Can Bernie Win?

In a word, no.

Hillary’s got this baby pretty wrapped up. And it’s not just the super-delegate thing either. In fact, Hillary’s leading Bern in a number of different ways. Let’s take a look …

Delegates – No big surprise here. We all know that Hillary leads. The actual numbers are 1,812 to 1,521. That’s 54% of all committed delegates so far. Advantage: Hillary

Delegates minus super-delegates – We all probably also know that, if you take the super-delegates away, Hillary is no longer in front. And the numbers for that are 1,264 to 1,475, or just 46% for Clinton. Advantage: Bernie

Super-delegates – Well, it’s not too surprising that Hillary’s killing when it comes to these. In particular, it’s 548 to 46, 92% to 8%. Advantage: Hillary

So, I can certainly see why the Bernie supporters are upset. There are, however, a couple of other ways to look at this.

Popular vote – You’d think this would have to be in Bernie’s favor, right? Well, Clinton’s got a 3 million advantage. She’s leading 13 million to 10 million, or 57% to 43%. That’s the strongest plurality yet. Advantage: Hillary

Electoral college – Well, why don’t we just cut to the chase and see how these two would do if we did this the way they do the actual presidential election? As you probably know, that’s just winner-takes-all for each state. Once again, Hillary’s out in front, 319 to 133. That’s an even stronger plurality, at 71% (and 59% of all states whether they’ve held their primary or not). Advantage: Hillary

Number of states – Just for fun, let’s take a look at how many states each candidate has won. Off the top of my head, my guess would be that this is probably pretty close. Indeed, Hillary is still leading, but at a much more reasonable 55% (or, more specifically, 24 states to 20). Advantage: Hillary

And what those last two tell me is that all Bernie’s really been able to do is cherry-pick some of the smaller states that the Dems have carried easily (Vermont, Colorado, Hawaii) or haven’t had much luck in (Kansas, Nebraska, Utah).

Hillary’s the one who’s taken the big states that matter and that actually will be in play (Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York). She’s also done strongly in the South. Though the South's red tendencies may be too much to overcome, Clinton's popularity with African-Americans might cause at least some states (NC, FL, and VA perhaps) to break blue.

Income Inequality in the Good Ol' USA

Well, we’ve been hearing a lot lately about income equality. Is there a way, though, we can quantify all that? So, it’s not just a bunch of stories and opinions?

Well, yes, there is. It’s called the Gini Coefficient, and it’s basically a number that tells you how equal or unequal a country is based on distribution of income.

I won’t get into all the gory details (though you can find them on good ol' Wikipedia), but essentially the Gini will give you a value of 1 for complete equality (everybody makes the same) and 0 for complete inequality (1 person makes all the money, and nobody else makes nuthin’). It’s something that any serious economist knows all about and takes very seriously.

Now, there are two ways to look at this number …

Historical

Believe it or not, this country was pretty darn equal at one time. Can you guess when? It was actually in the 1950s, the heyday of the middle class. Yup, everyone was working, unemployment was usually under 5%, the CEO of the average company made 25 times more than the average worked at that company (it's over 200 now), the highest tax rate was 90% (it's 40 now), and the Gini bottomed out at just under 39. (Oh, we were also the strongest country in the world and basically paid everyone’s military bill, gave foreign aid all over the place, and managed to fund all sorts of internal improvements and R&D.)

Now, this was a major contrast to what was going on pre-Depression, when the (mixed metaphor alert) Fat Cats were rolling in the dough and the Gini was over 50. 

What’s really interesting, though, is what happened in the 1980s, when numbers started to rise and rise, advancing to almost pre-Depression levels. 

So, what exactly was going on in those years? Well, you may remember a fellow by the name of Ronald Reagan. As avuncular and charming as he was, he was also the first Republican in almost 60 years who wasn’t essentially a DINO (a Democrat In Name Only). Yup, all the Republicans elected in FDR’s (and the Depression’s) very long shadow basically believed in the same model of government. That means Eisenhower, of course, but also Nixon and Ford too.

