3 ms·

I’m amazed the article didn’t mention the political correlation between the “big metros” and everywhere else. We know that increasingly “Blue America” is exclus

I’m amazed the article didn’t mention the political correlation between the “big metros” and everywhere else. We know that increasingly “Blue America” is exclusively these major metros and “Red America” is everywhere else. But all these better outcomes are correlated to living in Red America, which they say is mostly due to affordable housing. I don’t really know what to make of that, but it’s interesting to me.

sct202 8y ago
The current city = Blue and rural = Red division is a relatively recent one; so across the timescale of people born in the 80s to now you'd have a lot of political shifts that would be hard to account for. Just look at the 1996 election results by county seems unimaginable now, but it wasn't that long ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election#/media/File:1996nationwidecountymapshadedbyvoteshare.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidentia...
- burlesona 8y ago
  That’s a good point I hadn’t really considered. You can still see the beginning of the trend toward today’s polarized map, but you’re right, over the span of time the article is covering that dichotomy is more recent.
- inscionent 8y ago
  If you are going to use the 1996 county map you need to factor out Perot. Louisiana for example is much bluer Parish by Parish in 1996 than any of the elections going back to 1980.
  - mc32 8y ago
    I think Perot was ‘92, no? There, yes, like Nader after him was a “spoiler” as the losers like to call them.
    - mdorazio 8y ago
      He was actually both (he ran again in '96). The second time around he still managed to get over 8% of the popular vote, which is pretty impressive [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidentia...
- RickJWagner 8y ago
  That is truly interesting. Thanks for posting it. (I agree, it seems unthinkable today.)

sct202 8y ago

The current city = Blue and rural = Red division is a relatively recent one; so across the timescale of people born in the 80s to now you'd have a lot of political shifts that would be hard to account for. Just look at the 1996 election results by county seems unimaginable now, but it wasn't that long ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election#/media/File:1996nationwidecountymapshadedbyvoteshare.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidentia...

burlesona 8y ago
That’s a good point I hadn’t really considered. You can still see the beginning of the trend toward today’s polarized map, but you’re right, over the span of time the article is covering that dichotomy is more recent.
inscionent 8y ago
If you are going to use the 1996 county map you need to factor out Perot. Louisiana for example is much bluer Parish by Parish in 1996 than any of the elections going back to 1980.
- mc32 8y ago
  I think Perot was ‘92, no? There, yes, like Nader after him was a “spoiler” as the losers like to call them.
  - mdorazio 8y ago
    He was actually both (he ran again in '96). The second time around he still managed to get over 8% of the popular vote, which is pretty impressive [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidentia...
RickJWagner 8y ago
That is truly interesting. Thanks for posting it. (I agree, it seems unthinkable today.)