The Palm Beach Post ran this map today:
It depicts the hometowns of the war dead by color designation. Places with a green dot have seen 1 war death. Places with yellow dots have seen 2-5 deaths. Places with orange dots have seen 6-10 deaths. And those with red dots have seen 11-29 deaths. Here's a link.
I saw the map and was immediately struck by the difficult-to-avoid observation that the dots of color (particularly non-greens) seem to match fairly closely with the blue in this map, which depicts the county-by-county results of the 2004 Presidential election:
Taking the two together, it seems that those who are dying in war are disproportionately from cities and political districts that didn't vote for George W. Bush in 2004. To some extent, that stands to reason, given that larger cities, in a general sense, have tended to vote Democratic in recent elections and you'd expect the majority of military casualties to be young people from large cities. But I also wonder if, to some extent at least, the correlation doesn't explain the polarly opposite views of the war that seem to pervade political discussions these days.
I'm not trying to make any particular political point here -- just thought it was kind of interesting.
FWD, you are absolutely the last person I would want to take to task in these forums, ... but, this is pure spin.
I think, if you really dug into the numbers, you would find that most white folks dying in this war are from the red states; and that most blue state deaths can be attributed to minorities.
Bottom line - White metropolitan folks (people I characterize as leaning strongly towards the Dems) are highly averse to military service.
Do you disagree?
Let them eat cake!
Last edited by Guru of Nothing; 07-05-2005 at 09:30 PM.
Guru -- I'm not trying to spin anything; it just struck me as odd and made me wonder if, in a broad sense, localized casualties = localized discontent.
I don't particularly believe that, but the correlation between the maps was interesting to me. As I conceded in my first post (and like you suggest) I think you can attribute the correlation, as much as anything, to the concentration of combat deaths to the high population of enlisted men and women who are ethnic or social minorities and hail from either largely urban areas or from rural communities where historical trends point democratic (which would suggest a strong possibility of discontent with the policies of this administration).
And frankly, I don't think the rate of casualties is high enough to truly make any sort of broad-based comparison. I doubt that most of New York City, Los Angeles, San Antonio, Houston or Phoenix is making its determinations based on the unfortunate truths of 10-30 war deaths.
But, I do find the correlation interesting.
.
Man, I'm sorry - I'm just not seeing it. Removing the green dots, as you suggest, probably removes more than half the headcount. The remaining circles don't seem to really line up to anything but population concentrations. Look at Texas and Florida.
Really interesting map, by the way - thanks for posting the link.
Well, the correlation in your maps, as User666 pointed out a few weeks ago, is nearly one-to-one with regards to population density.
Red and blue arguments are red herrings.
The odds of an American dying in Iraq are directly proportional to household income, not locale.
War and death go together and no colored map can disect it.
to me, they are all AMERICANS...they aren't fighting for TX or CA or NY... they are all AMERICANS....
Although urban areas only account for 2.62% of the total land area of the US, that same area accounts for 222,353,453 of the 281,421,906 (2000). That means 79% of the US population lives in urban areas. Now compare the location of the deaths with population density.
Where there is more people, there are more deaths. Very simple logic.
True, but where there are more people (and more deaths) there are also, apparently, more Democratic voters.
I'm not trying to convince anyone here. I'm aware of both the socio-economic factors and simple logic that are at play here.
At the same time, the correlation strikes me as curious -- and perhaps not coincidental.
Great point, 666. Sad to admit, as I'm a dyed in the wool Republican, but our "red states" are typically lower in population density than the "blue states."
I think you missed the point. There are more Democrats in those areas just as there are MORE Republicans in those areas. Why? Because there are MORE people in those areas.
There are lots of "Red" areas that have had larger than average troops deaths and there are lots of "Blue" areas that have had below average troops deaths. The map of troops deaths by far better echos the population map than the map of voting tendency.
Forget it, FWD. Republicans refuse to believe that
Greater POP Density (liberals typically win large cities) + typically Lower Socio-Economic Status (Demos are poorer) + Less chance of finding comparable 'non-military-job (no work from DAD and friends) = Greater chance of fighting and dieing in Iraq (liberals).
i wish i had a map of tahoe/yukon/escalade ownership
Yeah forget it Dan. You refuse to believe that where there are more people there are going to more of everything else. Bush isn't holding you down, it's gravity.
You forgot Hummers and Navigators. But how about older cars and trucks that are poorly maintained who use too much gas and pollute more than average. Should people who have larger homes than what they absolutely need feel guilty too? I mean all the materials that went into making the extra space and the energy wasted on heating and cooling it. Yep, I think the government should pass a law that everyone drives a Civic. No one needs more than that. Only corporations should be allowed trucks for commercial purposes.
i have a 1994 chevy pu 4x4 with 193k miles a 5.7 L v8
i waste gas like no other
just i dont look like a total asshole who loves to waste money and look pompous on purpose when i drive around by myself
EVERYTIME we get into suvs someone brings up civics.
id drive a civic, its not my favorite car, its reliable, safe, affordable and sips gas, but its not my favorite car, plus you dont look like a pompous asshole driving around
and civics have 99% less w stickers
So no one has the right to waste money and look pompus? I mean I agree that people who drive those things most likely don't need them. And some are pompus assholes, but so what? I don't waste my time thinking about it.
So this is more to do about politics than the actual vehicle?
I used Civics as an example for those very reasons. Who needs more than that? So everyone should be forced to drive one. Well ok, just as long as no one drives a Tahoe.
nothing
its just a reason why id hate one car and like the other
if all bill millers had w stickers id probably hate poorboys and ice tea
Now I'm hungry, and it's only 9:00. So Mookie, you hate anything with a W tsticker on it? I'm sure you've seen a few tahoes with that on them and that's why you've got it out for them like you seem to have. I saw a Mini with a W sticker on it not that long ago.
ive seen almost every kind of car with w stickers
just with the pure numbers of tahoes, everyone in their mom owns one, which in turn makes more people want one, not to mention the slowness, uglyness, OnStar*ness and guzzleness of them, i dont see why anyone would buy a new tahoe.yukon escalade
but if youre a republican conformist who can afford one, then drive one, ill just assume youre all of those things
if youre not, then you just have a big ugly piece of
this one time mookie pissed on someones lawn and stole their "W, you will be forced to love him" sign
You know that tahoe is the same thing as a Chevy pickup with a bed instead of box on it? You're combining sterotypes in strange ways. You are practically driving a tahoe right now!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