Reagan, however, wanted to blow the whole thing up. In that regard, he was essentially as nutso as Barry Goldwater (who ran in ’64) – but somehow managed to win more than his little home state and the Deep South.

And Reagan did (blow the whole thing up, that is). He totally changed the game – so that gummint was the enemy, unregulated capitalism was the hottest thing since the middle of the 19th Century, economic victims deserved their plight, and greed was good. And one of the major effects of all that was for the Gini coefficient to rise by almost a quarter, back to figures similar to those of the Roaring 20’s.

Comparative

Another way to look at this is to compare ourselves to the rest of the world. Yes, I realize we American don’t really like to do that. American exceptionalism is, after all, a storied tradition in this land. Sometimes, though, the exception is on the debit, not the credit, side.

Like, for example, when it comes to the Gini coefficient:

On the plus side, it looks like we’ve got everybody beat directly south of us. Take that, Colombia! And that, Guatemala! At the same time, though, it looks like we’re in the same boat as Argentina and Nicaragua – and Suriname’s got us beat flat. Dang!

Africa’s looking pretty good too – at least south of the equator, that is. It’s a little hard to believe, though, that were losing out to Ghana, and Sudan, and Mali, and Burkina Fasso.

And here’s a call out to China, and Malaysia, and – um, er – Papua-New Guinea. It’s looking, though, like Japan, and South Korea, and even such light weights as Mongolia and Vietnam and Afghanistan have us bested in Asia.

As for Europe? Are you kidding? Canada? Fuggedaboutit. The ANZAC countries? Yeah, right. Heck, even India and Iran and Greece have us beat.

Care to see it in a list? Well then, the World Bank has us coming in at 96, just above Gabon, but just below Qatar. Not a World Bank fan? Well, how about the CIA? They’ve got us at 102.

Ready to give up? I know I am.

Opening Day Scheduling

Ah, Opening Day! The crack of the bat. The roar of the crowd. Games getting canceled because of snow …

Yup, it happens every year, doesn’t it? So far this year, we’ve got games in Cleveland and New York cancelled (for cold, though, not snow). Huh! Who ever saw that coming?

At the Jake

Now, Cleveland I might be able to understand. They were playing the Red Sox, for crying out loud. And, sure enough, the weather was worse in Boston (28 to 30).

But do you know who the Yankees were playing? The Marlins!?!? So, not only was it a balmy 78 in Miami, but the Fish play in a friggin’ dome!

And, while I’m on the subject of domes, did you know that 3 dome teams – Toronto, Seattle, and Houston – start the season on the road? In fact, we’ve even got 2 dome teams (Toronto and Tampa Bay) playing each other. 

To return to Cleveland and NYC, though, did you know that 4 other teams were kind of in the same boat? In particular, I’ve got Pittsburgh at 41 and Cincinnati at 45.

On the other hand, I’ve also got some travelling teams with some pretty nice temperatures:

• San Francisco – 64
• Washington – 65
• Colorado – 73
• Los Angeles – 76 

I’m not so sure about those middle 2, but Los Angeles? Los Angeles?!?! And, just to add insult to injury, would you believe they’re actually playing San Diego?!?! 

Now, none of this is very encouraging, but is there perhaps a way to make all this concrete, to see how bad it actually is?

Yup, those are palm trees

A Better Way

Well, the first thing we’re going to have to do is come up with something to compare all this to. So, our first set of home teams is going to have to be those with domes (or retractable roof):

• Toronto
• Tampa Bay
• Milwaukee
• Seattle
• Arizona
• Houston
• Miami

That’s 7. We only need 8 more.

