Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   What 100 years of voting looks like   (salon.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, elections in 2000, Great Plains, red states, swing states, National Republican Party, National Democratic Party, Pacific coast  
•       •       •

5717 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Sep 2012 at 2:18 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-24 01:01:28 PM  
really illustrates when the dixiecrats got abandoned by the rest of the democratic party
 
2012-09-24 01:55:14 PM  
What would be better is a map showing conservative/liberal, not Dem/GOP.
 
2012-09-24 02:20:52 PM  
No whammy, no whammy, no whammy - stop!
 
2012-09-24 02:21:32 PM  

DamnYankees: What would be better is a map showing conservative/liberal, not Dem/GOP.


This. Party labels might be homogeneous for the century, but what they stood for was not.
 
2012-09-24 02:24:36 PM  

Kazan: really illustrates when the dixiecrats got abandoned by the rest of the democratic party


"Got abandoned by"???
 
2012-09-24 02:24:50 PM  
1) the South's steady march away from the Democratic Party, which began sometime around the Depression but didn't really kick into gear until the national Democratic Party embraced racial equality - first at its 1948 convention, then through the Civil Right Act of 1964 (Al Gore couldn't even carry his native Tennessee); 2) the mass rejection of the modern, Southern-dominated, religion-infused national Republican Party

Fark the South.
 
2012-09-24 02:28:31 PM  
Would it be impertinent of me to suggest that the electoral changes reflected in the map ought to move FORWARD in time, not backward? I want to see how the voting patterns shifted and developed.
 
2012-09-24 02:32:23 PM  
Would have been more interesting to see presidential vote via district. This red state / blue state really paints the wrong picture of a pretty purple country.
 
2012-09-24 02:33:33 PM  
Funny seeing all that blue in the south. But hey, Republicans freed the slaves. No party realignment. Nothing to see here.
 
2012-09-24 02:34:16 PM  

Huck And Molly Ziegler: Would it be impertinent of me to suggest that the electoral changes reflected in the map ought to move FORWARD in time, not backward? I want to see how the voting patterns shifted and developed.


and maybe if it moved a bit slower, let it really soak in instead of 100 years in 60 seconds

/also, babies come with hats :D
 
2012-09-24 02:34:26 PM  

phaseolus: Kazan: really illustrates when the dixiecrats got abandoned by the rest of the democratic party

"Got abandoned by"???


Yea, 'jumped ship' seems the more appropriate visual there.
 
2012-09-24 02:39:09 PM  

DamnYankees: What would be better is a map showing conservative/liberal, not Dem/GOP.


Or federalists vs anti-federalists. More timeless than R/D.
 
2012-09-24 02:39:47 PM  

theknuckler_33: phaseolus: Kazan: really illustrates when the dixiecrats got abandoned by the rest of the democratic party

"Got abandoned by"???

Yea, 'jumped ship' seems the more appropriate visual there.


Kind of puts Reagan's famous quote into a...different context.
 
2012-09-24 03:07:38 PM  
Seriously, the South needs to just go. Real Amurika doesn't want you chunky morans anymore.
 
2012-09-24 03:16:29 PM  

Huck And Molly Ziegler: Would it be impertinent of me to suggest that the electoral changes reflected in the map ought to move FORWARD in time, not backward? I want to see how the voting patterns shifted and developed.


THIS
 
2012-09-24 03:16:44 PM  

pacified: Seriously, the South needs to just go. Real Amurika doesn't want you chunky morans anymore.


Wow...what an enlightened viewpoint you have there. Why, it's not polarized, close-minded, or exclusionist in the slightest.Truly, such a fountain of liberality can only come from a blue state, where everyone is equally open-minded and accepting of people's differences, especially those of viewpoint. It's a shame we don't have more folks like you down here in the south, because none of us would *ever* be able to match such enlightened ways.

/nor understand the irony of what we say
 
2012-09-24 03:23:22 PM  

whistleridge: pacified: Seriously, the South needs to just go. Real Amurika doesn't want you chunky morans anymore.

Wow...what an enlightened viewpoint you have there. Why, it's not polarized, close-minded, or exclusionist in the slightest.Truly, such a fountain of liberality can only come from a blue state, where everyone is equally open-minded and accepting of people's differences, especially those of viewpoint. It's a shame we don't have more folks like you down here in the south, because none of us would *ever* be able to match such enlightened ways.

/nor understand the irony of what we say


The South has held back America for over 225 years. Even in 1789 the South was a joke. The South was all upset because no one lived there, and wanted more power then democracy justly gives them. They convinced the North to create the Senate, giving everyone 2 votes regardless of population, and then got the more power in House because they counted their SLAVES as 3/5s of a person. As Bill Clinton would say, that takes brass.

So now America has been held back by the US Senate, and the 2 votes in every backwards ass tiny Southern state (hell, let's through SD, ND, WY, AK in there too)--because back in 1789, some slave owners whined and cried and used slavery to get power.


We've been paying the price for it ever since.
 
2012-09-24 03:35:32 PM  
The South has has plenty of problems, but it has also been a source of much of America's greatest music, art, and literature.

As far as electoral politics go, let's keep in mind that the worst parts of the county these days are the Southwest and Texas (and the western column of the midwest), not the traditional South per se.

Virginia and North Carolina voted for Obama last election.
 
2012-09-24 03:41:12 PM  

whistleridge: pacified: Seriously, the South needs to just go. Real Amurika doesn't want you chunky morans anymore.

Wow...what an enlightened viewpoint you have there. Why, it's not polarized, close-minded, or exclusionist in the slightest.Truly, such a fountain of liberality can only come from a blue state, where everyone is equally open-minded and accepting of people's differences, especially those of viewpoint. It's a shame we don't have more folks like you down here in the south, because none of us would *ever* be able to match such enlightened ways.

/nor understand the irony of what we say


As a political force, he has a point. The South (tm) sucks, and needs to grow up.

Southerners, however, are generally pretty awesome. I just wish they didn't have such an impact on national politics.
 
2012-09-24 03:42:06 PM  

Bill Frist: The South has has plenty of problems, but it has also been a source of much of America's greatest music, art, and literature.

As far as electoral politics go, let's keep in mind that the worst parts of the county these days are the Southwest and Texas (and the western column of the midwest), not the traditional South per se.

Virginia and North Carolina voted for Obama last election.


Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, unavailable for comment?
 
2012-09-24 03:46:51 PM  

BeesNuts: Bill Frist: The South has has plenty of problems, but it has also been a source of much of America's greatest music, art, and literature.

As far as electoral politics go, let's keep in mind that the worst parts of the county these days are the Southwest and Texas (and the western column of the midwest), not the traditional South per se.

Virginia and North Carolina voted for Obama last election.

Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, unavailable for comment?


Um, Kansas was never a part of the south.

It's true the "deep south" of Alabama/Miss/Georgia/LA is still pretty awful in a lot of ways. Although at least they do produce some fantastic culture (unlike the southwest or most of the middle of the country).
 
2012-09-24 03:49:44 PM  

Citrate1007: 1) the South's steady march away from the Democratic Party, which began sometime around the Depression but didn't really kick into gear until the national Democratic Party embraced racial equality - first at its 1948 convention, then through the Civil Right Act of 1964 (Al Gore couldn't even carry his native Tennessee); 2) the mass rejection of the modern, Southern-dominated, religion-infused national Republican Party

Fark the South.


I agree. And I live in the South.
 
2012-09-24 03:56:14 PM  

gulogulo: DamnYankees: What would be better is a map showing conservative/liberal, not Dem/GOP.

This. Party labels might be homogeneous for the century, but what they stood for was not.


Except that the GOP and Democratic parties of the early 1900s were highly progressive. So both would have been quite a bit to the left of the current parties.
 
2012-09-24 03:57:56 PM  

Bill Frist: BeesNuts: Bill Frist: The South has has plenty of problems, but it has also been a source of much of America's greatest music, art, and literature.

As far as electoral politics go, let's keep in mind that the worst parts of the county these days are the Southwest and Texas (and the western column of the midwest), not the traditional South per se.

Virginia and North Carolina voted for Obama last election.

Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, unavailable for comment?

Um, Kansas was never a part of the south.

It's true the "deep south" of Alabama/Miss/Georgia/LA is still pretty awful in a lot of ways. Although at least they do produce some fantastic culture (unlike the southwest or most of the middle of the country).


I ain't hatin'. But Kansas isn't part of The North either. Which gives it the spurious honor of being so crappy, NOBODY wants to claim it.
 
2012-09-24 04:06:53 PM  
Kansas is pretty obviously a part of the midwest. There are more regions than the South and "the north."
 
2012-09-24 04:15:02 PM  

Bill Frist: Kansas is pretty obviously a part of the midwest. There are more regions than the South and "the north."


Fair. I guess the criteria there is "if you have a smaller population density than 50 people per square mile... you're part of the Midwest."

What about Oklahoma?

/Grew up right around the M-D line, so my concept of This is The North, and This is The South, is a little ... stark.
 
2012-09-24 04:20:16 PM  

Homer Nixon: DamnYankees: What would be better is a map showing conservative/liberal, not Dem/GOP.

Or federalists vs anti-federalists. More timeless than R/D.


I'm voting monarchy
 
2012-09-24 04:49:37 PM  
Oklahoma isn't part of the historic south, but is grouped in with the south by the US government officially.

Personally, I think Texas and Oklahmoa have a bit more in common with the southwest than the traditional south. Just a different environment out there.
 
2012-09-24 05:09:28 PM  
1938 is almost all blue.
 
2012-09-24 05:11:33 PM  

pacified: whistleridge: pacified: Seriously, the South needs to just go. Real Amurika doesn't want you chunky morans anymore.

Wow...what an enlightened viewpoint you have there. Why, it's not polarized, close-minded, or exclusionist in the slightest.Truly, such a fountain of liberality can only come from a blue state, where everyone is equally open-minded and accepting of people's differences, especially those of viewpoint. It's a shame we don't have more folks like you down here in the south, because none of us would *ever* be able to match such enlightened ways.

/nor understand the irony of what we say

The South has held back America for over 225 years. Even in 1789 the South was a joke. The South was all upset because no one lived there, and wanted more power then democracy justly gives them. They convinced the North to create the Senate, giving everyone 2 votes regardless of population, and then got the more power in House because they counted their SLAVES as 3/5s of a person. As Bill Clinton would say, that takes brass.

So now America has been held back by the US Senate, and the 2 votes in every backwards ass tiny Southern state (hell, let's through SD, ND, WY, AK in there too)--because back in 1789, some slave owners whined and cried and used slavery to get power.


We've been paying the price for it ever since.


Conversely, for 150 years, Chicago, New York City, and Boston have been corrupt, de facto racist blights on the pride of our country. First they hated on the Irish and were run by Tamanay Hall and similar types, then they hated on the blacks and were run by Teamsters or the mob, and now they're just run by Rahm, Bloomberg, et al. They've never done a good thing for our country, and the sooner we nuke them from orbit, the better.

/ I can make idiotic and uninformed generalizations too
// dominant trends != everyone, or even overwhelming majorities. yes, we need to reform the south. but that can be said for a lot of places
 
2012-09-24 05:13:10 PM  

deadcrickets: gulogulo: DamnYankees: What would be better is a map showing conservative/liberal, not Dem/GOP.

This. Party labels might be homogeneous for the century, but what they stood for was not.

Except that the GOP and Democratic parties of the early 1900s were highly progressive. So both would have been quite a bit to the left of the current parties.


Progressiveish. There were elements of both parties entrenched in the old ways of doing things. Yes, Byran-style populism found a home in the Democratic Party, and the forward-thinking Republicans gave us Roosevelt and Taft, but they all had to shake off party bosses and the ghosts of Tammany-Hall and the like.
 
2012-09-24 05:51:02 PM  

Bill Frist: Oklahoma isn't part of the historic south, but is grouped in with the south by the US government officially.

Personally, I think Texas and Oklahmoa have a bit more in common with the southwest than the traditional south. Just a different environment out there.


As a Texan, I reflexively refuse attempts to group Texas in with the South. But this impulse has basis in fact - as you say. Plus, Texas is a vast area geographically. The border has much in common with the Southwest; El Paso certainly is the Southwest. The panhandle areas is really like Oklahoma. Only parts of East Texas outside of Dallas and Houston are really like the South in most ways, culturally speaking.
 
2012-09-24 07:55:21 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Bill Frist: Oklahoma isn't part of the historic south, but is grouped in with the south by the US government officially.

Personally, I think Texas and Oklahmoa have a bit more in common with the southwest than the traditional south. Just a different environment out there.

As a Texan, I reflexively refuse attempts to group Texas in with the South. But this impulse has basis in fact - as you say. Plus, Texas is a vast area geographically. The border has much in common with the Southwest; El Paso certainly is the Southwest. The panhandle areas is really like Oklahoma. Only parts of East Texas outside of Dallas and Houston are really like the South in most ways, culturally speaking.


Well put. Heck, I feel the same way about Michigan and it's not half as large or diverse (in a certain way) as Texas.
 
2012-09-24 08:33:51 PM  
The map doesn't really tell the whole story, though... not just in changing party platforms, but also in voting demographics. It doesn't really chart very well the rise of women in the first half of the twentieth century, but more importantly, the rise of evangelicals in the last half.

For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, devoutly religious people did not vote at all (and that was a good chunk of the country's population). Many faiths (Jehovahs Witness, Pentecostals, Mennonites, Amish, some Baptists, and even most Mormons) advocated non-participation in elections or politics entirely. They simply abstained just as they abstained from alcohol and caffeine. Their religious leaders constantly preached this practice of political non-participation.

But sometime around the 60s or 70s, maybe as a Hegelian backlash against the rise of social liberalism, these people started taking an active role and interest in politics. Their preachers stopped pressing them to abstain, and the concept of voting became adiaphora. The final straw was Roe v Wade in 1972 that legalized abortion. After then, the gloves were off.

The first big campaign to really bottle and capitalize on this powerful new demographic bloc was Reagan in 1980. By selling politics to the evangelicals, suddenly the Conservatives, the party of small government, fiscal spending and laissez-faire economics, became the Super Evangelical Right, and dropped the small government and fiscal spending part (they had to if they wanted to re-engineer society by legislating morality the way the liberals tried to in the 60s).

The tragic thing about this technique is how incredibly successful it turned out: Hardcore Christans began voting in droves (and have been ever since), and Reagan absolutely destroyed Mondale in '84. Every Republican now operates in the shadow of Reagan, and the modern party is pretty much an amalgamation of opportunists trying to duplicate Reagan's success by appealing and re-appealing to the Evangelicals, reinforcing their narrative.

Because of this, the Republicans have increasingly looked less and less like true Conservatives and more like moral crusaders for God and country. The Evangelicals, whom no more than 40 years ago weren't even a politically relevant voting bloc, now have completely taken over the Republican party, or at the very least convinced Republicans that the party can't win without them.
 
2012-09-24 08:47:40 PM  

Bill Frist: The South has has plenty of problems, but it has also been a source of much of America's greatest music, art, and literature.

As far as electoral politics go, let's keep in mind that the worst parts of the county these days are the Southwest and Texas (and the western column of the midwest), not the traditional South per se.

Virginia and North Carolina voted for Obama last election.


That's our one saving grace. NC has also done a lot of stupid crap the last 4 years; namely that stupid amendment.
 
2012-09-24 08:58:43 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: No whammy, no whammy, no whammy - stop!


www.playpressyourluck.com

For your clicky pleasure
 
2012-09-24 09:29:03 PM  

Bill Frist: Kansas is pretty obviously a part of the midwest. There are more regions than the South and "the north."


Not if you ask anybody from the South.

/there's "Southerner" and "Yankee." That's it.
 
2012-09-24 09:34:57 PM  

cannibalparrot: Bill Frist: Kansas is pretty obviously a part of the midwest. There are more regions than the South and "the north."

Not if you ask anybody from the South.

/there's "Southerner" and "Yankee." That's it.


I guess I should say "Son if the South" and "Yankee."
 
2012-09-24 09:55:00 PM  

pacified: The South has held back America for over 225 years. Even in 1789 the South was a joke. The South was all upset because no one lived there, and wanted more power then democracy justly gives them. They convinced the North to create the Senate, giving everyone 2 votes regardless of population, and then got the more power in House because they counted their SLAVES as 3/5s of a person. As Bill Clinton would say, that takes brass.

So now America has been held back by the US Senate, and the 2 votes in every backwards ass tiny Southern state (hell, let's through SD, ND, WY, AK in there too)--because back in 1789, some slave owners whined and cried and used slavery to get power.


We've been paying the price for it ever since.


Um, no. The Old Southwest (Alabama, Mississippi, etc.) was the fastest growing region in the colonial era, so much so that the northern states feared that the South would eventually come to dominate the Congress. That's one of the reasons why we have a bicameral legislature and electoral college. Of course, the population trends shifted instead to the Old Northwest (Ohio Valley) which terrified the South which is why we had so many compromises on westward expansion.
 
2012-09-25 04:31:58 AM  
pacified:The South has held back America for over 225 years. Even in 1789 the South was a joke. The South was all upset because no one lived there, and wanted more power then democracy justly gives them. They convinced the North to create the Senate, giving everyone 2 votes regardless of population, and then got the more power in House because they counted their SLAVES as 3/5s of a person. As Bill Clinton would say, that takes brass.

So now America has been held back by the US Senate, and the 2 votes in every backwards ass tiny Southern state (hell, let's through SD, ND, WY, AK in there too)--because back in 1789, some slave owners whined and cried and used slavery to get power.


We've been paying the price for it ever since.

Look, I hate the South as much as the next person, but this is inaccurate in a zillion ways. When they were drafting the Constitution in 1787 (not 1789), the largest state was Virginia, a Southern state, and it was Virginia that first proposed proportional representation. Whereas it was New Jersey, a (at the time) small state from the North, who wanted to just have a single house with each state getting the exact equal number of representatives, regardless of population. It was small versus large, not South versus North.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report