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.

(The New York Times)   Cool interactive graphic showing how the political inclinations of the states have shifted over time from Eisenhower to Obama   (nytimes.com) divider line 30
    More: Interesting, United States, tendency  
•       •       •

2750 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Oct 2012 at 3:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-16 12:09:03 AM
Heh, California used to be a red state.
 
2012-10-16 12:20:22 AM
Cool graphic. Seems like a pretty accurate forecast too.
 
2012-10-16 12:58:31 AM
No it doesn't. It shows the states reactions to the parties shifting.

Reagan dems were southern conservatives. The dems, decades ago, had the south and rural areas. They were the conservative party, against de-segregation, etc.

The GOP, starting under Nixon IIRC, began the "Southern State Strategy", a strategy to take the south from the Dems by playing up racial fears.

There was also Roe v Wade, and the GOP rallied against abortion rights. This solidified them with the far right conservative christians, who largely makeup the south and rural areas.

So the people's inclinations didn't change, the parties did.
 
2012-10-16 01:04:20 AM
Eisenhower? That socialist who took MY money and used it to build highways for the poors? The pacifist appeaser who said defense contractors didn't have my best interests at heart? The empty suit who did nothing but golf?
 
2012-10-16 03:10:12 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Eisenhower? That socialist who took MY money and used it to build highways for the poors? The pacifist appeaser who said defense contractors didn't have my best interests at heart? The empty suit who did nothing but golf?


The Class Warrior who taxed the shiat out of Job Creators?
 
2012-10-16 03:16:09 AM

themindiswatching: Heh, California used to be a red state.


Texas voted for Carter, California voted for Ford...frickin' Twilight Zone
 
2012-10-16 03:17:00 AM
Seems silly/cheap to include 'now rating' at some random moment just to make this seem more topical, especially when doing it a week ago would have shown wholly different results. just sticking to actual elections and updating after the real one would be more appropriate.
 
2012-10-16 03:27:36 AM

gaspode: Seems silly/cheap to include 'now rating' at some random moment just to make this seem more topical, especially when doing it a week ago would have shown wholly different results. just sticking to actual elections and updating after the real one would be more appropriate.


It's Nate Silver. His model is probably the most respected one in politics right now, the man is a genius with these polling models.

If you want to include 2012, it's either the current numbers or the Election day forecast. If the election was held today, that, in all probability, is what it would look like.
 
2012-10-16 03:31:41 AM

cptjeff: gaspode: Seems silly/cheap to include 'now rating' at some random moment just to make this seem more topical, especially when doing it a week ago would have shown wholly different results. just sticking to actual elections and updating after the real one would be more appropriate.

It's Nate Silver. His model is probably the most respected one in politics right now, the man is a genius with these polling models.

If you want to include 2012, it's either the current numbers or the Election day forecast. If the election was held today, that, in all probability, is what it would look like.


I know and follow 538 extensively, and respect his forecasting a lot.. that said this graph is showing a forecast result that is definitely not final (in fact it just passed its most extremely untypical numbers in pretty much the whole cycle) against real numbers.. 2012 should not have been included at all, or if it was then it should have had a completely different colour or some kind of major visual differentiation, I think it isnt a very honest chart otherwise.
 
2012-10-16 03:42:45 AM
So voters are fickle. What else is new?
 
2012-10-16 03:45:48 AM

gaspode: cptjeff: gaspode: Seems silly/cheap to include 'now rating' at some random moment just to make this seem more topical, especially when doing it a week ago would have shown wholly different results. just sticking to actual elections and updating after the real one would be more appropriate.

It's Nate Silver. His model is probably the most respected one in politics right now, the man is a genius with these polling models.

If you want to include 2012, it's either the current numbers or the Election day forecast. If the election was held today, that, in all probability, is what it would look like.

I know and follow 538 extensively, and respect his forecasting a lot.. that said this graph is showing a forecast result that is definitely not final (in fact it just passed its most extremely untypical numbers in pretty much the whole cycle) against real numbers.. 2012 should not have been included at all, or if it was then it should have had a completely different colour or some kind of major visual differentiation, I think it isnt a very honest chart otherwise.


Does anybody looking at the chart think the 2012 election has happened yet?

People know that the 2012 model is an estimate based on where the race stands right now. It is what it is- you can see how current poll numbers stack up to historic trends. No more, no less.
 
2012-10-16 03:52:36 AM

cptjeff:
Does anybody looking at the chart think the 2012 election has happened yet?

People know that the 2012 model is an estimate based on where the race stands right now. It is what it is- you can see how current poll numbers stack up to historic trends. No more, no less.


The chart gives the same visual status to the data points for 2012 as previous elections, but doesn't indicate if they are fixed to a date, changing with the forecast or what.

I'm a big fan of Nate (and it isn't even his chart) so I'm not having a huge bash, I just would have used a different colour or something for the forecast section so as to not have it look the same. The prime purpose of the chart it to show change over a number of elections, 2012 is just being included for topical interest really.
 
2012-10-16 03:58:24 AM

I Said: The dems, decades ago, had the south and rural areas. They were the conservative party, against de-segregation, etc.


It's not quite that simple. Southern Democrats, like southern Republicans (what few there were) were opposed to civil rights legislation, while northern Democrats and Republicans alike favored it. Where Republicans and Democrats have consistently parted ways, however, is that the Republicans have always (well, since Coolidge or so) favored business and moneyed interests, while the Democrats have during the same period been the party of labor.
 
2012-10-16 04:17:18 AM

BMulligan: I Said: The dems, decades ago, had the south and rural areas. They were the conservative party, against de-segregation, etc.

