Ben Lauderdale writes:
I [Ben] had this map [see below] on my door for the last week. Based on exactly the same calculation using constant 95% black support and census-proportional representation. The white counties are the ones whose census names didn’t match properly with the names used in the library(maps) package in R, I was too lazy to fix them.
Cool. I’d only suggest using light gray rather than heavy black lines between counties; the map as it is overemphasizes the county borders, I think. But I respect his laziness; there’s always time later to fix the details.
[Below are] the state-by-state county share plots for the lower 49, Obama vote share as a function of black population share. V.O. Key’s observation that whites who live near blacks in southern states are less positively inclined towards them is *still* visible in several states.
The circle areas are proportional to county voter turnout. (The biggest circle is L.A. county in California, and so forth.)
Ben also had this comment about his map:
It reminded me of something Bob Putnam would say every time someone presented an empirical talk in our Center for the Study of Democratic Politics series during the year he was a fellow here at Princeton: “You should include miles to the Canadian border as a variable in your regression, it is the most important proxy for political culture in America!” At least in the eastern half of the country, he has a point.
Except for New Hampshire and Vermont, I think.
P.S. For graphics enthusiasts, here are some earlier graphs that I gave the thumbs-down on before Ben came up with the 50 plots above:First version:
Ben was skeptical about proportional circle sizes, but I think it turned out pretty well.
I’d also recommend non-alphabetical ordering of the states and moving away from the misleadingly square 7×7 grid, but I didn’t want to hassle Ben any more.