Fun with Political Geography
My students and I had fun discussing political geography today. For instance, take a look at these two maps side by side. First, we have the presidential electoral map from 1860, from the National Atlas of the United States:
Then we have this recent study, from Open Left, depicting how white men (the only ones eligible to vote in 1860) voted in 2008:
Now, obviously it would be very easy to overdraw an analysis from these two maps. And indeed, I think Open Left is a bit too Whiggish (despite trying not to be Whiggish) about the links between the expansion of voting rights and the election of Progressive presidential candidates–after all, the expanded electorate has certainly elected its share of conservative Presidents.
But it’s still pretty interesting.
Yes, Interesting and somewhat depressing. I had thought, and still think that we’ve been watching the slow but steady disintegration of the slave party system as regional one-party dominance has given way to more intense party (and hence ideological) competition in both northern and southern states. Obama’s election seemed as if it might signal a tectonic shift in this process. But the durability of this system is incredible. And this morning you’ve caught me feeling less confident that the Yankees will ever win this long Civil War…
Comment by Marcus Daniel — November 23, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
Many parents find comfort in the blame for the shortcomings of the education system in their child’s school performance.
Comment by rüyada görmek — August 2, 2011 @ 8:40 am
If you choose to teach at home in the full responsibility for the outcome of your child’s education. This is more of a burden than it seems
Comment by dini videolar — August 2, 2011 @ 8:41 am
But it still does not give the reasoning why they voted the way they did. So, comment #1, which weighs heavily on the “racism card” and doesn’t take into account that people (men included) vote for many different reasons, and that they may simply disagree with Obama’s politics. Just because they’re a white male and didn’t vote for Obama doesn’t mean they voted for someone else because Obama is half-black. I mean, that’s a pretty racist statement to be honest. I’m not really sure why people (now that the color of skin is in play) cannot fathom a vote against Obama being any reason but other than for the color of his skin. I’d be interested to see the map of 2000 and see how the white men voted then for democrats. That would be at least a little more fair of a conclusion.
Comment by DM — November 8, 2012 @ 10:48 am
For some of these comparisons, see yesterday’s Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/obamas-coalition-campaign-deliver-a-second-term/2012/11/07/fb156970-2926-
I don’t think white men necessarily voted against Obama because of his race–see the similar numbers for Gore’s standing among white men. I think it’s because people (of all races) have differing views of Republican vs. Democratic policies, and some focus particularly on the varying impact of those policies on different racial groups, or believe (unconsciously) that those policies would have a varied impact. Which is an overly judicious way of putting it.
Comment by Benjamin Carp — November 8, 2012 @ 10:59 am
Honestly i think society is basing everything to strongly on the race-card. it over-done and played out. People are becoming afraid to vote against Obama because they’re afraid they’ll seem “racist.” I feel that the bigger issue now in this era is higher-ranking class. Nobody feels as bothered with race as much as people used to. It’s all about who has more money than the other. But anyways I think people should be able to vote for who they want to with out being judged, or feeling like they’re “racist” and society should be able to vote for their own reasons, not so they wont feel they’re committing a hate crime. I am only 14 years old by the way.
Comment by Sarah Pettyjohn — April 12, 2013 @ 10:59 am
I apologize for any typos in my above statement.
Comment by Sarah Pettyjohn — April 12, 2013 @ 11:01 am