« Who's your daddy? | Main | Home sweet home »
July 02, 2005
Red vs. Blue casualties
Responding to comments Andrew Sullivan made in 2001 that the "great red zone that voted for Bush" was more ready for war than "the decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts," Crooked Timber takes statistical look at red state vs. blue state casualty rates for the war. You know, just for fun.
Have states with a high percentage of Bush voters suffered a larger share of casualties per capita? If Sullivan’s statement had been true, I might expect to see that I could predict the rate of military casualties per capita by looking at Bush’s support in 2000 and 2004.This is not the case. Only a very small percent of the variance in casualties by state can be explained by looking at the 2000/2004 elections. The relationships do not approach significance. I ran simple regressions of the most recent casualties by state divided by state population, versus Bush’s percentage of the popular vote by state in 2000 and 2004.
I was surprised by some of the results. Eight of the ten states with the greatest casualty rates went for Bush in 2004, as did six of the states with the lowest casalty rates. However, the state with the greatest percentage of losses in Iraq was Vermont. My state of Texas was number 19.
I have to agree with the author that there are many methodological flaws with this approach. Some mentionables are: Many of the casualties may have enlisted before 2001; Measuring on a state level doesn't tell you whether the casualties came from blue or red areas of the state; Casualty numbers in some states are too small to compare statistically.
It's a good enough analysis for a blog, but it wouldn't hold water as a legitimate study. But I'm not sure it is even a question that needs to be asked. Measuring whether the Democrats or Republicans have sustained more casualties or enlisted at a greater rate implies patriotism, or lack thereof. I would guess Democrats have lower rates of enlistment, simply because they disagree with a war waged by a Republican president. My own grandfather, who enlisted in WWII before he was 18, has said he would not fight in Iraq, even if there were a draft, because he disagrees with the reasons behind the war. Statistically, one could point to these types of Democrats and rant about their lack of patriotism and sacrifice. But how can you question the patriotism of a WWII vet who simply disagrees with the current president?
You can't.
Posted by Elyas at 12:44 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Red vs. Blue casualties:
» texas holdem from texas holdem
In your free time, check out some relevant information dedicated to empire poker texas hold em [Read More]
Tracked on July 5, 2005 08:20 PM
» pacific poker from pacific poker
You may find it interesting to check some relevant pages dedicated to empire poker party poker [Read More]
Tracked on July 6, 2005 03:22 AM
Comments
Does the fact that a state has large military bases (10th Mountin Div in NY; airborne in Georgia) affect the numbers? What about National Guard call-ups? Of course if the unit is not called, one would expect lower casualty rates for the state, but what about type of unit, infantry or air-defense or logistics?
Posted by: GregG at July 2, 2005 02:38 PM
I don't know. I'm assuming the data is based on the home state of the soldier upon enlistment, so I don't think military bases would make a difference unless recruitment was more aggressive in those areas.
Like I said, this isn't a very sound study. Casualties probably aren't a very good level of measurement to begin with. Enrollment rates might be better.
Posted by: Elyas at July 2, 2005 06:40 PM
Lets examine my state of Oregon. Although a "Blue State" because there were more votes for Gore and Kerry, demographically, Oregon is two states--the heavily populated, mostly Democratic, urbanized Willamette Vally and the small town/rural, mostly Republican other 80% of the state. If you ignore the Oregonians who are in the regular military forces, the National Guard has had only one major combat force deployment. This group was deployed to the Sunni Triangle. The casualties they took were due to the location and mission of this unit. Had they been deployed elsewhere in Iraq, they likely wouldn't have experienced any killed or wounded. Any of the above factors pretty much make the figures for Oregon meaningless. Being a Republican and/or a hawk in civilian life does not confer upon you a shield in combat. The bullets from an AK-47 aren't painted red or blue (although the tracers rounds are green.) :-) Training and luck are more important to your survival than political POV.
Posted by: 74 at July 2, 2005 10:30 PM