Milwaukee - a balmy 38 outside 

So, let’s round things out wiith the home teams with the highest temperatures:

• Texas – 83
• Los Angeles (2 teams) – 76
• Atlanta – 76 
• Oakland – 71 
• San Diego – 69
• Washington – 65
• San Francisco – 64 

Now Let’s Compare

So, there’s a couple of ways we can go about this. We probably first, however, need to eliminate any of the dome games. Temperatures are going to be perfect there, right?

Now, let’s look at the average temperature for those remaining home games.  And that gives us:

• Current – 61
• Better way – 73

That’s 12 whole degrees!

Next, how about if we take a look at the difference between the temperature in the visitor’s city and that in the home team city. I figure, in aggregate, that will give us some feel for how much sense the whole scheme might make. In other words, I think it can give us the best take on whether we’re meeting our overall goal of avoiding colder cities and playing in warmer ones.

• Current – 136
• Better way – 195

That’s a difference of not quite 60 degrees.  Divided over the 9 games that would  actually be played outdoors, that’s a difference of 9 degrees per game.

So, what am I missing? Why am I not in charge of scheduling for Major League Baseball?

It's probably this guy, right?

Those Not So All-American Republican Presidential Candidates

You may know already that Ted Cruz was born in Canada, or that Marco Rubio’s parents were both born in Cuba. What you might not know, though, is the extent that the few final Republican presidential hopefuls all have extensive ties to foreign shores.

So, here’s how I went about it … I looked at each candidate’s parents, grandparents, and spouse(s). I then simply saw what percentage of these were foreign-born. Now, let’s take a look at those rather surprising results.


Jeb Bush (13%)

Yup, even super WASP Jeb Bush makes this list. Note, though, that that’s only through marriage.

Columba Garnica Gallo was born in Mexico. She and her future husband met when Jeb went down there on something of a mission trip when he was at Phillips Andover, his super-WASPy prep school. He was 17 and she was 16 (and spoke no English). They would marry a mere four years later. She would become a naturalized US citizen in 1979.

John Kasich (44%)

Well, here’s one I wasn’t expecting. Kasich seems about as blue-collar, all-American as they get. 

Turns out, however, all four of his grandparents were immigrants from Eastern Europe. His father’s parents were Czech and his mother’s were Croatian (her maiden name was Vukovich).

Dad, John, Sis, and Mom

Kasich’s been married twice, with both of his wives being native-born Americans.


Marco Rubio (50%)

Marco Rubio is a true first-generation American. And that means that both his parents, as well as all his grandparents were foreign-born – in particular, in Cuba.

His Dad was Marco Rubio Reina and his mom was Oriales Garcia. They came to the US three years before Castro, in 1956. They would both become naturalized citizens in 1975.

Mama y Papa

In 1962, Rubio’s maternal grandfather, Pedro Garcia, came to the US as un “undocumented immigrant,” was all set to be deported, but somehow managed to get off the hook at the last minute and stay.

Marco’s wife, though the daughter of Colombian immigrants, was herself born in Florida.


Ted Cruz (50%)

Ted Cruz is an interesting case. On the one hand, he himself was born in Canada, of a Cuban-born father. (Hey, what is it with all these Cubans?)  On the other hand, though, his mom seems to be pretty all-American.

Ted’s dad, Rafael, is an interesting one as well. Born in Cuba, he originally supported Castro, coming to the US in the late 50s. He was actually a Canadian citizen when Ted was born, becoming a US citizen only in 2005. Bet you didn’t know that Ted’s real first name is Rafael as well.

Ted's wife, Heidi Nelson, sounds about as WASP as they come.


Donald Trump (58%)

Well, well, well … How could it be that immigrant-basher Donald Trump is the least native of all the Republican candidates? 

Well, did you know that his mom is from Scotland? Yup, Mary Anne MacLeod was born on the island of Lewis and Harris, in the Outer Hebrides. I guess that’s where Donald got the red hair and enormous eyebrows from.

She met Donald’s father while on a visit to the Big Apple. Though Donald’s father, Fred, was born in New York, both of his parents were from Germany. Put it all together, and Donald doesn’t have a single grandparent who was native born.

