2008 Electorate: "Americans" - You Might Be Surprised

by: dreaminonempty

Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 08:00


In this diary series, we've cycled through just about every ethnic group with available data.  But there's one left:  "Americans" - and the quotation marks are there for a reason.

In practice I am defining this group as whites who did not list an ancestry or listed American or United States as ancestry on the census form.  Very few non-whites list American as an ancestry.  There is also a correlation between the percent whites who list American ancestry and whites who do not list any ancestry, which is why I lumped them all together.

Who are these "Americans"?  We can't tell, but there's lots of possible reasons to fall into this category: too many ancestries to list, unknown ancestry, patriotism, annoyance with labels, privacy concerns, getting bored filling out the census form, and sheer contrariness come to mind.

No matter, one thing is clear: nationwide, on average, the more whites describe themselves as "Americans" in a county, the less support for Obama among whites.    

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Click to enlarge.

dreaminonempty :: 2008 Electorate: "Americans" - You Might Be Surprised
Ten Second Summary

Those who identify as "American" generally did not support Obama very strongly, and typically less so than other whites in their region; this is true to varying degrees in different parts of the country.  There are two exceptions.  First, the Northeast, where "Americans" supported Obama.  Second, Appalachia, where support was split, and greater than support from other whites.

Support Among Whites

This analysis relies on location-specific estimates of Obama's support among non-white racial categories to estimate Obama's support among whites in each county.  This estimate gets shaky when the percent white is below around 75%, and pretty lousy below 50%.  The map below shows all the results - negative values (I told you the estimate can get shaky!) are plotted as zero.  Counties less than 50% white will not be considered further for this analysis.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Click to enlarge.

Examples

When we plot percent support for Obama among whites against percent of whites who are "American" in individual states, most states show graphs that are rather dull, partly because many states have a small range of variation in the percent "American."  Here's an exception - the state with the best regression, Florida:

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Click to enlarge.

Florida shows a very wide range in values on the x-axis that could be attributed to a rural/urban, born-and-raised/retiree cultural split.  

Regional Differences
First, where are these "Americans" located?

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Click to enlarge.

There's not a uniform distribution, nor is their uniform behavior, as one might expect from such a catch-all category.

In fact, we can loosely group states and regions according to where on the original plot their data fall, although some areas could easily fall into several categories.  When we do this, we find remarkable differences across the country, although the regressions are a little rough.  Here are the results of these groupings, just showing the regressions:

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Click to enlarge.

You may notice something very strange: only one line is going steeply up.  In Central Appalachia, support for Obama increases as the population becomes more "American."  Elsewhere it decreases or is flat (the Northeast).  Yes, folks, this part of Appalachia is, indeed, different from the rest of the country - because they were far more supportive of Obama than we might have expected based on this variable.  The Northeast also stands out, in that support for Obama among whites is essentially independent of percent "American" - and high.

We can use these graphs to generate support levels for different groups of "Americans" based on their (rather poorly-defined) region.  These regions are not the same as what is plotted above, but related.  For example, both Old South and New South have at one endpoint of their regression very high levels of white 'Americans' with very low support for Obama, dubbed here Confederacy 'Americans'.  The difference between Old South and New South is at the other end of the regression; Old South has low support among whites who identify an ancestry, but New South has high support among those who identify an ancestry.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Click to enlarge.

Defining the Regions

Let's take a closer look at the regions.  Each map below shows how well one of the lines above can predict Obama's performance.  We're looking for yellow.  If counties on the Yankee map are yellow, it means they sit pretty close to the Yankee regression line.  Green means a pretty poor prediction, and blue means lousy.  The numbers refer to the residual - the difference between what the lines predict, and what the election results were.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usFree Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Click to enlarge.

Starting in the Northeast, many counties from Maryland on up to Maine sit on the line.  There's a concentration of counties in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York, however.  If we look at New England - essentially a more pro-Obama subset of Yankee - we see, well, New England.  An area more or less on the West of the Connecticut River (Vermont and Western Massachusetts) is mostly green/blue - this area is even more pro-Obama.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Click to enlarge.

Moving South and West, the Heartland region has some pretty sharp boundaries on the West.  There's low support for Obama among "Americans" here, but not abysmally low.  We see some old friends show up as blue spots here and there - the counties with high concentrations of those with Dutch ancestry, for instance.  Note especially how state borders are not always followed.  The border states on the Southern side are mostly green - meaning they don't fit all that well on the Heartland line.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Click to enlarge.

So we move on South to Real America.  This regression describes mainly areas of Appalachia and the Upland South on over to the Ozarks (and parts of Florida?).  Support for Obama among "Americans" here was higher than in the Heartland.  But we see some blue patches in Central Appalachia...

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Click to enlarge.

