Are states proportionally represented on the historical list of National Football League players? That’s the question I had four years ago when I posted two simple state-by-state maps summarizing players’ birth places.
Note: My family last year relocated to Seoul, where my wife is working as a foreign correspondent for NPR. This post is part of an occasional series profiling the peninsula’s demographics and politics.
This week I looked at the population of foreign residents in South Korea, charting national origin and geographic distribution around the country. But if you don’t live here (and even if you do) that geography can be quite difficult to absorb without maps.
So, after a year of procrastination, I finally got the courage to tackle the detailed census and geography files from the Korean Statistical Information Service (you try loading Hangul characters in a database!).
Last week we examined how the Democratic presidential campaigns have performed in the context of Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election.
That analysis grouped Obama’s vote share into categories, highlighting how the country’s reddest and bluest counties have voted for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders so far in the Democratic primaries. Clinton, the clear frontrunner, performed best in areas where Obama was strongest against Mitt Romney. But Sanders did slightly better when majority black counties weren’t factored.
Here’s a look at the Democratic race (through the most-recent contests) in the context of voters’ educational attainment. Each candidate’s average vote share by county is grouped by the proportion of residents in those areas with at least a bachelor’s degree. Sanders doesn’t win among any group, but he generally performs best in places where voters have more education:
Hillary Clinton’s efforts to win over minority voters have paid off significantly in the Democratic primaries. Many of these voters simply aren’t feeling the Bern, according to voting results and demographics data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Since January, Clinton and her main rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, have faced off in 26 states, pulling about 15 million votes from 1,900 counties and county equivalents. (Votes in two states, Kansas and Minnesota, were calculated at the congressional district level).
Roughly 250 of the counties contested in the Democratic race are majority minority, meaning non-Hispanic whites there represent less than half the population. The majority in those places is as follows: Blacks (91 counties), Hispanics (64 counties) and Native Americans/Alaska natives (1 county). Another 93 counties have no ethnic or racial majority, making them quite diverse compared to much of America.
Clinton won all but seven of these majority minority counties.
To understand this phenomenon, it’s useful to take a look at her vote share on a map (inspired by The New York Times’ lovely interactive version here). She’s dominated the Deep South and Texas, places with high proportions of black and Hispanic voters, respectively:
Sanders’ map also clearly shows Clinton’s strength, except for a few places (remember Kansas and Minnesota’s maps would look different had votes been counted at the county level) outside the South and in New England, his home turf:
Here’s a map showing all 249 majority minority counties in the Democratic race thus far on top of Clinton’s vote share. As I mentioned, Sanders only won seven of them (and only one with a population greater than 10,000):
Clinton’s dominance is particularly evident among black voters specifically. Of all the counties in the race, not just those that are majority minority, about 380 have at least a 25-percent black population. Clinton, somehow, won them all, edging Sanders by 1.5 million votes:
Of course, none of this is a surprise. Black voters in overwhelmingly side with the Democrats, and Clinton is the Democratic front runner. But it’s interesting, I suppose, that Sanders hasn’t done better.
I’ve posted before about “majority minority” counties — places where non-Hispanic whites represent less than half the population. They were critical to President Obama’s election in 2008, and their numbers continue to grow.
The number of “majority minority” counties — now the most in modern U.S. history — have doubled since 1980, according to the Pew Research Center.
There are 151 that don’t have a single racial or ethnic group in the majority, making them the country’s most-diverse places. Hispanics are more than half the population in 94 counties, mostly in the Southwest, followed by blacks (93, mostly in the Deep South) and American Indians/Alaska natives (26, mostly in the Great Plains and Alaska).
Here’s a quick map:
The number of these counties, of course, will continue to grow and shape our culture and politics. Tomorrow we’ll look at these locations in the context of the current presidential primaries.
Yesterday I mapped the more than 350 “majority minority” counties in the United States, breaking them down by race and ethnicity groups and geography. As promised, today I’ve looked at how these counties (in the contiguous United States) voted in the 2012 election.
Obama won about 70 percent of these counties. Here’s the map:
That map, of course, can be misleading — as often happens in elections. That because the area of the counties can distort their actual voting power. In this case, Obama won more “majority minority” counties with urban populations and many more voters, such as Los Angeles (Calif.), Cook (Ill.) and Kings (N.Y.) counties, among others. Romney carried rural Republican counties, largely in Texas and the west.
Obama received nearly 18 million votes in the “majority minority” counties he carried. Romney got 2 million votes in his “majority minority” counties. In the end, Obama received a net 10 million votes from “minority majority” counties — nearly double his national margin over Romney in the country as a whole.
The map below uses proportional circles on top of the choropleth map above to help visualize the total votes in each county. You can see how Obama won in many of the most-populous counties, increasing his national margin (though not necessarily helping with the Electoral College — except in critical purple states he carried, such as Florida and Virginia).
You can download the data here.
For more updates, follow me on Twitter.
This week the U.S. Census Bureau released updated national population estimates, including a list of the counties that grew most rapidly from 2010 to last summer. I wrote about these counties in a political context this week for work.
Included in the release was a note that six more counties had flipped to “majority minority,” as the bureau calls them. These are counties in which non-Hispanic whites represent less than half the population.
With those six, the country now has at least 352 counties — about one in 10 of the total — in this category. Here they are on a map:
These counties exist largely because because of the relative size of the Hispanic and black populations (though Hawaii and Alaska have high Asian population rates), depending on geography. Western counties have higher percentages of Hispanic residents, and counties in the Deep South have higher rates of black residents. Of course there are some exceptions sprinkled throughout the country.
This map shows the rate of “minority” residents by county:
This map shows the percentage of Hispanic residents by county:
This map shows the percentage of black residents by county:
You can download the data here. Tomorrow we’ll examine how these counties voted in the 2012 presidential election.
For more updates, follow me on Twitter.
“Rich Blocks, Poor Blocks” allows users to get information about income in their neighborhoods, using the 2006-2010 American Community Survey estimates* compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau. Here’s a map of Washington, D.C., which — as I’ve noted before — is segregated by race, educational attainment and income:
* These data have high margins of error in small geographic units like Census tracts, which this service uses, so don’t take the figures literally. Still, the estimates can be useful for spotting broader trends about communities.
Thanks to the wife for sharing this discovery.
About three quarters of Americans have access to the Internet at home, according to a new survey released this week by the U.S. Census Bureau.
New Hampshire, Washington and Utah top the list, with more than 82 percent of their residents having Internet access. New Mexico, Mississippi and Arkansas are at the bottom, with about 64 percent of residents able to get online at home. Here’s a state-by-state map:
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, October 2010.