great extensive new polisci analysis, the 10 regions of US politics

[Bombtrack]

http://www.massinc.org/Commonwealth/new_map_exclusive/beyond_red_blue.html

http://www.massinc.org/Commonwealth/new_map_exclusive/ten_regions_index.html

I've got 2 words Clark-Graham 2004.

[Bombtrack]

1. bump

.

[Tummler]

2. Fascinating

That should be a MUST-READ for any self-respecting DUer.

Thanks for the link.

[Tummler]

3. An excerpt

Three of our regions have voted Republican in every election since 1964. SAGEBRUSH, which includes most of the Rocky Mountain states and a piece of northern New England; SOUTHERN COMFORT, which follows the Gulf Coast and reaches up to the Ozarks; and the FARM BELT, which stretches from Ohio to Nebraska but leapfrogs the Mississippi River. Two others lean Republican, but have boosted Democrats from time to time. APPALACHIA, which follows the mountain range from Pennsylvania to Mississippi, supported Jimmy Carter in 1976 but abandoned him in 1980 and backed the GOP ever since. SOUTHERN LOWLANDS, which stretches from Washington, DC, to New Orleans, stayed with Carter in 1980 and supported Clinton twice in the 1990s but rejected northerners Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis, not to mention Gore in 2000.

Three regions have flip-flopped in a dramatic way, voting for Carter in 1976, switching to Reagan in 1980 and 1984, then going Democratic in the past four elections: UPPER COASTS, which includes most of New England and the Pacific Northwest; GREAT LAKES, which takes in such cities as Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo; and BIG RIVER, which follows the Mississippi from Duluth to Memphis. NORTHEAST CORRIDOR, which runs from Bridgeport to Bethesda, followed the same course except that it snubbed Dukakis and waited until 1992 to switch back to the Democrats - and stayed there. Finally, EL NORTE, which stretches from Los Angeles to Brownsville, Texas, and also includes the Miami area, backed Republican candidates from 1968 through 1988 but more recently supported Clinton and Gore.

**snip**

Finally, from a strategic perspective, the 10-region model shows each party where they can (or have to) win in order to take the presidency. In 2000, both parties won four regions by solid margins; no amount of politicking was going to change that. But four isn't enough to win, no matter how much you pump up the vote in your base. As we saw that year, even winning the popular vote doesn't do the trick if you can't nail down a fifth region, and a sixth is better still. Candidates can rack up votes - popular and electoral - by driving up turnout in the regions that like them best, tipping the outcome in states divided by region, or by expansionism, spreading the influence of friendly regions into adjacent territory.

But the real beauty of the 10-region map is that it gets beyond red vs. blue reductionism, introducing shades of purple. The American electorate is a big, variegated mass of humanity, and a small shift of votes in the right place can swing an election.

[Bucky]

4. kick. And everybody bookmark this puppy

This is a nice fresh look at the country and explains a lot of the voting patterns that I've been noticing.

[Tummler]

5. Another kick

...for this important piece.

[Octafish]

6. Great read, Bombtrack!

Thanks for the info! Classification helps understanding ... and action.

[HFishbine]

7. Doesn't hold up

Central and eastern North Carolina are supposed to be geopolitically similar to southern Georgia, according to this analysis. Yet, voting patterns suggest otherwise (Gore red, Bush blue):





from: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/frametextj.html

[Jacobin]

9. The map makes no sense at all for Louisiana

None. Zip. Zero. Nada. It is completely random and says nothing about the demographics and voting patterns.

It has urban New Orleans lumped in with North Louisiana and nothing could be further from the truth.

you could do better with darts thrown at a map.

Can't speak for the rest of the map.

[bearfartinthewoods]

8. two other word...Kerry Edwards

[Redneck Socialist]

10. Must read

Damn that's good stuff.

[mb7588a]

11. I've studied similar maps...

and none of them hold wieght because region is a much smaller factor in voting than we think. This shows regional trends, and relies on generalizagions. More than half of Iowa is not in the farm belt? And that half is grouped with Arkansas? Eh. Demographics (ages, education, religions etc) and community type (urban, suburban, rural) are big factors.

Every analysis of this map has to be done side by side with the county by county voting in 2000 (AKA" Sea of Red"):