Just to continue the theme, Trump would show a real predilection for marrying outside the US as well. Of his three wives, only one – Marla Maples – was American. His first wife, Ivana Zelníčková, was Czech, and his third and current wife, Melania Knauss, is Slovenian.


Special Note

So, you may be wondering about all the Rand Pauls, Mike Huckabees, and Chris Christies out there. Well, they seem to be pretty boring ancestry-wise. All I could really find was that Rick Santorum dad’s, Aldo, was born in Italy.

On the Democratic side, Hilary’s about as WASPy as it gets.  Bernie Sanders is the only Dem who rivals the Republicans when it comes to a foreign background. With a father and all four grandparents born in either Poland or Russia, he clocks in at 50% – tying Cruz and Rubio, and besting Trump.

Home State Losers

Listening to NPR this morning, I heard some pundit express the opinion that if one of the current presidential candidates couldn’t win their own home state, they were done. 

That made me wonder if there were any presidents who had not won their home state. A quick look at the Interwebs told me no (at least for the modern political era – i.e., after the Civil War).

So, how about the losers then? Well, would you believe that’s actually what happened in half of all presidential contests in that period?

Now, the fact that some of the candidates (major-party only) have been absolutely trounced explains quite a bit of that. But not all, mind you. 

So, here’s a list of the presidential candidates who have lost their home states. I’ve listed them in ascending order based on how much of the electoral college they won – in other words, from pretty explainable results to those that are little bit more of a mystery.

Here we go …


#18 – 1936, Alf Landon, Republican, Kansas (2%)

Poor Alf Landon, Can you imagine running against FDR in the middle of the Depression? Well, I guess someone had to do it. 

Yes, the symbol of Kansas is the sunflower

Landon was actually a likeable, pretty moderate candidate. He did win Maine and Vermont – at that time, bastions of the Republican Party. He also won 46% of the vote in his home state.


#17 – 1912, William Howard Taft, Republican, Ohio (2%)

Alright, here’s our outlier. This election was a real weird one – basically one of a handful that featured a serious 3rd party. In this case, that party was Teddy Roosevelt’s – he had served previously as Republican president, vowed to not run again, but reneged on that promise and ran on the Progressive ticket. Taft, the incumbent, would be the official Republican candidate.

Taft is the big one

TR would outpoll Taft by a score of 88 electoral votes to 11. The only state Taft would win would be Utah, of all places. Roosevelt and Taft would split Taft’s home state of Ohio, allowing that to fall to Woodrow Wilson (in addition to the whole election as well).


#16 – 1972, George McGovern, Democrat, South Dakota (3%)

Not totally sure why this one was up there with the Landon/FDR result when it came to numbers, but there you have it. McGovern was fairly liberal, as well as a bit of an unknown and something of a dark horse candidate as well.

The Eagleton Affair didn’t help any either

McGovern’s only victories were in Washington DC and in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. SD was somewhat close, though, with McGovern winning all of 45%.


#15 – 1932, Herbert Hoover, Republican, Iowa (11%)

Poor Herbert Hoover. I’m sure the Dems could have run anybody and won.

It was really more like swap horses or drown

I debated throwing this one in here. Unlike a lot of candidates, Hoover didn’t have a strong connection with any particular state. Though born in Iowa, he also spent part of his youth in Oregon, spent his young adult years in California, and was generally extremely peripatetic (including stints in China, Australia, and London).

Well, turns out he didn’t win any of those. In fact, the only states he did win were all in the northeast (at the time, pretty solidly Republican) .


#14 – 1956, Adlai Stevenson, Democrat, Illinois (14%)
#12 – 1952, Adlai Stevenson, Democrat, Illinois (18%)

The prosperous, conformist, post-FDR 50’s were not a good time to be a Democrat. Poor Adlai Stevenson ran in both the ’52 and ’56 elections, but pretty much everyone but the South “liked Ike” instead.

