Counties by Ideology - CA, CO, ME, MO, NV, OR, WA

[RI]

I attempted to discern the ideology of each county in Washington by analyzing the results of every referenda result since 2000 that we have on the Atlas. The results for a few counties went against what I thought they would be, but that could have been a result of my methodology and the limited sample size (especially for social issues), though I was pleasantly surprised that some of my feelings were born out (about counties like Skamania, Wahkiakum, Whitman, etc.). Hopefully another Washingtonian could judge how accurate these maps are.

On the top maps, Red is liberal and blue is conservative. On the bottom maps, the four colors correspond to the four quadrants of the political matrix.

[Хahar 🤔]

This is interesting. I may try it for California.

[bgwah]

I would consider Whatcom to be socially liberal, though I suppose it is likely that Bellingham's turnout is lower during odd-year elections, allowing the crazies in Lynden to have more influence.

I don't know if "Communitarian" is the right word for Whitman. WSU totally and completely dominates the county---any threat to the funding of WSU is swiftly rejected by their voters. They kind of remind me of Alaska---"conservative" unless the massive amount of money being poured in is in jeopardy.

I do not consider the coastal counties (Grays Harbor and Pacific in particular) to be "Libertarian." They are old fashioned Democrats (Especially Grays Harbor) that strike me as communitarian more than any of the other options. But I suppose the initiative results don't lie?

It's a very cool idea, though.

[RI]

I would consider Whatcom to be socially liberal, though I suppose it is likely that Bellingham's turnout is lower during odd-year elections, allowing the crazies in Lynden to have more influence.

I don't know if "Communitarian" is the right word for Whitman. WSU totally and completely dominates the county---any threat to the funding of WSU is swiftly rejected by their voters. They kind of remind me of Alaska---"conservative" unless the massive amount of money being poured in is in jeopardy.

I do not consider the coastal counties (Grays Harbor and Pacific in particular) to be "Libertarian." They are old fashioned Democrats (Especially Grays Harbor) that strike me as communitarian more than any of the other options. But I suppose the initiative results don't lie?

It's a very cool idea, though.

That’s what my feelings going in mostly were too. However, I think part of the reason that it turned out the way it did was because most of the economic initiatives and referenda were regarding taxes, and while Pacific and Grays Harbor like things like regulations, they don’t seem to be particularly fond of taxes, and fairly often vote more like Eastern Washington on those.

Of course, Whitman was something of the opposite in this regard. Although, despite their reasons, they do vote more liberally on economic issues in general. For Whatcom, the county was only ever so slightly on the conservative side of the social spectrum, which was definitely because their were very few social referenda as opposed to economic ones in the database.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Interesting.

[Linus Van Pelt]

There is a certain type of populist white voter who will get mad that taxes and spending are too high, but is still largely pro-union and protectionist. Calling these people "libertarian" on economic issues doesn't capture it really.

Grays Harbor and Pacific have stayed Dem in every presidential election since the rise of broadly contemporary cultural politics in the 1960's, even through the depths of McGovern and Mondale and the more recent problems in some traditionally Dem areas. This is extremely rare for a white area outside big cities and college towns - otherwise it's mostly just the Iron Range, those two copper counties in Montana, the last Obama stragglers in coal country, and a few others dotted around the place. It can't just be "social" liberalism that would cause this.

[Verily]

Surely Cowlitz County is full of economic lefties.

Whatcom and Skagit strike me as more social liberal than economic left, but they are both extremely polarized on social issues.

[RI]

Surely Cowlitz County is full of economic lefties.

Whatcom and Skagit strike me as more social liberal than economic left, but they are both extremely polarized on social issues.

Skagit seems like it has been a slightly communitarian-leaning area due to his relatively high hispanicity and its rural nature, but it has been moving to the left socially it seems. If we did this same test for the next ten years rather than the past ten, it would surely be different.

[RI]

Here is Oregon. Oregon had a lot more referenda that were won by the liberal side than Washington. I don't know if that was because of the issues or the years, but the map looks more liberal than I'd think it would normally be. Only two non-conservative/liberal counties, but they are ones that make sense. I thought Coos would be among them, but apparently they are like Pacific/Grays Harbor economically.

[RI]

Colorado. Would have been nice to have had some more results for economic issues as the result was to the left of what I would have thought. Interestingly very few libertarian counties and a number more communitarian ones, especially in the Hispanic areas and in the Denver suburbs.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Please do MA, VT, ME?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Please do MA, VT, ME?

As far as MA is concerned, every county would be green.

[RI]

California. There were a lot of counties that narrowly went one way over another. Humboldt, Lake, Nevada, and Trinity were almost libertarian. Fresno was barely communitarian, while Merced, Riverside, and San Joaquin barely missed.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Please do MA, VT, ME?

As far as MA is concerned, every county would be green.

Not my house, atleast!

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Can we get VA, WV, NC, and SC por favor?

[RI]

Here's Maine. Very small sample size, so take it with a grain of salt. As I suspected, very few libertarian counties, but a few communitarian ones.



As for the other states mentioned, very few of them have any usable amount of referenda results to draw from, so I don't think I'll be able to get any significant results from them.

[Hash]

Is Vermont possible?

[RI]

Is Vermont possible?

The Atlas doesn't have any referenda results for Vermont, and their SoS doesn't have any results, so I can't do anything with Vermont, unfortunately.

[Goldwater]

Can you please do Nevada?

[Smid]

There is a certain type of populist white voter who will get mad that taxes and spending are too high, but is still largely pro-union and protectionist. Calling these people "libertarian" on economic issues doesn't capture it really.

Over here, those were the "Howard Battlers" who voted for Howard but were probably lower middle income, or middle income but in jobs requiring physical labour (like plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and other tradesmen). They also are sometimes called "Aspirational Voters" or simply "Aspirationals" because of their aspiration to move into larger houses and generally move up the social ladder. They live in mortgage-belt electorates and are wary of high levels of government debt, as this can influence interest rates, therefore they like to see reduced levels of spending. Because they work for a living, they don't like seeing too many handouts to the unemployed, etc, because they see it as having been paid for by their taxes.

[RI]

Missouri, since it had a fair few results, though I would have liked more economic results.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Mid-Atlantic!  Mid-Atlantic!

[RI]

Here is Nevada. Another small sample, though. Storey and Washoe ended up as I expected, though I'm not sure about White Pine.

[RI]

Mid-Atlantic!  Mid-Atlantic!

None of the states you requested have very many referenda results on the Atlas. I think Virginia has the most, but even that is only three or four. Not nearly enough.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

None of the states you requested have very many referenda results on the Atlas. I think Virginia has the most, but even that is only three or four. Not nearly enough.