Thanks to Ben Fulton’s tweet, it propagated all the way to Tim O’Reilly with a re-tweet. You might get some traffic here today, Sophia. (Hope the noise it doesn’t keep your baby up.)
Interesting correlation. My guess is it is closely linked to population density. More urban areas (counties) vote more democratic than rural ones. Maybe density correlates with cotton production?
Traffic is welcome here in the comments section of pin-the-tail!
It’s something I would rather be abated in our roads…you know I prefer rail!
It’s good to hear from new visitors…now, do Democrats have an affinity for water? We’re landlocked in Indiana— but Monroe County does have a fine body of water…hmmm.
this should come as no big suprise to anyone. These counties have a high concentration of African-American population. As with the rest of the country, other areas w/ high black populations also went for Barak.
Yo,
I don’t think the presentation is intended as a “surprise” in the way you go on to simplify an obvious correlation some viewers might make. Your statement also disregards the thousands of voters, like myself, who chose Obama because he is brilliant, transformational—AND, in my case, I find Obama’s BIRACIAL background to be one I personally identify with. His life story resonates with me: one of my parents is an immigrant, non-white… and various other parallels I share with Obama’s identity move me when I think of what this means for my son’s future.
[…] of almost a century and a half ago. Many thanks to Paul Downey for sending in this map, found here. (1) Of white voters, only 43% voted for Obama; since Lyndon B. Johnson, no Democratic […]
Sophia: Not sure why you censored a previous post from someone with Delta in their name and then freaked out when “Yo” pointed out something that many of your commenters seemed to have missed: the counties in your maps had majority black populations in the 1860s because the blacks back then were slaves and they have majority black populations in 2008 because their descendants still live there today.
These counties traditionally vote Democratic because the Democrats have protected their right and spoken out for them. They are poor and rural and not, as your friend Noah Ilianisky guesses “More urban areas (counties) vote more democratic than rural ones. Maybe density correlates with cotton production?”
What’s unsettling is that you and your friends have the intelligence to put out this blog and to understand the importance of Obama’s victory, but lack the common sense to understand a simple demographic map.
Mike, I find it hard to believe that you think any of the writers commenting do not know basic facts about cotton and slavery and U.S. history— and the imprint of land use on society, race, and current demographics.
The point of putting up those TWO demographic maps on pin-the-tail was to illustrate something that may, at first blush, look obvious, but the display is a much more fascinating, thought-provoking glimpse of many more complex issues.
This blog is not “put out” by anyone other than myself– on one occasion, Kevin Makice wrote a guest entry.
Here are the comments from the anonymous commenter you are simpatico with: “As an expatriated Deltan, I feel it’s my duty to impart that the density/voting correlation is not due to a political epiphany amongst voters. The sad fact is that these areas include some of the most uneducated voters who select candidates based upon other, more “obvious” credentials than, say, a stance on foreign policy. While it’s great that their votes helped create change in America - these large farming communities are largely populated by African American voters who aside from voting party lines, vote based upon the color of one’s skin. Prior to the removal of one of the state’s districts, District 2 was so heavily and obviously gerrymandered that It would forever elect an African America Representative (Bennie Thompson). It’s not a bad thing, but that’s the reality folks. Racial barriers are still alive and thriving in the deep South.”
I think those comments by the ex-Deltan sound racist, condescending, and arrogant.
I doubt anyone “missed” the points you’ve tritely made about slavery– some people don’t feel they have to point out the obvious. It’s refraining from pointing out the obvious that takes common sense.
Lastly, I serve as a Plan Commissioner in our local County Government–hence, my interest in land use. Again, my regular readers know this and might go so far as to think to themselves that I may be suggesting that our patterns of land use have implications that can be seen in voting habits nearly a century later. For example, if we pave over everything for development, what correlation might we see in voting patterns once we’ve passed peak oil production?
The mistake that some are making is assuming that the two maps say something about african-american voters and the 2008 election. Which they actually do not.
African-americans, even those “uneducated” ones derided by another poster here vote 9:1 democratic. They voted 90% for Al Gore, they voted 89% for John Kerry and they voted similarly for Barak Obama (albeit a little more) not because he is black, but because he ran as a Democrat and African-Americans know that, warts and all, the party of Lincoln isn’t going to presume in their favor.
The pattern depicted on the 2008 election map is not different except in degree from the same patterns we saw in 2004 and 2000. Yes, due to a century and a half legacy, that’s where the black people mostly live.
But it popped out in 2008 not because those same black people turned out like they’ve never turned out before, but because the white people in those same counties voted not so much for the cracker alternative (McCain and the ever race-baiting Palin), but because they, like much of the country, knew they’d had enough and it was time for a change.
