This Is A Fascinating Map (war dead by region of the country)

[THUNDER HANDS]

[Pharaoh]

1. interesting

but is'nt it just about population density?

[Captain Hilts]

2. Yes. See, the blue states do pull their oar....note the dots around Ft. Drum, NY. nt

[Vincardog]

4. IT sure looks that way from here.

[Phredicles]

3. Hmm: Clustered on the coasts, the NE, around big cities, all of which

tend to vote Democratic. Kind of explains the otherwise-baffling continued enthusiasm of the "red" areas, no?

Again, Hmm.:evilfrown:

[rec_report]

6. *Exactly.* n/t

[Perky]

36. Oh cmon now

nothing sinister in demographics. Overlay this with a population map and it till look neraly identical.

IEDs do not know political paries or race.

[eridani]

45. True--does anyone have a per capita map?

That would be much more revealing.

[XemaSab]

46. I would have expected more troops to come from rural, conservative areas

But it looks like the vast majority have come from big cities in blue states.

[xultar]

5. Where are all the Republic states? Why aren't they pulling their weight?

[Jed Dilligan]

24. To be fair, you'd have to look at per capita.

The blue states are more populous and more densely populated.

[baldguy]

38. IOW that's where the people live.

Cacti & tumbleweeds don't enlist in the military - or vote.

[BlackVelvet04]

7. One in Utah? One? n/t

[helderheid]

9. what do you mean one? Look around Salt Lake City on the map.

[BlackVelvet04]

21. I was looking at the wrong line........n/t

[karlrschneider]

13. That line you are seeing is the 40 deg. N line of latitude, not the state border.

:eyes:

[BlackVelvet04]

20. You're right.....

I didn't look closely.

[formerrepuke]

8. Well- the dots also correspond to overall population density....

it only seems to reflect that people serving in the military represent (roughly) a cross-section of the total population.

[tularetom]

10. The bible belt seems a bit underrepresented

[karlrschneider]

11. Uh, they tend to cluster around big cities...where there lots of people.

What different would you expect?

(Wyoming has about the same population as St. Louis - and about the same number of fatalities)

[deadmessengers]

12. I'd love to see the map proportional to population.

Hmmm. Sounds like a project!

[karlrschneider]

14. Here's a starting point, all you need is state populations. Easy to find.

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/USMap.aspx

[Yukari Yakumo]

23. Casualies per 100K people

Alabama - 1.30
Alaska - 2.40
Arizona - 1.68
Arkansas - 1.72
California - 1.08
Colorado - 1.14
Connecticut - 0.76
Delaware - 1.66
Florida - 0.87
Georgia - 1.23
Hawaii - 1.48
Idaho - 2.08
Illinois - 1.01
Indiana - 1.18
Iowa - 1.44
Kansas - 1.38
Kentucky - 1.41
Louisiana - 1.66
Maine - 1.33
Maryland - 1.20
Massachusetts - 0.90
Michigan - 1.36
Minnesota - 1.08
Mississippi - 1.58
Missouri - 1.09
Montana - 1.99
Nebraska - 2.22
Nevada - 1.46
New Hampshire - 1.54
New Jersey - 0.69
New Mexico - 1.45
New York - 0.80
North Carolina - 0.99
North Dakota - 2.18
Ohio - 1.29
Oklahoma - 1.51
Oregon - 1.61
Pennsylvania - 1.36
Rhode Island - 1.05
South Carolina - 1.17
South Dakota - 2.25
Tennessee - 1.30
Texas - 1.52
Utah - 0.85
Vermont - 2.96
Virginia - 1.40
Washington - 1.19
West Virginia - 1.05
Wisconsin - 1.36
Wyoming - 1.82

[Jed Dilligan]

25. I re-sorted from greatest to least

Could stick it on a map if anyone's interested....

Vermont 2.96
Alaska 2.4
South Dakota 2.25
Nebraska 2.22
North Dakota 2.18
Idaho 2.08
Montana 1.99
Wyoming 1.82
Arkansas 1.72
Arizona 1.68
Delaware 1.66
Louisiana 1.66
Oregon 1.61
Mississippi 1.58
New Hampshire 1.54
Texas 1.52
Oklahoma 1.51
Hawaii 1.48
Nevada 1.46
New Mexico 1.45
Iowa 1.44
Kentucky 1.41
Virginia 1.4
Kansas 1.38
Michigan 1.36
Pennsylvania 1.36
Wisconsin 1.36
Maine 1.33
Alabama 1.3
Tennessee 1.3
Ohio 1.29
Georgia 1.23
Maryland 1.2
Washington 1.19
Indiana 1.18
South Carolina 1.17
Colorado 1.14
Missouri 1.09
California 1.08
Minnesota 1.08
Rhode Island 1.05
West Virginia 1.05
Illinois 1.01
North Carolina 0.99
Massachusetts 0.9
Florida 0.87
Utah 0.85
New York 0.8
Connecticut 0.76
New Jersey 0.69

On edit: I'd like to put forth a hypothesis: RURAL POVERTY is the correlate here.

