Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We were having this discussion on Fark and thought it was interesting enough to drag here. I'll let the pics speak for themselves;


There were areas that actually became MORE Republican this year. Here they be.




Hate crime map




Poverty map




Baptist strongholds




Fancy overlay regarding the above maps a Farker made (Transitions from McCain conservative strongholds to hatecrime)



Thoughts?

Uneducated/unreflective people become more fervent in their beliefs when those beliefs are challenged. Mind you, this is equally true of people who lean to the left as well. The correlation only appears stronger amongst Republicans by virtue of geography.

Urban environments tend to make the residual affects of other people's choices more obvious. This instantly pushes perception towards collective thinking. However, the best jobs also tend to be in urban environments. This draws in the educated who will generally tend to vote towards something beyond a partisan brand. As such, when the Liberals make a sound case there is an overwhelming correlation between education and Left-leaning thought. When the Conservatives do the same it appears as though education is irrelevant to sound political philosophy.

What exactly are you trying to prove. Pictures do *not* speak for themselves, what are you getting at here. I know what it is actually, I just want to hear you say it.

dogma wrote:Uneducated/unreflective people become more fervent in their beliefs when those beliefs are challenged. Mind you, this is equally true of people who lean to the left as well. The correlation only appears stronger amongst Republicans by virtue of geography.

Urban environments tend to make the residual affects of other people's choices more obvious. This instantly pushes perception towards collective thinking. However, the best jobs also tend to be in urban environments. This draws in the educated who will generally tend to vote towards something beyond a partisan brand. As such, when the Liberals make a sound case there is an overwhelming correlation between education and Left-leaning thought. When the Conservatives do the same it appears as though education is irrelevant to sound political philosophy.

I appreciate and agree with your analysis, however what sticks in my throat is the first map. Those areas, with a 22% approval incumbent, became more Republican. I don't have sources to back this up but I believe it is highly likely liberals are more apt to turn red than conservatives blue (Reagan-crats for example). It usually takes an economic crisis/policy issue for any red to shift blue....which brings me back to that first map. It just floors me..and I know I shouldn't assume it translates into what I think it does....but..?

While the correlation between hate crimes and better performing Republican areas looks pretty damning, I’d be wary of mistaking correlation for causation. Those are poorer areas, which tend to have a higher portion of hate crimes, and have been trending Republican anyway (and Obama struggled among those voters particularly).

Grignard wrote:What exactly are you trying to prove. Pictures do *not* speak for themselves, what are you getting at here. I know what it is actually, I just want to hear you say it.

I'm not trying to prove anything (and the thread where it originated wasn't either). We were simply discussing why those areas would turn deeper red given Bush. Did the GOP bank on the evangelicals more this year..and their get out the vote was heavy in those areas? Was it partly due to racist overtones? I don't know...but will readly admit it makes me curious.

I think the line of reasoning we are supposed to have is as follows:
Some areas are poorer and more baptist (a traditionally highly conservative christian church)
this areas also have a high hate crime rate
And these areas then all voted republican at a higher rate then before.

I'm guessing we're all supposed to chuckle and go "see, the white trash crackers in the south voted against the black candidate because they're stupid."

Good old correlation is causation analysis.

Personally, I'd guess that while prejudice was at least a partial factor, it's also possible that the nomination of a more openly liberal candidate drove moderates away from the center.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Grignard wrote:What exactly are you trying to prove. Pictures do *not* speak for themselves, what are you getting at here. I know what it is actually, I just want to hear you say it.

I'm not trying to prove anything (and the thread where it originated wasn't either). We were simply discussing why those areas would turn deeper red given Bush. Did the GOP bank on the evangelicals more this year..and their get out the vote was heavy in those areas? Was it partly due to racist overtones? I don't know...but will readly admit it makes me curious.

Alright....sometimes I underestimate my fellow dakkaites, sorry.

I don't have any evidence other than what I have observed from Mrs. Palin ( Which is not much, as I do not watch TV, read newspapers, or actively pursue news on the 'net), but that would lead me to believe that might be the case.

I am curious on where they are getting the data about baptists, and how they're defining that. I've been doing quite a bit of reading about religion lately, and while I don't think I'm going to find God ( for me anyhow ), I did learn some things. Most of this reading has been things like the Divine Comedy, Pilgrims Progress, and what not. I did read some more pragmatic things as well, including demographic data. Just to throw out one thing, a map on wikipedia suggested that baptists were spread fairly evenly across the country, other than the coasts.

Another thing to consider is that the high poverty areas in the Southeast are disproportionately black. From what I understand, most African American voters chose Obama. I don't know if that changes anything, but it is something to consider.

Polonius wrote:I think the line of reasoning we are supposed to have is as follows:
Some areas are poorer and more baptist (a traditionally highly conservative christian church)
this areas also have a high hate crime rate
And these areas then all voted republican at a higher rate then before.

