While certainly interesting… it’s also midleading. It makes it look like all those red counties were very Bush, and the blue counties were very Kerry. That’s absolutely not true. A lot of counties were 51/49 or 49/51… especially in Wisconsin. You don’t see that here.
The maps make it look like things are very polarized regionally.
What a crazy past 36 hours. Thankfully, not so crazy as four years ago. I stayed up late into the night watching the news and watching the blogs, waiting for the final decision. When commentators started talking about provisional…
My county, Pinellas County, FL (home of St. Petersburg and Clearwater, across the bay from Tampa) was blue in 2000. Bush won by 280 votes last time I checked the supervisor’s site. And my wife and I volunteered for two weeks including the 72 hour program to make that so (and MoveOn PAC did every crappy thing in the book to stop us).
Right now that little red peninsula of Pinellas looks pretty damn good.
Interesting. A quick glance shows at least three states (OK, NB, UT) where Bush carried every county, and several others where he very nearly did so (NV, WY, ID, MO, KS). Kerry won every county in MA and RI, and all but one county in VT and CT. It’s fascinating to see the number of counties carried by Bush in states that Kerry won handily, such as IL, CA and NY. Also, look at the map of PA and tell me that it’s not Philly and Pittsburgh vs. the Rest Of The State.
I wonder about that little patch of blue in the Florida panhandle, but I think that’s the Tallahassee area, with its concentration of two natural Democrat constituencies: government workers, and college professors/students.
Also, what’s with that unbroken string of blue counties that starts in eastern Mississippi and stretches straight across Alabama and into Georgia?
Not ethe counties around Los Angeles County. The so-called “Inland Empire” of SoCal is growing like mad and has a population nearly the size of the City of Los Angeles. As this area of western San Bernardino and Riverside counties continue to grow, the balance of power in California politics will begin to shift. Coastal LA and San Francisco will continue to be blue, but the red counties will have significant enough population to make a difference in the vote.
I *love* the county by county map – though I really would like to see a voting district by voting district map. My father and I used to go over voting-district map for our city (Chattanooga, TN) after every big election.
Let’s not forget the ‘burbs, like where I am. Major metro suburbs and exburbs pack a whole lot of votes, usually red. Take a look at the Atlanta Metro area, for instance. Inner city DeKalb, Clayton and Fulton counties were blue. And Fulton was less blue, in that the northern lobe of the county is suburban and would be red if seperated. All that is surrounded by red suburban and exurban counties which offset them. Like Cobb (here), Gwinnett, Paulding, Cherokee and Forsythe.
From what I’ve seen of the area in my drive-thru’s is that is a “band” of largely minority (Afro-American) communities, and includes Montgomery, Al. I have no idea why that is, though. It’s odd (to me, at least) that Birmingham isn’t blue. Well, Harris County, Tx is red, too, and that includes inner city Houston — and much of suburban Houston, too, so that offsets it.
That are of Alabama is known as the Black Belt due to the rich, dark soil. It used to be the main cotton area in the bad old days and is still rural. There is a lot of poverty in the area. The folks tend to vote for big government.
The Democrat Party: a national party no more
VODKAPUNDIT linked to a “election result by county map” in PDF.
A simple perusal of the map reveals that the ONLY place where the Democrats carried every county in any state – or EVEN a mere majority of counties in any state is in New England – with a candidate from New England.
Truly Zell Miller is right: the Democrat Party is a national party no more.
Last election, someone made a county-by-county map where each county was shaded darker or lighter red or blue depending on the margin of victory. Does anybody know where I can see a map like that? True data junkies want it all.
FYI, you can get something close to that here-http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/
by clicking on each state. However, you can only look at one state at a time, you can’t see the whole country at once.
That string of blue that runs through the south is indeed a concentration of African-Americans. The location is not coincidence. If you overlaid this with a map showing the highest concentration of slaves in the old south, they would line up almost exactly. The line does indeed tend to follow rich soil, since that’s where the most profitable farming could be done, and thus where the most profitable plantations were located. Notice how the string doesn’t extend into the more mountainous areas of Appalachia, or the sandy soils of the coastal areas.
rosignol is partly right – this map isn’t indicative of what some conservatives think it is: an overwhelming show of support for Bush. Remember, the race was decided nationally by 3 points. If you overlaid this map onto a population map, you’d see that, in general, blue areas largely correspond to conentrated population centers. Just glancing at it, I can find only one major population center in the country – Dallas/Ft. Worth – went for Bush. So the map isn’t meaningless – there’s layers of rich information here, in fact. It’s just that the map doesn’t really mean what some people think it means.
Of course this map isn’t an indicator of magnitude of victory.
Of course, no one ever claimed it was. So keep beating that strawman.
What is fascinating about this map is the contrasts between the red and blue regions in so many other ways. Such as how the red regions are sneered at by the usual MSM elites as “flyover country”. I like to look at the counties I’ve visited and compare how many places I want to live are “blue” and how many places I want to live are “red”.
I like to contrast what I imagine are the primary cares of the people who live in the different regions.
All of these are things that it was obvious that the talking heads on the networks can’t understand at all.
Unless I am forgetting my Michigan geography, that map shows Oakland County as going for Bush, while CNN.com shows Oakland County going for Kerry. Anyone else notice a discrepancy with their areas of interest?
Yay DFW. I am proud to say I contributed to that red-city anomaly. Although, it’s not surprising. There is really only one area of DFW that’s very democratic, and surprise, surprise, it’s a very poor, predominantly african-american section of Dallas. Generally, in North Texas, even the democrats are republicans.
My understanding is that if a candidate wins both the majority and plurality of the popular vote as well as the electoral votes, that candidate has a mandate from the electorate. Accordingly, President Bush has such a mandate.
Electoral College election-result maps now nearly always show Democrats as blue and Republicans as red. There have been many explanations as to why, but here are four new (?) theories: 1. Democrats are feeling blue (i.e. depressed) over the many