Adlai Stevenson I was a winning VP candidate in 1892 and a losing one in 1900

Egghead Adlai lost his home state with just 45% of the vote in ’52 and an even lower 40% in ’56. And that makes him the only repeat offender on this whole list.


#13 – 1928, Al Smith, Democrat, New York (16%)

Al Smith was the first Catholic to run for president. Hard to believe, but that was a sure formula for defeat just less than 100 years ago. Back then, Republicans had targeted the Dems as the party of rum (anti-prohibition), Romanism (Catholicism), and rebellion (the South).

He was known as the “Happy Warrior”

Smith, a former governor of New York, did lose the state by only the slimmest of margins (47% to 50%). He’s actually one of 5 New Yorkers who have not carried their home state. Hmm, I wonder what this will mean for The Donald?


#11 – 1872, Horace Greeley, Democrat, New York (18%)

1872 was a weird one. Turns out the Republicans themselves were split. The main part of them, called the Stalwarts, voted for the incumbent, Grant. The Radical Republicans, however, started their own party, the Liberal Republicans (actually not an oxymoron way back then), and nominated Greeley. The Dems, who were highly motivated to defeat Grant, adopted Greeley as their candidate as well. Whuuut?

Can you imagine this guy getting any votes today?

Just to make things even more interesting, Greeley would subsequently pass away between the election and the actual seating of the Electoral College. And that meant that he would actually not get any of the electoral votes at all, with those being split between no less than 5 others.


#10 – 1944, Thomas Dewey, Republican, New York (19%)

Here’s another one that had to be pretty unwinnable as well. Imagine running against a sitting president, in wartime, who’s going for his fourth term, and who won the last 3 elections by 10%, 16%, and 17% of the popular vote.

Poor guy would not fare much better in 1948. Though everyone was sure he was going to win, Truman would beat him handily. Dewey would, however, hold New York this time. Both years were very close though – 46-45% in’48 and 47-52% in ‘44.


#9 – 1920, James Cox, Democrat, Ohio (24%)

1920 was the model for all but a handful of elections pretty much between Reconstruction and the Great Depression. In each of those elections, the South went blue and the rest of the country went red.

Dems were also known as the Wets back then

(Prohibition had been enacted just the year before)

Needless to say, Ohio is not part of the South. I’ll bet you may not have realized, though, that both candidates that year were from Ohio (the other one was Warren Harding). So, one of those guys was going to end up on this list. Harding would win pretty handily though – 58% to 39%.


#8 – 1924, John Davis, Democrat, WV (26%)

Finally, we’re over the 25% mark. The rest of these home-state losers were at least able to get over a quarter of the electoral votes.

Unfortunately, Davis’s results would look almost exactly the same as Cox’s – a blue South and everything else red. It was pretty close in WV though – 44% to 49%.

By the way, Davis’s loss would start a string of 5 straight elections – from 1920 through 1936 – where the losing candidate would also lose their own state. There have also been some repeats from election to election, but no other string quite like this one.


#7 – 1904, Alton Parker, Democrat, New York (29%)

Once again, we’ve got two guys from the same state. The sitting president – Teddy Roosevelt – would be the one to win this one however, 53% to 42%.

No, you’re right, Jefferson was not the Democratic candidate for president in 1904

And once again, we’ve got the same blue South / red everywhere else template. In fact, this one stood out primarily because one of the Southern states – Missouri – was the first to buck the trend and go Republican.


#6 – 1892, Benjamin Harrison, Republican, Indiana (33%)

And here we are at the one-third mark. It is important to note, though, that this is another one of those 3rd-party elections. The outsider this year was the Populist candidate James Weaver. My guess is Harrison would have won Indiana – and the election – if it hadn’t been for him.

Colorful, no?

This was an interesting election in that both Harrison and the eventual winner, Grover Cleveland, were running as incumbents. Harrison was actually the real incumbent, but Cleveland had been the president immediately preceding him.

Harrison would lose Indiana by less than 10,000 votes.


#5 – 1900, William Jennings Bryan, Democrat, Nebraska (35%)

This one fits that same blue-South template, but was a little different in that the Democrats were able to capture some Western states as well (Colorado, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming). Interestingly, though, Nebraska was not one of them.

That same pattern would repeat in 1908, when Bryan won again. This time, though, he would be able to take his home state. He also won the Cornhusker state when he first ran for president, in 1896.


#4 – 2012, Mitt Romney, Massachusetts, Republican (38%)

Hard to believe, but this home-state loser phenomenon actually happened in the last election. Yup, Mitt Romney failed to hold Massachusetts, where he had been governor. Of course, how the People’s Democratic Republic of Massachusetts ever elected a Republican in the first place is totally beyond me. Poor Mitt was actually trounced in the Bay State, a whopping 38% to 61%. Buyer’s remorse?

Going for the Green vote?

#3 – 1888, Grover Cleveland, NY, Democratic (42%)

Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison – together again, for the very first time. It’s a little hard to believe, but this election would be an exact mirror image of 1892. 

In ’92, Harrison lost the election and his home state, with Cleveland winning both. In 1888, Cleveland lost the election and his home state, with Harrison winning both. Honestly, I can’t make this stuff up.

He did get his picture on the $1000 bill however

#2 – 1880,  Winfield Scott Hancock, PA, Democratic (42%)

This was the first election where the South was really the Solid South. And that’s a tad ironic, as Hancock was actually a Union general. 

Poor guy, his Civil War exploits didn’t help him in his native state though. He would lose the Keystone State by 4%. Of course, he was running against another Civil War general, one James Garfield. Hancock was, however, the better looking one.


#1 – 2000, Al Gore, TN, Democratic (50%)

Remember this one? It was pretty darn close, wasn’t it? It wasn’t quite as close in Tennessee though. Gore lost the Volunteer State 47% to 51%. And I don’t believe there were any hanging chads there.

“This close!”

The South is about as red as you can get these days, a remarkable turn-around since the days when it was just as solidly Democratic. The South did make an exception for native sons Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton – in ‘76, ‘92, and ‘96. Not one Southern state went blue for Gore however. Looks like that flip is pretty much totally complete at this point.

US Time Zones: A Modest Proposal

It’s hard to believe, but there once was a time when the US didn’t have any time zones. Every little town had their own clock.  One little burg, say, might be at 12:30. The next town over then might be at 12:31. The next one over from that might be at 12:31, or maybe 12:32, or even 12:30.

Railroads were the impetus behind changing this state of affairs to something a little more reasonable. And that makes a lot of sense. Can you imagine the hell this created with time schedules?

It was 1883 when the railroads got together and carved up the country.  There were a number of changes after that over the years, but this is how it all ended up:

So, I can definitely see some logic to this scheme here. But what I want to know is, what the heck’s going on with Idaho, or Oregon, or Indiana, or Michigan, or all those states along the 104° line? I was assuming the zones would follow state borders where they can (but maybe break up long states that seemed to straddle two zones, like Kentucky and Tennessee). What the heck’s going on here?

I mean, take a look at Australia, another big country with multiple time zones. They make it look pretty simple:

Notice how the time zones go right along the borders of the different territories. There are no little towns in Queensland that are in the time zone of the Northern Territory, no little enclaves in Western Australia that don’t follow Western Australia time, no yellow territories that aren’t in the same time zone as all the other yellow territories. The borders themselves go pretty much up and down. Why can’t we be more like the Australians?

So, let’s take a look at the different states, and see how illogical things actually are.  I’ll go from least egregious to most egregious.


