Not exactly the best map in the world. If you can ignore Dave Leip's red-blue inversion, you'll notice that Fairfax and Prince William (the part of NoVA with lots of people) is pretty damn "blue" (its red in this map). (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/)

EDIT: Inland California has its share racist, gay-bashing, gun-toting teaggers too. You'll find these loud and obnoxious tools EVERYWHERE. Not just the South.

I grew up in Northern Virginia, and there is no way it's "very blue". Loudoun and Prince William went strongly for Bush over Gore, and Fairfax went for him narrowly. Prince William and Loudoun went for Bush over Kerry as well. All three also went for Dole in 1996 and Bush in 1992. Yeah, Northern Virginia went to Obama, but then again, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Vermont, etc, went to Bush over Dukakis in 1988, which was the last time you had one party win 53-45. What does that really prove other than traditionally red areas may go blue or vice versa when one party puts up a particularly shitty candidate?

Of course this has nothing to do with south versus north. The area surrounding major cities tends to vote democratic, with the exception of wealthy suburbs (think Great Falls, Mclean, etc) which vote Republican. The counties surrounding Atlanta (Fulton, Dekalb, Clayton) went heavily for Bush over Gore (by 20+ points).

You're wasting your breath. Many on here have preconceived notions about what the south is based on from watching too much Real Time and other agenda based TV shows. Combine that with the fact that many of them have never been further south than DC and they simply don't know what the hell they are talking about. The biggest clue to all of this is the attempt to use voting tendencies to label parts of the country (where this stategy quickly falls apart in urban southern areas. ).

I don't see how this is so egregious. With a few exceptions, presidential vote preference correlates well with the cultural factors like religious observance, race, income, etc... and all manner of subgroups. Again, not justifying the use. Just saying that if you have an aversion to certain cultural subgroups, presidential vote preference is hardly the worst way to go about your task.

The problem is that we were talking about regions of the country, not cultural subgroups people have an aversion to. Have you ever been to Gettysburg, etc? You pass houses with Confederate flags out front. This is in an ostensibly blue state. So what does bringing voting tendencies prove?

Um... When people in this thread were dissing the South it seemed like they had an aversion to a certain cultural subgroups. They weren't exactly bashing the awesome weather. I could be wrong.

As far as Gettysburg goes, its a matter of precision. I've never been (a fucking tragedy). But Adams county went to Sen. McCain by a 60%-40% margin in what was by all accounts a Democratic year.

Inland Empire FTW.

Pennsylvania = Alabama other than Philly and Pittsburgh. Look at an electoral map.

Voting tendencies prove a ton. I don't know if you've ever worked in politics (doesn't seem like it) but it's no big shocker that urban areas vote Democratic. There's no way Jim Martin even stood a chance against Saxby Chambliss last year without the city of Atlanta. He did well on Nov. 4 because Obama was on the ballot so all the blacks in Atlanta showed up. When he had to go to a run-off in December, he was screwed because Obama was no longer on the ballot and many of the blacks who showed up on 11/4 didn't go to the polls.

I find it incredible that you guys are arguing that the South is any less intolerant than the North. Look at social measures that are indicative of progressive politics: death penalty, abortion rights, gay marriage; every southern state is conservative on those issues. Sure, maybe the Southern cities (ATL, NOLA) aren't, but the states are. I'm actually totally unsure what you're trying to argue but you and kurama don't really seem to have any clue what you're talking about.

LOL.

Slowly reading through this thread. It is quite hilarious. This one is my favorite...



So I guess it is bad that social pressures make racism taboo?

ps: Being that I am from Caliofrnia, how do I not run into all these PETA people? I haven't met a single one.

Wait. You're the one who keeps making claims, like the south is he least populous region and that northern Virginia is very democratic, that keep getting shot down by hard data, and we're the ones that have no idea what the fuck we're talking about

Typical politics nut, quick to engage in cultural warfare and evasive in changing contentions when you're pinned down.

