NBA Finals Ratings, 1976-2016

NBAfinals.png

Year NBA Finals Average Rating
1976 11.5
1977 12.7
1978 9.9
1979 7.2
1980 8
1981 6.7
1982 13
1983 12.3
1984 12.3
1985 13.7
1986 14.1
1987 15.9
1988 15.4
1989 15.1
1990 12.3
1991 15.8
1992 14.2
1993 17.9
1994 12.4
1995 13.9
1996 16.7
1997 16.8
1998 18.7
1999 11.3
2000 11.6
2001 12.1
2002 10.2
2003 6.5
2004 11.5
2005 8.2
2006 8.5
2007 6.2
2008 9.3
2009 8.4
2010 10.6
2011 10.2
2012 10.1
2013 10.4
2014 9.3
2015 11.6
2016 11.4

Racial Identification among Hispanics, by U.S. State

hispanicsbystate.png

According to the system used by the Census Bureau, Hispanic is not a “race” in the United States. Instead, Hispanic is viewed as a separate national “origin”, so that Hispanics can be of any race. For example,  a light-skinned Hispanic from Cuba might identify as White, a Hispanic whose origin comes from the Dominican Republic might identify as Black, and a Hispanic who is mostly indigenous in heritage might identify as Native American. Other Hispanics either don’t see any of the racial groups fitting them, or believe that Hispanic is a race, and so choose the “Some Other Race” category on the census.

Nationally, the majority of Hispanics identify as white, with 37% identifying as “Some Other Race”, and smaller numbers identifying as Multiracial, Black, American Indian, Asian, and Pacific Islander. Geographically there are a few clear patterns in how Hispanics racially identify. In Texas and New Mexico, where many Hispanics have been living since those states were a part of Mexico, the number of Hispanics who identify as White is very high. This also holds true in Florida, where a large portion of the Hispanic population is Cuban and generally more conservative, and over 3/4s of Hispanics identify as White. In contrast, the Deep South generally has a high portion of Hispanics identifying as “Some Other Race”, as does the Pacific Northwest. Hawaii is unique for having the largest Hispanic racial group be those who identify as Multiracial.

What do these patterns suggest? It is hard to say for sure, but it may be that Hispanics who are second or third-generation, or have been established in the country for a longer time, are more likely to identify as White. This would explain why the Hispanic communities of New Mexico and Texas have a strong white identification, and also why the well-established Cuban community of Florida identifies as White. In contrast, the Deep South may have a high identification of “Some Other Race” because these Hispanic groups are newer to the country, and those states are already racially diverse and split between large White and Black populations.  It also seems that, in general, the whiter a state, the more likely it is that Hispanics will identify themselves as White, such as in Maine and Vermont. More study needs to be done to figure out why Hispanics in some area  identify as White, while others tend to choose to racially identify as “Other”.

