Talboito.com

Megan McArdle claims to be able to tweak Democrats with a small factoid.

If you’re a Republican and want to tweak your Democratic friends, send them the FEC list and point out that, contrary to the arguments of Ruy Teixera and John Judis in The Emerging Democratic Majority, states that went for Bush in 2000 had a net gain of electoral votes (and thus population) after the last census, while states that went for Gore lost population and seats in the electoral college.

We should step this argument out clearly:

1. US population rises between censi
2. Red States gained population
3. Blue States lost population

Conclusion: The Country is trending Republican.

A not too persuasive argument. Where did Blue Staters go? Methinks to the Red States.

McArdle’s argument represents why Blue/Red State distinctions are misleading. By creating oppositional categories we introduce Boundary Effects into our reasoning. The perception of differences between the two categories is greatly enhanced. Thus the inane pop sociology of a David Brooks is allowed to take root.

A better way to think about Blue/Red States, indeed the root of the distinction, is to think of Democratic vs Republican voters. Immigrants and urban voters trend to the Democrats. Republican voters are traditional more rural. Migration and immigration remains a largely rural->urban or urban->urban phenomenon. It follows then, that those moving to Red States will trend Democratic.

So Mrs. McArdle has no fodder for tweaking, just a bad argument.

Tags: No Comments