In Central Appalachia, support for Obama was split among "Americans," and far higher than everywhere else except the Northeast.  The map shows the counties that are described well by this regression stretching from Pennsylvania down into Southern Ohio and Northern Kentucky, and some in Tennessee as well.  There's a good deal of yellow in the region where two regressions meet, and a county could be predicted by either the Central Appalachia line or the Real American line.  What is unique about Central Appalachia is the central region (in Central Appalachia) of high percent "American" and about 50% support for Obama.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usFree Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Click to enlarge.

Finally we come to the Confederacy and Old West.  Looking at the maps, there's no clear demarcation, and not much difference, just a fade from one to another around the Southern Plains.  There's actually a little lower support among "Americans" in the Old West.  We can gain a few more insights from the Old West map, however.  First, there appears to be another region - the Pacific Coast, essentially the Northern California coast and Oregon and Washington west of the Cascades - where support among "Americans" is about 10 percentage points higher than the rest of the Old West.  Then we have the Mormon Corridor, where support is lower.  And finally, the New West - blue spots here and there, including many cities.

All these maps put together - and they more or less look like this.  (For more maps of cultural regions, go here.)  In other words, politics among "Americans" more or less follows previously described cultural boundaries in the United States.

________________________________________________
This diary is the twelfth in a series taking a close look at the 2008 electorate and exploring three themes: diversity within demographics, progressive feedback loops, and demographic change.  

Previous diaries:

Looking Back
Alternate History
Why Republicans Should Be Really Scared
African-Americans - We Are Not All of Us Alike
East and South Asian Americans - Diverse and Growing
West Asian Americans - Rapid Change
Native Americans - Increasing Participation
Islander Americans - In Need of More Representation
Alaskan Natives - An Economic Factor?
Latino Americans - Increasing Influence
European Americans - Tribal Politics Persist

Tomorrow: The Appalachian Electorate: Surprisingly Democratic

Cross posted at DailyKos.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
lots to look at here (4.00 / 1)
I really like it. Thanks!


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Really Good (0.00 / 0)
stuff. Are your white support numbers from regression based off of state exit polls?

Thanks! (4.00 / 1)
State exit poll data, county demographics, and county results were used to calculate white support in each county.  

[ Parent ]
In Texas (0.00 / 0)
The white area along the border is almost certainly caused by low Hispanic turnout. White support is not really negative, though I have now idea how high/low it is. Same thing in far West Texas, where there is a very high but non-voting Hispanic population working in agriculture/dairy (with majorities and pluralities in many counties now). In Houston, the white support is not really negative, though it's not that high in most places. The reason it comes out negative is again horrendously low Hispanic turnout. That turnout is also very low in Dallas, which may mean that the white support there is really a bit higher. Generally I suspect that the exit polls in Texas may slightly understate white support for Obama, at least in certain areas - it is so large and regionally/politically diverse, that it must be very hard to do a truly representative exit poll.

You can see that the same general phenomenon also occurs in New Mexico, parts of California (Southern Cal and Central Valley), the black belt (where racial polarization is even higher than other parts of the deep south), and Indian reservations.

Again, great series. If you were to bone it up, you could probably even put it into book form. Reminds me of the book "The Emerging Republican Majority," but with better maps.


[ Parent ]
Hmmm (0.00 / 0)
The areas on the white support map that are colored white are areas with no data, that is, more than 50% non-white population.  I should have explained that better, sorry.

In these areas, the error in the calculation of white support is so high that there's no point in displaying it.  In many cases, this means a calculated negative support; but not usually.

As far as a book form, somebody would want to have to publish it first!  :)


[ Parent ]
Dallas County has (0.00 / 0)
a non-white population that is much more than 50%. Why is it not colored white then? Am I misunderstanding you?

[ Parent ]
Could be a data entry error. (0.00 / 0)
Your understanding is correct, but I'll check Dallas County.

[ Parent ]
Are you sure you used 50% non-white as the cut-off for your map? (0.00 / 0)
Or something a bit higher?  And what source did you use for your race data?  Because using the 2000 Census Data, besides Dallas County, San Bernardino County, California, and Cook County, Illinois (Chicago) are two large counties that I notice that had white percentages in the 40s in 2000 and are not whited out.  Could it be that these had sufficient exit poll data to estimate from that?  Just trying to help.

[ Parent ]
Color Me Confused! (4.00 / 1)
Such a jumble!  You've done quite a job bringing some sort of order out of it all, but if there's one installment that calls out for much more in-depth analysis, this is the one.

Not that I'm sure how you--or anyone else--would do it, since so much depends on the mushiness of the category and how people come to adopt it for themselves.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


That's the problem (0.00 / 0)
Who are these people?  I think there's a decent argument to be made that the longer your family has been in this country (if you're of European descent), the more likely you are to answer 'American' or leave it blank.  But I have no data to back that up.  

