According to Barack Obama, “there are no blue states, no red states, only the United States of America”. That is the rhetoric one should expect from a president-elect, intent on overcoming the inevitable polarisation of an election campaign. Given the oppositional nature of politics in a democracy, however, it seems likely that a divide between Obamaland and McCain Country will continue to exist. But where exactly are these two political entities?
In 2004, a satirical map of Jesusland and the United States of Canada made the rounds of the internet, showing a red-state heartland bounded by a few coastal and northern blue states, joined up with the US’s northern neighbour Canada. That country’s perceived liberal political culture is seen by some as more in line with the ‘leftist’ leanings of the Democratic party, which dominates the blue states.
This year around, Jesusland has taken a beating, and the victorious blue states no longer feel as if they need northern comfort. Nine states have switched from red to blue: Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado in the west; Florida, North Carolina and Virginia in the south, and Indiana, Ohio and Iowa in the midwest. As a result, Obamaland consists of four separate chunks of territory, with West Virginia awkwardly poking its two panhandles into the largest of those four areas.
Interestingly, McCain Country still consists of one contiguous territory, but if the freshly defeated senator from Arizona would want to visit the outgoing president Bush on his Texas ranch, he would need to drive all the way north to Cheney Territory (i.e. Wyoming) and then south again through Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma to avoid ‘blue’ country. East of the Mississippi, and with the exception of Florida, redness is a southern thing. The northernmost ‘red’ point on the map, east of the Mississippi, is the aforementioned northern panhandle of West Virginia.
Obamaland fragments into a thousand little pieces when the map’s focus shifts to victories at the county rather than the state level. Obama tends to win in densely populated urban centres, that look isolated amidst all the rural red, which now reaches its northern zenith east of the Mississippi in upstate Maine. That little red island in a blue sea is the reverse of most of the rest of the map.
Obamaland’s terra firma is fragmented into a few large chunks: in the Northeast, west of the Great Lakes, a cluster in the southwest, and clinging to the West Coast.The rest are smaller archipelagoes and islands in an ocean of red.
These two cartograms and many others analysing the outcome of the 2008 US presidential election can be found on this excellent page at the University of Michigan, maintained by Mark Newman of the Department of Physics and Center for the Study of Complex Systems. Many thanks all those who provided me with a link to this page.




luv these maps
thx
Comment by johnnyA — November 7, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
If those counties were colored by population density, I suspect we would see a sea of very pale red (dare I say pink?) with a few blue islands of varying hues. One problem with a map like this one is that it conflates voter preference with landmass, ignoring density. The more dense, the more [left|Democrat|progressive|choose your descriptive term]. There are other interesting indicators, like tax receipts vs tax largesse between the two “nations” or income levels, educational achievement, family size that might be instructive.
Comment by paulbeard — November 7, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
I wish you had included one of the population-scaled cartographs in your post. They really drive home the point that while the red may cover a large area, those areas are mostly empty of people. The “small archipelagoes” of blue are where the majority of people live.
Comment by M2 — November 7, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
A nice map could be a “voter density map” with a red dot for every 10000 McCain voter and a blue dot for every 10000 Obama voter.
Comment by Linca — November 7, 2008 @ 10:29 pm
… and the set of maps that I like best is colored in shades of purple. There really are no red states or blue states – just redder or bluer, or different shades of purple.
Comment by elkit — November 7, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
I like the NY Times map that has a circle over each county which represents the population size.
Comment by Padraic — November 7, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
elkit, yeah, but the problem is, “the winner takes it all” in the US electoral system, so it does make sense not to use the hues. (if the US a less polarizing system, which would also give third parties any chance, it would be useful, though)
Comment by pascal — November 7, 2008 @ 10:54 pm
Here’s the vote by county scaled by population size, I’m not sure where he got it: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/purple_america.php
Comment by Caleb — November 7, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
Oh! That’s great. Thanks for this
Comment by Vovan — November 7, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
Can’t wait to see this updated: http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/elections/Multiyear3small.gif
Comment by Schmierwurst — November 7, 2008 @ 11:29 pm
Pascal, #7:
The purple map doesn’t make a difference in the awarding of electoral votes, it’s true, but it’s important when people try to use the map to score some cheap political point or other. Like the obnoxious Jesusland/US of Canada, or like Sarah Palin claiming that “Red states” are the “Real America” (when she was in a county that voted for Obama, by the way).
