November 17, 2004

THE REDDEST of the "Red" states are in the famously "irreligious" Western states -- data here and here. E.g. Idaho -- 68% Bush / 19% no religion; Wyoming -- 69% Bush / 20% no religion; Utah -- 71% Bush / 17% no religion. These states are far less religious and far more "Red" than any of the Southern or "Bible Belt" states. Any analysis of the "Red" state phenomena needs to take these facts into consideration. The fact is, in many areas of the West the non-religious multitudes love their property, love their limited government, love their guns, and love their country -- and they have no use at all for cultural and political leftists. Quotable:
Historical traces of .. an irreligious West are still evident. Those with "no religion" constitute the largest group in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Wyoming.
UPDATE: In CNN's exit polling, those who identified their religion as "none" broke strongly for Kerry in Idaho, Wyoming and Utah. Many resort towns had a strong Kerry vote. Did the CNN pollsters get an honest sample of non-religious folks outside of the resort towns? It's worth noting that CNN's numbers dramatically under-report the non-religious as compare with surveys of the general population. Do non-religous folks vote at a significantly lower rate than do religious people? Or do non-religious voters report themselves as Protestants, Mormons and Catholics, etc. when surveyed by a CNN pollster at a polling place? Well, lots of questions. Wish I had answers. It remains the case that states with relatively high numbers of non-religious folks produced the largest margins for Bush.

UPDATE II: Bush did far worse among the non-religious in the big North Eastern states -- Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island -- than he did in any of the Western states, including California, Washington, Oregon and Nevada.

UPDATE: Astute Blogger takes a fairly convincing crack at the Blue State / Red State puzzle:

perhaps the explanation is simpler; perhaps we must merely look at HISTORICAL reasons for the BLUE/city versus RED/country dichotomy. Historically, cities have been part of the stronghold of the Democrat Party (along with the rural south - which they began losing in the 1970's due to LBJ's Civil Rights laws and The Gresat Society); the Democrat Party built its machine upon farmers, immigrants, industrial unions, and civil servants - ALL of these groups (except the now largely GOP farmers) are predominant only in the cities. And - as David Brooks has so thoughtfully proved - party affiliation is largely hereditary - so the urban Democrat affiliation is a hand-me-down -- a VESTIGE -- of the demographics of the old Democrat machine.
Posted by Greg Ransom | TrackBack