Income Maps

by Chris Bowers, Tue May 03, 2005 at 08:00:57 AM EDT

There seems to have been some confusion lately about voting patterns and income, so I thought I would help clear it up. Here is the 2004 map by state among households making less than $50K:

Kerry wins 437-101, and 55%-44%, although Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi were so close it is hard to know for certain who won those states. Clearly, people in families making less than $50K per year really liked Kerry, even in some surprising places. Overall, 52% of Kerry voters nationwide were in families that made less than $50K, while only 39% of Bush voters fit that characteristic. I should also add that Colorado looks really, really ripe for the plucking in 2008. Now here is he map for people making more than $100K:

Bush wins this income group 347-191, and 58%-41%. Maine and Washington were the only states where Kerry did better among those making over $100K than those making under $50K.Bush's larger percentage victory and smaller electoral victory indicate that voters in families making more than $100K per year have more significantly varying voting patterns on a state-by-state basis than do voters in families making under $50K. It also means that Kerry won several close victories in the over $100K group (under 52%), while Bush won several enormous blowouts (70%+).

(Source for these maps). All of this aside, as I have said in the past, these days race and religion, especially religion, seem to be far greater determining factors in how someone will vote than income.

Tags: Money (all tags)

Comments

59 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Of course the poor voted for Kerry.
They are not God's chosen people and, therefore, were very attracted to the Satanist, homosexual, liberal propaganda that Kerry spewed all over the landscape.

Alan Keyes told me so.

by craverguy 2005-05-03 08:09AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Of course the poor voted for Kerry.
Jeez, someone forgot their sarcasm detector in giving this post a one.
by Chris Bowers 2005-05-03 09:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Of course the poor voted for Kerry.
Oops. I missed the last line at first, then I went back to change my rating and forgot to hit the rate all button. Fixed.
by TJonBergman 2005-05-03 11:20AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Could you repeat the analysis
separating by race? You say race and religion are better predictors so is this fairly large association with income just a spurious correlation with race? What about poor white people?
by TJonBergman 2005-05-03 08:12AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
These maps are interesting
The second map is probably the worst a Democratic presidential canidate can reasonably do.

The first one is probably the best a Democratic presidential canidate can reasonably do (although I would think Colorado and West Virginia would be in play).

Basically, being rich is about a -14 point hurt for Democrats over being poor-but fairly consistantly-and this is entirely for anti-tax (and maybe anti-regulation) reasons.

by Geotpf 2005-05-03 08:21AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Just imagine
I can't help but wonder how Kerry and the Democratic party would do if they adopted some clear cut stands on kitchen table economic analysis.

Of course race and religion play a bigger part in determining party identification and voting patterns. The Democratic party hasn't given the voters a countervailing reason to vote Democratic.

I'll bet a dime to a dollar that Howard Dean's message is far more popular in every single red state than John Kerry's or Joe Biden's. If anyone can figure out what John Kerry and Joe Biden stand for that is. Why should we be surprised that a powerful regligious and cultural strategy of division beats a pitful laundry list of limp wristed issues that don't even excite Democrats?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-03 08:30AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Just imagine
"I'll bet a dime to a dollar that Howard Dean's message is far more popular in every single red state than John Kerry's or Joe Biden's. If anyone can figure out what John Kerry and Joe Biden stand for that is. Why should we be surprised that a powerful regligious and cultural strategy of division beats a pitful laundry list of limp wristed issues that don't even excite Democrats?"

Neither Dean's nor Kerry's message plays well in the red state's.  It is not the messenger though its the message itself it needs to make a geniune change.  Kerry seems like he was trying to hide a bad message, and Dean was just plain out there.  If you wish to get red state to vote Democrat again look at the message in which Democrats who have consistantly done well in Red States.  Such as Evan Byah, Mike Easley, Mark Pryor, Gene Taylor, Mike McInyre, Allen Boyd, Bud Cramer, or John Tanner.  These people have won in difficult areas, during diffilcult times, they know something, listen to them, and do not give me this they are Dino's crap because if you believe that you have no idea what a Republican really is.  Nominate one of them or find someone who genuinely follows what they know and run them.

by THE MODERATE 2005-05-03 08:50AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Just imagine
I'm not talking about Dean's primary message. Dean never got a chance to run nationwide. I'm talking about the message he is delivering today in red states all over the country. I saw him on CSPAN talking to the Democratic grassroots in Tennessee. He got nearly as many ovations there as he did at the Democratic California Convention.

