McCain has it.
Counties where McCain did better in 2008 than Bush did in 2004, from the New York Times via Matthew Yglesias:
A commenter points out that this corresponds almost exactly to the Upland South:
That is, the south where there aren’t very many black people.
November 10th, 2008 - 11:28 am
The racist vote. Obama has it too.
November 11th, 2008 - 3:27 pm
I guess you’re right, because there are people who voted for Obama because he’s black, just like there are people who voted for McCain because he is blacknot.
I guess what’s interesting to me here is that the all-important racist demographic is the only one that voted particularly strongly for McCain.
November 11th, 2008 - 3:40 pm
What makes it a racist demographic?
Obama did better than Kerry among all kind of social and geographical groups, but we don’t conclude that this was because of racism against whites. Why should we conclude that McCain’s douing better among some groups than Bush is because of racism against blacks?
November 11th, 2008 - 3:59 pm
Because Obama’s message appealed to a broad range voters. McCain’s message appealed most strongly to people who don’t trust Obama because he’s black and is probably a terrorist, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wroj0FLvzs
November 11th, 2008 - 4:07 pm
wat
November 11th, 2008 - 4:23 pm
Put the entire voting population on a spectrum from left to right, with DC on the left and Utah on the right, and Ohio and Florida in the middle. Everything else being equal, when one candidate is more popular than the other, you’d have every state move proportionally in the direction of that candidate, except maybe the extremes would move further to the extremes if it was particularly polarizing for some reason.
This is exactly what happened in this election for the most part, except for Tennessee, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, etc. which went way off to the right. Why did that happen? Is it because McCain’s policies appealed particularly to those folks for some reason? Or because they’re racist? Which do you think is more likely?
November 11th, 2008 - 4:30 pm
Right, so what you’re saying is basically: Most parts of the country increased their Dem votes, and that’s because Obama appealed to them. Some parts of the country decreased their Dem votes, and that’s because they’re racist. And the reason we assume they, and not the other people, are racist is because they come from a part of the country that we already assume is racist.
Do you see how this is circular?
November 11th, 2008 - 4:36 pm
Do you really think that the northeast, for example, voted more strongly for Obama than they did for Kerry because they don’t like white people?
November 11th, 2008 - 4:40 pm
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying that your assumption about the white southerners isn’t a conclusion from the data. In fact, it’s completely independent of the data.
November 11th, 2008 - 4:49 pm
When you have a data set that fits a trend, it makes more sense to explain why the outlier doesn’t fit the data, not vice-versa.
My conclusion from the data is that there is something about the upland south that either McCain really appeals to, or that dislikes Obama. I WONDER WHAT THAT COULD BE.
November 11th, 2008 - 4:58 pm
The problem is that people aren’t fungible. There isn’t a huge nationwide trend among ALL people toward Obama. There are many interrelated currents among different demographic groups. Some demographic groups, as well as some geographic areas outside of the south, moved toward the Republican party compared to 2004.
Parts of Colorado and Massachusetts moved toward McCain. Old people moved toward McCain. Small towns moved toward McCain even as his edge in rural areas slipped.
The explanations for all of these trends are probably very complex. I’m sure race was a factor, just like race was a factor in McCain getting less than half of Bush’s black vote. But just assuming that people voted based on race because they live where you already think racists live is way too simple.
November 11th, 2008 - 5:23 pm
That deep red part of Colorado is Saguache country, which according to this, voted more strongly for Obama than Kerry. So there may have been a typo in the data by the NYT there or something.
Massachusetts makes sense, because it’s Kerry’s home state.
Look, obviously not every single person who voted for Kerry and then McCain is racist. Obviously there exist other factors. But I’m confident that race was a significant factor for many voters in the upland south.
November 11th, 2008 - 5:42 pm
And the reason you’re confident is because you already think they’re racist, which was my only point.
November 11th, 2008 - 5:57 pm
Of course I am. I’m not trying to prove that the upland south is racist. I am offering it as an explanation for the fact that they voted particularly strongly for McCain.
Also, the lack of a better explanation, like there is for Arizona, Alaska, and Massachusetts.
Actually, you know what? I changed my mind. Oklahomans probably just got really concerned about high marginal tax rates.
November 11th, 2008 - 8:24 pm
Finally! Now when’s the rest of the country gonna catch on?
November 20th, 2008 - 12:01 pm
[...] The Racist Vote [...]