Thursday, September 02, 2004
RED AND BLUE
By Stockton
There has been much talk about the Red and Blue States and as Electoral College politics goes, that is fine. Yet, this simple map not only fails to tell the whole story, it really fails to tell much of it at all.
Here's a much more interesting map for those who want to go beyond mere Electoral College maps. This map breaks the country down into 10 regions. These regions are not necessarily contiguous. The regions are based upon a number of factors; voting patterns, geography, lifestyle and other demographics. The result is a regional breakdown that is much more realistic than a simple Red-Blue breakdown. For instance, it seems extremely logical that those people in the green shaded area in the Northeast would have more in common with the green-shaded areas on the Pacific Coast than, say those in the Great Lakes.
Here's how they voted.
Northeast Corridor Gore 61.9% Bush 34.5%
Upper Coast Gore 57.5% Bush 35.8%
Great Lakes Gore 56% Bush 40.7%
El Norte Gore 54.8% Bush 41.1%
Big River Gore 48.7% Bush 47.5%
Southern Lowlands Gore 48.5% Bush 49.4%
Farm Belt Gore 40.1% Bush 56.7%
Appalachia Gore 39.7% Bush 57.8%
Southern Comfort Gore 38.8% Bush 58.5%
Sagebrush Gore 37.5% Bush 57.4%
Gore won five regions, Bush won five regions.
Two initial points of interest. The Democratic candidate won a region in the heart of the country, Big River. Al Gore won a large portion of "Fly Over" country. Secondly, much to Jen's delight I'm sure, Gore was competitive in a large swath of the south, in the Southern Lowlands. Perhaps, just perhaps, turn-out is even more of a factor than initially believed. It could be that increased voter turnout in the Southern Lowlands could result in fierce competition. On the otherhand, it is possible that greater voter turnout could increase Bush's margin. It's simply an unkown.
More detailed information for all you geeks can be found here.
|
By Stockton
There has been much talk about the Red and Blue States and as Electoral College politics goes, that is fine. Yet, this simple map not only fails to tell the whole story, it really fails to tell much of it at all.
Here's a much more interesting map for those who want to go beyond mere Electoral College maps. This map breaks the country down into 10 regions. These regions are not necessarily contiguous. The regions are based upon a number of factors; voting patterns, geography, lifestyle and other demographics. The result is a regional breakdown that is much more realistic than a simple Red-Blue breakdown. For instance, it seems extremely logical that those people in the green shaded area in the Northeast would have more in common with the green-shaded areas on the Pacific Coast than, say those in the Great Lakes.
Here's how they voted.
Northeast Corridor Gore 61.9% Bush 34.5%
Upper Coast Gore 57.5% Bush 35.8%
Great Lakes Gore 56% Bush 40.7%
El Norte Gore 54.8% Bush 41.1%
Big River Gore 48.7% Bush 47.5%
Southern Lowlands Gore 48.5% Bush 49.4%
Farm Belt Gore 40.1% Bush 56.7%
Appalachia Gore 39.7% Bush 57.8%
Southern Comfort Gore 38.8% Bush 58.5%
Sagebrush Gore 37.5% Bush 57.4%
Gore won five regions, Bush won five regions.
Two initial points of interest. The Democratic candidate won a region in the heart of the country, Big River. Al Gore won a large portion of "Fly Over" country. Secondly, much to Jen's delight I'm sure, Gore was competitive in a large swath of the south, in the Southern Lowlands. Perhaps, just perhaps, turn-out is even more of a factor than initially believed. It could be that increased voter turnout in the Southern Lowlands could result in fierce competition. On the otherhand, it is possible that greater voter turnout could increase Bush's margin. It's simply an unkown.
More detailed information for all you geeks can be found here.