The problem with candidates like Bayh, Easley and the rest of the near anonymous folks you mentioned is (1.) they have zero name recognition and (2.) their message probably won't carry very well in blue states.

I'll put Dean's message up against whatever message any of your so called moderates have to offer any day of the week.

I'll even make it easy Moderate. Show me any speech by any Moderate Democrat that can compare to Howard Dean's speech at the California Democratic Convention. He was not addressing a red state audience, but the germinating seeds of Democratic success in red states is in there loud and clear.

Show me what you got.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-03 09:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Just imagine
I'm not going to get into the rest of your post, but I think you're mistaken if you believe name recognition is important in presidential politics. Once you get the nomination, EVERYONE knows who you are, where you went to school, what your favorite food is, etc. Name recognition is only important in local and statewide races where the coverage isn't as intense and the voters are already grassroots activists (such as in Iowa). Once you're running, people will find out about you; just ask Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Howard Dean.
by PantslessYoda1 2005-05-03 09:32AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Just imagine
"The problem with candidates like Bayh, Easley and the rest of the near anonymous folks you mentioned is (1.) they have zero name recognition and (2.) their message probably won't carry very well in blue states."  

Perhaps you should take the time to know them they are all elected officals who have constantly won in red states. and the blue state are not enough.  As for thier speeches well and listen to them, the Rotary Clubs, the DAR meeting, the small town parades that many small towns have.  You will hear them.  As for Dean I reall in Kansas the Governor and Dennis Moore said they had a sceduling conflict in Mississippi Gene Taylor no showed, if he were to come to North Carolina I doubt our Governor would show either.  Honestly I stopped listening to Dean sometime back so I can not tell you what he is saying, but if I know of no middle class voter who is very torn between which party to support who is motivated by Howard Dean most people I know Democrat or Republican think he is a big joke but I guess that does not matter to you.

by THE MODERATE 2005-05-03 09:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Just imagine
...And I suppose it doesn't matter to you that Dean was preceded and succeeded by Republican governors and that Patrick Leahy is the only Democrat ever elected to the Senate in Vermont.
by craverguy 2005-05-03 09:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Just imagine
No not really, for one thing a generation or so back Vermont was considered the most Republican state in the Nation, I believe it was the only state to go against FDR all four times, while state such as Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Alabama voted for FDR all four times.  It just show how things change.  He comes from a state that has a Democrat for a Senator and Independent who may as well be a Democrat as another one and a Socialist as its congressman, who is believed to be the front runner for the US Senate.   Not exactly a competitive area.
by THE MODERATE 2005-05-03 09:55AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Just imagine
You still haven't shown me anything except blah, blah, blah. I could care less about "most people you know."

Rotary club speeches? DAR speeches? I hope you're kidding. You haven't shown me anything that demonstrates any of these people are ready for prime time. That is about the most pathetic response to a fair challenge I can even imagine.

Let me repeat: Show me what you got. Not your opinion, not some lame platitudes. Show me any speech by any Democrat that even begins to compare to a speech that Howard Dean has already given.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-03 10:22AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Just imagine
Aren't you being unfair.  Dean is the head of the Democratic Party for crying out loud.  Ofcourse he gets a wider audience.  Ofcourse he gets to appeal to the liberal base of the party, that's his job.  

It's the job of Bayh and Biden to win elections, and last time I checked, they are doing a pretty good job doing it.  

by Eric11 2005-05-03 10:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Just imagine
Forget about either one of them winning a Democratic primary. They are both toast because of their vote for bankruptcy legislation. That vote is not going away.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-03 10:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Just imagine
Oh I get it people that can win elections do not need to be nominated, particulry if they voted for legislation that was passed by a wide margin.  We wish to nominate contraversial people who only give speeches that I think sounds like I wish to hear to Cspan audiences that will long be forgotten, but hey it they may only be able to carry what I think is the base but hey I will be happy and this whole election is about my happiness.  The world according to Gary.
by THE MODERATE 2005-05-03 10:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Just imagine
I gave you a wide open field and you're still complaining. Show me one speech by any Democrat. Why is that so hard?

