The white non-hispanic US map of 2012

[eric82oslo]

I find this map of the counties where less than 20% of non-Hispanic white voters supported Obama in 2012 to be a genuinely interesting one. To read the article attached to the map, click here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/upshot/southern-whites-loyalty-to-gop-nearing-that-of-blacks-to-democrats.html?_r=0

Here's the map:



They didn't have any data on Alaska counties, so that state has not been included. However, in 15 US states, not a single county where harshly opposed to Obama that year. Those 15 are mostly found in the north east and the rust belt, but a stand out exception is Hawaii. Those 15 states are: Maine, New Hamsphire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Hawaii. I find it quite amazing that two historically right of center (and partly southern) states like Indiana and Ohio didn't even have a single county strongly opposing Obama. After all, Illinois had several; a handful (even one more than Missouri). Furthermore, there were five states where only one single county voted against Obama by more than 80%: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Washington and Arizona. That leaves us with 30 states where at least two or more counties heavily opposed Obama. On the other end of the spectrum, we find states where hardly any county had non-Hispanic whites who supported Obama in greater numbers than 20%. The states with most anti-Obama whites in 2012 where, in decending order (I rank this from eye view):

1. Louisiana
2. Mississippi
3. Georgia
4. Utah
5. Alabama
6. Texas

There we have the main reason why it will continue to be so hard for Democratic candidates to turn Texas around politically in the near future. And the same goes, perhaps even more so, for Georgia. However, as it looks from the map, turning Louisiana around will be even much more tricky.

[GaussLaw]

I'm a little surprised with Huntsville.

I thought there were a decent number of white liberals there since it was a tech/science center.

[bgwah]

Those are pretty broad estimates.

I doubt there is a big difference between whites in those heavily black counties in the south and neighboring counties. Furthermore, I think they overestimate how many Hispanics in a lot of Western counties are actually voting (thus making whites appear more Republican on the map).

[GaussLaw]

Is there anyone here who could clarify Huntsville for me?

Since Huntsville was pretty pro-interracial marriage in 2000, I thought it would be slightly less partisan for whites voting than it is.

[morgieb]

Is there anyone here who could clarify Huntsville for me?

Since Huntsville was pretty pro-interracial marriage in 2000, I thought it would be slightly less partisan for whites voting than it is.

Suburbs/exurbs have an influence, probably.

[Mr. Illini]

Three cheers for Effingham

[pbrower2a]

It's basically

(1) Dixie
(2) Ranch country
(3) Mormon country

(1) Dixie used to vote heavily Democratic -- so much so that it was almost the only part of the country to vote against Dwight Eisenhower (with the exceptions of Missouri and West Virginia, the latter more because of coal miners who would never vote for any Republican) in 1952 or 1956. It is hard to believe that Eisenhower won Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode island together.

Kern County, California (biggest city: fast-growing Bakersfield) seems like an anomaly -- until one considers that it was heavily populated by refugees from the Dust Belt. It is a center for country music, and it may be enough to note that Buck Owens and Merle Haggard are from Bakersfield. 

(2) Ranch country has been heavily R for a very long time. Ranchers have long been understood to be a reactionary lot, and ranch hands have usually had very paternalistic treatment from ranchers. The ranch-style house that became the norm in Suburbia appeared first in ranch country, indicating that ranch hands were living well. Much of this is also Oil country.

Where population densities are low, local government can operate on the cheap with fairly-good results. So it is in ranch country, where anything beyond a bare minimum of government is 'excessive spending' that gets in the way of material satisfaction. This can explain why there are such right-leaning white voters in eastern Colorado and New Mexico.

Texas gets a double-dip of right-leaning white voters because the east is Dixie and the west is  heavily ranch country.  Some cities of 50K or more people in Texas Ranch and Oil country include Wichita Falls, Abilene, Midland, Odessa,  Lubbock, and Amarillo.

(3) Mormon country has been consistently Republican since Dwight Eisenhower cultivated the support from Mormon elders. As late as 1948, Utah went for Harry Truman in a close election. But that is long over. Republicans and the LDS hierarchy have well intermeshed. 

[Person Man]

It's basically

(1) Dixie
(2) Ranch country
(3) Mormon country

(1) Dixie used to vote heavily Democratic -- so much so that it was almost the only part of the country to vote against Dwight Eisenhower (with the exceptions of Missouri and West Virginia, the latter more because of coal miners who would never vote for any Republican) in 1952 or 1956. It is hard to believe that Eisenhower won Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode island together.