Comment by nr — November 7, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
Nice map here from DKos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/5/13157/1286/456/654502 showing the degree to which each county swung D or R compared to 2004.
Also note: you’ll need to amend that top map because Obama won an electoral vote in Nebraska: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/obama-wins-omaha-ne-electoral-vote.html
Comment by Electric Dragon — November 7, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
This website is probably the best for all the cool cartograms to show population and shades of purple for red vs blue
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/
Comment by Michael Hancock — November 8, 2008 @ 12:02 am
To clarify on #11: I meant the purple map is useful in refuting people who try to say something about one region or other.
Comment by nr — November 8, 2008 @ 12:52 am
Also worth noting that university towns (i.e. educated people), such as Bloomington in Indiana, tend to be some of the blue islands.
Comment by mark — November 8, 2008 @ 1:15 am
I’m surprised you focused on the ubiquitous normal maps, and ignored Newman’s really interesting ones scaled by population density and/or interpolated in color between red and blue.
The regular maps are shown everywhere; they’re hardly “strange”. And as Newman points out, they vastly misrepresent the popular vote since the red areas are on average so much less densely occupied.
Comment by Jens Alfke — November 8, 2008 @ 1:58 am
nice post. mark newman’s cartographs are indeed epic.
sorry to not have a map to go with this item of note, but i thought it worth sharing that of the 50 states, obama outperformed the 2004 democratic party (kerry) result in 44 of them. in two, the result was tied. in only four states did mccain’s vote percentage outperform bush’s 2004 result.
Comment by diembe — November 8, 2008 @ 2:12 am
Poor Alaska and Hawaii….
Comment by Andrew M — November 8, 2008 @ 4:34 am
[...] has two nice ones up showing the breakdown of the US election by state and by county. It’s interesting that most, [...]
Pingback by Tiny Planet » Obamaland — November 8, 2008 @ 10:06 am
Where did the American red/blue coding originate, as it is the opposite to what most people in other countries would expect, where red would be used for the more liberal/leftist candidate, and blue for the more conservative/rightist candidate
Comment by John R — November 8, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
You can still go coast to coast without going through any blue counties. It’s not possible the other way around yet…
Comment by sweek — November 8, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
My only problem with the purple map is that I’m green-weak colorblind. If only they’d do a yellow-blue map, that would be awesome.
19 – The red/blue code is very arbitrary. in 2000 most maps chose that pattern and so it became a meme in the US political world. Prior to that there were no color affiliations of the parties.
Comment by Jason — November 8, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
19, 21:
Actually the red/blue code has been used for a long time. Not only that, but historically it was the Democrats who were the Reds and the Republicans who were the Blues.
My guess is that the switch was done to keep the geographic identities intact. Otherwise you’d see the map colors shift from Blue/North and Red/South to Red/North and Blue/South.
Here’s a webpage that holds with the traditional (Pre-2000) color scheme:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html
Comment by Don H. — November 8, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
The New York Times interactive map deserves a link and a shout out for the sheer amount of data crammed into a single graphic (via Adobe Flash, but still).
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html
Most interesting to me are the bubble maps (which work best, I think, when the bubbles are minimized) and the county-by-county shift maps.
The county shift to the red since 2004 is limited to a band that runs from southern West Virginia, through far southeast Kentucky, most of Tennessee, far northern Alabama, and most of Arkansas to southeast Oklahoma, with a branch that heads down the Sabine River to the Gulf of Mexico.
Comment by Avagara — November 8, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
Cities are the future.
Cities are people.
Comment by Stu Witmer — November 8, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
The NY Times compilation of maps and stats was simply amazing. Using those maps I noticed that Oklahoma was the only state where Obama didn’t win at least one county.
Comment by Gregory — November 8, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
I would say a fourth piece of Obama country is the central arc of the Bible Belt from the Chesapeake across the south to the Mississippi, where it intersects with the blue stream extending from the great lakes to the delta. I’ll grant that Obama didn’t benefit much from this base of support, but it probably netted him one state, North Carolina.