I've provided evidence and an example of why I think Bayh and none of your moderates can win. You can't give me anything except your personal opinion and political platitudes.

You think that's enough to win a Presidential election? I doubt it a lot.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-03 11:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Just imagine
I can show you any speech any of them has made and you will not like it you have stated as much, I have not seen a Dean speech since his Iowa scream so I do not know what you are talking about but you like him so you are disposed to like him.  If it facts you want if Byah runs he carries every Kerry state because like it or not the base turns out in Presidential elections, but he has won five statewide elections in Indiana a place the Democrats have not carried since 1964.  If he win five time in a state like Indiana I he stands a much better chance of carrying red states than Howard Dean or anyone else hail from a blue state with a base message.  Dean had his shot in 2004 and he lost, I might add he lost by a wide margin, the last three Presidents elected as Democrats have Southerners running to the right of the party why do you think that is.
by THE MODERATE 2005-05-03 11:23AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Know when to fold pal
I  posted a link to Dean's speech at the California Democratic Convention. If you want to ignore it, that's on you. Don't give me pathetic excuses about me pre-judging the speech. Just admit defeat gracefully.

By the time the 2008 election rolls around Biden and Bayh may have trouble getting elected dogcatcher. The bankruptcy bill will have kicked in and tens of thousands of families will have been personally devastated.

Bayh and Biden are both losers and will never win a Democratic primary. I suggest you find a better horse to back in the next race.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-03 11:32AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Know when to fold pal
First you declare yourself victory, then you declare two people have know how to win elctions 11 combined losers because they voted for a bill that passed by a lopsided margin and while I personally disagreed with it I am not troubled by the vote and I doubt many are but if you wish to show me evidence, tell everyone else to give up because man the only thing that matters in an elctions is not if we win or lose but that Gary feels good.
by THE MODERATE 2005-05-03 11:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Your name is mud
Don't try and tell me what my opinion is of a speech you are too cowardly to produce.

You are neither smart enough or qualified to tell me what my opinion is about the price of tea in China or the weather.

Bayh is a loser and so are you. Buzz off.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-03 12:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Your name is mud
Is that really necessary.  You have "tough man on Internet" disease.  Please see a doctor.  
by Eric11 2005-05-03 12:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Know when to fold pal
Oh I read your speech glad you liked it, I was not moved.
by THE MODERATE 2005-05-03 11:54AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
That's funny
Howard Dean speaks quite highly of you.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-03 12:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I've got one.
On Opposing the USA PATRIOT Act by Russ Feingold.
by craverguy 2005-05-03 10:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I've got one.
Good find carverguy. It seems like the only Democrats who can give a decent speech are "liberals."
by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-03 10:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It shows
"Honestly I stopped listening to Dean sometime back"
 
by Andrew C White 2005-05-03 11:15AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Responde
The problem with candidates like Bayh, Easley and the rest of the near anonymous folks you mentioned is (1.) they have zero name recognition and (2.) their message probably won't carry very well in blue states.

  1. Did anyone outside of North Carolina know who John Edwards was 12 months before the election let alone 3 1/2 years?

  2. Evan Bayh's message will carry very well in blue states, especially in the upper Midwest. Many swing Democrats there are very moderate.  Bayh would be very appealing to them.  You don't win in Indiana as a Democrat by not appealing to moderates.  

In fact, I would say if Bayh got the nomination, he would absolutely clean up Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, and Indiana; and he would do it by spending half the time and money Kerry did.  This would leave more time to spend in Ohio, out west and in the South, causing Republicans fits.

Look I don't agree with everything Bayh stands for.  But many moderates do and contrary to what most of youg guys believe, that is where the elections are won and lost.  

by Eric11 2005-05-03 09:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Responde
Politcal platitudes and personal opinions are the reason Democrats lose. I made a very simple request: Show me any speech by any Democrat that even begins to compare to Howard Dean's speech to a completely Blue State audience.