Regarding race relations. I lived for 7 years in Atlanta and I can say if I can imagine if I were black I'd rather live there than in Northern VA, where I grew up. There are no black people up there. People view them as kind of an oddity. As a kid, one of my neighbors growing up asked me if I was black. I'm Indian! There is more overt racial conflict in the South, but it's the product of actual extensive interaction.

I think this has a real impact on attitudes. Who do you think forms more genuine impressions of minorities? Those that live and work among them every day, especially in places like Atlanta with large enclaves of educated, professional blacks, or those who see a few token white-washed examples and base their attitudes mostly on abstract lectures about equality in school?

The South is just a horrible, horrible place. I have visited many times and quickly recognized most of it as hillbilly hell on earth. Do not want.

I will grant you that the South has a lot of people — unfortunately, they don't vote in anywhere near the numbers that people in the rest of the country vote (which is saying something). If they did, we'd be rid of Republicans once and for all and the country would be a much better place.

And Northern Virginia is very Democratic. Trying to figure out how to upload a screen grab. Stay tuned. But first, a preview:

Loudoun - Obama: 54, McCain: 46
Fairfax - Obama: 60, McCain: 40
Prince William - Obama: 58, McCain: 42
Arlington - Obama: 72, McCain: 28

Not Democratic, huh? My ass.

Getting some popcorn....

BTW, Rayiner made a very good observation about presidential voting and NoVA at the very top of this page.

Northern Virginia is one of the fastest growing areas of the country. What happened there in 2000 is no longer relevant. 2004 is somewhat relevant - and, as you say, it was close. I will concede that the area is in constant flux because it is essentially a DC suburb, so the dominant party is almost guaranteed to win when there is an incumbent. I can virtually guaratee those four counties will vote blue in 2012, barring something totally unforseen.

Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to upload a screen grab so you're going to have to do without that.

And yes, affluent suburbs vote Republican. Those idiots don't understand what taxes do, so they just cast a knee-jerk vote for the GOP since they assume lower taxes = better country. Same with places like Orange County, CA; Greenwich, CT, etc.

Yes, getting rid of Republicans would be great. No need for this pesky "democracy" crap.



You might very well be right that Northern Virginia will continue to vote Democratic. That doesn't make it "very blue" as you originally contended. At best, Northern Virginia is just past the point of switching a very long-standing political affinity. The 2008 election results are best understood in the same way as other landslides, with huge margins being indicative of a clear national preference for one candidate, not a permanent change in the political affinities of the region. Even if Northern Virginia goes blue again in 2012, if it's a typical tight race, it won't be by the huge margins you say in 2008.

This thread would be more fun for me if we were dissing the interior mountain west. Cold as balls without the access to boozohol one finds in the Great Lakes or Northeast. (Ski resorts excepted)

No, don't get me wrong. We need two parties. The modern Republican Party is a disaster, however. Any major party that nominates Sarah Palin is, by nature, a failed party. We either need a new GOP or a new party.

Natural beauty FTW. Culturally, Utah might as well be the South, but damn that state has some incredible scenery.

In our defense, McCain foisted that can of fail on us. If she wins the nomination in 2012, I might have to reevaluate some things.

Also, as for "very blue", let's take a look at the recent gubernatorial race that resulted in a Republican governor-elect in Virginia:



Hmm...

... and Massachusetts elected Romney and Weld. More often than not, statewide elections just tell you which party didn't nominate a total doofus.

EDIT: My uneducated opinion on why presidential vote preference is a better barometer of partisan politics is that the clusterfuck of primaries and caucuses does a better job at weeding out political welterweights.

Yeah I mean Creigh Deeds was about as viable a candidate as my dog.

South Dakota has a D senator. Montana has 2 and a D governor, Utah has 1 and a D governor. I would never argue those states are "very blue." Statewide elections are not indicative of anything. Find the NYT map of electoral results by county for the 08 presidential election. Or tell me how to upload an image from my computer.

(1) PrintScreen
(2) Paste into MS Paint
(3) Save and upload onto Flickr or whatever.
(4) Link.
(5) Profits

deleted

Gary Herbert disagrees. As do Hatch and Bennett.