Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#71

Post by _delirium »

Stratoscope wrote: post #57
_delirium wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's on the high end, but I think around 80-90% Democratic for an urban core is fairly common. It's hard to get exact numbers because it depends on where lines are drawn. For example, Cook County (where Chicago is located) "only" voted 76% Obama, but it includes a number of suburban areas, and would be >80% if you pruned them. Here are the next-most-Democratic cities I came across in some spot-checking, with NYC boro…

> 70% in San Jose County Santa Clara County? :-) > LA County Sorry, I guess we're a bit overly fussy out here. That one would be Los Angeles County. (Not that you couldn't call it LA County, just doesn't sound quite right. It's not uncommon to abbreviate the city to LA, but not so much the county.)

Oops, you're right on Santa Clara County. LA County is fairly common though I think.

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#72

Post by adestefan »

dennisgorelik wrote: post #24
Dove wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I know cities tend to vote liberal, but DC has always seemed extreme to me, even accounting for that. I mean, I don't have data for how big cities vote in general, but I thought it was something like 70% liberal. A solid majority and dissenters. But DC voted 93% Democrat in 2008. 93! That's not a majority. That's a consensus.

DC is fed by US government. Democrats are pro-government, so DC votes for Democrats.

The metro DC region is one of the most educated areas of the country. This is the reason why the area leans more blue than red.

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#73

Post by pilom »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #67
ohashi wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about 50% (50.7) http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html

It's been as high as 71.1% Black (in 1970). The percentage has been decreasing as Blacks have moved to the suburbs and Hispanics have moved into the city.

Well, I would argue a large number of young white professionals have moved in to and are gentrifying many parts of DC.

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#74

Post by sethg »

rayiner wrote: post #64
derleth wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it could be argued that republicans during Nixon's time were closer to middle road democrats of today in terms of overall platform. That's because it's correct, depending on what you mean by 'middle road Democrat'. Nixon created the EPA, created OSHA, signed Title IX into existence, ended the Vietnam war, and endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment, which nevertheless failed to pass. He couldn't have done a lot of thos…

I'll argue that the country is in many ways further to the right than it was then. I think today, even many Democrats are too brow-beaten to mention the EPA, OSHA, Title IX, ending wars, etc. Something like the ERA would be politically untouchable today for a Democrat much less a Republican. Not just among politicians, but among regular people.

Depends on what you mean by “further to the right”.

From WW2 to the early 1970s, there was a two-party consensus on government intervention in the economy, and that consensus moved “right” even before Reagan. (One of Carter’s legislative accomplishments, for example, was deregulating airline fares.)

On the other hand, the country has moved “left” on social issues. Can you imagine any politician in 1975, outside of the most extremely liberal districts, saying that same-sex couples should have legal protections equivalent to those of a married couple? And now that seems to be the “safe” position for right-wing Democrats and left-wing Republicans to take. The ERA hasn’t passed, but the courts have been more critical of laws that have a disparate impact on men and women (the technical term is “intermediate scrutiny”).

Regarding protracted military interventions in foreign countries, the parties seem to have moved “left” in the aftermath of Vietnam and “right” again with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#75

Post by protomyth »

mbell wrote: post #17

It would be awesome if this could somehow incorporate relative positions of the parties over time, perhaps by 'waving' the center line left-right as well. For example it could be argued that republicans during Nixon's time were closer to middle of the road democrats of today in terms of overall platform.

Both parties have "reinvented" themselves multiple times over the years. Arguments could be made on if a young LBJ, JFK, Nixon, Clinton, Lincoln, Bush Sr. would fit into the current version of the party they belonged too.

Plus, much is made of the "radicalism" (ultra conservative / ultra liberal) in each party, as if it hadn't existed before. That's not very true.

My only quibble with the graph is it skips the times that 3rd parties probably cost someone the election (1992/2000 are probables) which means the states were actually leaning the other way.

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#76

Post by astine »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #70
yummyfajitas wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big cities in the US tend to be extremely left wing. A quick google search reveals this map: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html New York County (Manhattan), Chicago and SF look a lot like DC. LA a bit less so, but that's probably because a lot of LA is suburban.

Big cities in the US tend to be extremely moderately liberal, not extremely left wing. In any other industrialized country, the Democrats would be a conservative party.

In any other country, the American left/right spectrum would not make sense.