State Largest Hispanic Racial Group White % “Some Other Race” % Multiracial % Black % American Indian % Asian % Pacific Islander %
United States White 52.97% 36.66% 6.03% 2.46% 1.36% 0.41% 0.12%
Alabama Other 38.25% 50.04% 5.82% 3.70% 1.25% 0.35% 0.58%
Alaska White 46.51% 25.46% 16.58% 3.35% 5.90% 1.72% 0.48%
Arizona White 51.26% 39.74% 5.47% 1.05% 2.06% 0.33% 0.09%
Arkansas Other 38.57% 52.38% 6.01% 1.50% 1.11% 0.24% 0.19%
California White 46.37% 44.47% 6.04% 0.97% 1.43% 0.61% 0.11%
Colorado White 54.72% 34.32% 6.89% 1.25% 2.38% 0.33% 0.09%
Connecticut White 47.20% 38.88% 6.92% 5.67% 0.91% 0.31% 0.10%
Delaware White 43.52% 39.60% 7.61% 6.87% 1.85% 0.33% 0.22%
District of Columbia Other 40.20% 41.87% 8.52% 7.44% 1.38% 0.43% 0.16%
Florida White 76.34% 14.98% 4.30% 3.52% 0.57% 0.23% 0.06%
Georgia White 43.75% 43.31% 6.50% 4.64% 1.27% 0.33% 0.19%
Hawaii Multiracial 22.56% 12.49% 46.87% 1.26% 1.11% 9.75% 5.96%
Idaho White 45.62% 44.33% 6.91% 0.53% 2.21% 0.31% 0.09%
Illinois White 49.82% 41.70% 5.23% 1.65% 1.24% 0.31% 0.05%
Indiana White 46.56% 42.25% 7.32% 2.38% 1.10% 0.26% 0.13%
Iowa White 53.08% 35.63% 7.69% 1.48% 1.65% 0.33% 0.14%
Kansas White 53.49% 35.73% 7.01% 1.72% 1.69% 0.26% 0.09%
Kentucky White 48.09% 38.33% 8.35% 3.35% 1.11% 0.45% 0.32%
Louisiana White 52.61% 32.43% 7.85% 5.18% 1.29% 0.42% 0.22%
Maine White 63.03% 19.17% 11.49% 3.27% 2.11% 0.76% 0.17%
Maryland White 42.78% 41.40% 8.26% 5.54% 1.40% 0.46% 0.16%
Massachusetts White 44.68% 38.81% 7.94% 6.80% 1.29% 0.36% 0.12%
Michigan White 53.44% 31.43% 9.15% 3.81% 1.68% 0.39% 0.10%
Minnesota White 47.52% 38.78% 8.78% 2.11% 2.20% 0.49% 0.12%
Mississippi Other 39.76% 44.59% 7.59% 5.98% 1.45% 0.33% 0.29%
Missouri White 50.84% 35.34% 8.68% 2.94% 1.56% 0.41% 0.23%
Montana White 57.18% 19.03% 12.90% 0.99% 9.29% 0.40% 0.21%
Nebraska Other 43.66% 45.99% 6.62% 1.15% 2.17% 0.22% 0.19%
Nevada White 45.30% 44.67% 6.55% 1.47% 1.19% 0.61% 0.20%
New Hampshire White 57.21% 27.95% 9.15% 3.84% 1.25% 0.45% 0.15%
New Jersey White 52.37% 34.22% 6.78% 5.11% 1.08% 0.38% 0.07%
New Mexico White 60.21% 31.96% 4.95% 0.74% 1.87% 0.20% 0.06%
New York White 42.05% 39.80% 7.60% 8.49% 1.55% 0.41% 0.10%
North Carolina Other 38.11% 49.86% 6.30% 3.60% 1.66% 0.30% 0.17%
North Dakota White 55.26% 23.52% 11.05% 1.78% 7.64% 0.52% 0.22%
Ohio White 50.80% 32.39% 9.74% 5.23% 1.24% 0.41% 0.19%
Oklahoma Other 39.60% 45.62% 8.81% 1.68% 3.90% 0.28% 0.12%
Oregon Other 44.16% 44.24% 7.76% 0.94% 2.33% 0.41% 0.16%
Pennsylvania White 43.30% 39.53% 8.23% 7.03% 1.38% 0.39% 0.13%
Rhode Island Other 40.71% 41.93% 8.65% 6.60% 1.56% 0.36% 0.19%
South Carolina Other 41.27% 45.72% 6.68% 4.53% 1.23% 0.32% 0.25%
South Dakota White 44.71% 31.73% 11.23% 1.12% 10.58% 0.26% 0.37%
Tennessee Other 41.77% 46.73% 6.87% 2.73% 1.27% 0.32% 0.30%
Texas White 66.63% 27.42% 3.80% 0.98% 0.96% 0.17% 0.04%
Utah Other 44.05% 45.50% 7.40% 0.93% 1.63% 0.31% 0.18%
Vermont White 65.91% 17.03% 10.44% 3.63% 2.00% 0.78% 0.22%
Virginia White 47.55% 37.82% 8.19% 4.38% 1.35% 0.57% 0.15%
Washington Other 42.28% 44.72% 8.68% 1.38% 2.00% 0.72% 0.22%
West Virginia White 61.67% 22.13% 9.66% 4.50% 1.32% 0.54% 0.18%
Wisconsin White 48.70% 39.21% 7.42% 2.45% 1.79% 0.35% 0.08%
Wyoming White 54.56% 33.07% 8.07% 0.79% 3.09% 0.29% 0.12%

