This is a part of a series of posts analyzing the 2010 midterm elections. This post will analyze the Ohio gubernatorial election, in which Republican John Kasich narrowly defeated Democrat Ted Strickland.

(Note: I strongly encourage you to click the image links on this post when reading; they're essential to understanding what I'm saying.)

Ohio’s Gubernatorial Election

In most of the 2010 midterm elections, Democratic performances were strikingly similar to President Barack Obama’s performance in 2008. If a place had generally voted Democratic in the past, but didn’t vote for Mr. Obama – it tended not to vote Democratic in 2010 either. An example of this is southwest Pennsylvania. The same holds true for places that generally voted Republican in the past but went for Mr. Obama this time (e.g. the Houston and Salt Lake City metropolitan areas.)

Ohio’s gubernatorial election was an exception to this trend. Democratic former Governor Ted Strickland built a very traditional Democratic coalition in Ohio:

(A note: Credit for the first three maps in this post goes to the New York Times.)

This map is strikingly similar to previous Democratic performances in Ohio, and less similar to Mr. Obama’s. Mr. Obama did unusually well in Columbus and Cincinnati and unusually badly in the Ohio’s northeast unionized industrial corridor. Mr. Strickland depended less on Columbus and Cincinnati and more on the northeast.

Ohio’s 2010 gubernatorial election looks very similar to previous elections. Here, for instance, is President George W. Bush in 2004:

Even more similarly, we can look at President Bill Clinton’s victory in 1996. Of course, Mr. Clinton won Ohio by a decent margin while Mr. Strickland lost. But if you simply imagine the Republican margins widening and the Democratic margins decreasing, you get something very similar to Mr. Strickland’s map:

One can go further back – to the 1976 presidential election or even the 1940 presidential election – and get similar results. (Note that in the link for the 1976 presidential election, blue indicates Republican victories while red indicates Democratic victories; this is the opposite of the norm.)

Republican Governor John Kasich thus won a victory based off electoral patterns more than three generations old.

Two Unusual Patterns

Let’s compare Mr. Kasich’s performance with Senator John McCain’s performance:

This is a very unusual map. When most Republicans win, Republican strongholds shift more to the Republican candidate, while Democratic strongholds shift less.

This did not happen with Mr. Kasich. Rather, Mr. Kasich seems to have improved the most in the more populated areas of Ohio (Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland). He actually does worse than Mr. McCain in a number of Republican counties.

Notice also how Mr. Strickland improves upon Mr. Obama along the southeastern border of Ohio. This is not an accident; Mr. Strickland’s area of improvement directly traces the old congressional district he represented before becoming governor.

Here is a map of Ohio’s congressional districts. Mr. Strickland represented the 6th congressional district in the map:

There is one final interesting note about the 2010 Ohio gubernatorial election. Republican candidate John Kasich lost much of Appalachian southeastern Ohio. This is a rare occurrence; that part of Ohio is economically liberal but socially conservative and quite poor. It usually votes Republican but will occasionally go for a Democratic candidate.

Generally, this only happens when the Republican candidate is losing. That Mr. Kasich lost southeastern Ohio but still won the state is a rare thing.

The Democratic Party is in trouble in this part of America; it has gone from Clinton country to one of the few areas where Barack Obama did worse than John Kerry. The Democratic officeholders in this region are gradually being swept out of office.

Yet Mr. Strickland was able to win soundly in Appalachian Ohio, despite losing the state during the strongest Republican wave in a generation. That is quite a unique accomplishment. It offers a ray of hope to Democrats in Appalachian America.

--Inoljt

 

 

This is the part of a series of posts examining how to create super-packed districts of one race. The other posts in this series pack Asians, blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans.

(Note: I strongly encourage you to click the image links on this post when reading; they're essential to understanding what I'm saying.)

The Districts

The previous post stated that

I drew a lot of districts in the quest for the whitest district of them all. It wouldn’t do the difficulty of this task justice to just show one district. Rather, I will show the five whitest districts of all the ones that I drew. Numbers five and four will be in this post. The top three will be in the next one.

The fifth-whitest district was in the state of Indiana, the fourth whitest was in the state of Kentucky.

Now for the third-whitest district.

#3: West Virginia

Population – 98.2% white, 0.3% black, 0.5% Hispanic, 0.2% Asian, 0.2% Native American, 0.7% other

West Virginia is home to the third whitest district. This district is the most compact of all the districts presented here, essentially taking in all of rural West Virginia. Interestingly, despite being almost exactly one-third of the state’s population, it covers the vast majority of West Virginia’s land area. West Virginia is not commonly thought of as an urban state – but even this part of America is urbanized to a striking degree.

Politically, this district used to constitute the core of white working-class, pro-union Democratic strength. It probably voted Democratic in 1988, 1980, and 1968 – all years in which the Republican presidential candidate pummeled the Democrat. During the 21st century, however, it shifted strongly Republican. President Barack Obama lost the district in 2008, and it would be extremely surprising if he wins it in 2012.

#2: Ohio

Population – 98.2% white, 0.3% black, 0.6% Hispanic, 0.2% Asian, 0.1% Native American, 0.7% other

The second whitest district of them all belongs to the ultimate swing state, Ohio.

The key to this district is the size of Ohio. Because Ohio is such a populous state, the district is free to sprawl throughout the state in search of only the whitest precincts. This is something that wasn’t possible in Kentucky or West Virginia, and it’s why the district is slightly whiter – despite Ohio overall having a much lower white population.

