US Regions - Michigan

[Antonio the Sixth]

Here we continue with Michigan.

Here are the two regions materialized on maps, in order to avoid confusion (light shades mean hypothetical).

Midwest :

Rust Belt :

Please try to think about these options out of their context : the question isn't about the regions themselves, just about Michigan.

[bullmoose88]

"Rust Belt"

[cinyc]

None of the above.  It belongs in a Great Lakes/Rust Belt region with the 5 main states carved out of the Northwest Territory - Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin.   

But if I had to choose, Rust Belt.  Any map that doesn't group Michigan with its longtime rival Ohio doesn't respect history.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Voted Rust Belt. Michigan's center of population is much closer to Ohio than to Wisconsin. Having the Lower Peninsula be contiguous with the region it is in is also more visually appealing.

[muon2]

I agree that it should be the Rust Belt. cinyc makes the obvious suggestion for any division of states into regions, political or demographic. Forcing a choice between putting MI with either OH or IL is just wrong, IMO.

None of the above.  It belongs in a Great Lakes/Rust Belt region with the 5 main states carved out of the Northwest Territory - Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin.   

But if I had to choose, Rust Belt.  Any map that doesn't group Michigan with its longtime rival Ohio doesn't respect history.

[Antonio the Sixth]

See, what would Cinyc's "great lakes" region result in ? A far too big region (well, NE ist still bigger but we don't have much choice there), encomprising OH, IN, MI, WI and IL.

That's still acceptable, but then what do you do with the three remaining Midwest States : MN, IA, and MO ? Three States is a bit low for a region... So, you'd probably propose to merge them with the Plains. While as you proved me this can make sense democraphically, does it make politically ? Having a New Deal Era democratic sronghold like Minnesota and the swing States or IA and MO in the same region as four of the most historically republican States (only South Dakota was, a handful of times, more dem than the average since 1932). Politically, that's a true sacrilege.

So, once again I had to make a tough choice, but I think I made the best one looking at a political perspective.

[opebo]

Rust belt as you have it, but Tennessee is definitely not in that region.

[muon2]

See, what would Cinyc's "great lakes" region result in ? A far too big region (well, NE ist still bigger but we don't have much choice there), encomprising OH, IN, MI, WI and IL.

That's still acceptable, but then what do you do with the three remaining Midwest States : MN, IA, and MO ? Three States is a bit low for a region... So, you'd probably propose to merge them with the Plains. While as you proved me this can make sense democraphically, does it make politically ? Having a New Deal Era democratic sronghold like Minnesota and the swing States or IA and MO in the same region as four of the most historically republican States (only South Dakota was, a handful of times, more dem than the average since 1932). Politically, that's a true sacrilege.

So, once again I had to make a tough choice, but I think I made the best one looking at a political perspective.

I think you are looking too much at the presidential results alone. The plains states still have significant ties to their traditional Dem bases, and did not flip them like the South did over the last 50 years. Much of this goes back before the New Deal to the Grange movement. The Plains states still produce long tenured Dems in Congress as well as prominent Dem Governors. What sets MN apart is the population of its urban center, which is matched only by MO on the plains, and the impact of the northern Iron Range which provides a huge tilt in favor of the Dems.

[Antonio the Sixth]

See, what would Cinyc's "great lakes" region result in ? A far too big region (well, NE ist still bigger but we don't have much choice there), encomprising OH, IN, MI, WI and IL.

That's still acceptable, but then what do you do with the three remaining Midwest States : MN, IA, and MO ? Three States is a bit low for a region... So, you'd probably propose to merge them with the Plains. While as you proved me this can make sense democraphically, does it make politically ? Having a New Deal Era democratic sronghold like Minnesota and the swing States or IA and MO in the same region as four of the most historically republican States (only South Dakota was, a handful of times, more dem than the average since 1932). Politically, that's a true sacrilege.

So, once again I had to make a tough choice, but I think I made the best one looking at a political perspective.

I think you are looking too much at the presidential results alone. The plains states still have significant ties to their traditional Dem bases, and did not flip them like the South did over the last 50 years. Much of this goes back before the New Deal to the Grange movement. The Plains states still produce long tenured Dems in Congress as well as prominent Dem Governors. What sets MN apart is the population of its urban center, which is matched only by MO on the plains, and the impact of the northern Iron Range which provides a huge tilt in favor of the Dems.