 

Data Source:

Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011.

http://www.nhgis.org

Chinese % of US Population by State, 1870 vs. 2010

chinesecombined.jpg

Looking at the map above we can see the huge transformations that have occurred in the US Chinese population over the past century and a half. The first major Chinese immigration into the United States started with the beginning of the California Gold Rush in 1848. They mainly lived and worked in Western states, for example making up over quarter of the population in Idaho in 1870, where they were generally employed in mining and railroad construction. These first Chinese immigrants were overwhelmingly male, coming over as contractors and competing with western white laborers for jobs. This created a racist anti-Chinese labor movement, which succeeded in 1882 in getting the Chinese Exclusion Act passed. This act restricted Chinese labor and immigration into the country, and many Chinese went back to China, moved to cities like San Francisco, or spread out across the country to start laundries or restaurants, some of the few industries they were allowed to work in under the Exclusion Act.

The alliance between the United States and China during World War II led to the repeal of the Exclusion Act in 1943. Chinese immigration to America increased dramatically during the following decades. Today Chinese make up 1.07% of the total US population. California is still a state with a large Chinese population, as are other western states like Washington and Nevada, but the East Coast also has gained many new Chinese centers, such as New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Maryland.

Overall, the Chinese population is much larger as a proportion of the US population today than it was in 1870, but at the same time that population has become more evenly spread out across the country.

Data Source:

Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011.

http://www.nhgis.org

% of the vote for Socialist candidate Eugene V. Debs, by US State, 1912

debs1912.png

% vote results for every state at the bottom of the post.

1912 was one of the most exciting presidential elections in history. It featured a three-way race between incumbent Republican president William Howard Taft, former President Theodore Roosevelt (running under the banner of the Bull Moose, or Progressive, Party), and Democrat and New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson. Each of these three candidates won multiple states, with Taft winning two states and 23% of the national popular vote, Roosevelt carrying 6 states with 27% of the vote, and  Wilson winning with 40 states and 42% of the national vote. But despite there already being three candidates in the race, this did not crowd out the vote for the fledgling Socialist Party under the banner of Eugene Debs, which scored its best result ever, getting 6% of the vote.  This result was never surpassed by the Socialist party, which quickly began to decline and fade into obscurity with the start of World War 1 and the Red Scares to follow. Socialist candidate Eugene Debs first rose to prominence as the leader of the Pullman Railroad Strike, which mobilized hundreds of thousands of workers and paralyzed rail services throughout the nation. He then ran for president five times as the Socialist candidate, in 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912, and 1920, the last time running from a jail cell after being arrested for speaking out against World War 1.

debsposter.jpg

The strongest socialist states in 1912 might seem very surprising today, with Nevada (today a swing state) and Oklahoma (which today is very conservative) topping the list with 16.5% and 16.4% of the vote respectively. The party was also strong in the rest of the Mountain and Pacific West, and had pockets of strength in the Great Lake states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio. The party was weakest in the South, with the exception of Florida and Texas. It’s worst result came in the Democratic dominated state of South Carolina, where Debs got only 0.33% of the vote.

Probably the most surprising and interesting socialist stronghold is Oklahoma, given the states incredibly conservative nature today. The Socialists in Oklahoma were a very agrarian party, and gained support among poor farmers tied to the sharecropping system, many of whom had been involved in the Farmers Alliance and had supported the Populist Party in the 1890s. The Oklahoma Socialist party developed a “Farmers Programme” which promised to relieve the agricultural crisis of the state, and also packaged it’s ideology with both patriotism (especially Thomas Jefferson’s rhetoric about the “common man”), and with protestant religion (claiming Jesus as the “first socialist”). These moves made Socialist ideology less alien and radical to the poor farmers of Oklahoma.