John R-
I believe prior to 2000, the colors were not standardized and often alternated every 4 or 8 years. I think the choice of blue for democrats in 1996 & 2000 was supposed to indicate “incumbent party,”, but after the intense political and geographic polarization of the first Bush term, the idea of “redstate” vs “bluestate” became imbued with much more cultural significance.
Comment by Tom Bigbee — November 8, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
Funny map indeed…
I like the following: ‘Interestingly, McCain Country still consists of one contiguous territory, but if the freshly defeated senator from Arizona would want to visit the outgoing president Bush on his Texas ranch, he would need to drive all the way north to Cheney Territory (i.e. Wyoming) and then south again through Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma to avoid ‘blue’ country.’
What if this state would exist…this would be indeed very funny but also very sad for the people of the United States…everybody would go to Illinois (or not???)
Tim
P.S. To the voters of America, you did a fine job, with the highest number of votes placed…it is really a time of change, at least in the voting :D(i am from the Netherlands myself!)
Comment by Tim — November 8, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
Analogous to the purple county map, I have a House of Representatives map colored by congressional district.
http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~sravana/elecmaps/house.html — I think it’s kind of interesting to compare it with the presidential results.
Comment by Sravana — November 8, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
“all the rural red, which now reaches its northern zenith east of the Mississippi in upstate Maine.”
Well, no. Maine is entirely south of the 49th parallel, so there are red bits in five states that are north of it. Minnesota’s Northwest Angle would be the northern zenith of red on that map.
Comment by Chris — November 8, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
@19 — The red/blue convention arose in the ’90s, when one of the American networks wanted a red-white-blue theme for their election night map. They were concerned that if they labeled the Democratic states red, they might be seen as implying that the Democrats were Reds, as in communists — so they made sure that Republican states were red, and Democratic one were blue.
Comment by E Hess — November 8, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
As a Canadian let me clear something up: your Democratic party is to the *right* our most mainstream conservative party (the imaginatively named Conservative Party). While you might think ‘blue states’ (everywhere else in the world with the western democratic tradition blue is conservative, red is liberal) would have a lot in common with Canada simply by being more liberal than red states, they still fall short on all the issues that count.
I’m sure some of you must be aware Canada also had a federal election this year, in October in fact. I would love to see a composite map of the results of both elections; you might be surprised how varied the results were in Canada, since we have 5 main federal parties and it’s the ridings (I guess your equivalent is counties?) not the provinces that determine who governs.
Comment by rek — November 8, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
@31: There is a map at http://enr.elections.ca/ (bottom of the page). I’m not sure what we would really get out of a composite US and Canada map.
Comment by Sravana — November 9, 2008 @ 12:44 am
@26 (Tom Bigbee):
“I would say a fourth piece of Obama country is the central arc of the Bible Belt from the Chesapeake across the south to the Mississippi, where it intersects with the blue stream extending from the great lakes to the delta. I’ll grant that Obama didn’t benefit much from this base of support, but it probably netted him one state, North Carolina.”
That fourth piece of Obamaland can be better understood by checking out the map in the link below. Most of those counties are populated by a higher than average number of black people. Most of those counties are also pretty rural, though.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d0/New_2000_black_percent.gif
Comment by boznia — November 9, 2008 @ 1:09 am
I love the twisty purple maps that are scaled to population. I think those are the most “strange”, like when my kid mixes up his Play-Doh. Of course, on those maps my poor Nevada gets scaled down until it’s little more than a pimple on California’s back.
Comment by Scott Schrantz — November 9, 2008 @ 2:08 am
I come from a true republican family however, w/this race, I didn’t settle w/my closed mind & did researches on my own. Problem: this map does not accurately paint population density….it shows land mass.To be accurate, all facts/stats/#s must be represented w/ALL opinions aside. A red state w/a land mass of 485 sq mi populated w/132 people (Weston, WY) CANT’ BE COMPARED w/a blue state w/a land mass of 47 sq mi populated w/765,000 people (S.F., CA). It’s about people, not the amount of Earth in between. All that’s needed is common sense when looking at this map…are people really that ignorant? If the intent of this map is to show the US is “McCainland”, then fine, BUT only if dirt & land mass can vote too. Integrity & responsibility in reporting is lacking in our country. The need to spread opinions w/o accurate backups fuels propaganda, feeding off of people’s ignorance. Emotion & loyalty is a dangerous driver in politics. I’m just saying that due diligence should always come 1st. Well anyway, disagreements are good. W/o adversity, we wouldn’t be challenged to progress & grow.