I'm guessing we're all supposed to chuckle and go "see, the white trash crackers in the south voted against the black candidate because they're stupid."

Good old correlation is causation analysis.

Personally, I'd guess that while prejudice was at least a partial factor, it's also possible that the nomination of a more openly liberal candidate drove moderates away from the center.

I certainly understand correlation does not imply causation and I've typed this very thing not a week ago on this forum. The original discussion I was involved in (and the reason I posted it here)...was to see if there was any reasonable explanation that challenges the causality. You at least need to discuss the correlation to find if it has merit.

Polonius wrote:I think the line of reasoning we are supposed to have is as follows:
Some areas are poorer and more baptist (a traditionally highly conservative christian church)
this areas also have a high hate crime rate
And these areas then all voted republican at a higher rate then before.

I'm guessing we're all supposed to chuckle and go "see, the white trash crackers in the south voted against the black candidate because they're stupid."

Good old correlation is causation analysis.

Personally, I'd guess that while prejudice was at least a partial factor, it's also possible that the nomination of a more openly liberal candidate drove moderates away from the center.

I'm going to give the OP the benefit of the doubt that he did not have such a conclusion in mind. I believe that said white trash crackers are smart enough to know when they're being made a fool of, and to be angry about it. While I was in college I heard plenty of it....the jokes about "dumbfuckistan", incest jokes, etc. The GOP just happens to be the party who's strategy is to exploit the sense of alienation and angst generated by that. I'm sure there are quite a few GOP higher ups who hold the same opinions I just mentioned.

In fairness I'm prejudiced against baptists. But I'm aware that is my own shortcoming, and not their faith. I will at least admit it is unethical ( or immoral? ) of me though. It is much like someone who hates blacks because they were somehow mistreated by a black person.

AgeOfEgos wrote:It usually takes an economic crisis/policy issue for any red to shift blue....which brings me back to that first map. It just floors me..and I know I shouldn't assume it translates into what I think it does....but..?

The inverse was largely true before Reagan came around; blue states only going red in times of crisis. The GOP has been the dominant party for some 30 years. It isn't surprising that the modern incarnation of the uneducated voter defaulted to his past partisan truisms.

The hate crime map might seem pretty bad in light of the one showing an increase in GOP support, but if you look at it again you'll see three things.

1) Hate crimes occur in areas where there are large, concentrated, minority populations.

2) They occur with greater frequency in areas of lower income.

3) Areas with lower income tend to have higher crime rates, and also tend to feature large minority populations.

This means the correlation isn't too surprising. That doesn't mean it isn't damning in a way, just not the sense I believe you're driving at. Now, if could produce a statistical distribution showing the percentage of hate crimes per capita you might on to something, but again it would only show ignorance relative to support for a given ideology in the current context. It would not necessarily reflect of ideology as a whole.

Grignard wrote:
Alright....sometimes I underestimate my fellow dakkaites, sorry.

I don't have any evidence other than what I have observed from Mrs. Palin ( Which is not much, as I do not watch TV, read newspapers, or actively pursue news on the 'net), but that would lead me to believe that might be the case.

I am curious on where they are getting the data about baptists, and how they're defining that. I've been doing quite a bit of reading about religion lately, and while I don't think I'm going to find God ( for me anyhow ), I did learn some things. Most of this reading has been things like the Divine Comedy, Pilgrims Progress, and what not. I did read some more pragmatic things as well, including demographic data. Just to throw out one thing, a map on wikipedia suggested that baptists were spread fairly evenly across the country, other than the coasts.

Another thing to consider is that the high poverty areas in the Southeast are disproportionately black. From what I understand, most African American voters chose Obama. I don't know if that changes anything, but it is something to consider.

No apology necessary, the internet doesn't make me rage . I can see your location and understand why you might feel defensive but I'm not attacking anyone, just intellectually curious about the result. I certainly agree there was a black pride in the vote this year (Kerry pulled around 89% in 04' and Obama high 90s). Here is another interesting statistic. In addition to areas becoming redder (Or more conservatives voting GOP)...Obama did better than Kerry in every state this year except;

OK 0 gain
WV 0 gain
AK -1 from Kerry
TN -1 from Kerry
LA -4 from Kerry
AR -11 from Kerry

Again, this surprises me (Except AK for obvious reasons). I thought Kerry to be a weak candidate (and campaign) and with Bush in office I expected Obama to make gains nationwide. Thoughts?

dogma wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:It usually takes an economic crisis/policy issue for any red to shift blue....which brings me back to that first map. It just floors me..and I know I shouldn't assume it translates into what I think it does....but..?

The inverse was largely true before Reagan came around; blue states only going red in times of crisis. The GOP has been the dominant party for some 30 years. It isn't surprising that the modern incarnation of the uneducated voter defaulted to his past partisan truisms.

The hate crime map might seem pretty bad in light of the one showing an increase in GOP support, but if you look at it again you'll see three things.