8.  Texas

Texas is a big state. So. it’s not too surprising that it takes in two time zones. It’s also not too surprising how they’ve actually gone about dividing those two time zones up …

In the far western tip of Texas is the major city of El Paso. Now, it so happens to be to the west of MT cities like Denver, and Santa Fe, and Cheyenne. Actually, would you believe El Paso is actually closer to San Diego than it is to Houston? Yup, we’ve definitely got an MT city here.

Now, there also so happens to be very little happening east of El Paso. There is, however, quite a lot going on just southwest of the city, across the border in Mexico’s Ciudad Juarez, which just so happens to be on Mountain Time as well.

So, not  too bad an idea …

I’m not totally sure why Hudspeth decided to go along for the ride (or that little bit of Culbertson), but there you have it.

Thanks to the Houston Chronicle for some of this info. 

VERDICT:  Sure, why not?  


7.  Kentucky / Tennessee (tie)

You’re going to have to divide these two at some point.  There really aren’t any other states that are long and skinny like these guys … and run right across two time zones. So, the only question is, where are you going to draw that line?

Kentucky actually does a pretty good job. The line they’ve drawn separates two distinctive regions – the Cumberland Plateau and the bluegrass region – from the rest of the state:

Note that the time zone border gives Louisville a little bit more of a buffer, as well as nipping off that little wedge of Mississippi Plateau. Nice work!

As for Tennessee, that’s not too bad either. It looks like they’ve basically taken the mountains, the Valley, and the Cumberland Plateau and given them to ET, with the rest of the state given to CT.

I might move those 5 border counties – Fentress, Cumberland, Bledsoe, Sequatchie, and Marion – over to ET, but otherwise it’s not bad.

VERDICT:  I’m not sure KY needs to change anything. TN should probably move those 5 counties over though.


6.  Indiana

Indiana reminds me a little of Texas. Both have some big cities in the corners of their states. In Texas, it’s El Paso. In Indiana, it’s Evansville in the southwest, and Gary in the northwest. 

Evansville makes some sense. There is that little wedge that the Wabash River creates as it meanders over to the southwest. The line they’ve carved out also matches up pretty well with the line that goes through Kentucky. On the other hand, though, there is no big neighbor to the west here, like Ciudad Juarez … or Chicago.

Yup, though the border in the northwest is all right angles, Chicago makes a lot bigger splash than Ciudad Juarez. Heck, Gary’s really just a suburb of Chi-town, right? Makes a fair amount of sense, at least  to me.

VERDICT:  I can live with it. You know, what would really be cool, though? Just move the whole darn state over to CT.


5.  Idaho

The Panhandle of Idaho (called North Idaho by the natives) is only tenuously associated with the rest of the state. Number one, it’s just too far away. Number two, there’s all those mountains separating it from the main part of the state, which basically makes up the Snake River Valley. Number three, there’s Spokane, a city of half a million, right across the border in Washington.

So, this one makes a lot of sense. Where it all falls apart, though, is the line they actually draw across the state. Now, their hearts do seem to be in the right place – they basically simply follow the Salmon River across the state.

In fact, they actually follow it rather religiously – which means that the border follows a really crazy loop in the western part of the state:

Now, of course, nobody actually lives in that loop, but why not just cut right across? That’s what they do in the eastern part of the state.  Could work here too, right?

You know what would be even more straightforward though? Why not just put the border along the county line? 

That’s Idaho County that getting split in two, by the way (one of only a handful of counties where that happens). You know, you could have the time zone include the county, or exclude it. Whether you use the county’s northern border or southern border, though, the integrity of the county line would remain intact, and the line would at least seem to be a little more practical.

VERDICT:  Makes sense, but I really don’t like it. Make me happy and use that county line, though okay?


4.  Oregon

Alright, this is just plain goofy. You’ve got one county, Malheur, that just doesn’t want to play along with the rest of the state. Just to make things even more interesting, though, the very southern part of the county doesn’t seem want to play along with the rest of the county!