Sophia: You are a very angry woman. Why? As someone who’s never seen your blog and reading through the comments, it seemed that a number of commenters were confused as to why those counties had strong support for Obama.
I am far from the only one who’s reached this conclusion, yet you’ve reacted with a baffling degree of fury and contempt towards those who’ve attempted to point this out, as if we’ve been personally attacking you.
Wouldn’t it have been a better move to have thanked the newcomers and explained what it is that you were trying to point out with the comparison (I still have no idea). Or to question why it was that so many people were reaching this conclusion from reading your blog?
To repeat the old cliché, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Finally, I’m not sure what you found so horribly condescending in the comment you chose to remove it and more importantly, why you chose to exclude it rather than rebut it and engage the writer in conversation.
MRM: You had me until that last paragraph. Yes, as I also noted, it’s true that African-American voters in the South tend to vote for Democrats, regardless of color.
But It’s just not true that white Southern voters moved to support Obama. In fact, according the this article in the NY Times, they voted for McCain in considerably higher numbers than they voted for Bush. And if you read the article, many of those whites admitted to not voting for Obama because he was not white.
Here’s a really cool blog: Beautiful. Also, Are the Souls of My Black Sisters
It’s a A BLOGSITE FOR THE PRAISING OF ALL THINGS BEAUTIFUL AND SUBLIME IN HONOR OF ALL BLACK WOMEN. A BLOGSITE TO SPEAK THE TRUTH OF BLACK WOMEN’S HISTORY AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN AMERICA.
“ONLY THE BLACK WOMAN CAN SAY “WHEN AND WHERE I ENTER, IN THE QUIET, AND UNDISPUTED DIGNITY OF MY WOMANHOOD, WITHOUT VIOLENCE AND WITHOUT SUING OR SPECIAL PATRONAGE, THEN AND THERE THE WHOLE. . . RACE ENTERS WITH ME”.
[…] Wonkette got it from Andrew Sullivan, who got it from Strange Maps, who got it from Pin the Tail, who got it (without attribution) from me and posted it a week after my page went […]
In this particular case, I was the one who forwarded the map image to Sophia and I did it without attribution, but not because I didn’t think it deserved attribution but because I simply sent it in an email with a “don’t you think this is interesting?” comment. Sophia obviously thought it was, enough to post on her blog but she should not be held accountable for the fact that an attribution was not posted as I did not give her one.
That said, this started not long after the election when a colleague and I were looking at the top map (the election results) and we started musing about the blue streak running through the middle of some of the southern states and what it could mean. Obviously some were correlated to metropolitan areas (Atlanta, etc.) but others were not immediately obvious until we saw another map that showed how many african-americans per capita there were, a map that has the same shape.
And then a few days later, I saw a posting on the Huffington Post which showed the top map and the bottom map (cotton production) and that’s the image that I forwarded to Sophia. The Huffington Post did provide a link to the original source (I think) which was someone’s blog entry. I didn’t follow it but if I had had some foresight I would have and would have picked up the proper attribution. But I didn’t.
Ah, well. It’s the way the web works. Impossible to know if someone else happened to have the same idea I did — “Hey, I wonder if this would match a map of cotton production before the Civil War” — or if my page was the original source for this. Cool correlation, anyway.
[…] U.S. election is over. The post-election analyses begin. The above map shows presidential voting at the county level. The more red a county is, the stronger the support […]
[…] U.S. election is over. The post-election analyses begin. The above map shows presidential voting at the county level. The more red a county is, the stronger the support […]
Sign: umsun Hello!!! rcuwwymhyw and 1020ssgfhphzye and 6235Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post nice! I just came across your blog and wanted to say that Ive really enjoyed it.
Sign: fxnmz Hello!!! kykxn and 4611rgcbgsmmfk and 9335 : I love your site. Love design!!! I just came across your blog and wanted to say that Ive really enjoyed browsing your blog posts.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:17 am
WOW. WOW! That is incredible.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Isn’t it amazing to see what an imprint the use of land made in the 19th century?
November 13th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
seems simple: both democrats and cotton are hydrophilic
November 13th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Thanks to Ben Fulton’s tweet, it propagated all the way to Tim O’Reilly with a re-tweet. You might get some traffic here today, Sophia. (Hope the noise it doesn’t keep your baby up.)
November 13th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Interesting correlation. My guess is it is closely linked to population density. More urban areas (counties) vote more democratic than rural ones. Maybe density correlates with cotton production?
Proof is left as an exercise to the reader.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Traffic is welcome here in the comments section of pin-the-tail!
It’s something I would rather be abated in our roads…you know I prefer rail!
It’s good to hear from new visitors…now, do Democrats have an affinity for water? We’re landlocked in Indiana— but Monroe County does have a fine body of water…hmmm.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
And then there is Lake County. Hmmmm, indeed!
