The Red/Blue Map

[jiacinto]

That is by county



This is by Congressional District.

Red is Gore. Blue is Bush.

Discuss

[ott]

1. Maui, here I come!

:)

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

2. It looks scary, if you fall into the land area argument,

but let's not forget that population is what counts, and a lot of that blue is open area. I've got to admit though, the blue stares right at you.

[xray s]

5. Right

Adjust the map to reflect population instead of land mass and it would look a lot different.

[happyslug]

8. Also look at how much EACH county went GOP.

If you look at each county, the Democrats won each of their red Counties by at least 50% of the vote (Notice the lightest red color is more a "pink" than a "red" and NO county is pink) while the GOP has a lot of light blue counties i.e counties which the GOP won BUT WITH LESS THAN 50% of the Vote. Thus the Democratic support is deep and fairly secure, the GOP hold on its blue counties is much weaker (and the reason Gore won more votes than Bush, their very very few "pink" counties compared to "light blue" counties, thus the support for Gore was Larger in the counties he won than the support for Bush in the counties Bush won).

[jiacinto]

24. Yeah

but land doesn't vote.

[tom_paine]

36. I think the Busheviks are working on that one, Carlos

n/t

[Langis]

3. ok who's idea was it

to make democrats red and republicans blue?

[bhunt70]

4. my thoughts exactly.

...

[happyslug]

11. Traditional Military Colors

In the Military you mark your enemy position in red and friendly psoitions in Blue, thus this is a GOP map and do not forget it.

[OKNancy]

43. Actually - No

The imcumbent party is always marked in Red.

[TruthIsAll]

6. And except for Nader and Bush fraud, Gore won by at least 2.5 mil votes

All that Blue means nothing...

[QC]

7. I prefer the purple map.

Anyone else remember that one?

The one that showd the red/blur proportions in shades of purple?

Much more realistic, though nowhere near as dramatic.

On edit: Here's the map. Discuss the implications:

[not systems]

9. flipable?

Arkansas
Ohio
Florida
Nevada
Montana

[Julien Sorel]

14. Montana isn't likely to flip.

They voted 58% for Bush in 2000, and haven't voted Democratic since at least Carter in 1976 that I can tell. They voted against Clinton both times, for Bush in '88; we know about 1984: this is about as Red a state as there is.

[Loyal]

20. INCORRECT!

Montana went for Clinton in 92.

[Julien Sorel]

22. OK, read a funny web page.

It still isn't going for a Democrat in 04, barring a major disaster.

[eileen_d]

30. Actually, there is a possibility

There are some Democratic strongholds in the western towns (I say "towns" because Montana doesn't having anything that qualifies as a "city" IMO). If there's enough national Democratic momentum, Montana might tip.

Then again, I have a vested interest in seeing this happen, seeing as it's my state and I've been hanging my head since the 2000 elections...

[jeter]

54. NO BillyBunter

Montana is in play. The GOP governor there is very unpopular (I mean Davis like numbers) and deregulation is opposed by 75% of the population.

A good campaign could easily win Montana. But if we give up on it in Oct. 2003, then we will definitely lose.

[elperromagico]

46. Yes it did

But Clinton won it with 37% of the vote. Dole won it with 44% in '96, and Bush won it with 58% in '00. I don't see it flipping.

[elperromagico]

45. Yes and no

Arkansas: Yes.
Ohio: Yes.
Florida: Possibly (would help if the Dem candidate's brother is the governor, though)
Nevada: Yes.
Montana: No.

[0rganism]

10. a population density map would look about the same

I remember seeing a picture of the USA as seen from a satellite at night, and there are some parts of the continent that are glowing like fire, like Bush The Elder's "thousand points of light." Well, those points of light are the Democrats.

[elperromagico]

47. That doesn't surprise me

I've always known that Democrats were generally brighter...

[BurtWorm]

12. Look at how much of Texas went for Gore!

I never realized that.

[Loyal]

21. It's el paso, bro

Heavily Democratic.

[BurtWorm]

26. It's not just El Paso, which is actually a tiny splotch

It's all of the South and a lot of the East, from Austin down to Laredo. People pretend Texas is monotone. I don't see that--literally--from these maps.

[jiacinto]

27. No

but those areas in TX don't cast enough votes to make a statewide difference.

