Do You Live in a Wal-Mart State or a Starbucks State?

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


starbucks.jpg

By way of Columbia University via the all-things-rural blog Daily Yonder come these interesting (albeit unsurprising) maps showing Wal-Mart and Starbuck density, state by state. (The darker the state, the higher the number of stores per capita.) Not too many surprises here. As you can see, the Southeast has the highest concentration of Wal-Marts, while Starbucks are dense on the West Coast. Also unsurprising is the red state/blue state correlation. As Daily Yonder points out:

Blue states don’t have many Wal-Marts (except for New Hampshire). Red states don’t have many Starbucks (except for Colorado).

But is it really a fair comparison? Sure, both are giant chains, but one sells coffee and the other sells, uh, everything. The Northeasterner in me thinks it’d be a whole lot more interesting to compare Starbucks to its regional arch-nemesis, Dunkin’ Donuts.

With its “America runs on Dunkin'” ad campaign, the famously pink-and-orange donut chain has been playing up its proletarian appeal, branding itself as the coffee shop for regular, workaday Americans. From the “America runs on Dunkin'” website:

Mom and dads. Students and senior citizens. Blue collar, white collar, and every collar in between. Dunkin’ Donuts is how everyday people get things done, every day.

Starbucks, on the other hand, has made its name on making us feel like connoisseurs.

The vast range of Starbucks coffees and our expertise on the subject await. Find out what’s being served in stores each week and follow it up with everything you might ever care to know about our roasts.

Even better than a map: Preference for Hillary vs. Obama correlated with preference for Dunkin’ vs. Starbucks. Come forth, ye budding demographers.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest