The non-urban presidential mandate

Looking at the red and blue map last night, I noticed that nearly all the places I was likely to live went with Kerry. The entire Northeast, the entire Pacific Coast, and places like Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Since I figured the division between states is more or less arbitrary, I decided to take a closer look.

The National Association of Counties lists members of the Large Urban County Caucus, about 100 counties, representing (they say) 130 million Americans, or about half the total.

With some minor adjustments, I analyzed the election returns of 102 large, urban counties. All told, they cast nearly 42 million votes out of 107 million nationwide votes (I did this analysis while other returns were still coming in, so the numbers aren't final) that went to either Bush or Kerry.

By popular vote, these counties preferred Kerry over Bush 57% to 43%. 66 of the 102 counties had a majority for Kerry. The lowest percentage Kerry got was 33% (in Kern County, California), and the highest was 91% (Washington, DC). It follows that Bush's highest percentage was 67% and lowest was 9%. Kerry's median in these counties was 54%; Kerry's was 46%.

In 73 of the 102 urban areas, Kerry got a higher percentage than he got in that state's returns.

It follows that the remaining thousands of non-large-urban counties voted overwhelmingly for Bush and made the difference for the election.

Implications?

Assuming Bush wins the election (which I think he has), it is clear that he does not have the support of urban areas. Even in states that overwhelmingly voted for him, many of the largest there cities didn't.

Bush has two choices: he could reward the base that elected him at the expense of those urbanites who didn't. That would involve pork to rural areas, pandering to the "folksy" impulses of Americans, etc. Or he could try to build a base among the urbanites, even at the risk of marginalizing the rural vote.

The Democratic party (which is likely to jettison Kerry after this) will likely strengthen its urban constituency (though this is a more diverse crowd than most people realize) and build greater relevance among non-urban constituencies.

In either scenario, the fringe of each party is likely to be marginalized. There can be no question that American popular opinion wants a president who is - or at least appears - steadfast in the war on terrorism, and domestic issues are increasingly a matter of pragmatic problem-solving rather than ideology.

Looking at the silver lining, the Democratic party has an unprecedented opportunity in the next four years. Since it is unlikely that Cheney will run for election in 2008, the Republicans will have to make up their minds whether Bush's mandate is conservative, libertarian, pragmatic, or war-time continuity. It's probably the latter, and since we better be winning the war by 2008, the Republicans are likely to be divided as to whether the future is conservative, libertarian, or moderate.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have nothing to lose by being openly cooperative and bipartisan on pragmatic issues, using their minority position in Congress as an unaccountable bully pulpit, and strengthening their base as a moderate, pragmatic alternative to the divided Republicans.

I hope Bush's policies are successful all around. But the American political scene nevertheless needs to get fixed, and I also hope the Democrats take responsibility for making that happen.

Comments

[Gunnar, Maryland]

>> But the American political scene nevertheless needs to get fixed

two points, the president can't do pork. That's congress. Second point, where did the above statement come from? There is no support for it in your post. I can't imagine what you think needs to be fixed? It's democracy in action. It's a good thing.

The only thing I can see that needs to be fixed is that both parties use gerry-mandering to ensure that house seats are all safe. Districts are drawn in crazy ways to collect their voters. Next, they will start using 3 dimensional districts that disappear under ground and pop up to grab a single house in neighborhood. We need a rule about the geometry of districts, but it's not clear how it would happen. Congress would never pass it.

[Leif]

Ehhh... the Republicans have a majority in Congress, and Cheney rules the roost in the Senate. I wouldn't assume Bush has unlimited power to promote pork, but he certainly sets an agenda.

I think that partisan politics and posturing gets in the way of solving problems. Most of the real issues confronting the US have no ideological component but are invariably hijacked for one side or another. This is what I mean by characterizing it as "broken." Bush agrees, by the way. Or at least says he does.