle your own canoe.

Start looking at core philosophies of the political parties. The Democrats stress government doing things for people...and always have. Raise taxes so we can provide more and better social services. No health insurance? Let the government health plan take care of you. The Democrats have seldom met a societal problem they could not or would not address with a program.

The Republicans, on the other hand...are a lot stingier with government largesse. They would just as soon reduce taxes so that there isn;t much money to throw around on government programs. Yeah, there's a safety net, but the Democrats want it made of something four ply with no holes...the Republicans are more comfortable with the safety net being made of mesh.

Your densely populated urban areas contain a lot of people who are used to subordinating their will for the common good....simply because in such a crowded area they have no real choice. Folks from the less densely populated "wilder" areas are much more accustomed to standing on their own two feet and not having to rely on others for anything---and many of them would just as soon keep it that way.

So the map is not a surprise and it really doesn;t mean anything, except there is a nearly perfect correlation between cultural geography and voting habits.

 

[Fly]

Looks obvious...the HIGH RENT DISTRICTS vote Democrat. Can you find your house? Guess if you are Ma and Pa Kettle, you vote for the kool-aid folks.

 

[The Dissident]

What this map tells me is something I have firmly believed for a long time, not that it is any great revelation.....

The Republican party is for the independent. The Democratic party is for the interdependent.

Before someone takes a slap at me, I am not denigrating members of either party. Allow me to explain.

If you live in a densely populated and heavily urbanized area, you are going to have a different outlook on things than someone who lives in a more bucolic, rustic, rugged, wide open sort of space.

Take New York (please). Seriously...you have a heavily urbanized area where everyone relies on public transportation, people are jammed together in apartments, and due to the sheer density of the population people have to cooperate to get along.

In Montana......Lea County, New Mexico.......Brewster County, Teaxs...folks have no such issues. You can drive a hundred miles and never see another vehicle. If you break down...you don't call a cab or AAA. None of that exists. You have to paddle your own canoe.

Start looking at core philosophies of the political parties. The Democrats stress government doing things for people...and always have. Raise taxes so we can provide more and better social services. No health insurance? Let the government health plan take care of you. The Democrats have seldom met a societal problem they could not or would not address with a program.

The Republicans, on the other hand...are a lot stingier with government largesse. They would just as soon reduce taxes so that there isn;t much money to throw around on government programs. Yeah, there's a safety net, but the Democrats want it made of something four ply with no holes...the Republicans are more comfortable with the safety net being made of mesh.

Your densely populated urban areas contain a lot of people who are used to subordinating their will for the common good....simply because in such a crowded area they have no real choice. Folks from the less densely populated "wilder" areas are much more accustomed to standing on their own two feet and not having to rely on others for anything---and many of them would just as soon keep it that way.

So the map is not a surprise and it really doesn;t mean anything, except there is a nearly perfect correlation between cultural geography and voting habits.

[post="198140"][/post]​

Talk about hitting the nail on the head

 

[NWA/AMT]

The Republicans, on the other hand...are a lot stingier with government largesse.

[post="198140"][/post]​

What you say about Republicans being historically more fiscally conservative was once true, but is not currently accurate. George Will, whose conservative Republican credentials no one could seriously question, wrote in his recent excellent column The Deflation of Politics:

"In Bush's four years, the annual increase in discretionary domestic spending has been 5.6 percent—more than twice the annual average during Clinton's eight years (2.2 percent) and not much below Lyndon Johnson's Great Society spree (6.6 percent). And in their book "The Right Nation," a study of conservatism's current condition, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge report: "In the five years running up to 2002, state legislatures controlled by Republicans increased spending an average of 6.54 percent a year compared with 6.17 percent for legislatures run by Democrats." Come January, Republicans will have serious intraparty strife about spending."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6369713/site/newsweek/

The dichotomy of decreasing taxes while increasing spending is one of the things that led me to leave the Republican party in the first place.

Thanks for a very insightful post. I would think that the differences you outline are at least part of the explanation for the divisions in our nation.

I would like to think that both sides would be able to work together, but judging by the animosity I've seen on this BB in the last few days, I wonder if it's possible. Considering that the Governor of California is already referring to the Democrats in his state as "Losers" and wondering publicly why anyone would listen to them, it seems that 'olive branches' are in short supply already.

 

[MiAAmi]

In Montana......Lea County, New Mexico.......Brewster County, Teaxs...folks have no such issues. You can drive a hundred miles and never see another vehicle. If you break down...you don't call a cab or AAA. None of that exists. You have to paddle your own canoe.

[post="198140"][/post]​

There are still under priviledged people in all these areas that need help when its available, and its the high tax base in the urban areas that help provide the funding for building those long roads through your acres and acres of farm land. Our taxes also help subsidize the farms out there. Subsidize air service to small communities and so on. You may not need to call a cab or AAA but you do call on the federal govenment quite a bit.

 

[KCFlyer]

Tex....speaking for Missouri, it boils down to this...guns and gays.

And that's why I have trouble calling myself "conservative" any more. If you quit your job, reducing your household income, yet spend money like you got a heft raise instead, there is nothing conservative about that. Cutting the "income" of the government while spending record amounts is fiscally irresponsible. They used to call them "tax and spend liberals", but at least they were getting that money to spend from someplace. Conservatives have become "just spend". It's especially irresponsible to cut the revenues to the government in times of war.

 

[MrAeroMan]

Looks obvious...the HIGH RENT DISTRICTS vote Democrat. Can you find your house? Guess if you are Ma and Pa Kettle, you vote for the kool-aid folks.

[post="198143"][/post]​

The people in the "HIGH RENT DISTRICTS" vote Democrat so they can have their share of the tax burden shifted from them onto someone else. The Democratic party says they want to shift the tax burden to the richest people in the country but what they don't tell you is the richest people in the country don't have high incomes. What they do have is wealth and wealth is not taxed. They have their money in trusts and tax exempt or tax deffered shelters. Look at Warren Buffet. His salary from Berkshire Hathaway is miniscule compared to other CEO's. He has wealth and wealth is not taxed. So when a Democrat says they want to lower the taxes paid by the middle class remember their definition of middle class is around $20,000.00 in yearly income and those they consider rich are those making over $40,000.00. Move over George and Weezie....we're moving on up!

 

[KCFlyer]

The people in the "HIGH RENT DISTRICTS" vote Democrat so they can have their share of the tax burden shifted from them onto someone else. The Democratic party says they want to shift the tax burden to the richest people in the country but what they don't tell you is the richest people in the country don't have high incomes. What they do have is wealth and wealth is not taxed. They have their money in trusts and tax exempt or tax deffered shelters. Look at Warren Buffet. His salary from Berkshire Hathaway is miniscule compared to other CEO's. He has wealth and wealth is not taxed. So when a Democrat says they want to lower the taxes paid by the middle class remember their definition of middle class is around $20,000.00 in yearly income and those they consider rich are those making over $40,000.00. Move over George and Weezie....we're moving on up!

[post="199200"][/post]​

Gosh...you might find this article interesting. Yeah...it's a parody, but what makes it so damn funny is that it's so true.

 

[sentrido]

I found this even more interesting:
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004...tates_feed.html


Oh, and like I have saide before, read this if you really want to know about taxes.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/159...2595065-3407818

 

[sentrido]

this too:
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004...grams_of_t.html