Oh! and know of any urban legends (there’s tons from this election)??? I ran across this neutral party site called http://www.snopes.com. It puts a lot of urban legends to rest. But you know, we’re humans of habit and emotion. It’s hard to to be truly objective so even sites like these won’t cure what people WANT to believe.
“Show me a man who claims … Read Morehe is objective and I’ll show you a man with illusions.” Henry R. Luce quotes (American Publisher and Editor, 1898-1967)
Anyway, that’s my big 2 cents to try to nip things like this in the bud!
Comment by J Hebron — November 9, 2008 @ 5:58 am
I come from a true republican family however, w/this race, I didn’t settle w/my closed mind & did researches on my own. Problem: this map does not accurately paint population density….it shows land mass.To be accurate, all facts/stats/#s must be represented w/ALL opinions aside. A red state w/a land mass of 485 sq mi populated w/132 people (Weston, WY) CANT’ BE COMPARED w/a blue state w/a land mass of 47 sq mi populated w/765,000 people (S.F., CA). It’s about people, not the amount of Earth in between. All that’s needed is common sense when looking at this map…are people really that ignorant? If the intent of this map is to show the US is “McCainland”, then fine, BUT only if dirt & land mass can vote too. Integrity & responsibility in reporting is lacking in our country. The need to spread opinions w/o accurate backups fuels propaganda, feeding off of people’s ignorance. Emotion & loyalty is a dangerous driver in politics. I’m just saying that due diligence should always come 1st. Well anyway, disagreements are good. W/o adversity, we wouldn’t be challenged to progress & grow.
Oh! and know of any urban legends (there’s tons from this election)??? I ran across this neutral party site called http://www.snopes.com. It puts a lot of urban legends to rest. But you know, we’re humans of habit and emotion. It’s hard to to be truly objective so even sites like these won’t cure what people WANT to believe.
“Show me a man who claims he is objective and I’ll show you a man with illusions.” Henry R. Luce quotes (American Publisher and Editor, 1898-1967)
Anyway, that’s my big 2 cents to try to nip things like this in the bud!
Comment by J Hebron — November 9, 2008 @ 6:08 am
Of course the funny thing, after hearing my Democrat friends say they would move to Canada if McCain won, is that Canada is actually under a Conservative government right now, and has been since 2005.
Comment by James — November 9, 2008 @ 6:23 am
Thanks for the inspiration. I thought I’d redo the color scheme to imagine what such archipelagos would look like on a world map. Results are here:
http://www.pozorblog.com/?p=123
Comment by pozorblog — November 9, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
McCainland is only one contiguous territory if you aren’t counting Alaska.
Comment by turducken — November 9, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
@31: The US equivalent is “Congressional Districts” for the lower house and states for the upper house (Since we actually elect the senators). The link that #28 posted shows them this cycle, CNN’s election site also has a good interactive map of the districts and how they went this time around.
If we elected our president out of the House of Representatives, then the districts would be indicative of who would rule, but we don’t, so they aren’t.
Comment by Lurker — November 9, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
Also note, you forgot the Nebraskan 2nd district, which gave it’s vote to Obama, per state law (Note however that the Republicans are trying to change this for the future).
Comment by Lurker — November 9, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
@32: The conceit of the Jesusland map was that Canada is a defacto “blue” (Democrat) territory when in fact this map would show it to largely be “red” (by US mapping convention; Conservative blue by Canadian), hand-waving the incongruities between what conservative means in both countries. A composite map would show cross-border continuities and contrasts in left and conservative voting results.
I would do it myself but I am unable to find a Canadian riding map in vector format, with or without 2008’s results.
Comment by rek — November 9, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
On the lower map, look to southeastern Wisconsin. The red counties are essentially the white flight zone of Milwaukee, plus a little extra.