[ Parent ]
The trouble (0.00 / 0)
is sorting out anti-multiculturalism backlash (what, me? ethnicity???!) from the baseline of actually not knowing, having family in the US for a long time, or having a mixed ancestry. Which is complicated by the fact that there may be correlations among these factors.

[ Parent ]
Baseline likely varies too (0.00 / 0)
I think the baseline of 'too many ancestries' likely varies widely across the country.  There were some places that were settled relatively recently (100 years ago or so) and haven't had much influx of new immigrants since (rural areas) - like the Upper Midwest.  There, everybody's pretty much a mix to some degree of German and Scandinavian.  


[ Parent ]
I hypothesize (0.00 / 0)
...

Who are these "Americans"?  We can't tell, but there's lots of possible reasons to fall into this category: too many ancestries to list, unknown ancestry, patriotism, annoyance with labels, privacy concerns, getting bored filling out the census form, and sheer contrariness come to mind.

I hypothesize that there is a certain number of people, relatively constant across the country, who have too many ancestries to list, privacy concerns, or get bored filling out the census form. That is roughly the ~25% baseline you see nationwide. The on top of that, in places like Eastern Kentucky, you have people with unknown ancestry, patriotism, annoyance with labels.

...

An intuitive but highly unimperical hypothesis.


[ Parent ]
There's Also Folks (0.00 / 0)
who are rootless & insecure, "I'm an American, dammit, why don't you go back where you came from?"

"The obstetrics ward?  What would I do there?"


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Identity politics (0.00 / 0)
How do fellow citizens identify themselves in relation to this nation and why?

Voting demographics aside, that's pretty much THE question that underpins most of the topics discussed here, no?

Seems that some effort should be made to sort out the folks that prefer to be labeled as an unhyphenated "American". maybe we can start that study by pondering which (if any) other nations have citizens that refer to themselves in hyphenated terms? Any "Iraqi-Brits", or "African-French"?

Clearly, different ethnic - Americans will have different reasons for doing away, or retaining, the prefix. Fleshing out the reasons is as direct an assessment of civil society and the relation of the individual to it as I can imagine.

It is only anecdotal, but I have known more than a few people that have changed their self-identity over the years, even multiple times. They are all Euro-Americans born in the USA.

Another group that might not use a hyphen are those who still identify with their home country. I tend to meet this sub-group due to my work environment. The new immigrants to the US that I see (most have post-graduate degrees and are moving here because our research/university system has many benefits to other systems) self-identify with their home nation. No hyphenation. Even folks that have been here for decades. Might be a small group numerically, but these folks also tend to be dedicated voters (in my experience) or readily convinced to become such.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


Britain doesn't hyphenate (4.00 / 1)
We don't have African-Britons and the like. The only hyphen you'll get is for Afro-Caribbean.

In general, ethnicity as generally discussed involves seven groups. Blacks (which means Afro-Caribbeans), Asians (or Indians, Pakistanis, etc), Chinese, Irish, Scots, Welsh and English. Maybe Polish now. Other ethnicities tend to be small, and clustered only in small parts of London, but when they are mentioned it's done via national signifiers (Somalis, Iraqis, etc.,) since most of them are recent (past forty years) immigrants, and in many cases they're fleeing political persecution. Which tends to make them a) highly educated - plenty of Congolese immigrants have Ph.Ds, even though they work as cleaners and b) less enthusiastic about integrating - they dream of being able to return one day.

On the other hand, official ethnic categorisations tend to be broken down into something like the following groups:

White British (someone split into English, Scots and Welsh, sometimes with those as additional options)
White Irish
White Other (occasionally with options)
Black British (sometimes divided into Caribbean, African, and Other, sometimes even wider)
Black Irish (although mostly only for completeness)
Mixed White and Black
Mixed White and Asian
Mixed Other
Asian (subdivided various ways, but non-sub-continent Asian tends to be Asian Other)
Chinese
Other

As for the French, their culture is unfortunately so institutionally racist that you can generally divide it into two - Indigenous French, and those who get their job applications binned immediately.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
I'm actually in this group (4.00 / 1)
After travelling a lot, and after not growing up with any "white ethnic" traditions, I took to calling myself "American."

Just seemed the most accurate. No real connection to a European ancestry, and wherever I went, always just seemed American in a general sense.


I think I'm in this group too (0.00 / 0)
Because I was annoyed with the census form.  But I don't remember.  I'll have to wait another 61 years to find out, too - don't think I'll last that long!

[ Parent ]
Ah, But The Literature Game Does That To You, Doesn't It? (0.00 / 0)
American poetry.  American fiction. The great American novel.  American detective fiction. Etc. Etc. Etc.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Black Americans (0.00 / 0)
In our immigrant neighborhood in NYC, my mother used to refer to black kids as "the American kids" because they had two parents born in this country. Unless they were West Indian, then they were called West Indian. No use of race as a descriptor.

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox