Compare distribution of Iraq war fatalities with map of Democratic states

(credit to Pollkatz and the Majority Visibility Project - Seattle).

IS IT TIME TO STOP REFERRING TO THOSE STATES AS "RED STATES" AND START REFERRING TO THEM AS THE "CHICKENHAWK STATES"?

If these maps help you understand or explain the disproportionate cost of this wrongful war, please kick this thread.

(edited to add additional map)

it leaves me speechless.....

I don't want soldiers to die period...but it is interesting that the heavy losses are blue state.

http://www.bandofbrothers2006.org/2006/03/video_wmv.php

A New Movement
We’ve heard about Iraq, terrorism, and security from every side. But there’s one group that we need to hear from the most, and in 2006 we will. All over America, veterans are running for Congress as Democrats. They’ve been there, they know the story, and it’s time to let them speak.

Band of Brothers is a new political organization formed to assist Democratic veterans running for elected office. We’ve already identified more than 50 fighting men and women who need our help to challenge the current administration on its failed policies at home and abroad.

They are all strong, principled citizens who have had enough of the current direction of our country, and are ready to fight — as Democrats have always fought — for solutions to the problems of security, health care, and corporate and political corruption. Some have served in the current war in Iraq, some have served our country at other times. But each candidate supported by Band of Brothers must in turn support Our Values.

Separately, each of these veterans offers hope in one district — but together they are a new movement. As veterans who have fought for America, they will fight for us in Congress.

Southern California (Dark Blue Areas) are giving the most number of soliders in Iraq.

The most populous areas of the country have greater numbers of people in uniform than the less populous areas. It stands to reason, therefore, that those with a higher percentage of people in uniform will have a correspondingly higher percentage of those in uniform who are wounded or killed in a war.

up to the abuse of presidential power when Democratic states bear the lion's share of the casualties and the votes in the Senate are disproportionately allocated to sparsely populated Republican states with fewer casualties?

Since the Democratic Party is the party of the urban voter, that makes perfect sense.

You will note that the highest number of causalties in red states are in places like Phoenix and Houston.

with the lowest population. The metropolitan areas are the bluest states and they have the most people.

Maybe you need a lesson in population densities.

People from every fucking state are serving and dieing. Just ask Fred Phelps. He has been down here to Oklahoma to protest at the deaths of Oklahoma soldiers enough times they passed a law banning protests at funerals.

This may be a new low in "red state" bashing.

Well said.

same vote as a decorated veteran Senator from densely populated MA (Kerry).

Maybe if there were more urban areas which are supplying the war with casualty fodder within those sparsely populated states, those states would elect Senators with the will to fulfill their constitutional duty to check and balance the misuse of presidential power.

Not sure what point you were making, but Oklahoma has suffered 40 fatalities, Massachussetts has suffered 33. On a per capita basis, Oklahoma has suffered one of the highest fatality rates, Massachussetts one of the lowest.

onenote

with you on this: Bullshit is right. I'm a blue stater. In fact, for whatever it's worth my state has the highest number of Iraqi war deaths per capita in the country. Does that make those deaths more meaningful that deaths from Wyoming or Oklahoma? Absofuckinglutley not. The idea of attempting to measure tragedy in this way is grotesque.

In comparison, how many grieving families do the Senators from California represent?

Yet the Senators from Wyoming get the same number of votes as the Senators from Wyoming.

You are annoyed that more-rural states are disproportionally represented in the Senate. That is one point. Then you use this to rationalize namecalling, i.e. calling the red states "the chickenhawk states." I see this as just another excuse for more red-state bashing here on DU, this time under the guise of "where the soldiers are from." Frankly, it's offensive.

(edit, sorry I meant to respond to 14 but I think you're saying basically the same thing here)

from states with fewer casualties are continuing to push this wrongful war without asking any meaningful questions while a disproportionate number of Senators from states which have suffered more casualties are beginning to question the war and demand an exit plan.

Or do you think that is a coincidence?

The KIA number is an artifact of our population distribution. Neither one provides you any basis for calling the red states "chickenhawk states."

Here's a challenge for you. If you really want to make this claim, do a state-by-state rundown. Compare the number of military deaths in the state to the total population of the state to get a percent. This would be pretty simple:

(deaths / total population) * 100 = x%

I bet you ten dollars that the top ten states by PERCENT, not numbers, will be equally red and blue states. (Edit: If not MORE red than blue.)

Edited to add: I'm serious about that bet, btw. Post your numbers, post your sources, and in the event of any disputes, we'll let Skinner decide. Are we on? ;)

who represent fewer grieving families and the Senators who are questioning the war are (again, generally) those who represent more grieving families.

I have never disputed that many Republican states have suffered a percentage of casualties, expressed in a ratio to their overall statewide populations, which is greater or lesser than a percentage of casualties suffered in Democratic states. Here's a graph which illustrates this point and which I don't dispute:



But the Senators who are abdicating their constitutional duty to check the executive branch are, disproportionately, those who represent fewer grieving families.

This is about the failure of Senatorial oversight, and the link between the most irresponsible Senators and the fact that they generally represent fewer grieving families. This is not a diminishment of any family's loss -- it's just pointing out that the accretion of those losses appear to be having an effect on Senators who represent many families who have suffered such losses and those Senators who represent fewer families that have suffered such losses remain disproportionately enthusiastic about this war.

First, I'm not sure what the logic is behind ignoring the per capita rate. But in any event, if you look at absolute numbers, there are as many "red" states that have lost 70 or more to the war as there are "blue" states. How does that prove anything about the position the Senators in those states take? In absolute terms, California has lost more than any state, but Feinstein and Boxer hardly could be said to have taken the same position on the war. Same goes for Kohl and Feingold in Wisconsin, whihc has lost over 50 to the war.

onenote

it is more appropriate to look at this (or as ANYTHING) as a percentage rather than by raw numbers.

I will spell it out for you. Let's look at a different example completely. Senator A is from State B, which has a population of 10 million. Senator A receives 100,000 phone calls about an issue. So, Senator A knows that 1% of his population is interested in the issue. He's not going to care very much.

Senator Y is from state Z, which has a population of 1 million. Senator Y also receives 100,000 phone calls on an issue. Senator Y knows that 10% of his population is interested in the issue. Senator Y is going to be MUCH more concerned about the issue based on the fact that a higher percentage of his population is interested in the issue.

You are ignoring basic statistics in attempt to make a point. You think that Senators don't make this kind of calculation every day when getting phone calls from their constituencies? You are wrong, wrong, wrong. I know, because I have talked to some of my representatives about how they gauge the feeling of their constituencies. They all do this.

no it didn't. The loss of life doesn't seem to fit within the percentage-of-constituents model. I think the total number of deaths is more relevant. Feel free to show where it isn't.

Those with fewer constituents in the war are some of the most supportive.

Been our system for 217 years.

I had a RW history professor who railed against the unfairness of the two senators for every state system we have.

And just how did those senators from California, Mass. and NY vote on the Iraq war?

Got some news for you. All deaths are equal to those who loved them. And all the "blue state elitism" in the world won't change that fact.

As the casualties mount, the Senators who represent fewer grieving families are disproportionately irresponsible in failing to use their senatorial authority to check and balance this presidential abuse of power.

Now to me, that sounds vaguely chickenhawkish.

Now, questioning the war has become a majority view in the population, but it remains a minority view in the Senate.

Most of the Senators who are steadfastly refusing to demand answers from the administration about the war are from states that have suffered fewer casualties than the states represented by the Senators who are beginning to question the war.

country and REPUBLICANS? Nah, the fact that they are REPUBLICANS could have NOTHING to do with it, now could it?

That's our system. Senators Leahy and Jeffords represent the second smallest state population. California has lost hundreds of soldiers and Vermont has lowst only* 23. Yet, I know two families who've suffered losses because this is such a small state, and as I pointed out VT has lost more soldiers per capita than any other state. Large or small, red or blue, measuring loss this way sucks. Calling some states chickenhawk states because they've lost fewer is revolting.

exercising their senatorial duties responsibly and some senators who represent relatively more grieving families are failing to exercise their senatorial duties to check the president's power.

Yet that is clearly the exception and not the general pattern.

The pattern is that Senators who represent relatively fewer grieving families are generally being more neglectful of their constitutional responsibility to question the executive branch as compared to most of those Senators who represent relatively larger numbers of grieving families.

having a problem with that little fact that GOP Senators wuodl love the Senate to be a rubger stamp body have ANYTHING to do wiht this?

The implication of the initial post seems to be that simply because one lives in a "red" state one is, by failing to die at some acceptable rate, somehow responsible for the deaths of those from "blue" states. Obviously not a true statement.

Thank you for shining the cold light of reason on this thread.

population centers. A city of 8 million will have a lot more volunteers for the military than a city of 80k; it'll also have more repubs, even if it's 60% dem. (Making the simplistic, intuitive, unnecessary, and uncertain assumption that repubs sign up a bit more often than dems.) Moreover, many blue states have red counties. For example, that large lump of fatalities in SoCal isn't mostly located in deep red areas, but less ardently red areas.

Take population densities into account, and you still find that red states and counties disproportionately account for Iraq fatalities.

This gets posted every once in a while.

source. Military personnel obviously live near or on the military base where they are stationed. That does not mean their "home" before entering the military was in a red or blue state.

We were from Pa. but my son was a resident of Wa, Ca, Ms, Tn, etc. while he was in the Navy.

tis pretty much the same with tax allocation to donor/recepient states.

As the great orator Phil Gramm once said, "time to get out the wagon and start pulling the wagon"

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This dichotomy is not-productive, and not even accurate.

We have lost many young people from my predominantly "red" state, and now, in this so-called "red state," Bush's approval numbers have dropped below 40%.

I understand your point, but I think those maps need to go away.

out the hypocrisy of the chickenhawk pukes. In the same manner that they used those maps to show that the "red" states covered so much more area than the blue state.

Most Americans do not have the intelligence or inclination to look past a simple (even if wrong) description of something. That is exactly why the pukes were so successful in getting most people to think that they were supported by "most of America."

Turn about IS fair play.

Yes, because our lies will actually help the people :shrug:

The red state blue state fallacy is what we should be attacking.

No, your maps do NOT help at all....



Source: www.theodora.com/maps/united_states_map.html

the war has a negative correlation with population density.

Thus, Senators from states with fewer casualties are generally more irresponsible in their abdication of their constitutional duty to question the executive branch. That is the point.

Until someone brought up population density? Maybe the Constitution needs to be amended--get to work! But bad statistics don't help your credibility.

Texas's two scumbag Republican senators have not protected the service men & women of our state.

I believe your point is actually "certain senators are generally more irresponsible in their abdication of their constitutional duty to question the executive branch because their states have fewer casualties ." Which is ridiculous.

And then you throw in the "chickenhawk" zinger.

This is exactly the type of argument I expect to hear on hate radio, not here at DU.

Red or blue, high or low populations, dead is dead.

Here are the states with the most fatalities (absolute not per capita) and their ranking in terms of population density and the number of Senate votes cast against the Iraq war by that state.
California (240) -- 12 --1
Texas (206) -- 28 -- none
Pennsylvania (111) --10 -- none
New York (108)-- 6 -- none
Ohio (106) --9 -- none
Florida (99) --8 -- one
Illinois (91) -- 11 -- one
Michigan (78) -- 15 -- two
Georgia (73) -- 18 -- none
Virginia (72) --14 -- none
Arizona (55) -- 36 -- none
Louisiana (52) -- 22 -- none
North Carolina (51) -- 17 -- none
Wisconsin (51) -- 24 -- one

I can't find any reliable indicator from this data. Put another way, the population density in Connecticut is four times what it is Michigan, but two Michigan Senators opposed the IWR, while both Connecticut Senators supported it. And Vermont, which only the 30the most densely populated state had two Senators oppose.

:cry:..

Did the study use the BASES they deployed from or their actual hometowns? That could skew the data considerably.:shrug:

Because we have the most people.

California has suffered 240 fatalities while Texas has suffered 206. But California's population of 36 million is significantly larger than that of Texas (22.5 million).

onenote

Ridiculous Red-state bashing nonsense.

As has been pointed out, the map reflects little more than population density. As for labelling some states or their Senators "chickenhawks", again, I'd be very careful. I'm willing to bet that if you check the numbers, on a per capita basis, there have been more casualties in so-called "red states" than blue states.


on edit: I went back and checked and by my calculations, the per capita fatality rate doesn't vary that widely. However, to the extent it does vary, it looks like the highest per capita rate is a "blue" state: Vermont. But after Vermont, 24 of the next 25 states with the highest per capita fatality rate are "red" states. Texas, with 206 fatalities has a higher per capita fatality rate than California with 240. Same goes for Ohio, with 106 causalties, compared to NY, with 109. The lowest fatality rate per capita? Appears to be New Jersey.

Again...the differences are not great and the point is that this war has cost lives in every state, it has taken men, women, young, old, all races, religions...and all for a pack of lies.

onenote

....good work on the per capita fatality rate.

are concentrated in blue states? Nah that coudl not have anything to do wtih it... or that most emlistees these days coes fro the inner cities? Nope that has nothing to do with it.

My husband served in the Navy for 20 years and his shipmates came from all over the place, the common thread, working class poor.

areas. That's a huge part of the problem.

Generally, the Senators who represent states which have the most urban areas, which corresponds to the areas where most of the casualties are from, are questioning the war. In contrast (again, this is a generalization), the Senators who represent states withe the fewest urban areas -- and who therefore represent the fewest grieving families -- are showing the most irresponsible failure to question the abuse of executive power.