So, what’s this all about? The only possible reason I can think of is proximity to that major metropolitan region of Boise, ID. Turns out this is actually the case, especially as the majority of Malheur’s population is in the northern part of the county – right across from Boise. Also, there’s not a whole lot to the west, in Oregon, until you get Bend, and then Eugene, and then Portland.

VERDICT:  I kind of get it, but this is just ridiculous. Make all of Oregon PT. In fact, let’s just tidy things up and have a nice, clean, logical line like this:

3. Kansas / N. Dakota / S. Dakota / Nebraska

This one could have been so perfect. There’s a nice vertical line, around 104°, that divides up ND, SD, NE, OK, and TX on one side, and MT, WY, CO and NM on the other. It also looks like a pretty darn clear place to throw that time zone border as well.

So, what's all that crazy stuff going on in Montana, and, South Dakota, and Nebraska, and Kansas? Why does a little piece of each of those states have to move over to Mountain Time? Wouldn’t it have been just so much easier to follow each state’s borders? If nothing else, it would have dealt a serious blow to the irony of having those four extremely flat states having anything to do with the Mountain Time Zone. 

Okay, let’s look at these losers one by one …

North Dakota’s just doesn’t seem make any sense. South Dakota’s, on the other hand, does at least seem to split the state in two. Nebraska? Haven’t a clue. Kansas? You got me.

I do know, though, that Kansas is – without a doubt – the most egregious of the four:

What were those four counties thinking? It’s not like there’s anything over the border. Or any difference between those four and any other county within 100 miles.

VERDICT:  This is just lame, guys. Color within the lines, would ya?


2. Michigan

Those poor Yoopers. They must feel less a part of their state than the North Idahoans are of theirs.

Now, I was figuring that these guys are either gonna go with Michigan’s ET, or with Wisconsin’s CT. They're kind of right on the border between the two. But noooo. We’ve got to try and do both now, don’t we?

Yup, all the counties that border Wisconsin are CT, while all the rest are ET. Why? I have no idea. It’s not like there any big cities over that border. 

So, what we’ve got here is an area with two time zones but only one area code. That just doesn’t seem right.

VERDICT:  Let the UP go CT. 


1.  Florida

On the surface of it, this one makes a lot of sense. The Panhandle makes Florida – like Kentucky and Tennessee – one of those longer states that straddles ET and CT.  Further, the line between the two is a fairly natural one – the Apalachicola River. Additionally, that river also functions as county line for no less than 6 counties, from the Alabama state line to the Gulf of Mexico. Finally, that line is almost directly below the Alabama – Georgia border, an almost vertical line that separates ET and CT all the way up to Tennessee.

All well and good. But here’s where it all falls apart:

Let me explain … The river actually hits the gulf at the town of Apalachicola. For some reason, though, the time zone (that little dotted yellow line) zips up a little tributary to the northwest, goes through Lake Wicomico, travels along a canal, hooks up with another little river, hits State Road 386, then follows 386 south to the Gulf. WTF???

How did this all come about? Well, would you believe it was some rich guy who wanted his offices, in Jacksonville, and his paper mill, in Port St. Joe, in the same time zone? Well, that guy was one Ed Ball, one of the most powerful men in Florida, and that company was the St. Joe Paper Company, which is still around today.

And, yes, I’m afraid that one is too good to be true. Sounds like it might have actually been the Apalachicola Northern Railroad instead. Turns out that line ran right along the ET – CT border, with just a teeny, tiny little jog at the end over to St. Joe’s.

Thanks for that great info, Orlando Sentinel.  

VERDICT:  You really messed it up, guys. If it wasn’t for the St. Joe’s thing, you guys could been #8. You definitely gotta move that thing back.



More geography stuff:

• Relative sizes of states and countries
• The meanings of country names 
• The meanings of state names
• Crazy demonyms (what you call people from a certain place)
• How many Springfields are there in the US?
• The most and least accessible state capitals