The Socialist Party peaked in Oklahoma during the elections of 1914, when over 175 socialists were elected to local and county offices, including six elected to the state legislature, while the Socialist candidate for governor received nearly 21% of the statewide vote. However, the start of World War 1 a few years later quickly led to the decline of the party. The Socialist Party opposed the war, and this resulted in both a natural loss of support among some of it’s rural and patriotic followers in Oklahoma, and to local and state authorities cracking down harshly on the party, shutting down Socialist newspapers and disbanding local organizations. This crack down was legitimized by the “Green Corn Rebellion”, a 1917 uprising by a left-wing group of tenant farmers called the Working Class Union in protest of the war and the draft. The Rebellion was crushed by police, and the Socialist Party was effectively suppressed for the next decade.

The Socialist Party in Nevada has not been studied as much as the Oklahoma party, but it’s support likely resulted from voters familiarity with previous third-parties as well as labor radicalism among miners in the state. Nevada gave 66% of the vote to the Populists in the 1892 presidential election, mostly due to the Populists support for bimetallism, while the Silver Party dominated state politics from 1896 to 1911. Nevada’s past support for insurgent third-parties led to voters being more open to Socialist party appeals. Additionally, the state was a hotbed of Wobblies (members of the International Workers of the World, a radical labor organization), who spread many socialist views. The Wobblies initiated a huge strike among miners in the town of Goldfield, which was crushed by the federal government. This was just one of many strikes, with the labor radicalism of miners in Nevada making them much more likely to support the Socialists.

A similar story could be told throughout the West, where past support for the Populist Party and the influence of labor groups led to strong results for the Socialist Party. This support faded as it traveled East, as Eastern States were more firmly entrenched in the two-party system established in the Civil War era. The South was the weakest area for the Socialists, as these states were not truly democratic but restricted the votes of both blacks as well as some poor whites. Deep South states like South Carolina suppressed attempts by Republicans to establish two-party democracy, and likewise did not allow third-parties to compete on a fair playing field.

Results by State:

Socialist (Debs) % Democratic (Wilson) % Progressive (Roosevelt) % Taft (Republican) %
Alabama 2.6 69.9 19.2 8.3
Arizona 13.4 43.6 29.3 12.6
Arkansas 6.5 55 17.3 20.5
California 11.7 41.8 41.8 0.6
Colorado 6.2 42.8 27 22
Connecticut 5.3 39.2 17.9 35.9
Delaware 1.1 46.5 18.3 32.9
Florida 9.3 70.2 8.8 8.2
Georgia 0.9 76.6 18.1 4.3
Idaho 11.3 32.1 24.1 31
Illinois 7.1 35.3 33.7 22.1
Indiana 5.6 43.1 24.8 23.1
Iowa 3.4 37.6 32.9 24.3
Kansas 7.3 39.3 32.9 20.5
Kentucky 2.6 48.4 22.7 25.5
Louisiana 6.6 76.8 11.7 4.8
Maine 2 39.4 37.4 20.5
Maryland 1.7 48.6 24.9 23.7
Massachusetts 2.6 35.5 29.1 32
Michigan 4.2 27.4 38.9 27.6
Minnesota 8.2 31.8 37.7 19.2
Mississippi 3.2 88.9 5.5 2.4
Missouri 4.1 47.3 17.8 29.7
Montana 13.5 35 28.3 23.1
Nebraska 4.1 43.7 29.1 21.7
Nevada 16.5 39.7 27.9 15.9
New Hampshire 2.3 39.5 20.2 37.4
New Jersey 3.7 41.2 33.6 20.5
New Mexico 5.9 41.9 17.1 35.2
New York 4 41.3 24.6 28.7
North Carolina 0.4 59.2 28.4 11.9
North Dakota 8.1 34.2 29.7 26.6
Ohio 8.7 41 22.2 26.8
Oklahoma 16.4 47 0 35.8
Oregon 9.7 34.3 27.4 25.3
Pennsylvania 6.9 32.5 36.5 22.4
Rhode Island 2.6 39 21.7 35.6
South Carolina 0.3 95.9 2.6 1.1
South Dakota 4 42.1 50.6 0
Tennessee 1.4 52.8 21.5 24
Texas 8.3 72.7 8.9 9.4
Utah 8 32.6 21.5 37.4
Vermont 1.5 24.4 35.2 37.1
Virginia 0.6 65.9 15.9 17
Washington 12.4 26.9 35.2 21.8
West Virginia 5.7 42.1 29.4 21.1
Wisconsin 8.4 41.1 15.6 32.7
Wyoming 6.5 36.2 21.8 34.4

 

 

Hmong, Laotian, Thai, and Taiwanese % of Total Asian Population, by State

combinedimages3.jpg

This map looks at different Asian ethnic groups and nationalities, and examines how they are distributed across the United States. Each group is looked at as a % of the total Asian population in each state, rather than looking at each group as a % of the total population of a state. So, for example, Laotians make up 11.1% of the Asian population in Arkansas, but only make up 0.13% of the total population of Arkansas, because Arkansas asian population is very small. Earlier maps detailed the distributions of Chinese, Indian, Filipino, Vietnamese populations, as well as the distribution of Korean, Japanese, Pakistani, and Cambodian populations.

Data Source:

Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011.

http://www.nhgis.org

Korean, Japanese, Pakistani, and Cambodian populations as a % of the total Asian population

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

This map looks at different Asian ethnic groups and nationalities, and examines how they are distributed across the United States. Each group is looked at as a % of the total Asian population in each state, rather than looking at each group as a % of the total population of a state. So, for example, Cambodians make up 15% of the Asian population in Rhode Island, but only make up 0.44% of the total population of Rhode Island. We can see that the Japanese are more strongly represented in Hawaii and Rocky Mountain states, relative to other Asian groups. Future maps will create distributions for more Asian groups, such as Hmong, Laotian, and Thai populations. I chose Korean Japanese, Pakistani, and Cambodian because these are the 5th through 8th largest Asian groups in the United States, and I had already done the top 4 largest groups (Chinese, Indian, Filipino, Vietnamese) here.

Some interesting notes on the Japanese population: While they make up a very small % of the total population of the Rocky Mountain states, since the Asian pop is overall so small, it is interesting that Japanese are relatively highly represented in those states.

It could be because of the history of japanese railworkers in the old west who were used as contract workers after the Chinese Exclusion Act. But it could also be due to the presence of Japanese Internment Camps in those states during WW2:

Map_of_World_War_II_Japanese_American_internment_camps.png

Many Japanese returned home to find their property stolen or confiscated. Perhaps some ended up staying in the areas of the internment camps? I haven’t found much about that possibility yet, but if anyone has any ideas whether that could be true let me know!

As for the large Japanese pop in Kentucky, it seems that there are alot of Japanese companies that have located in Kentucky for some reason? http://www.kentucky.com/living/travel/article44552601.html

Data Source:

Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011.

http://www.nhgis.org

 

Chinese, Indian, Filipino, and Vietnamese shares of the total Asian Population by State

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

This map looks at different Asian ethnic groups and nationalities, and examines how they are distributed across the United States. Each group is looked at as a % of the total Asian population in each state, rather than looking at each group as a % of the total population of a state. So, for example, Filipinos make up 50.6% of the Asian population in Nevada, but only make up 3.44% of the total population of Nevada. So we can see that, for example, the Vietnamese are represented more strongly in Southern and Great Plains states compared to other asian groups, whereas the Indian population is more represented in the Mid-Atlantic and Rust Belt states. Future maps will create distributions for more Asian groups, such as Japanese, Korean, and Hmong populations. I chose Chinese, Indian, Filipino, and Vietnamese because these are the four largest Asian groups in the United States.

Data Source:

Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011.

http://www.nhgis.org