Kern County, California (biggest city: fast-growing Bakersfield) seems like an anomaly -- until one considers that it was heavily populated by refugees from the Dust Belt. It is a center for country music, and it may be enough to note that Buck Owens and Merle Haggard are from Bakersfield. 

(2) Ranch country has been heavily R for a very long time. Ranchers have long been understood to be a reactionary lot, and ranch hands have usually had very paternalistic treatment from ranchers. The ranch-style house that became the norm in Suburbia appeared first in ranch country, indicating that ranch hands were living well. Much of this is also Oil country.

Where population densities are low, local government can operate on the cheap with fairly-good results. So it is in ranch country, where anything beyond a bare minimum of government is 'excessive spending' that gets in the way of material satisfaction. This can explain why there are such right-leaning white voters in eastern Colorado and New Mexico.

Texas gets a double-dip of right-leaning white voters because the east is Dixie and the west is  heavily ranch country.  Some cities of 50K or more people in Texas Ranch and Oil country include Wichita Falls, Abilene, Midland, Odessa,  Lubbock, and Amarillo.

(3) Mormon country has been consistently Republican since Dwight Eisenhower cultivated the support from Mormon elders. As late as 1948, Utah went for Harry Truman in a close election. But that is long over. Republicans and the LDS hierarchy have well intermeshed. 

When you say "ranchers are paternalistic", it paints a feudalesque picture in my mind where the rancher protects the hands in return of the hand's support to the point the hand sees that his interest is not distinct from the ranchers?

[pbrower2a]

It's basically

(1) Dixie
(2) Ranch country
(3) Mormon country

(1) Dixie used to vote heavily Democratic -- so much so that it was almost the only part of the country to vote against Dwight Eisenhower (with the exceptions of Missouri and West Virginia, the latter more because of coal miners who would never vote for any Republican) in 1952 or 1956. It is hard to believe that Eisenhower won Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode island together.

Kern County, California (biggest city: fast-growing Bakersfield) seems like an anomaly -- until one considers that it was heavily populated by refugees from the Dust Belt. It is a center for country music, and it may be enough to note that Buck Owens and Merle Haggard are from Bakersfield. 

(2) Ranch country has been heavily R for a very long time. Ranchers have long been understood to be a reactionary lot, and ranch hands have usually had very paternalistic treatment from ranchers. The ranch-style house that became the norm in Suburbia appeared first in ranch country, indicating that ranch hands were living well. Much of this is also Oil country.

Where population densities are low, local government can operate on the cheap with fairly-good results. So it is in ranch country, where anything beyond a bare minimum of government is 'excessive spending' that gets in the way of material satisfaction. This can explain why there are such right-leaning white voters in eastern Colorado and New Mexico.

Texas gets a double-dip of right-leaning white voters because the east is Dixie and the west is  heavily ranch country.  Some cities of 50K or more people in Texas Ranch and Oil country include Wichita Falls, Abilene, Midland, Odessa,  Lubbock, and Amarillo.

(3) Mormon country has been consistently Republican since Dwight Eisenhower cultivated the support from Mormon elders. As late as 1948, Utah went for Harry Truman in a close election. But that is long over. Republicans and the LDS hierarchy have well intermeshed. 

When you say "ranchers are paternalistic", it paints a feudalesque picture in my mind where the rancher protects the hands in return of the hand's support to the point the hand sees that his interest is not distinct from the ranchers?

Ranch hands have an independent streak, unlike the typical farm laborer.  Think of what they used to be called: cowboys. Ranch hands generally don't have suburban houses to which to commute. Ranchers have to make the life of a ranch hand pleasant. Who would want to live in the middle of nowhere in a place of cultural emptiness?   

[Person Man]

It's basically

(1) Dixie
(2) Ranch country
(3) Mormon country

(1) Dixie used to vote heavily Democratic -- so much so that it was almost the only part of the country to vote against Dwight Eisenhower (with the exceptions of Missouri and West Virginia, the latter more because of coal miners who would never vote for any Republican) in 1952 or 1956. It is hard to believe that Eisenhower won Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode island together.

Kern County, California (biggest city: fast-growing Bakersfield) seems like an anomaly -- until one considers that it was heavily populated by refugees from the Dust Belt. It is a center for country music, and it may be enough to note that Buck Owens and Merle Haggard are from Bakersfield. 