That should be easy. If you hadn't noticed, the 2008 election has already started. People are already lining up at the gates in the Republican party. Where are the Democrats hiding? Who do we have who is ready for prime time and what is their message?

I'll give you John Edwards, but I'd like to hear something from Hillary. Where does she stand on L.G.? Does she have a position on abortion? Where does Hillary stand on anything? Who knows? She's been playing awful coy lately.

If you want me to believe Bayh is ready for prime time, you better show me a damned good speech. Consider these objections to Bayh, Why Should Evan Bayh Be President?.

On top of that, Bayh vote for Bankruptcy Legislation. Do you really expect that vote to go away? I'm sorry, but Bayh and Biden are both toast in the Democratic party as far as winning the Democratic primary and they haven't got anybody to blame except themselves. That vote was indefensible.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-03 10:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Response
"Politcal platitudes and personal opinions are the reason Democrats lose. I made a very simple request: Show me any speech by any Democrat that even begins to compare to Howard Dean's speech to a completely Blue State audience."

I'm not certain what your first sentence means and as for the second point, I don't watch enough CSPAN for give you a specific speech.  

As for Bayh, he may not get the nomination which could be to bad because I believe if nominated, he would be a tough man to beat.  Rove and Co. can't paint him as a liberal and the public will admire his moderation.

In addition, his vote for the bankruptcy bill won't matter in 2-3 years for two reasons off the top of my head -

  1. Most of the public doesn't know the bill exists, and trying to explain how bad the bill is to the average Joe is much more difficult to do then you think.  Rebutting the proposition that "people should repay their debts" is not easy.  

  2. There will be many more bills in the coming months and years in which to judge these guys by.  
by Eric11 2005-05-03 11:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Oy...
"and Dean was just plain out there."

If you want to criticize the message then pay attention to the message and not the b.s. spewed by the media and the right wing. You lose all credibility otherwise. Seriously. You make a valid point but showing your own ignorance of the facts detracts greatly from it.

by Andrew C White 2005-05-03 11:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Just imagine
Coming in way late, but Brian Schweitzer put it best when it was put to him, how would he win the reddest of red voters.  He doesn't HAVE to win them and they wouldn't vote for him anyway.  

You can't seriously mean we should look at Bud Cramer, Gene Taylor or Allen Boyd for information on how to win a national election. We aren't going to win Alabama or Mississippi anytime soon (and i have a bad feeling about florida for that matter), nor do we need to.  Cramer IS about as DINO as you can get (and that's not crap); as frequently illustrated on this website, he has voted with the Republicans on nearly every issue this year.  What do we learn from that?  What do we learn from Boyd?  We should actively dismantle Social Security, practically the lynchpin of 20th Century Democrat accomplishments?  This is where this sort of logic drives me nuts.  If we win by giving up all we believe in, what exactly have we won?!

It's not that there is nothing to be learned from the conservative end of the party. Perhaps you could make the argument with Bayh, who has stood strong on many votes, caved/sacrificed (depending on how you view it) on other vital issues, but stands behind the party at the crucial junctures (never heard any rumors of him bolting on bolton, socsec or filibuster). However, your thesis seems to ignore the point David Sirota made most eloquently; you don't have to coat yourself in red in order to win in red territory.  Byron Dorgan's not particularly conservative and won in a landslide in North Dakota during Bush's "mandate" and he's just one example.

I might be missing your point, and you might just mean we should look at the message they campaign on or that it's just one of the angles we should examine, but even there, I still believe some of your choices are prime examples of what we should NOT do to win nationally.

by thurst 2005-05-03 12:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Just imagine
I agree with some of what you are saying. I like Dean, but he is unelectable nationwide. He would have been crushed in the current climate. Bayh would be OK. I personally think Bayh might be a bit bland, but I wouldn't rule him out. I also think Hilary Clinton should be seriously considered. I think she is much tougher and well-positioned candidate than those to her left and right think.