[karlrschneider]

27. Looks like 5 out of the 6 highest are red. Are there a lot of rural poor in

Alaska and Vermont? I don't see any kind of correlation in this comparative list...

[Jed Dilligan]

28. Alaska is more wilderness, a lot of people

move up there to start a new life. Poverty is relative because everything is very expensive. A lot of the population lives in bleak little towns. Same is true of the other top states on this list, including Vermont. I think more people seek a way out. And I said "hypothesis," I'm not claiming it's true...

[whopis01]

48. The numbers are too small to make statistically relevant conclusions.

The small numbers from low population states are more likely to be skewed by outliers. There really just aren't enough deaths to have the law of large numbers kick in enough to have any confidence in these statistics (not that it is a bad thing).

The larger population states are probably more accurate representations. TX and NY for example would have more evened out values than Alaska and Vermont.

[deadmessengers]

31. Rural poverty

Good hypothesis there - makes a TON of sense. I also have to wonder if Vermont's being at the top of the list is a bit of an outlier, due to the fact that it's a really small state. In fact, from the looks of it, EVERY state with an "at large" seat in the House (meaning, the really small populations) is in the top 10.

Now, to correlate this chart with per-capita income...

[AzPolitics]

39. Really Also Need to Account for Retired/Child Populations...

Notice how low both Florida (high retiree population) and Utah (high number of children under 18) rank. To really give an accurate representation, we would want to look at deaths per 100,000 of military-age population for each state (I bet both Florida and Utah would move up substantially, and Vermont might drop a little if it has a smaller-than-average retireee and children population).

Lies, damn lies, and statistics...

[Jed Dilligan]

41. Welcome to DU!

There are also the foreign-born, ineligible to serve, felons--all those could be keeping CA low on the list.

[Blue_In_AK]

43. Not only have a high proportion of Alaskans

been killed, but we've also lost many of the other states' soldiers who are stationed here. The past few months have been deadly for Fort Richardson's paratroopers.

[karlrschneider]

26. thanks. I see Georgia has twice the rate as Connecticut.

I do believe GA is a bit 'redder'...
;-)

[Lisa]

30. a population cartogram might also work

This page features one with the sizes of the states adjusted to show population. The same procedure could be used to show numbers of troops deployed, or casualties (or as an earlier poster suggested, those stats adjusted by population density) -- and even shaded to show percentage R or D vote, at the same time.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2006/


An older version of a population cartogram from the Census Bureau:
http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/912ch1.pdf


This page might have some links to software that can do this (haven't tried them myself so I can't vouch for them):
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/projects/Cartogram_Central/

[Yavin4]

15. Texas, The Most Republican of States, Looks A Little Light To Me

A few patches but nothing like the big cities of the NE.

[BrotherBuzz]

18. Texas has the second highest number of losses in the nation - 319

California leads with 365

[Rydz777]

35. Yes, and it was recently announced that Texas is now a

"minority-majority" state, 52% minority, concentrated among the youth - the age group that would serve in the military.

[BrotherBuzz]

37. Much like California's LA concentration of losses

Oh, another reason for Texas' high losses might be attributed to the fact that Texas is home to a lot of Army units deployed in Iraq. I'm guessing many soldiers have no real loyalty to any hometown, and choose to call home where they, and their family, live.

[Bluebear]

16. I wish the map was ALL YELLOW. nt

[treestar]

17. True it represents population density, but it should embarass the

repukes, who are the ones continually making claims that should reflect that the red states suffer more.

And they are the ones with that stupid red and blue map that made the whole country look red. At least whoever pumped up that map deserves to have this one used against them.

[spoony]

47. It should embarrass them that there are so many dots

all by itself, but, warmongers are shameless.

[JVS]

19. whoa Jersey

[deadmessengers]

32. Don't be fooled

NJ has the smallest per-capita casualty rate in the US (see chart posted further up the thread), which shouldn't be very surprising considering that it's also the wealthiest state in the US.

[brmdp3123]

22. Gee-who would ever have thought

that the most populous states would have the most fatalities. Just doesn't make sense, does it?

[BrklynLiberal]

29. Wow. it sure DOES look like it is the BLUE states that are paying more than an equal share of the

cost of this war....We knew it was true when it came to $$$, and now we know it is true when it comes to cannon fodder as well.

[Nicole]

44. Looks are deceiving.

If you read the stats up thread showing the casualties per population, many of the red states have more per population than the blue states.

Just using your state & mine for example:

Oklahoma is 1.51 per 100K
New York is 0.80 per 100K


I'm willing to bet NYC alone has at least twice as many people as the whole state of OK which is about 3.5 million.

[WillyT]

33. That Map Makes The Case For Abolishing The Electoral College

Never have the few and far between wreaked so much havoc on the true and the Blue.

:shrug:

[BrotherBuzz]

34. Word!

:thumbsup:

[Nikki Stone1]

40. Magic Rat drove his sleek machine, over the Jersey state line

Couldn't help it, sorry.

:)

[ComerPerro]

42. its a concentration of high population areas, so it makes sense. But most are liberal areas.