This graphic is from today’s New York Times. I know that this election and its demographics will be parsed and dissected into the next century by people who know what they’re doing, but I found this fascinating. It compares the 2004 Presidential Election to yesterday’s election. Blue means "voted more Democratic in 2008 than in 2004." Red means "Voted more Republican in 2008 than in 2004."
Alaska and Arizona being even more Republican than before is understandable – Palin and McCain. I would’ve thought that spot in Colorado might be Colorado Springs, the epicenter of the Religious Right – but it’s too far west. But what of that big swath of red? It’s Appalachia and the "Bible Belt."
On the one hand, I’m surprised. The noise out of the fundamentalist Religious Right was muted this time compared to 2004. But this graphic is clear, that area was more Republican than even 2004. At another level, I’m not surprised. The Religious Right might not have been so loud this time, but they were busy. I live on the edge of that region, and they’ve seemed quietly active to me. And having a real "fundie" on the ticket, Evangelical Sarah Palin, was undoubtedly a factor. But it’s also the "white" part of the South. Racism [or at least Racialism] was a bigger part of this election than people would like to think. Here’s the Census Distribution for the dominant ethnic heritage by county. Purple is African. Pink is Hispanic. Light Yellow is American. [I presume "American" is early settler or something like that]. Light Blue is German. Orange is Native American. Aqua is French.
[…] in the South that appeals to the worst in people – one that apparently still works down here [ the divided South…][looking back [1860]…]. Whether he recanted when he was dying is essentially immaterial. His […]