(2) Ranch country has been heavily R for a very long time. Ranchers have long been understood to be a reactionary lot, and ranch hands have usually had very paternalistic treatment from ranchers. The ranch-style house that became the norm in Suburbia appeared first in ranch country, indicating that ranch hands were living well. Much of this is also Oil country.

Where population densities are low, local government can operate on the cheap with fairly-good results. So it is in ranch country, where anything beyond a bare minimum of government is 'excessive spending' that gets in the way of material satisfaction. This can explain why there are such right-leaning white voters in eastern Colorado and New Mexico.

Texas gets a double-dip of right-leaning white voters because the east is Dixie and the west is  heavily ranch country.  Some cities of 50K or more people in Texas Ranch and Oil country include Wichita Falls, Abilene, Midland, Odessa,  Lubbock, and Amarillo.

(3) Mormon country has been consistently Republican since Dwight Eisenhower cultivated the support from Mormon elders. As late as 1948, Utah went for Harry Truman in a close election. But that is long over. Republicans and the LDS hierarchy have well intermeshed. 

When you say "ranchers are paternalistic", it paints a feudalesque picture in my mind where the rancher protects the hands in return of the hand's support to the point the hand sees that his interest is not distinct from the ranchers?

Ranch hands have an independent streak, unlike the typical farm laborer.  Think of what they used to be called: cowboys. Ranch hands generally don't have suburban houses to which to commute. Ranchers have to make the life of a ranch hand pleasant. Who would want to live in the middle of nowhere in a place of cultural emptiness?   

I guess this sort of arrangement allows men to be islands in a world where no man is.

[CatoMinor]

I'm a little surprised with Huntsville.

I thought there were a decent number of white liberals there since it was a tech/science center.

For a moment I thought you were talking about the Huntsville I live in lol. I don't think the SHSU campus quite counts as a "center" for tech and science.

[Adam Griffin]

Those are pretty broad estimates.

I doubt there is a big difference between whites in those heavily black counties in the south and neighboring counties. Furthermore, I think they overestimate how many Hispanics in a lot of Western counties are actually voting (thus making whites appear more Republican on the map).

Yes, as I found out. I made one county-by-county for Georgia (2008 & 2012), which BK & I haggled over the details/methodology based on how some of the counties presented themselves. By and large, these line up (I noticed in my area, I had my home county @ 20% and two of the neighboring ones at 19%, whereas this map has my county below 20% and those at or above; rounding errors).

In the Black Belt, you get some interesting dynamics when looking at the white vote, but it doesn't happen in every county down there or even in every solidly-black county. Ultimately, some of those counties' numbers can't be explained away by getting the % preference by race wrong. Hancock, GA, for instance:

2012 electorate, Hancock:

77.34% black
21.21% white
1.45% other

The others/unknowns don't even play a significant role here. Using the formulas, I get this:

(77.34*0.95) + (1.45*0.65) = 74.41%

80.92 (Obama vote %) - 74.41 = 6.51

6.51/21.21 = 30.69% of white vote for Obama

Even if you count all of the unknowns as whites: 32.87%
And count all of the unknowns as blacks: 28.62%

Is there anyone here who could clarify Huntsville for me?

Since Huntsville was pretty pro-interracial marriage in 2000, I thought it would be slightly less partisan for whites voting than it is.

Madison County, AL is pretty standard fare when it comes to your mid-sized Tennessee Valley city. In both 2008 and 2012, Obama did around 2 points worse there than he did in Hamilton County, TN (Chattanooga), but about 4 points better than he did in Knox County, TN (Knoxville). Both of those cities have a fairly affluent and well-educated population - like Huntsville - that is quite Republican. A few aerospace and tech jobs in Huntsville isn't enough to change the overall dynamic by a large amount.

Still, you're right about this and "standard fare" for a city like Huntsville should be around 25-30% of the white vote for Obama. I can't find turnout by race by county for each year, but I was able to see that VR rates among blacks in 2012 essentially mirrored that of the county's population, so there shouldn't be any room for that large of a discrepancy at the ballot box.

If blacks turned out at the exact rate of population (24%) and gave Obama more than 95% of the vote, however, then it's possible that Huntsville would have fallen just below the 20% mark. That low performance just doesn't fit the characteristics of the city; it'd be much more likely that black turnout was off by a couple of points and that whites in Huntsville were closer to 25% for Obama.