November 14th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
[…] Pin the Tail » Patterns, Land Use. […]
November 14th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
this should come as no big suprise to anyone. These counties have a high concentration of African-American population. As with the rest of the country, other areas w/ high black populations also went for Barak.
November 14th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Yo,
I don’t think the presentation is intended as a “surprise” in the way you go on to simplify an obvious correlation some viewers might make. Your statement also disregards the thousands of voters, like myself, who chose Obama because he is brilliant, transformational—AND, in my case, I find Obama’s BIRACIAL background to be one I personally identify with. His life story resonates with me: one of my parents is an immigrant, non-white… and various other parallels I share with Obama’s identity move me when I think of what this means for my son’s future.
November 15th, 2008 at 10:15 am
[…] of almost a century and a half ago. Many thanks to Paul Downey for sending in this map, found here. (1) Of white voters, only 43% voted for Obama; since Lyndon B. Johnson, no Democratic […]
November 15th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Sophia: Not sure why you censored a previous post from someone with Delta in their name and then freaked out when “Yo” pointed out something that many of your commenters seemed to have missed: the counties in your maps had majority black populations in the 1860s because the blacks back then were slaves and they have majority black populations in 2008 because their descendants still live there today.
These counties traditionally vote Democratic because the Democrats have protected their right and spoken out for them. They are poor and rural and not, as your friend Noah Ilianisky guesses “More urban areas (counties) vote more democratic than rural ones. Maybe density correlates with cotton production?”
What’s unsettling is that you and your friends have the intelligence to put out this blog and to understand the importance of Obama’s victory, but lack the common sense to understand a simple demographic map.
November 15th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Mike, I find it hard to believe that you think any of the writers commenting do not know basic facts about cotton and slavery and U.S. history— and the imprint of land use on society, race, and current demographics.
The point of putting up those TWO demographic maps on pin-the-tail was to illustrate something that may, at first blush, look obvious, but the display is a much more fascinating, thought-provoking glimpse of many more complex issues.
This blog is not “put out” by anyone other than myself– on one occasion, Kevin Makice wrote a guest entry.
Here are the comments from the anonymous commenter you are simpatico with: “As an expatriated Deltan, I feel it’s my duty to impart that the density/voting correlation is not due to a political epiphany amongst voters. The sad fact is that these areas include some of the most uneducated voters who select candidates based upon other, more “obvious” credentials than, say, a stance on foreign policy. While it’s great that their votes helped create change in America - these large farming communities are largely populated by African American voters who aside from voting party lines, vote based upon the color of one’s skin. Prior to the removal of one of the state’s districts, District 2 was so heavily and obviously gerrymandered that It would forever elect an African America Representative (Bennie Thompson). It’s not a bad thing, but that’s the reality folks. Racial barriers are still alive and thriving in the deep South.”
I think those comments by the ex-Deltan sound racist, condescending, and arrogant.
I doubt anyone “missed” the points you’ve tritely made about slavery– some people don’t feel they have to point out the obvious. It’s refraining from pointing out the obvious that takes common sense.
Lastly, I serve as a Plan Commissioner in our local County Government–hence, my interest in land use. Again, my regular readers know this and might go so far as to think to themselves that I may be suggesting that our patterns of land use have implications that can be seen in voting habits nearly a century later. For example, if we pave over everything for development, what correlation might we see in voting patterns once we’ve passed peak oil production?
– I hope that isn’t “unsettling” to you…
November 16th, 2008 at 12:19 am
The mistake that some are making is assuming that the two maps say something about african-american voters and the 2008 election. Which they actually do not.
African-americans, even those “uneducated” ones derided by another poster here vote 9:1 democratic. They voted 90% for Al Gore, they voted 89% for John Kerry and they voted similarly for Barak Obama (albeit a little more) not because he is black, but because he ran as a Democrat and African-Americans know that, warts and all, the party of Lincoln isn’t going to presume in their favor.
The pattern depicted on the 2008 election map is not different except in degree from the same patterns we saw in 2004 and 2000. Yes, due to a century and a half legacy, that’s where the black people mostly live.
But it popped out in 2008 not because those same black people turned out like they’ve never turned out before, but because the white people in those same counties voted not so much for the cracker alternative (McCain and the ever race-baiting Palin), but because they, like much of the country, knew they’d had enough and it was time for a change.
November 16th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Sophia: You are a very angry woman. Why? As someone who’s never seen your blog and reading through the comments, it seemed that a number of commenters were confused as to why those counties had strong support for Obama.
I am far from the only one who’s reached this conclusion, yet you’ve reacted with a baffling degree of fury and contempt towards those who’ve attempted to point this out, as if we’ve been personally attacking you.