What do we do to bring home the loss to those Senators who seem oblivious to our losses? In short, what can we do to make so many of those pro-war Senators who represent fewer grieving families change their views on the war in the same way that most Senators who represent more grieving families have changed their views on the war.

In absolute, rather than per capita terms (although per capita is clearly the more appropriate benchmark), the states with the most casualties are as follows:

California (240)
Texas (206)
Pennsylvania (111)
New York (108)
Ohio (106)
Florida (99)
Illinois (91)
Michigan (78)
Georgia (73)
Virginia (72)
Arizona (55)
Louisiana (52)
North Carolina (51)
Wisconsin (51)

Now show me a correlation between position on "questioning the war" and number of fatalities. Heck, even within California, Boxer and Feinstein approach the war differently.

onenote

I think the 2002 vote to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq "if necessary" is a poor judge of which Senators are pro-war because the Bush administration broke faith by using force without exploring alternative avenues. If we use this vote as a litmus test, nearly all Senators qualify as pro-war.

Here is a better measure of who in the Senate over-enthusiastically support the war: On 15 November, 2005, the Senate voted on amendments to the Defense Authorization Bill. The so-called "Warner Amendment" was offered to require the Bush administration to provide quarterly reports to Congress on the progress toward transitioning power to the Iraqis, bringing down US troop strength in Iraq, internationalizing the military force in Iraq, and explaining the administration's exit strategy. Against the Warner Amendment, was the unsuccessful Levine Amendment, which would have gone even further in demanding answers and responsibility from the administration. Excluding those Senators who voted against the Warner Amendment on grounds that they advocated it did not go far enough and therefore voted in favor of the Levine Amendment, 14 Senators voted against both the Levine Amendment and also voted against the watered-down Warner Amendment:

Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
DeMint (R-SC)
Graham (R-SC)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
Sessions (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

These Senators represent 10 states, and none of these states has suffered a great number of casualties (although all casualties are are bad): KY (35), NC (51), GA (73), OK (40), ND (10), SC (35), AZ (55), AL (40), SD (16), LA (52).

Do you doubt that these 14 pro-war, anti-accountability Senators would feel more pressure to demand answers from the administration if they represented more grieving families?

And on an absolute basis, Arizaona has suffered more fatalities than 42 other states and Georgia has suffered more fatalities than 40 states, yet all four Senators from those states are on your list. Oklahoma has the highest per capital fatality rate -- and on an absolute basis, its 40 fatalities are more than the 33 fatalities suffered by Massachusetts, which, if the correlation held, would suggest that Kennedy and Kerry should be on your list.

There obviously are a lot of factors that go into why a particular Senator votes a particular way. If that wasn't the case, then both Senators from Louisiana, Alabama,North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota and Kentucky would be on the list instead of just one. Suggesting that the number of fatalities makes the difference -- or even plays a significant role -- isn't borne out by the data.

onenote

The map of deaths corresponds directly to population density.

density. The Senators representing states with lower death tolls are the ones pushing the war the hardest and demanding the least accountability from Bush.

Senators from the states with the highest per capita fatality rates (such as Oklahoma) tend to be supporters of chimpy (although there are exceptions, such as Vermont). Even on an absolute basis, six of the ten states with the most fatalities have chimpy supporting Senators (Texas, Florida, Ohio, Georgia, Virginia, Arizona). Texas, in fact, has the second highest absolute number of fatalities.

onenote

They all voted for the Warner Amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill which requires Bush to give quarterly reports to Congress on his exit strategy, his failure to internationalize the forces, his failure to move us toward US troop draw down in Iraq, etc.

Also, what makes you think it's purely partisan? Democratic Sen. Conrad of ND is as bad as any Rep. on kowtowing to Bush on the Iraq debacle. Of the 8 states that have suffered the most casualties of the Iraq war, none of the Sens. (Rep. or Democratic) have given Bush a blank check. But the 14 Sens. who steadfastly fail to exercise their constitutional duty to check and balance Bush's abuse of power in Iraq generally come from states that have suffered fewer casualties.

Then, you changed your argument to pro-war Senators representing states with fewer casualties.

How do you explain the casualties from Texas--represented by two Republican scumbags?

On absolute basis, Arizona has suffered more fatalities than 39 other states,Georgia has suffered more fatalities than 41 states, and Louisiana has a higher fatality rate (absolute) than 38 other states, yet Senators from those states represent 5 of the 14 "zealots" on your list. In fact, 12 of the 14 Senators on your list come from states that are in the top 25 in terms of fatalities.

BTW, I never suggested it was "purely partisan." In fact, I said exactly the opposite -- that any number of factors influence a senator's position on the war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=657185&mesg_id=664949