Still, Bud Cramer, Gene Taylor, and Allan Boyd are not good examples. They really are essentially Republicans, relics of the former Dixiecrat wing of the Demcoratic Party. I don't see what adopting virtually every Republican position ulitmately achieves us as a party. Are we just in to win, like we're some kind of sports team? And policy doesn't matter? Simply put, changing the Democratic platform so much so as to enable victories at the Presidential level in Alabama and Mississippi is pointless. Sure, I would love to carry every state. But its not realistically going to happen. Even with a candidate as problematic as Kerry (from a red state perspective), he only fell short by 2+% and one state. The Democrats can win running on a moderate to liberal platform. They just have to run the right kinds of candidates, find middle ground on a few issues, and present their message well.

This would be my short- to mid-range strategy for the Democratic Party. As to long-term strategies, thats for another post . . .

by Ben P 2005-05-03 07:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
This leaves out
The group who fall in the over 50k and under 100K House holds though, which my family is in, and that may be the swing voter.  Having said that if your opinion is fact and religion does make a difference, I have said before that the Democrats are making a mistake if they are going to try to become a secular party.  I think the need to make a genuine effort to enter the religious world.  This is not a secular nation, and is not going to be any time soon, if ever, and their is a reason for that.  It is past time for the Democrats to get in.
by THE MODERATE 2005-05-03 08:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This leaves out
Secular Party= Satanists, Gays and Baby Murders.

And that's before Alan Keyes and Pat Robertson  starts running their collective  traps.
This part needs just a little Jesus. Let the Republicans have God.

GOP = God's Own Party.

by Bruticus 2005-05-03 09:16AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This leaves out
Dean appeals to religious fundamentalists. Read his speech.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-03 11:14AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Demographics and Why Kerry Lost
The demographics Kerry did poor in are the following and are substantial reasons for why he lost.  If you click on the link that takes to the actual exit poll results, you will see what I mean.

  1. Women, especially white women.  Bush gained in this category in almost every state.  This goes to security moms and 9/11.  No question about it.  He is the strict father and woman support this.  Whoever runs in 2008 has to be more of the "stict father." This means get tough on national security.  

  2. 60 and older - In Ohio, Bush gained 10% v. 2000.  That's huge.  In Wisconsin he gained 4%.  This voting block represents close to 20% or more because they are such loyal voters.  

  3. White males - Some of these numbers are sickening.  In Blue states, Kerry polled in the low 40s.  Down South, try 25% and lower.  Now down South that should not be surprised, but 25%!  It has simply become unfashionable to vote for a Democrat in a national race if you are white, and especially if you are a white male.  The numbers for white women are not much better though.  

Some positives - the Hispanic vote keeps growing and Kerry does very well here.  I predict that outside of Jeb Bush, whoever get ths nomination in 2008 on the Republican side will not do as well as Bush did in this category.  This will be huge in Nevada, Colorado, and Arizona in that order.  
Just some thughts.  
by Eric11 2005-05-03 08:53AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Ohio
Item 2 may not be as powerful as it seems at first sight.  The 50-60 agegroup was very pro-Bush in 2000, I believe.  From 2000-2004, a big chunk of them rolled over into the 60+ category, while a bunch of the much older folk (historically much more liberal) sadly rolled into their graves.

I'm a proponent of the theory that voting habits do not change that much with age: last decade's Republican 50-60 group, upon rolling into the 60+ category, generally remain Republican, despite their ensuing dependence on Social Security.

by Winger 2005-05-03 11:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ohio
That is a good point.  Didn't think about people moving from one category to the next.  Good point.  Still I think Kerry did better in the 60 + age group than in the 50-60 age group in most states.  This can't just be from old liberals dying and stunch Republicans filling the category.  The 50-60 age group has been very Republican for years now.  There had to be something else.
by Eric11 2005-05-03 11:30AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Lots of them are rich
Or at least think they are.  That is, they have thirty or forty year job seniority, or at least experience, and are making fairly big bucks-so they vote for the anti-tax party.  They are old enough to be "conservative" in thier mindset, too (anti-gay, etc.), so that helps for the Republicans, too.