Wouldn’t it have been a better move to have thanked the newcomers and explained what it is that you were trying to point out with the comparison (I still have no idea). Or to question why it was that so many people were reaching this conclusion from reading your blog?
To repeat the old cliché, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Finally, I’m not sure what you found so horribly condescending in the comment you chose to remove it and more importantly, why you chose to exclude it rather than rebut it and engage the writer in conversation.
MRM: You had me until that last paragraph. Yes, as I also noted, it’s true that African-American voters in the South tend to vote for Democrats, regardless of color.
But It’s just not true that white Southern voters moved to support Obama. In fact, according the this article in the NY Times, they voted for McCain in considerably higher numbers than they voted for Bush. And if you read the article, many of those whites admitted to not voting for Obama because he was not white.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11south.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink (The sixth paragraph speaks directly to voting patterns in the so-called “Black Belt” )
November 16th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Where did you get these maps from?
November 16th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
[…] You can read the rest of Sophia’s post here: http://www.pin-the-tail.com/?p=1056 […]
November 17th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Jennifer– see Strange Maps for more info.
———————-
Here’s a really cool blog: Beautiful. Also, Are the Souls of My Black Sisters
It’s a A BLOGSITE FOR THE PRAISING OF ALL THINGS BEAUTIFUL AND SUBLIME IN HONOR OF ALL BLACK WOMEN. A BLOGSITE TO SPEAK THE TRUTH OF BLACK WOMEN’S HISTORY AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN AMERICA.
“ONLY THE BLACK WOMAN CAN SAY “WHEN AND WHERE I ENTER, IN THE QUIET, AND UNDISPUTED DIGNITY OF MY WOMANHOOD, WITHOUT VIOLENCE AND WITHOUT SUING OR SPECIAL PATRONAGE, THEN AND THERE THE WHOLE. . . RACE ENTERS WITH ME”.
ANNA JULIA COOPER, 1892
November 17th, 2008 at 11:38 am
[…] This map is taken from Strange Maps. Or, you can’t always be sure about these things, a blog called Pin The Tail. […]
November 17th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I bet if you added in tobacco production from the same time frame if it would pick up the missing counties in NC, SC, and VA.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:00 am
And actually, the images and idea came from this page that I put up on November 6.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:02 am
[…] Wonkette got it from Andrew Sullivan, who got it from Strange Maps, who got it from Pin the Tail, who got it (without attribution) from me and posted it a week after my page went […]
November 18th, 2008 at 9:48 am
In this particular case, I was the one who forwarded the map image to Sophia and I did it without attribution, but not because I didn’t think it deserved attribution but because I simply sent it in an email with a “don’t you think this is interesting?” comment. Sophia obviously thought it was, enough to post on her blog but she should not be held accountable for the fact that an attribution was not posted as I did not give her one.
That said, this started not long after the election when a colleague and I were looking at the top map (the election results) and we started musing about the blue streak running through the middle of some of the southern states and what it could mean. Obviously some were correlated to metropolitan areas (Atlanta, etc.) but others were not immediately obvious until we saw another map that showed how many african-americans per capita there were, a map that has the same shape.
And then a few days later, I saw a posting on the Huffington Post which showed the top map and the bottom map (cotton production) and that’s the image that I forwarded to Sophia. The Huffington Post did provide a link to the original source (I think) which was someone’s blog entry. I didn’t follow it but if I had had some foresight I would have and would have picked up the proper attribution. But I didn’t.
November 18th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Ah, well. It’s the way the web works. Impossible to know if someone else happened to have the same idea I did — “Hey, I wonder if this would match a map of cotton production before the Civil War” — or if my page was the original source for this. Cool correlation, anyway.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:04 am
[…] U.S. election is over. The post-election analyses begin. The above map shows presidential voting at the county level. The more red a county is, the stronger the support […]
November 19th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
[…] U.S. election is over. The post-election analyses begin. The above map shows presidential voting at the county level. The more red a county is, the stronger the support […]
November 26th, 2008 at 11:40 am
[…] with maps November 26, 2008 — Richard Patterns, Land Use: [Via Pin the […]
November 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Побольше б таких штук
September 9th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog.
Cheers! Sandra. R.
September 10th, 2009 at 11:11 am
I love your site.
Love design!!! I just came across your blog and wanted to say that Ive really enjoyed browsing your blog posts. Sign: ndsam
September 11th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Sign: umsun Hello!!! rcuwwymhyw and 1020ssgfhphzye and 6235Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post nice! I just came across your blog and wanted to say that Ive really enjoyed it.
October 1st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Sign: fxnmz Hello!!! kykxn and 4611rgcbgsmmfk and 9335 : I love your site.
Love design!!! I just came across your blog and wanted to say that Ive really enjoyed browsing your blog posts.