[trogdor]

33. If it were monotone, then redistricting wouldn't matter.

n/c

[javadu]

13. I Find This Somewhat Encouraging

I think the dems could do better along the Mississippi river (particularly AR and LA). However, MO is darker blue than I expected from a swing state. We also need to work hard to keep MN, IA, and MI. We need to have a Mississippi river strategy.

[Erika]

15. The Bush States Are the Welfare States!

It is true that the urban areas bring in the money and it is disbursed to the rural part of the states. A usual, the democrats bring in the money in urban states and watch it dispersed in the rural area. Bush and Company are sucking the life out of urban areas.

[Julien Sorel]

18. Nonsense. The Republicans are the party of rugged

individualism. Don't believe your eyes, believe the zeitgeist!

[sandnsea]

19. My tax map

I didn't take the time to get it compressed right, but you can still read it. I think we should use this next year to show Republicans they're leaching off the Democrats.

[elperromagico]

53. Agreed

We should try and win back the "troll" (MN, IA, MO, AR, LA). The Midwest is basically lost for us; if we make any inroads there, they will probably be minimal. If we can win the states that actually have people in them (ha ha), we could win.

[SoCalDem]

16. Democratic voters where there is intelligent life

Republican where there are tumbleweeds, swamps, rocks & reptiles :)

[roguevalley]

17. don't count on Alaska going repug.

we're pretty peeved at the rethug governor, Murkowski and his daughter, who he appointed to his open seat in the senate. Word
is a recall is going to maybe happen here against him.

[jiacinto]

29. Alaska hasn't voted Dem for President since 1964

nt

[VolcanoJen]

23. In the words of the great Wanda Sykes...

... when "covering" the 2000 Election aftermath on the Chris Rock show, while pointing at all the blue parts, out in the country:

"Whatever. Don't nobody live there!"

Remember: counties don't vote (but if Republicans had there way, they probably would).

[Kolesar]

25. Washington DC should have 2 Senators, 1 Rep, and 3 electoral votes

Just like Delaware, Rhode Island, Wyoming, etc. That would square things up.

[Brian Sweat]

37. The District of Columbia does have 3 electoral votes.

Even though the citizen of our nations capital are not represented in Congress, they do get to vote for the president. It is really a crime that the Republican are blocking statehood for DC because they don't want 2 more Democratic senators. It is just more proof that the Republicans will support something that they not only know is wrong, but that goes against everything for which they supposedly stand, for political gain.

[pmbryant]

28. It all depends on how you draw the lines.

Gore got more votes than Bush in the U.S.

Color the U.S. blue, from sea to shining sea. Alaska and Hawaii too.

What's left to color Red? Nada.

That's all that should matter. :-(

--Peter

[arwalden]

31. Alaska Is Disproportionately Small. Hawaii Is Disproportionately Large.

How can we trust any information on this map when they can't even get the size of the states correct? ;-)

-= Allen

[greendog]

32. Wow! Look at Michigan

Most of those Democratic counties are home to automotive manufacturing plants. Same with Ohio - lots of manufacturing in the Democratic counties. Check out Wisconsin - same thing.

I wonder what all those loyal Democratic voters think about NAFTA?

[Bushknew]

34. Those colors donÕt matter, here is what really matters É

Even though Greens may be only about 10% of the electorate, no one can deny that itÕs enough of a percentage to win or lose elections, for the Democratic party.

The strategy of moving the Democratic party to the middle is a failure. Al Gore and the 2000 election are proof of that.

The Dems lost in 2000 because they could not get the Green vote.

The winning strategy is clear, nominate Dennis Kucinich and Dems and Greens
wonÕt be divided. Together, we would overwhelmingly beat Bush, even with Republican election fraud.

I hear a lot of Dems and Repugs characterize Dennis Kucinich as angry.

Well, I would characterize him as passionate.

BTW, If you are not angry we the state of the country, you should be.

[jsw_81]

56. ROFLMAO

"The winning strategy is clear, nominate Dennis Kucinich and Dems and Greens won't be divided. Together, we would overwhelmingly beat Bush, even with Republican election fraud."

You have got to be kidding. Dennis Kucinich is our side's version of Alan Keyes and he would be CRUSHED in a general election against Bush. And for every Green nutcase that we win over we'd lose about four or five centrist voters, maybe more. Poor Kucinich would probably lose all fifty states.

I suggest you learn some basic information about the American political system and then get back to me.