The older folks are worrying more about social security and medical issues and less about paying less taxes, so they vote Democratic.

by Geotpf 2005-05-03 04:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Demographics and Why Kerry Lost
White women - an important category and one Democrats should do better in but I disagree completely with your conclusion. Democrats should not become "strict father" in order to win this or any other category. That is Republican-lite strategy. Instead we need to do a better job if articulating and explaining why a Democratic approach to National Security is the only sane one around. Mimicing Republicans will get us Republicans everytime.
by Andrew C White 2005-05-03 11:07AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Demographics and Why Kerry Lost
In a post 9/11 world I think you have to play the "strict father" role when it comes to national security.  I know of a number of women with children who vasilated this election and may continue to in the future that did not in 2000.  As for economic and other social issues that women care about, using the traditonal Democratic mantra of compassion is still the way to go.  

I really don't think being tough on national security is being Republican-lite.  Outside the Iraq, we will have to show in 2006 and 2008 that Democrats are just as serious about our national security from terrorists as Republicans.  

by Eric11 2005-05-03 11:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Demographics and Why Kerry Lost
My argument is that the phrase "being tough on national security" is republican lite in it's formula and framing. The point of the discussion on "strict father" and "nurturing parent" is to not use the Republican strict father frame. The way to reach women... and men... that are currently responding to the strict father model of "being tough on national security" is to instead evoke their inner understanding of the value of a nurture based security strategy.

First, the "tough on" approach is a disaster and only making matters worse at every level.

We need to be working on the causes of terrorism, the causes of anti-american feelings, and the causes of the economic disparity that exists in the world, the socio-econimic despair that breeds hatred and hopelessness from which extreme reactions such as terrorism and ultra-nationalism are born.

So, as a sanity based policy, being tough on needs to be replaced with a real strategy designed to actually work.

Secondly, that message needs to get translated (by someone more skillful than I admittedly) into one that gets understood by the american people emotionally as well as intellectually. That is what framing is all about. Do not use terminology that evokes the strict father emotional reaction. Use terminology that evokes the nurturing parent emotional reaction. We all have both. Even rabid right wingers. The key is to cause that gut level reaction and then build on it until the person understands the sanity of our approach and the insanity of theirs.

by Andrew C White 2005-05-03 11:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Demographics and Why Kerry Lost
I do agree with you for the most part.  Perhaps I am coming across a little too strong in my posts.  I agree we must articulate and implement a more nurturing approach in order to have a  successful foreign policy.  The "stick it em" method is not very successful in the long run.

I'm just approaching this from a person who grew up in an area that swings from party to party with each election.  These people are the 2-4% that decide Presidential elections.  And frankly, I'm not sure they will buy this approach in the short run, and especially not from a candidate for President.  

Once we can get a Democratic President in office, then we can start doing what you are saying.  I'm just uncertain you pull it off before then.  Buy hey, I've been wrong many times before.  

 

by Eric11 2005-05-03 12:03PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Demographics and Why Kerry Lost
I hear ya.

I'm not sure how we make the transition from the tough approach to the problem solving one but it needs to happen and I guess that is all I'm really trying to say. I don't think it can wait until a Democrat is elected Prez but I also don't have a good suggestion at the moment for how to get from here to there. I just know we need to. :)

by Andrew C White 2005-05-03 01:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Hillary Clinton the key
To me, I think more and more than Hillary Clinton will be the ideal Democratic candidate in 2008. She will bring back more women, she has the image of being tough on security, she will have more connection with African Americans, but she is also someone who is instinctively with the party progressives on a lot of issues. Yes, yes I know she is polarizing, but so is Bush. But the thing to remember is that "only" about 30 to 40% of the country hates her, which is about the same percentage that would never vote for any Democrat, hate or not. Hillary will do well, much better than Kerry - on the rest.

