President Obama & Global Connectivity
While visiting the Washington Post, I realised that the map I was looking at looked a lot like another map I'd seen in my research. So I went back to it and had a good look.
Do you know which cities are ALPHA, BETA and GAMMA-class Globally-Interconnected Cities? Is your city one of them? And what is the link between being a Global City and supporting Barack Obama for President of the USA?
First of all, you can look at the list of GaWC Global Cities here: [MAP] [TEXT]
=====
(UPDATE): A brief note of explanation here, as requested. A Global City is one which for economic, cultural, social or other reasons takes a disproportionate role in the affairs of the world. Currently, the four top (Level 12) ALPHA-class world cities are London, New York, Paris and Tokyo (in alphabetical order). These are followed by six other ALPHA-rated cities at Level 10: Chicago, Frankfurt, Hongkong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore. The GaWC ranking I've used here is based on the levels at which the city provides advanced services (e.g. law, medicine, media, finance) to the rest of the world. There are other rankings; Foreign Policy journal's October 2008 issue has one based on 24 metrics, but the top ten are roughly the same. (/UPDATE)
=====
Next, you can look at a graphic representation from the Washington Post of which counties went for whom and by how much here: [LINK to WaPo Interactive Map]
Here's some numerical data.
In alphabetical order, the three ALPHA world cities on the US map are Chicago (O +1,001,099), Los Angeles (O +662,350) and New York (O +411,186).
The one BETA world city on the US map is San Francisco (O +168,101).
The GAMMA cities on that map are, in alphabetical order, Atlanta (O +182,030), Boston (O +139,072), Dallas (O +114,991), Houston (O +18,468, which is rather low in comparison to the rest), Miami (O +243,567), Minneapolis (O +190,657), and Washington DC (O +218,195).
I then went to the text list, which gives DELTA cities: Baltimore, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Richmond, Seattle. Denver was added recently and isn't on the 2004 list.
Every single one of those cities went for Senator (now President-Elect) Obama in a big way. But there are two possible objections to this simple analysis. Firstly, the big cities have always been projected as pro-Obama; secondly, this looks like cherry-picking with no basis in fact.
These objections are easily dealt with: look at the maps; there are largeish cities which went for McCain (e.g. Salt Lake City by 90,000) and some that went red in previous elections. But none of the most globally-interconnected cities are in red; all of them went blue this year. Barack Obama won in almost every demographic category; the largest category of people who voted against him were old white Protestant males in rural areas.
There does indeed seem to be a link that shows President Obama's support is large in cities that are well-connected to the rest of the world. And that bodes well for the future of the US in the global milieu.
Do you know which cities are ALPHA, BETA and GAMMA-class Globally-Interconnected Cities? Is your city one of them? And what is the link between being a Global City and supporting Barack Obama for President of the USA?
First of all, you can look at the list of GaWC Global Cities here: [MAP] [TEXT]
=====
(UPDATE): A brief note of explanation here, as requested. A Global City is one which for economic, cultural, social or other reasons takes a disproportionate role in the affairs of the world. Currently, the four top (Level 12) ALPHA-class world cities are London, New York, Paris and Tokyo (in alphabetical order). These are followed by six other ALPHA-rated cities at Level 10: Chicago, Frankfurt, Hongkong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore. The GaWC ranking I've used here is based on the levels at which the city provides advanced services (e.g. law, medicine, media, finance) to the rest of the world. There are other rankings; Foreign Policy journal's October 2008 issue has one based on 24 metrics, but the top ten are roughly the same. (/UPDATE)
=====
Next, you can look at a graphic representation from the Washington Post of which counties went for whom and by how much here: [LINK to WaPo Interactive Map]
Here's some numerical data.
In alphabetical order, the three ALPHA world cities on the US map are Chicago (O +1,001,099), Los Angeles (O +662,350) and New York (O +411,186).
The one BETA world city on the US map is San Francisco (O +168,101).
The GAMMA cities on that map are, in alphabetical order, Atlanta (O +182,030), Boston (O +139,072), Dallas (O +114,991), Houston (O +18,468, which is rather low in comparison to the rest), Miami (O +243,567), Minneapolis (O +190,657), and Washington DC (O +218,195).
I then went to the text list, which gives DELTA cities: Baltimore, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Richmond, Seattle. Denver was added recently and isn't on the 2004 list.
Every single one of those cities went for Senator (now President-Elect) Obama in a big way. But there are two possible objections to this simple analysis. Firstly, the big cities have always been projected as pro-Obama; secondly, this looks like cherry-picking with no basis in fact.
These objections are easily dealt with: look at the maps; there are largeish cities which went for McCain (e.g. Salt Lake City by 90,000) and some that went red in previous elections. But none of the most globally-interconnected cities are in red; all of them went blue this year. Barack Obama won in almost every demographic category; the largest category of people who voted against him were old white Protestant males in rural areas.
There does indeed seem to be a link that shows President Obama's support is large in cities that are well-connected to the rest of the world. And that bodes well for the future of the US in the global milieu.
etched with acid at 5:42:00 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home