New Map Shows Where Bush Improved in 2004, Clinton Now Leads
Here's a political map that's new to me, devised by Robert David Sullivan of the Concord Monitor for an organization called MassINC. Sullivan has divided the country into 10 regions, each of which cast about the same number of votes for president. The regions aren't all contiguous, and some of them don't make much sense to me: Chippewa contains Pittsburgh and Cleveland to the east and central Iowa to the west, but not Detroit and Chicago, which are in Mega-Chicago. George W. Bush carried five of the regions in 2004: Comanche (63 percent), Cumberland (60 percent), Frontier (58 percent), Southern Inland (57 percent), and South Coast (53 percent). John Kerry also carried five of the regions in 2004 (I've given Bush percentages so as to make these figures commensurate with those above): Upper Coasts (38 percent), Northeast Corridor (39 percent), Mega-Chicago (45 percent), El Norte (48 percent), and Chippewa (48 percent).
Sullivan has calculated the number and percentages for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in primaries and caucuses in each of his 10 regions (where caucus results are available). He notes that Clinton has been "cleaning up" in counties where Bush improved his percentage most between 2000 and 2004 and that Obama has been running strongest in areas where Bush's percentage was lower in 2004 than in 2000. The reason is that Clinton has been running well in areas with many white ethnics, Jacksonians and Latinos—the groups among which, as I showed in my introduction to The Almanac of American Politics 2008, Bush most improved his percentage in 2004. And Obama has been running strongest among blacks and upscale whites, groups which tended not to give Bush higher percentages in 2004 than in 2000.
Curiously, Obama is carrying only three of Sullivan's 10 regions: Mega-Chicago, South Coast, and Southern Inland. (By most scorecards he's won more popular votes, but Sullivan shows him with slightly fewer, presumably because he couldn't assign caucus votes to counties in some states.) The highest percentage for either candidate is Clinton's 55 percent in El Norte.
Tags: presidential election 2004 | presidential election 2008 | Barack Obama | George W. Bush | Hillary Clinton
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (2)
Reader Comments
Michael Barone is a biased Clinton supporter.
The way things look Obama will win both popular vote,and delegate vote. This is also including super delegates. Clinton is behind in likeability, and is loosing ground. Obama has both Independent, Republican,and Democrat support. Hillary has only Democrat support. Obama is also beating Hillary for the Democratic vote. For this reason Hillary cannot ever have the popular vote. Mabye Michael Barone should have done his home work before biasedly posting this highlt opinated,non factual blog.
Add your thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our comment guidelines.advertisement
New data on the 10 regions
Thank you for linking to my blog and the post on the 10 political regions. It's flattering to be noticed by a data maven such as yourself. I just want to point out that I've posted some graphs showing how each of the regions have had particular voting patterns in presidential elections beginning in 1948. I will write more on the topic, but these graphs may help to explain the different characters of each region (such as Chippewa vs. Mega-Chicago): http://massinc.typepad.com/beyondredandblue/2008/03/post-1.html
Mar 28, 2008 13:23:35 PM [permalink] [report comment]