Ben P

by Ben P 2005-05-03 07:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hillary Clinton the key
I'm for Hillary as well.  Frankly, she's a lot more electable than we give her credit for.  Plus, she's liberal enough on the issues, but knows how to talk like a conservative when she needs to.  And for all the talk about how she's gonna get massacred among rural white males, we're forgetting her strength among suburban white women, a HIGHLY Republican demographic.
by Skaje 2005-05-04 01:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Another Thing
Another interesting stat was once you got to the $150k and up range, Kerry would do better.  Obviously this group is very small.  However it just goes to show that in order to make the big bucks, you must be open minded and accept all people.  You don't become financially successful by doing otherwise.  
by Eric11 2005-05-03 08:57AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
What's so good about Colorado?
I would like to share your confidence about Colorado.  I have been disposed to think we have a good chance of winning it.  But what in these figures inspires your confidence?  We got under 50% among the under 50Ks.  That sounds more like a hopeless cause than a prospect.
by aretino 2005-05-03 08:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What's so good about Colorado?
We came close and lost people under $50K. Not to mention the statewide sweeps, and significant closing of the partisan index. Looks like there is a lot of room for growth.
by Chris Bowers 2005-05-03 09:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What's so good about Colorado?
This state will absolutely be in play in 2008 (outside Bill Owens becoming the nominee).  Democrats would be foolish not to spend time and money there leading up to the election.  
by Eric11 2005-05-03 09:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What's so good about Colorado?
I agree that recent history and demographics give reason for hope; in fact, that's why I had been optimistic until I saw this.  

But!  Under $50Ks are our base.  If we're not getting over half of them, it's hard to see how we can make that up.  We ran far stronger among under $50Ks even in lost cause states like Georgia and North Carolina.  I really have to wonder if we haven't overperformed in Colorado.  I hope that's wrong.

by aretino 2005-05-03 12:42PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What's so good about Colorado?
Perhaps the point is that it should be relatively easy to bring the under $50K numbers up in a state where we are almost at 50% among the over $50Ks.  
by aretino 2005-05-03 12:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Cost of Living
It is worth noting that Kerry did well in the 100 K category in states like California and New York with a high cost of living.  In these states, salaries are higher to reflect the higher cost of housing and other items.

Thus the 100 K families in NY or California contain a lot more managers and a smaller percentage of executives.  

Are we comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges here?

by David Kowalski 2005-05-03 09:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Cost of Living
I thought the same thing when I was adding it up. There might be a way to figure it out adjusted for cost of living, but it would be very, very time consuming.
by Chris Bowers 2005-05-03 09:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Beat me to it
Good comment.  I was thinking: what would the map look like if the income thresholds were adjusted for cost-of-living in each state?.
by Winger 2005-05-03 10:38AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Cost of Living
One thing I noticed is that the <50K map just shows us which our most hardcore red states are, and the >100K map shows us which our bluest states are. So -- not to rain on Chris's fine work here -- maybe all we're seeing is that support for Bush in the super-red states was so pervasive that it extended all the way down into lower income brackets, while support for Kerry in the super-blue states was so pervasive that it extended all the way up into higher income brackets.

But I definitely agree that we need to control for income variations among states; it's not a good measure when $100,000 means you're adequately scraping by in California or New York but you're the richest guy in town in Oklahoma or Arkansas. Maybe someone here with access to SPSS and a lot of free time could figure that one out.

As an aside, I'm not sure race is that predictive either, at least at the state level. Our blackest states (Mississippi, South Carolina) are some of the reddest and some of our whitest states (Vermont, Maine) are some of the bluest.

Maybe education would be more predictive, as far as something that applies as a nationwide trend. The trend of the U-shaped curve with greater Dem support at the high school or less level, and the graduate degree level, and greater GOP support at the "some college" level, seems pretty ubiquitous.

by Crazy Vaclav 2005-05-03 12:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Hmmm...
Ok... so these maps are based on exit poll data. I have my doubts about the veracity of such things today but lets accept that the data is fairly good.

If the under $50k crowd went so overwhelmingly for Kerry why didn't he win? The statistic I would like to see along side this is the percentage of the voting population by income level as well.

And frankly, just looking at this map leads me in the other direction. It makes me think that the economic message is the winning message and not the racist religious message that the Republicans use to divide. If the under $50K crowd understand clearly that Democrats are better for them then Republicans then all we need to do is expand on that, get more of them voting, extend that message and understanding to the $50-100k crowd as well.

Democrats are better at handling money. You can't trust a Republican with your money.

Hmmm... where have I heard that before?

by Andrew C White 2005-05-03 11:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The poor are a bunch of windsurfing elitists!
by Drew 2005-05-03 12:10PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------