Still, you won't convince me that Minnesota and Iowa are politically similar to Plains...
Plains have some kind of congressional Blue Dog democrats such as Nelson, but there is no comparison with MN's liberal DFL congressmen. All right, South Dakota had McGovern, but it's literally the only example of left-wing democratic Senators in the Plains that comes to my mind. Instead, Minnesota had Humphrey, Mondale and now Franken (similarly to Feingold in Wisconsin).
IMO, MN and WI have a strong tradition of Roosevelt/La Follette progressivism, while Plains' ideology is more like Bryan-style populism. That's why the former are moderate dem-leaning States and th elatter are uber-GOP areas in Presidential elections.

[muon2]

See, what would Cinyc's "great lakes" region result in ? A far too big region (well, NE ist still bigger but we don't have much choice there), encomprising OH, IN, MI, WI and IL.

That's still acceptable, but then what do you do with the three remaining Midwest States : MN, IA, and MO ? Three States is a bit low for a region... So, you'd probably propose to merge them with the Plains. While as you proved me this can make sense democraphically, does it make politically ? Having a New Deal Era democratic sronghold like Minnesota and the swing States or IA and MO in the same region as four of the most historically republican States (only South Dakota was, a handful of times, more dem than the average since 1932). Politically, that's a true sacrilege.

So, once again I had to make a tough choice, but I think I made the best one looking at a political perspective.

I think you are looking too much at the presidential results alone. The plains states still have significant ties to their traditional Dem bases, and did not flip them like the South did over the last 50 years. Much of this goes back before the New Deal to the Grange movement. The Plains states still produce long tenured Dems in Congress as well as prominent Dem Governors. What sets MN apart is the population of its urban center, which is matched only by MO on the plains, and the impact of the northern Iron Range which provides a huge tilt in favor of the Dems.

Still, you won't convince me that Minnesota and Iowa are politically similar to Plains...
Plains have some kind of congressional Blue Dog democrats such as Nelson, but there is no comparison with MN's liberal DFL congressmen. All right, South Dakota had McGovern, but it's literally the only example of left-wing democratic Senators in the Plains that comes to my mind. Instead, Minnesota had Humphrey, Mondale and now Franken (similarly to Feingold in Wisconsin).
IMO, MN and WI have a strong tradition of Roosevelt/La Follette progressivism, while Plains' ideology is more like Bryan-style populism. That's why the former are moderate dem-leaning States and th elatter are uber-GOP areas in Presidential elections.

It seems to me that you are trying to weight the political ideology of a state so highly, that it outweighs everything else. As many have noted the states often represent different regions within them, and many times the politics of the state has emerged from the marriage of those differing views. MN in many ways derives from a marriage of plains populism with the New Deal as envisioned by Humphrey. In WI LaFollette mixed farm populism with the civil rights of the early GOP which in part reflects the mix with the older urban centers on Lake Michigan.

To achieve your tight focus on presidential political voting patterns I think you may have to consider groupings of less than four states. That would allow you to put MN, WI and IA together. Three state groups could probably resolve some of your problems in other areas as well (e.g. KY, TN, WV).

[Antonio the Sixth]

It seems to me that you are trying to weight the political ideology of a state so highly, that it outweighs everything else.

And in the same way I think you give too much importance to demographic/sociological patterns at the expense of ideology and actual vote. It's just a question of points of view.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean something like that ?

Might be, but hard to do.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

None of the above.  It belongs in a Great Lakes/Rust Belt region with the 5 main states carved out of the Northwest Territory - Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin.   

But if I had to choose, Rust Belt.  Any map that doesn't group Michigan with its longtime rival Ohio doesn't respect history.

I said Rust Belt, but I wholeheartedly agree with Cinyc.  There's so much history between Ohio and Michigan (which then indirectly ties into Wisconsin), that you really can't separate the two.

[muon2]

It seems to me that you are trying to weight the political ideology of a state so highly, that it outweighs everything else.

And in the same way I think you give too much importance to demographic/sociological patterns at the expense of ideology and actual vote. It's just a question of points of view.

But if you want to track political changes and not just take a snapshot, its the social demographics that point the way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean something like that ?

Might be, but hard to do.
[/quote]

That was my thought given your goals. I think the smaller groups lend themselves better to purely political analysis. Though on that map I would flip the western states so that UT-ID was one group and MT-WY-CO was the other.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, of course this map is certainly more right that the 10-11 regions map we will eventually draw. However, I think this map will still have some interest anyways.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'd agree with cinyc on the similarity with Ohio, so Rust Belt.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I'm in the minority it seems.  I can't see it in a scenario without MN