Interesting map of the election

[Gypsy]

I saw this on Hannity and Colmes tonight and thought it was an interesting visual by county.

Thank God there is soooo much red!

http://www.hannity.com/

[Radar Rider]

I have a shirt from 2000 that says "Bush Country - My America!" with the Red county map on it. I guess I'll have to get another one for 2004!

[Airbornelawyer]

A slightly more, um, nuanced map. Not as dramatic, but perhaps a more accurate reflection. Shades from red to blue based on the Bush/Kerry percentages (i.e., a 50/50 tie would be pure purple).

[Airbornelawyer]

A larger version (about 400kB) is here: http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ervdb/JAV...erica_2004.gif

[DanUCSB]

I think both maps have value. The first in that it shows rather dramatically the tremendous rural/urban divide in American politics. Compare, for example, my own state of California. Blue dots for the cities, red everywhere else.

The second is indeed a more nuanced map. It's better at showing the relative distribution of voters across America along party lines, but in one way it fails: our electoral system is an either/or proposition; you're either red or blue, with no purple in between.

We must also remember, of course, that no matter how the counties look, our presidential election is decided upon a full-state basis.

And on a petty note, it is nice to see that me and RL aren't the only Bush voters in this damn state.

[Airbornelawyer]

What it does, I suppose, is show you where the fights are. Rather than thinking in terms of swing states, you look within those states for the purplest of counties/electoral districts.

You do take into account their demographics: don't waste time on a 50/50 county with only a few thousand votes like Madison County, Florida (Bush: 3,038, Gore: 3,014 to Bush: 4,196, Kerry: 4,048). Instead, go into places like Pinellas County, which accounts for about 6-7% of Florida's electorate. In 2000, Bush lost Pinellas County by 184,825 to 200,630 (and 10,000 for Nader). In 2004, Bush took Pinellas 225,627 to 225,367. They took a bluish purple county and made it pure purple. Now they have to work on making it redder. Pasco County, which was almost pure purple (Bush: 68,582, Gore: 69,564, Nader: 3,393), is now red: Bush: 103,198 to Kerry: 84,731. That's a 40,000 vote improvement in just two counties of a state won by less than 600 votes in 2000.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

What it does, I suppose, is show you where the fights are. Rather than thinking in terms of swing states, you look within those states for the purplest of counties/electoral districts.

You do take into account their demographics: don't waste time on a 50/50 county with only a few thousand votes like Madison County, Florida (Bush: 3,038, Gore: 3,014 to Bush: 4,196, Kerry: 4,048). Instead, go into places like Pinellas County, which accounts for about 6-7% of Florida's electorate. In 2000, Bush lost Pinellas County by 184,825 to 200,630 (and 10,000 for Nader). In 2004, Bush took Pinellas 225,627 to 225,367. They took a bluish purple county and made it pure purple. Now they have to work on making it redder. Pasco County, which was almost pure purple (Bush: 68,582, Gore: 69,564, Nader: 3,393), is now red: Bush: 103,198 to Kerry: 84,731. That's a 40,000 vote improvement in just two counties of a state won by less than 600 votes in 2000.

Actually, AL, in my experience, what you do is pick the places where you have the most red voters and do everything you can to turn them out.