Ever since a group called MassINC published a package called "Beyond Red and Blue: The 10 Regions of America" I've been obsessing over the role of geography in politics. "Beyond Red and Blue" argued that rather than looking at the country in terms of "Blue" and "Red" it might make more sense to view the United States as encompassing ten regions of equal size (population-wise) but varying outlooks.
The regional breakdown is unconventional--for example, the "Upper Coasts" region includes not only the Pacific Northwest from Seattle to Portland, but also parts of New England.
In 2000, the study argues, the ten regions split down the middle, with Gore taking the five regions called "Upper Coasts," "Big River," "Northeast Corridor," "El Norte," and "Great Lakes," and Bush taking the others: "Sagebrush," "Farm Belt," "Appalachia," "Southern Lowlands," and "Southern Comfort." (I don't know enough about the Kerry data to say for certain, but I suspect Kerry won the same regions as Gore, though it's possible that "Big River" tipped to Bush.)
What does this have to do with winning House seats? Read on.
Read More