It's not quite that simple. Southern Democrats, like southern Republicans (what few there were) were opposed to civil rights legislation, while northern Democrats and Republicans alike favored it. Where Republicans and Democrats have consistently parted ways, however, is that the Republicans have always (well, since Coolidge or so) favored business and moneyed interests, while the Democrats have during the same period been the party of labor.


Yeah, pretty much what happened is that the northern rich elite republicans forged an alliance with the southern dixiecrats. Strangest alliance since Roosevelt and Stalin, imo. Meanwhile, moderate and liberal northern republicans and democrats basically coalesced into the modern Democratic party.
 
2012-10-16 04:18:38 AM
That's quite a nice way to present the information. I think I found that more interesting than the actual information itself.
 
2012-10-16 04:46:37 AM

themindiswatching: Heh, California used to be a red state.


Cali has voted for Republicans more often that you'd think over the last 60 years.

/It helped that two of them were from California and one of them was Eisenhower.
 
2012-10-16 05:20:47 AM
Interesting that DC is so heavily Democrat. Didn't know that. Not sure what to make of it.
 
2012-10-16 06:08:54 AM

Dokushin: Interesting that DC is so heavily Democrat. Didn't know that. Not sure what to make of it.


A lot of the DC population is just passing through as part of their political career, but there is a local overwhelmingly poor and black population that calls DC its home. They are the ones who vote Democratic.
 
2012-10-16 07:12:57 AM

Dokushin: Interesting that DC is so heavily Democrat. Didn't know that. Not sure what to make of it.


Visit DC sometime, you'll understand a lot better.
 
2012-10-16 07:15:38 AM
1860 map vs 2008 map

www.lukecole.com
 
2012-10-16 07:50:18 AM
I really liked the infographic (I didn't mind the inclusion of 2012 as much as some others above). I just wish that they let you choose to follow a state from a drop-down menu. They let you pick some states -- such as Georgia -- but I'd like to choose from any of the 50.

Also, jaytkay, that second map is not of the 2008 election. It's a weird hybrid of 2000 and 2004 -- I say weird because if New Hampshire had been colored green instead of Ohio, it would have accurately represented those two elections (red/blue states as per convention, green states representing a switch in party between 2000 and 2004). Still, your point is (somewhat) made.
 
2012-10-16 07:57:20 AM
Also, this French guy has maps by COUNTY going back to 1836. I think 1964 is the most telling in terms of southern racism:
 
2012-10-16 08:58:58 AM

I Said: No it doesn't. It shows the states reactions to the parties shifting.

Reagan dems were southern conservatives. The dems, decades ago, had the south and rural areas. They were the conservative party, against de-segregation, etc.

The GOP, starting under Nixon IIRC, began the "Southern State Strategy", a strategy to take the south from the Dems by playing up racial fears.

There was also Roe v Wade, and the GOP rallied against abortion rights. This solidified them with the far right conservative christians, who largely makeup the south and rural areas.

So the people's inclinations didn't change, the parties did.


Have I ever told you how much I love you?
 
2012-10-16 09:22:50 AM
Try highlighting Ohio and watching it shift left and right. It's like seeing a chart of Romney's flip-flops...
 
2012-10-16 09:24:53 AM
Kentucky: Behind the times, all the time
 
2012-10-16 09:37:34 AM

Dokushin: Interesting that DC is so heavily Democrat. Didn't know that. Not sure what to make of it.


It is an entirely urban state/district/whatever. There is no real suburbia within the district and absolutely no rural area.
Even by city standards it has a very diverse and cosmopolitan.
The population is generally young with a lot of college educated professionals, it's a place where people move to to make careers, not retire.
There is a very large black population.

All strong Democrat demographics.
 
2012-10-16 10:56:54 AM

Dwight_Yeast: themindiswatching: Heh, California used to be a red state.

Cali has voted for Republicans more often that you'd think over the last 60 years.

/It helped that two of them were from California and one of them was Eisenhower.


Of course, since prop 187 passed and hispanics started to bother to vote, it's been solidly Democratic.
 
2012-10-16 11:00:07 AM

Dokushin: Interesting that DC is so heavily Democrat. Didn't know that. Not sure what to make of it.


DC is a city. Most cities with similiar demographics and population are just as heavily Democratic. It's just in many states, they are balanced out, at least in part, by Republicans in distant suburbs as well as buttfark nowhere hickville, but DC is a pure urban area.
 
2012-10-16 12:42:16 PM

I Said: No it doesn't. It shows the states reactions to the parties shifting.

Reagan dems were southern conservatives. The dems, decades ago, had the south and rural areas. They were the conservative party, against de-segregation, etc.

The GOP, starting under Nixon IIRC, began the "Southern State Strategy", a strategy to take the south from the Dems by playing up racial fears.

There was also Roe v Wade, and the GOP rallied against abortion rights. This solidified them with the far right conservative christians, who largely makeup the south and rural areas.

So the people's inclinations didn't change, the parties did.


So much this. The infographic would have been far more useful had it shown how political leanings left-to-right, not Democrat-to-Republican, have shifted over time. "Democrat" and "Republican" enjoy no consistent definitions across the US, let alone across history.
 
2012-10-16 01:47:48 PM

Geotpf: Dwight_Yeast: themindiswatching: Heh, California used to be a red state.

Cali has voted for Republicans more often that you'd think over the last 60 years.

/It helped that two of them were from California and one of them was Eisenhower.

Of course, since prop 187 passed and hispanics started to bother to vote, it's been solidly Democratic.


Same reasons why Texas will get interesting in the next couple decades.
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report