Rural whites in Ohio are also quite conservative. Politically this district gave President Barack Obama 36.1% of the vote in 2008; Senator John McCain took 61.7% of the vote. The “average” Democrat from the years 2006 to 2008 won 45.6% of the vote; the “average” Republican won 54.4% of the vote. Both numbers overstate Democratic strength here, since 2006 to 2008 were very good years for Democrats.

#1: Pennsylvania

Population – 98.6% white, 0.2% black, 0.4% Hispanic, 0.2% Asian, 0.1% Native American, 0.5% other

Surprise! The whitest district of them all is in Pennsylvania, a state which you probably weren’t guessing.

Like Ohio, Pennsylvania benefits from being a very populous state; the district can freely reach into only the whitest areas. And apparently central and eastern Pennsylvania are extremely white regions.

Geographically, this district covers a lot of ground. Remember that the people living here compose only 1/18th of Pennsylvania’s total population. And yet the district is certainly a lot bigger than 1/18th of Pennsylvania’s total land area.

Politically, this district has a lot in common with the Indiana and Ohio districts. It gave President Barack Obama 37.2% of the vote and Senator John McCain 61.3% of the vote in 2008. Pennsylvania may be a Democratic-leaning state, but rural Pennsylvania whites are not anymore liberal than rural Indiana and Ohio whites. Moreover, this district has probably always been Republican-leaning. Parts of it, especially in the southwest, once were quite Democratic. But the eastern part of the district outnumbers the southwest. Located in Pennsylvania’s “T”, those eastern reaches have been a Republican stronghold for a very long time.

Conclusions

Most people say that the whitest part of the United States is in New England. That’s technically true, if one includes New England’s snow-white non-rural areas. But, as this post shows, the part of the United States with the highest percentage of whites is actually located elsewhere.

There are several ways to describe the region. It’s entirely rural; the cities and suburbs in the region are not included. Parts (or all) of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, New York, Virginia, and West Virginia cover it. One way to describe it would be as the basin of the Ohio River. Another way would be as the Appalachian Mountains and the forested areas to their north.

Whatever the description, minorities have never settled in this part of the United States. African-Americans generally live in the South and, outside of the South, in cities. Hispanics generally live in the Southwest and, outside the Southwest, in cities and economically growing regions. Asians generally live in California and Hawaii and, outside those two states, in suburbs. This region is thus the whitest part of the America, and will probably continue to be so for many, many years to come.

--Inoljt 

 

The Columbus Dispatch reports

Assistant Prosecutor David Zeyen said Stredney confronted Hart in the parking lot of NCO Financial Systems on Frantz Road as he arrived for work on the morning of Dec. 14. She tried to force him into her car at gunpoint and shot him in the face when he refused.
She threw the handgun from the window of her car as she fled and was stopped by Dublin police less than a mile away.
Stredney's mental illness was among the reasons that Hart had called off their wedding plans, Zeyen said.
She purchased the gun a week before the shooting and asked police to show her how to use it, claiming she had been a burglary victim and needed to protect herself.
Stredney, of Warren, Ohio, made a lengthy statement in court, saying she had been under a psychiatrist's care for 19 years but "no one knows what's wrong with me."

Gun rights advocates are opposed to any and all attempts to screen prospective gun buyers for mental fitness. This, thay say, would infringe on their god-given fundamental human right to own that particular inanimate object.

The result of all this freedom is in the news every day. Usually it's men shooting women in domestic incidents, but sometimes it's like this.

What's your opinion? Are Ohioans more free or less free because of the gun rights they enjoy?

(cross posted on Mikeb302000)

Please leave a comment.

 

 

cross-posted at Mikeb302000

The Toledo Blade reports on the terrible frequency of gun violence in their city. You know how the gun-rights folks will often accuse their opponents of what they know they themselves are guilty of? Well, here's what I thought.

Let's take a wild guess and say that central and North Toledo is where the black people live. Let's combine that fact with what we know about lawful gun ownership. Guns are manufactured by companies owned by white folks (is there even one exception?), they are distributed to Federal Firearms Licensees (not too many blacks there, eh?), then the free-for-all begins.

Lax gun laws in places like Ohio facilitate the gun flow from the predominantly white beginnings of gun ownership out into the world, including all those that end up in central and North Toledo.

The entire system is racist.  Blacks end up paying for the sins of whites. I know the argument that each ghetto shooter is solely responsible for his actions, but I don't buy it.  Most ghetto shooters are suffering from economic and educational disadvantages, many times drug and alcohol addiction is involved. 

The folks who ensure a steady supply of guns are also to blame.

Meanwhile, the gun-rights extremists will go to great lengths to argue that gun control is racist.  It started out that way 150 years ago, after all. 

What's your opinion?

cross-posted at Mikeb302000

The Toledo Blade reports on the terrible frequency of gun violence in their city. You know how the gun-rights folks will often accuse their opponents of what they know they themselves are guilty of? Well, here's what I thought.

Let's take a wild guess and say that central and North Toledo is where the black people live. Let's combine that fact with what we know about lawful gun ownership. Guns are manufactured by companies owned by white folks (is there even one exception?), they are distributed to Federal Firearms Licensees (not too many blacks there, eh?), then the free-for-all begins.

Lax gun laws in places like Ohio facilitate the gun flow from the predominantly white beginnings of gun ownership out into the world, including all those that end up in central and North Toledo.

The entire system is racist.  Blacks end up paying for the sins of whites. I know the argument that each ghetto shooter is solely responsible for his actions, but I don't buy it.  Most ghetto shooters are suffering from economic and educational disadvantages, many times drug and alcohol addiction is involved. 

The folks who ensure a steady supply of guns are also to blame.

Meanwhile, the gun-rights extremists will go to great lengths to argue that gun control is racist.  It started out that way 150 years ago, after all. 

What's your opinion?