I’ve been waiting for this.
Maps of the 2008 US presidential election results
One Skitch (yes, I am soon to join Skitch Anon…):
(If you want to understand this image, you’ll have to click on the link and read it all the way through, motherfucker.)
prematurely grey
keeping the world safe for democracy, one haircut at a time
Comments 3
Fascinating, I was waiting for this (actually I wish the 538 folks would apply their massive brains to geospatial analysis).
The penultimate cartogram is especially intriguing. If I read it right, it suggests that there is more pure-blue territory (basically SF and a few east-coast cities) than there is pure-red territory. Pure-red almost doesn’t exist.
Posted 07 Nov 2008 at 1:20 pm ¶I think you read that right, brother. Look at Travis County, btw. A blue triangle.
So now what we need is to apply the NYTimes slide show model (animating from red space to blue space) to these maps. Then we need Nate to stop with the media appearances (and the required makeovers–did you see the new glasses?) and put his demographic analysis to work here.
Can you believe the stuff we are able to get our fingers and eyes on so quickly now? Can you imagine seeing the 1992 election this way, three days post election day?
Posted 07 Nov 2008 at 1:30 pm ¶Compare that map to the NYT times map of what counties went more republican in 2008 compared to 2004. I was beginning to think that all of Arkansas and the Appalachian belt were lost forever. This map shows that lost zone is the panhandle and just east of the front range. These are areas where very few new people move in. As James McMurtry said – Makes you wonder why they stopped here, Wagon must have lost a wheel or they lacked ambition one.
Posted 07 Nov 2008 at 3:10 pm ¶Post a Comment