[jiacinto]

57. Yep

nt

[TKP]

35. Heartland Of America

I find the discussion on this thread that people who live in the heartland of America don't really matter and that it's the urban areas that uphold and fund the rural areas, disgusting. It's the activities that go on in the heartland of America that create the jobs in the urban areas, not the other way around. We as Democrats ignore or otherwise belittle the people who are the backbone of America to our own demise. These people of the land were once strong Democratic Party voters. We should be asking what we did to chase them away and what can we do to get them back, not saying that they don't matter or that they are not intelligent life or that nobody lives there.

[SoCalDem]

38. No one is belittling Heartland voters..

I think most of us are just pointing out that in large population centers (not the heartland , sorry to say) , there are likely to be poulations with enough diversity and numbers to matter in an election..

There are MANY dems in the heartland.(DU is a prime example) , but when there are a few thousand dems in a community of HUNDREDS of thousands od repube-drones, there is little hope of winning there.. The heartland states , by their very nature, contain MILES and MILES of open space, where there are very few people..

I am a dem in Riverside county Calif.. My vote never really matters much here in John Birch/Repube land.:( But I vote anyway :)

Facts are facts... Wyoming is red, but there are dems there too...just not enough in numbers to make much of a difference politically..

In case no one has yet welcomed you to DU.. :hi: and welcome to the fray :)

[TKP]

40. SoCalDem

I must agree to disagree with you. I read several posters who spoke in mean-spirited terms towards those in the heartland.

Thanks for the welcome.:)

But I'd still like to hear what others think about why we have lost these people to the Republicans and how we can get them back.

[SoCalDem]

49. Why we "lost" them

M E D I A ..

I am from Kansas, and in our hometown papers, most of the news was farming related (naturally), but when the slant is "BIG GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO SCREW THE FARMERS" and the BG happens to be democratic, it's not a far leap to presume that the dems are not in favor of farmers..

Farm people (except for the big agribusiness farmers) are isolated because of the space they need, and their daily contact with people is limited.. (Several family members farmed, and I know this because we rarely ever saw them).. They live "on the edge" all the time.. not enough rain...too much rain... high fuel costs... sick livestock.. too much snow..etc.. It's not hard to imagine that some farmers begin to feel that everything is "out to get them"...

Those kinds of farmers are disappearing, and even though the repubes love to use them as examples, they are not the norm anymore. The Con-Agra style "farmers" are the norm. and when they speak of farm-aid, the elephant's share goes to them...not the small farmer..

Republicanism is a con, and lots of people fall prey to it... They hate unions, because the workers then get a say in what they make and their working conditions.."Heartland states" have come to believe that unions are "evil" and that right to work means that they will get that job.. BUT..union jobs pay well, so even when they get "that" job, if there is no union, they are not going to make much.. Why they believe the rhetoric?? I wish I knew..

All we can do is keep trying to set the record straight, and hope that people start to "get it"..

[Ivory_Tower]

39. I posted some maps to the other red/blue thread

If you take vote density into account, you can see which states really stand out (Texas, California, and New York). Some states virtually disappear.

I haven't tried it on a county or district level, though. Do you know where I could get the county/district results?

[elperromagico]

44. Try this

http://www.uselectionatlas.org

I've found this site to be a valuable source of election information.

[Ivory_Tower]

52. Thanks

I'll check it out.

[elperromagico]

41. It indicates Gore's problem to some extent

I gather that you got this map from http://www.uselectionatlas.org

Compare it to the 1996 county map:
and Gore's problems in 2000 become much clearer. Gore got more votes than Clinton (more votes than any Presidential candidate, in fact), but his support was more concentrated and localized. Unless my eyes are fooling me, Clinton won at least one county in every state; Gore did not. Bush's support was thinner but more widespread than Gore's, thereby helping him to gain all of those small states that put him over the top.

[jiacinto]

42. Yeah

It also shows that Clinton was able to do better in rural America.

[Cascadian]

48. Amerika uber alles!

But with Bush's blunders, how different will that map be in 04?

John

[elperromagico]

51. In my humble election scenario

the Dems win 275-263... we don't gain Florida, we lose New Mexico, but we gain Ohio.

[tkmorris]

50. That's interesting

However it represents a lot of empty land. Compare and contrast to this map:

[Undemcided]

55. Looks like Bush gave America a bad case of The Blues.

n/t