Comment by Alexander — November 9, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
[...] interessant geographesch Analyse vum Obama sénger Wiëlerschaft mat Landeskarten weist den “Strange [...]
Pingback by egalwaat.lu: four more years! » Blog Archive » 44 — November 9, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
The cartogram on the referenced web page that scaled states by their electoral votes and party color was illuminating. Otherwise, they struck me as technical wizardry that was sort of fun, but didn’t communicate much. A map that requires a textual explanation isn’t working too well.
Comment by lichanos — November 9, 2008 @ 11:50 pm
[...] 326 – Where Is Obamaland? [...]
Pingback by Top Posts « WordPress.com — November 10, 2008 @ 12:08 am
[...] Via [...]
Pingback by NeinAffeNein | Blue states vs. red states,… — November 10, 2008 @ 12:35 am
[...] Voters mapped. [...]
Pingback by Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e40v1 — November 10, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
Some people were requesting something like this: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Carto/Nov10-c.html
Wikipedia has a raster map of the districts in Canada, but hasn’t been vectorized yet. You could try and request it @ WP:GL.
Comment by Lurker — November 10, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
43:
What’s most interesting is that, when Michael Moore put out his Jesusland/United States of Canada map, he assumed that everyone in Canada was as liberal/more liberal (as defined in the US political continuum “liberal/conservative”) than the United States, thereby assuming an overarching continuum of the liberal types with the people to the north. The more interesting maps were the ones that put Alberta (and Saskatchewan) with the Red US States, thereby extending the conservative reach into Canada and making the “overarching unity” of the liberal areas moot (let’s face it, if you need the Nunavut to unify your lands, you’re in deep doodoo).
When I remade the 2004 electoral map, I labeled the Democratic areas “Occupied Territories.” After all, there’s no way Canada would want us there; we’d wingnut them to the right (yes, the US liberals would do that to them).
Comment by Don H. — November 11, 2008 @ 4:04 am
I wonder why you called the northern most point of McCainland the one in Maine? I thought the northernmost point in USA is in Alaska and in the mainland, its the small portion jutting out into Canada from Minnesota, which is clearly red in the map! The 3D to 2D conversion makes it seem that Maine and other northeast states are the northernmost amongst mainland US when really, its the aforementioned portion in Minnesota!
Comment by MR Goofy — November 11, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
Most people did want McCain, as McCain publicly stated he wanted to continue the policies of the Bush Administration. And what was the other choice: Obama.
Therefore, do the blue areas reflect love for Obama or hatred of McCain?
Comment by bourgoises pig — November 12, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
Missouri hasn’t been called yet; they’re still counting absentee and provisional ballots, especially in the bluer and more populous jurisdictions. As a result, it’s probably hasty to color MO red.
Comment by jredmond — November 12, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
Why is it the Canadian election ballots can be counted, millions of them, in about 4 hours, but 8 days later you Yanks still have a few hundred thousand here and there needing to be counted?
Comment by rek — November 14, 2008 @ 6:16 am
Note also that my homestate, Oklahoma, was the only state to have all counties go for McCain. (Yes!)
Comment by Jamison — November 15, 2008 @ 12:58 am
Alberta might be conservative by Canadian standards, but public mores and policy map on much more closely to those of conservative Democrats than to those of the Red States.
Comment by Randy McDonald — November 15, 2008 @ 1:46 am
[...] Map Of Obama-Land [...]
Pingback by Once A Great Notion « Creative Endeavors — November 17, 2008 @ 9:11 am
This map is Historic!!!!
Comment by hip hop music — November 19, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
[...] and Blues and Purples, I point to two recent entries on the excellent weblog Strange Maps. In Where is Obamaland?, Strange Maps takes us first from the state level to the county level and then (via Mark Newman of [...]
Pingback by Locating Obamaland, Cotton and Presidents, and Accurately Rendering American Divides « Hak Pak Sak — November 20, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
[...] sites pour ce week end. Le premier est un excellent blog : strange maps . Il y a une remarquable analyse cartographique de l’élection américaine. Il y a aussi une superposition de la carte de la production du [...]
Pingback by Si vous avez du temps… - Kystes et autres choses - Blog LeMonde.fr — November 22, 2008 @ 8:50 am
Reaching across the isle = expecting the other side to shut up and agree.
Comment by John M. — November 25, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
#15 – I also noticed the blue ponds in the red continent are often college towns – I haven’t checked, but would suspect that the counties containing Lawrence, KS, Ames, IA, Austin, TX, and Lincoln, NE are probably blue. An overlay with dots showing colleges with, say, an enrollment of greater than 2,000 would be quite interesting, or even better, dots of different sizes depending on the enrollment.
Comment by Ted R — November 27, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
[...] Die meisten Landkarten zur Wahl haben die Bundesstaaten gezeigt. Interessant ist zu sehen, in welchen Landkreisen Barack Obama gewonnen [...]
Pingback by ZEUGS: Thanksgiving, die Betten im Weißen Haus und West ist Ost « USA Erklärt — November 29, 2008 @ 8:53 am
I was curious about the blue bits along the Canadian border in North Dakota. Sorry if this has already been brought up, but it seems that the Native American vote was squarely in the Obama camp.
Comment by Cam — November 29, 2008 @ 9:19 am
[...] schaue auf die zweite Grafik hier, staune und [...]
Pingback by B.L.O.G. - Bissige Liberale ohne Gnade » Stadt, Land, Fluss — November 30, 2008 @ 11:42 am
[...] where Is obamaland? « strange maps rural und urban oder so (tags: maps politics usa election08) hier merken, bewerten und empfehlen: [...]
Pingback by links for 2008-11-30 - schorleblog — December 1, 2008 @ 5:01 am
I think the area around the Mississippi river delta (MS, LA, AK) kinda looks like shoe being thrown at ‘red’ America…
Comment by Erik — December 16, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
In 2004, the most revealing maps were the ones that distorted the polygons that defined the counties to their relative population and then used hues to go between dark red to dark blue. It’s the middle purple areas that revealed the most information about the electoral.
Otherwise, you’re left with snarky political commentary that has a shelf life of 4 years. Not that that is a bad thing. Personally, I liked James Lileks’s comment the best: “SuddenlyEnlightenedLand” (http://lileks.com/screed/?p=53)
Comment by Pete — December 17, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
I am baffled by the notion that anyone feels that any useful information can be drawn from a map depicting either states OR counties in which the candidate for one party or the other won in the race for ONE elected office — even an office as important as that of U.S. President. First, if Obama won in one county by 100 votes out of 25,000 and lost in a neighboring county of roughly the same size by roughly the same margin, in what way, precisely, does this show that the one county is somehow “Republican” and the other “Democratic?” By that logic, the “Republican” county retains that characteristic even if most, or even all, of the other races on the ballots in that county were decided in favor of Democrats. Unfortunately, despite the obviously absurd generalizations that result from these kinds of maps, people actually get rather worked up about them. For example, I was in Montana on election night, and Presidential vote in the state was too close to call until the next morning, when McCain pulled out a narrow victory. When some Democrats whose hearts were bigger than their heads then decided to describe the state as “perenially red,” they were certainly doing the Montana Democratic Party no favors — as the latter group was legitimately trying to spin the election as a major narrowing of the voting gap that had existed for several decades in favor of Republicans with respect to this one office. Meanwhile, most of the statewide elected offices are held by Democrats, including the Governor’s office which is held by one of the most popular politicians in the state’s history.
Comment by Michael — December 18, 2008 @ 7:01 am
[...] ta ein titt på desse to karta om valet i [...]
Pingback by Merkelege kart — December 21, 2008 @ 10:05 am
What is strange is that you are showing the original thematic maps and not Newman’s cartograms! If you follow the link to his website, you will see the actual cartograms.
Comment by Geographer — December 27, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
[...] Very interesting maps of all sorts and shapes and sizes. A map of Obamaland is located here at this page. [...]
Pingback by JoeWo Joe Wosik Blog » Blog Archive » Interesting maps of all sorts plus a map of Obamaland — June 8, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
Vielen Dank
Comment by moon — July 3, 2009 @ 5:29 am
Muchas gracias
Comment by sun — July 4, 2009 @ 7:57 am