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#77

Post by pessimizer »

twoodfin wrote: post #54
derleth wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it could be argued that republicans during Nixon's time were closer to middle road democrats of today in terms of overall platform. That's because it's correct, depending on what you mean by 'middle road Democrat'. Nixon created the EPA, created OSHA, signed Title IX into existence, ended the Vietnam war, and endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment, which nevertheless failed to pass. He couldn't have done a lot of thos…

The Reagan claim is nuts. By the logic of those links, Bill Clinton was too conservative to be nominated by today's Democratic party because he was for free trade, signed DoMA, passed welfare reform and substantially cut the growth of discretionary spending... sorry: "investment". At least two of the GOP's nominees since Reagan would have been happy to sign more immigration liberalization. Bush the Elder raised taxes…

>By the logic of those links, Bill Clinton was too conservative to be nominated by today's Democratic party

No, only by the illogic of false equivalence. Obama is for "free" trade, directly said multiple times that he was against gay marriage until recently, is running on a platform to cut Social Security, and has cut a massive number of government jobs during a time of high unemployment. In other words, Bill Clinton is conservative enough to be nominated by today's Democratic party. Reagan was far too liberal to be nominated by today's Republican party.

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#78

Post by pc86 »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #41
colanderman wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they weren't similar, then it would behoove them to become more so, lest the other party move to sway undecided voters. Plurality voting ensures that there are two major parties, and that they are as similar as possible without ceding ground to third parties.

The big risk isn't 3rd parties, it's just not voting, as about half of our citizens decide to do. And for example, it's hard to see the Republican party try to capture undecided voters with more centrist policies without pissing off the right-wing portion of their party, who won't go vote for the green party, but will instead: 1) Not vote 2) Start something like the Tea Party 3) Toss the incumbents out because they w…

Half is optimistic. In non-presidential year congressional elections it's not uncommon to have less than 1 in 3 voting. In true off-year elections in odd years where most folks are voting on lower court judges (in my state, anyway), local representatives on councils and school boards, it's much closer to 1 in 5 or less.

There are just over 600 people in my ward of my township. 67 people voted in 2011 for the Council seat that was up. It's disgusting.

I would posit that the cause is somewhat different, though: the partisan zealots are the ones that vote in every single primary and general election. For those of you who vote for POTUS and that's all, there are actually two elections every year. The country as a whole I think is more moderate than 99% of our elected officials, but the country as a whole isn't voting. It's largely straight-ticket people voting, especially in off years. This results in Members of Congress becoming more extreme because those are the people voting for them.

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#79

Post by bobwaycott »

pserwylo wrote: post #65

Can somebody from the US please tell me what the deal with the District of Columbia (on the far left) is? Also, this is another darn fine visualisation from the NYT.

In case you were asking why it's on the map in the first place, it's because even though it is not a state and was initially forbidden, as the seat of government, to cast votes for the Pres/VP, that changed in 1961 with the 23rd Amendment, which granted DC a number of electoral votes equal to the least populous state.

It's interesting to note that the entire South did not ratify the amendment, except Tennessee. Also, DC still does not have separate representation in the Congress.

More info: [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-third_Amendment_to_the_...)

Re: FiveThirtyEight: Over the Decades, How States Have Shifted

#80

Post by yummyfajitas »

pessimizer wrote: post #77
twoodfin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Reagan claim is nuts. By the logic of those links, Bill Clinton was too conservative to be nominated by today's Democratic party because he was for free trade, signed DoMA, passed welfare reform and substantially cut the growth of discretionary spending... sorry: "investment". At least two of the GOP's nominees since Reagan would have been happy to sign more immigration liberalization. Bush the Elder raised taxes…

>By the logic of those links, Bill Clinton was too conservative to be nominated by today's Democratic party No, only by the illogic of false equivalence. Obama is for "free" trade, directly said multiple times that he was against gay marriage until recently, is running on a platform to cut Social Security, and has cut a massive number of government jobs during a time of high unemployment. In other words, Bill Clinton…

is running on a platform to cut Social Security,

Citation needed.

and has cut a massive number of government jobs during a time of high unemployment.

As of Jan 2009, there were 2,790,000 federal employees. There are now 2,814,000.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CES9091000001.txt

Maybe you mean he didn't increase the number of government jobs as fast as was projected?

Post reply on HN