1) Hate crimes occur in areas where there are large, concentrated, minority populations.

2) They occur with greater frequency in areas of lower income.

3) Areas with lower income tend to have higher crime rates, and also tend to feature large minority populations.

This means the correlation isn't too surprising. That doesn't mean it isn't damning in a way, just not the sense I believe you're driving at. Now, if could produce a statistical distribution showing the percentage of hate crimes per capita you might on to something, but again it would only show ignorance relative to support for a given ideology in the current context. It would not necessarily reflect of ideology as a whole.

Again, good points Dogma. I'm not read/researched enough on the subject to make a call...but it interests me. Somewhat off topic but regarding your poverty=crime bullet (Which I agree with)...I recall a debate between Sam Harris and (I forget) regarding Muslim violence. One was stating extremism was due to poverty while the other was stating it was a marriage of the religion and poverty. If only we could ethically conduct controlled experiments....

AgeOfEgos wrote:
No apology necessary, the internet doesn't make me rage . I can see your location and understand why you might feel defensive but I'm not attacking anyone, just intellecutally curious about the result. I certainly agree there was a black pride in the vote this year (Kerry pulled around 89% in 04' and Obama high 90s). Here is another interesting statistic. In addition to areas becoming redder (Or more conservatives voting GOP)...Obama did better than Kerry in every state this year except;

OK 0 gain
WV 0 gain
AK -1 from Kerry
TN -1 from Kerry
LA -4 from Kerry
AR -11 from Kerry

Again, this surprises me (Except AR and AK for obvious reasons). I thought Kerry to be a weak candidate (and campaign) and with Bush in office I expected Obama to make gains nationwide. Thoughts?

Also, earlier someone mentioned that their belief was someone is more likely to go from Blue to Red than the other way around. That makes perfect sense to me as conservatism often implies maintaining the status quo ( Though you wouldn't know it from the last few years....do we really need to change the constitution of the US in order to define marriage?) Sometimes I've found myself leaning toward right wing activities because of my occasionally pathological fear of change, in spite of my education and fairly extensive travel.

Also, has anyone explored that it may be the case of people who feel angry about how other people perceive them causing a reaction?

It is a little OT but I believe that has been the problem lately and one key to Mr. Obama's success. We no longer argue to persuade, it seems, but rather, to win some sort of crushing victory, hopefully causing the opposition to appear to have a substandard mental capacity. That isn't how it is supposed to be. We argue to persuade. Obama has remembered that concept. I feel that some, maybe not a majority, of urban dwellers with left leaning politics have portrayed this demographic block in highly negative terms, instead of reaching out to them

EDIT: I also thought that the Dems had a strong following in West Virginia

AgeOfEgos wrote:
Again, good points Dogma. I'm not read/researched enough on the subject to make a call...but it interests me. Somewhat off topic but regarding your poverty=crime bullet (Which I agree with)...I recall a debate between Sam Harris and (I forget) regarding Muslim violence. One was stating extremism was due to poverty while the other was stating it was a marriage of the religion and poverty. If only we could ethically conduct controlled experiments....

It is an interesting topic. Personally, I tend to believe that religiosity fades as income increases. When you are more secure in your day-to-day life there would seem to be less necessity for any kind of emotional certitude regarding matters which clearly do not reflect your status.

"Dumbf kistan"? That's hilarious! I had to deal with those sort of idiots all my life, because my dad was a certified "Beer in one hand and a spit cup in the other" cracker. Everyone on this thread waaaay overestimates their intelligence and underestimates how violent they can get when their ideals, such as they are come into question. It's so not a recent phenomenon, though it may have been made worse by our born again good ole' boy alleged president.

warpcrafter wrote:"Dumbf kistan"? That's hilarious! I had to deal with those sort of idiots all my life, because my dad was a certified "Beer in one hand and a spit cup in the other" cracker. Everyone on this thread waaaay overestimates their intelligence and underestimates how violent they can get when their ideals, such as they are come into question. ...

Wow!

I'm glad I haven't posted in this thread.

D'oh!

warpcrafter wrote:"Dumbf kistan"? That's hilarious! I had to deal with those sort of idiots all my life, because my dad was a certified "Beer in one hand and a spit cup in the other" cracker. Everyone on this thread waaaay overestimates their intelligence and underestimates how violent they can get when their ideals, such as they are come into question. It's so not a recent phenomenon, though it may have been made worse by our born again good ole' boy alleged president.

No, it isn't in the least funny. As it happens these are people who I know and care about. Perhaps your "idiot", "beer and spit cup" relations that you had to "deal" with weren't always the problem, and perhaps it was you every once in a while.

You shouldn't generalize a group of people because of your personal experience. Its time to grow up now.

I'm shutting this thread down. It screams troll bait, is insulting to whole areas of the nation, potentially insulting to specific religions, and has the high likelihood of a flame war.
Seriously, we can do better than this.