We’ve heard it before, but it’s always neat to see a map:
Via Matt, who got it from Openleft, at a link which is currently dead but which I hope will revive. Matt writes:
…progressive politics is badly disadvantaged by a situation in which the overwhelming majorities of political leaders and prominent media figures are white men. There are plenty of white men with progressive views, but in general the majority of white men are not progressive and the majority of progressives are not white men. Drawing from the relatively small pool of white male progressives means drawing from a shallow talent pool.
Assuming that the author is using “progressive” as some sort of synonym for “voted Democratic,” does anyone know what percentage of white men voted for Clinton etc. in the previous few elections?
Obama isn’t an irrelevant data point, but it is far from the only data point.
Is this percentage of eligible voters or percentage of men who voted?
I’d guess Clinton’s share would be the same as this map, with maybe Arkansas and Louisiana having a higher amount of Democratic votes. Although he probably had less votes than Obama in Idaho, Texas and Montana, because of the Waco compound disaster.
Generally speaking, Democrats aren’t popular in the South (among whites) because of the Civil Rights Movement.
Here is a much better explanation.
this article (like many of the other references I could find in a quick search) seems to avoid giving any hard numbers for either Clinton election. i’m not sure why.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=3564&kaid=127&subid=171
Dianne, I’m pretty sure that this is based on exit polling, so it would only count those people who voted.
SM, check out the pie graphs here. (ETA: Doesn’t go back as far as Clinton, however.)
Hmmm…
Just out of interest, any data on votes for McKinney?
Is anyone else confused by Hawaii? It’s a color not in the key. I assume it’s an even higher percentage, because it’s his home state, but would like to know for sure…
Thanks, amp. Interesting result. Since Obama did not win the white, male vote in quite a large number of states, including states he won easily (New York, Illinois for example) can we conlude that the white male vote is irrelevant and get the politicians to start focusing more on the needs of people who do vote, i.e. women of all ethnic groups? (Not quite entirely a joke…)
Is it just my red/green colourblindness showing, or does that chart have a really counterintuitive colour gradient system?
I’m pretty sure that this is based on exit polling
Since Oregon is 100% vote by mail there are no polling stations and therefore no exit polls. So, how could the Oregon data have come from exit polling?
Not trying to quibble, just curious. I love it that we don’t have exit polls here in Oregon. :-)
The color gradient is the “red/blue” concept, wherein blue is Democratic (but here used for “progressive”) and red is used for Republican (here used for “non-progressive”). The only problem is that the violet should definitely not be at the red end. If you go by ink color combinations violet is made from a mix of red and blue, so it should be covering the divisions of the 45% to 55% decade. If you go by wavelength it should be at the extreme of the blue end, not the red end. So that’s badly configured.
Second – what makes someone a “progressive” leader? How are they chosen? What’s the process? And what are the characteristics that marks someone as a leader?
facial hair
Sailorman, the more pertinent data points, then, would be Kerry and Gore. A lot has changed since the 90’s. New Jersey is not a closer state than Kentucky.