HOME



Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405



Facebook: Digby Parton

Twitter:
@digby56
@Gaius_Publius
@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)
@spockosbrain



emails:
Digby:
thedigbyblog at gmail
Dennis:
satniteflix at gmail
Gaius:
publius.gaius at gmail
Tom:
tpostsully at gmail
Spocko:
Spockosbrain at gmail
tristero:
Richardein at me.com








Infomania

Salon
Buzzflash
Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Slate
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic


Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Hullabaloo


Saturday, November 19, 2016

 

The map is the math

by Tom Sullivan


2016 electoral map via 270 to Win.

Reaching back to a Sunday column from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution just ahead of the Democratic National Convention in 1988. Lewis Grizzard (Elvis Is Dead and I Don't Feel So Good Myself) answered 10 stupid questions national reporters visiting the Atlanta had asked him. One was, "Do you have a lot of rednecks around here?" Grizzard answered (recalling this from memory):

"Well I've never been exactly sure what the definition of redneck is. But if by redneck you mean someone who wears white socks, drives a truck, and isn't particularly fond of black people, yeah we have some people like that around here. What do y'all call 'em in New York, Chicago and Boston?"
I bring it up because a lot of progressives are rather peeved about the outcome of this month's national election, and not feeling warmly inclined towards our brethren in the South and elsewhere that voted heavily for Donald Trump. The press is all aflutter about white, working-class voters and how their supposed backlash in red states against multiculturalism threw the election to Trump. Whatever the press is calling them today, they are not unique to one region of the country.

The new focus on the white working-class seems misplaced. NPR examined a national split that seems to be more on point:
Here's another divide that started to get more attention this election: the rural-urban gap. Rural voters vote more Republican, while urban voters vote more Democratic, and that divide grew this year from where it was in 2012 and 2008. It's a nuanced divide, too; strikingly, as counties get progressively more rural, they more or less steadily grow more Republican. And it's possible that living in a rural area caused people to vote more Republican this election.

Exit polls show that the rural-urban divide grew from 2008 to 2012, and again this election. What's particularly interesting is that the rural vote seems to have moved more than the urban or suburban votes.
Rural voters tend to be older, whiter, and less-educated. That is, the more rural the county, the more likely people there match the demographics of a Trump voter. Urban voters went for Obama in 2012 by 26 points. Danielle Kurtzeleben reports, "Clinton lost a small share of votes in urban areas from 2012's levels, but she lost a bigger share of votes in areas that were more rural." NPR found Trump dominating in those areas back in August:
All these stats might make it seem that it's demographics that cause rural voters to choose Trump, or other Republican candidates: that there's something about being white or about being older or not having a college diploma that makes a person vote for him, and that those people also just happen to live in rural areas.

Or, perhaps, that there's something about being conservative that makes a person choose a rural area. That may be true — Pew has found that (for whatever reason) people who are conservative prefer places where the population is more spread-out, while liberals prefer denser neighborhoods.

But as one researcher argues, living in a rural area by itself shapes a person's politics, and can particularly drive a voter toward Trump.

"There's this sense that people in those communities are not getting their fair share compared to people in the cities," said Katherine Cramer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin who studied how Gov. Scott Walker appealed to rural voters.

"They feel like their communities are dying, and they perceive that all that stuff — the young people, the money, the livelihood — is going somewhere, and it's going to the cities," she said.
There are other theories besides "rural resentment" for why people supported Trump — authoritarianism, racism, "economic anxiety":
Generalized "economic anxiety" has also been a popular explanation throughout the election, though a recent Gallup paper cast doubt on the idea that Trump voters are unusually plagued by low incomes or adverse effects from trade or immigration. That study, however, showed that Trump voters do come from areas where intergenerational mobility is low, and where white mortality rates are higher (and those mortality rates have climbed in rural areas, in particular).
So, what to do? First, I don't believe everybody who voted for Trump is a racist. There is no single cause for Clinton's defeat: not racism, authoritarianism, "economic anxiety," xenophobia, an uninspiring Democratic candidate, voter suppression, fake news, Wikileaks, Vladimir Putin, or James Comey.

I have no sympathy for racists, rural or urban. But if Democrats expect to be a national party, they are going to need to make inroads again in the red states, whatever urbanites feel about fellow citizens in the vast stretches of red on the map that supported Trump. Those states cannot be wished away or written off. This is not sympathy for the devil, real or imagined. It's math.

If, for example, Democrats would like to see a veto-proof Senate, that will take 67 senators, or 33 of 50 states with two Democratic senators each, plus 1.

So okay, want to write off 17 red states? No problemo. Let's start with the old Confederacy. That's 11 right there. Now we need six more. Add in Republican-voting border states Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, and West Virginia. Plus Indiana because, please. And finally Kansas, because what's the matter with them anyway?

Now we have to elect 2 Democratic senators in 33 other states, and there aren't that many states on the east and west coasts. Hillary Clinton won only 20 states in November 2016 (including part of Maine). So that's 13 states that went for Trump where if Democrats want a veto-proof Senate they need to persuade voters to elect Democratic senators.

The anger progressives hold for Trump voters in those red states is both unproductive and non-strategic. If we want to repair the damage coming from a Trump administration and change the map, we have to engage red-state voters who can be reached and not forfeit them to the right, or else we are just howling at the moon. Winning out there was what Howard Dean's 50-state plan was about, and the party abandoned it.

Any focus on white, rural voters will aggravate some groups that make up Democrats' multicultural coalition. But progressive politics is not a zero-sum game where if Democrats invest again in organizing rural voters, the progressive coalition in the urban centers gets ignored. Thinking rural lives matter doesn't mean only rural lives matter. That's no way to think about it. In the end, the math is the math.