Red vs Blue map of 2004 election

K

KBR80

Inactive
Does anyone have the votes by county in this election, like the 2000 vote map. I would like to see one.
 
Something I mentioned somewhere else is that I'd like to see a population density map to compare with. It's pretty much a given that big cities will be Democrat, but the comparison would still be interesting.
 
Looks like only Oklahoma and Nebraska were clean sweeps for Bush. Utah may have, but it looks like the map is incomplete.

Vermont, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island appear to have been sweeps for Kerry.
 
Hax0r GIS

pop vs blue counties:
pop-dem.jpg
 
Generally, it would appear that the big city "Entitlement Centers" on both the left and right coasts were big for the Democrat Party, and the rest of us who work for a living voted Republican.

Which reminds me of what Ann Coulter said when asked by Alan Colmes, "What's the very first thing you want to say to a liberal right off the top of your head without reading from your book?" To which she replied, "Move out of your parent's house, get a job, and pay some taxes."
 
It's good to see that San Bernardino County is red. I live in the little "parrot's beak" at the south-west.

I understand Orange County, CA had the greatest margin of votes. Some 150k over Kerry, iirc.
 
It's not the land that votes, it's the people. I said it in 2000 and I'll say it again: that map is meaningless as a commentary on how the people voted.
 
What is clear is that people in collectivist hives (aka cities) tend to vote Democrat more than rural folk. One might draw the conclusion that those who live in close proximity to each other naturally tend to rely on others for daily necessities (like designer coffee, pizza delivery, etc.). This reliant behavior may naturally lead to an attitude of reliance on government; which would result in more votes for a more socialistic government.

Then again, it could be that common sense is disbursed evenly across the country. Those in cities get a smaller share than those in the country. ;) :D :p

-Dave

P.S. DocZox: Thanks for the map!
 
Not a scientific conclusion, mind you, . . . but several years ago I read a couple of books that compared normal vs aberrant animal behavior and the author(s) made a fairly good case for linking much of the anti-social behavior observed in those animals to the closeness of their quarters. Those animals who were either born in captivity (and stayed there of course), . . . or were captured by man and forced into zoos and other very close quartered living arrangements were compared. It seemed that the closer the living quarters (and more dissimilar to natural spacing), . . . the greater the anti-social tendencies.

Personally, . . . I see that as also being an inherant trait of the human genus. That is part of the reason I live on 10 acres and my house is 600 ft from the nearest road. My nearest neighbor to the West is across the river, a mile and a half away, in another county, long distance call, and I don't know who he/they are. My nearest South neighbor is a half mile away, . . . East and North are both over 1000 feet.

We're a bit cramped here, . . . but we are making do. And of course, . . . we are basically conservative, right wing, WASP Republicans. :D

May God bless,
Dwight
 
Of course the land does not vote, but when people talk about political control, it is often by territorial expanse.

One of the things that such maps do show is just how easily it can be that a large part of the population is present if a very limited amount of the area. If elections were won purely on the raw popular vote, the candidates potentially would need to just sweep the high pop. density areas and they could win the country. For example, the population of Dallas County (2.28 mil), Texas, as I recall, is larger than the population of New Mexico (1.87 mil). Basically, the candidates could blow off the entire state of New Mexico if they could win Dallas County.

Similarly, the Texas population of the I-35 corridor (including municipal areas straddling the corridor) and eastward comprises well over half of the state's population but well less than half the geographical area. Furthermore, areas of DFW (5.2 mil), Greater Houston (4.8 mil), Austin (0.65 mil), and San Antonio (1.1 mil) have more people than the rest of all other areas of Texas. Texas' total population is 22.1 million.

So electoral representation is a real issue when it comes to population and territory covered. It is for reasons such as these that the House of Representatives is comprised based on population so as to help assure folks have supposed comparable representation in Congress whether they be from a densely populated area or rural. It simply was not enough to have two Senators represent each state as some states have low populations and hence get better senatorial representation per person than in more densely populated states.
 
<quote>Dwight's whole post</quote>
IIRC, isn't that the idea behind the "super criminal"?
I seem to remember that being discussed (not here@ TFL) around the time of the Columbine incident.
On a somewhat unrelated note, a number of anthropologists believe there's sufficient evidence that a matriarchal society is more prone to violence and more warlike.
One look at DU is all it takes to see which side (liberal vs conservative) is more prone to violence.
One look at today's society is all it takes to see which way the slant is.
 
Looks like oklahoma, nebraska, and alaska went 100% Bush. Also find it interesting that in Illinois, Penn, and to some extent Michigan, Kerry won despite the vast amount of geographical area of the states being red. The concentrated urban areas trumped the majority in terms of area. We REALLY need to do some texas-style gerrymandering - namely, giving Philadelphia to New Jersey, then giving Chicago to Wisconsin. Yep, that should do it. :)
 
Two things stand out for me

1. Population center AND university cultures....the blue spot in Michigans UP is around NMU

2. The people in the big cities think that the people that raise their food, build their cars, etc don't get IT.

Hugh Hewitt had a great quote from an urban gal that was sent to North Dakota to observe the election. She sadi "you know, people really are different out there"

I saw an article...author escapes me where he pointed out the the people of NYC that we read their magazines and watch their tv shows....so we probably know more about life in NYC than they do about life, and values, in the heartland!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top