More Fun with Maps

I don't know if my comment posted so here goes again:
Given that states rights was the cry of the south during the civil war it isn't supprising that they would join the party that seeks less federal government and more state control. But I hope that everyone realizes that though a state is colored totally blue or red on the map the actual break- down of the votes in that state are probably 40 some percent to 50 some percent. There is no such thing as a totally red or blue state. Secondly, none of us are off the hook for racism. Even the north backed and allowed jim crow laws.

The red state / blue state maps for the 2000 and 2004 maps reveal correlations that underlie the results of other elections -- in large part because 2000 & 2004 were so close. 2008 was a bit less close in popular vote, and a lot less close in the electoral college, so you get a lot of differences wiped out in a sea of blue -- as happened to a greater degree & in reverse in, for instance, 1984's sea of red. The underlying realities can be seen in the 2008 results when you look at maps like the ones on the New York Times web site which not only go county-by-county, but also have varying shades of colors to show just how democratic or republican the counties voted. The more detailed maps also show other important correlations -- e.g., between urban and rural, and those that go by the racial make-up of areas - like the fascinating "cotton belt" phenomenon linked to above in the comments.

The correlations between slave & free states & territories in 1860 and either the 2000 & 2004 elections certainly don't appear to be coincidences, but show how lasting are the divisions produced early in our nation's history, and that are wrapped up with the old issue of slavery (the divisions being partly the effect of and partly the cause of that controversy). Nothing like a massive, bloody war to cement divisions into place for a very long time. Part of what makes it fascinating is how it transcends changes in driving issues (nobody's debated slavery for a long time), and transcends parties. Yes, Lincoln was a Republican, and during much of the time between his time and ours, these divisions didn't line up neatly with any party divisions, and, at many times, to the extent they not-quite-so-neatly did line up with parties, it was the democratic party that tended to carry areas of the country that had been most vehemently pro-slavery. But it looks like the divisions remained, and were able to latch onto party divisions as the political winds flitted about.

None of this speaks to blame. Indeed, on the face of it, long-lasting divisions can be at least as easily blamed on the actions of the victors of a massive armed conflict as on its losers. But that's just an extremely general glancing observation whose point is just to say that assigning blame for the continuing of very old divisions -- to the extent one is inclined to play that game -- couldn't be done quickly or one-sidedly.