Mon Mar 14, 2016, 06:07 PM

Do you LOVE maps?

Check these out! I'm looking at them in terms of the General Election...

Hillary won the yellow areas, Bernie won the green areas.

Final results from the 2012 General Election:

Final results 2008 General Election:

Red State, Blue State, Purple State....Who will win the states that will will the General Election?

56 replies, 4122 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

56 replies	Author	Time	Post
Do you LOVE maps? (Original post)	Land of Enchantment	Mar 2016	OP
What strikes me is the deep contrast between adjacent counties in TX and OK.	thereismore	Mar 2016	#1
Barack Obama lost CA, FL, NY, OH, PA, IN and NJ in the 08 Primaries.	DemocratSinceBirth	Mar 2016	#2
Those states have yet to vote	RoccoR5955	Mar 2016	#22
That still wouldn't invalidate my point	DemocratSinceBirth	Mar 2016	#23
What IS your point? Many of the yellow states on that map will NOT go blue in the general.	merrily	Mar 2016	#28
Hillary must win in Ohio tomorrow to remain viable in the primary.	Major Hogwash	Mar 2016	#38
So, if Clinton loses (no matter the margin) Ohio...	Garrett78	Mar 2016	#39
Obama energized and enthused young-ish voters.	Bonobo	Mar 2016	#44
You're right, she sure has used up almost all of her southern fans. Now for the rest of the US. nt	cyberpj	Mar 2016	#3
I really like what I see there.	NCTraveler	Mar 2016	#4
Let's see if anybody can refute my post./nt	DemocratSinceBirth	Mar 2016	#5
some have gotten so worked up that they believe...	NCTraveler	Mar 2016	#6
Some will, yes, but our point is and has always been that left-leaning Independents and	Fawke Em	Mar 2016	#8
Can you point me to your evidence...	NCTraveler	Mar 2016	#9
Middle class, non ideological Americans will come out in droves to vote against Trump.	DemocratSinceBirth	Mar 2016	#12
I agree with it. Hopefully it will work for Bernie. And, I have a fear of when Barack leaves office.	Cavallo	Mar 2016	#11
The assertion embodied in the seminal poster's premise	DemocratSinceBirth	Mar 2016	#13
As the seminal poster allow me	Land of Enchantment	Mar 2016	#14
I suspect we will see a map similar to 2008 and 2012.	DemocratSinceBirth	Mar 2016	#16
Here are some amazing maps I just found....	Land of Enchantment	Mar 2016	#20
Let's see if anyone can refute the OP. Your post sure didn't.	merrily	Mar 2016	#29
See post #36	Garrett78	Mar 2016	#37
Reply 36 does not do the trick re: the electoral vote--and I am	merrily	Mar 2016	#46
See post #51	Garrett78	Mar 2016	#52
Nonetheless, your posts 36 and 51 don't cut it.	merrily	Mar 2016	#53
Don't cut what exactly?	Garrett78	Mar 2016	#54
And here I was hoping this would be a thread	SheilaT	Mar 2016	#7
As a true lover of maps.	NCTraveler	Mar 2016	#10
Yes. I love maps. They are my Wish Book.	SheilaT	Mar 2016	#15
I collect maps.	NCTraveler	Mar 2016	#18
I know it doesn't matter because of our fucked up electoral system, but it	valerief	Mar 2016	#17
Just found this link	Land of Enchantment	Mar 2016	#21
Yes, thanks. It was the first post! Well, except this is more percent of vote than count.	valerief	Mar 2016	#25
Nice job valerief...thanks for the help!	Land of Enchantment	Mar 2016	#27
Barack Obama won all those Southern States in the 2008 Primary...	brooklynite	Mar 2016	#19
Here is the 2008 primary map which you left out	Kaleva	Mar 2016	#24
Thank you Kaleva, nice	Land of Enchantment	Mar 2016	#30
I'm learning something new all the time myself!	Kaleva	Mar 2016	#35
Clinton is not Obama, any more than Sanders is Obama.	merrily	Mar 2016	#47
What would be really interesting	So Far From Heaven	Mar 2016	#26
Please see Posts 2 and 23.	DemocratSinceBirth	Mar 2016	#31
And your regression index came out to be what number again?	So Far From Heaven	Mar 2016	#32
I am sure there is peer reviewed research out there...	DemocratSinceBirth	Mar 2016	#34
Holy Cow look at Kansas! I knew he won here	MuseRider	Mar 2016	#33
Here's what the US actually looks like, politically:	Garrett78	Mar 2016	#36
Thanks! Very helpful and I agree	Land of Enchantment	Mar 2016	#40
That's better than the standard blue-red map.	Garrett78	Mar 2016	#51
If red states don't matter because they're safely red, then blue states	Godhumor	Mar 2016	#41
Blue states will matter to Dems in the general. Red states will not.	merrily	Mar 2016	#43
The idea is very simple	Godhumor	Mar 2016	#45
Um, thanks for the Hillarysplaining. My post was very simple, too.	merrily	Mar 2016	#48
And my response was simple, as well	Godhumor	Mar 2016	#49
You've now passed from condescending to something worse. Kindly quote my alleged assessment that	merrily	Mar 2016	#50
Obama won Florida in 2012	ISUGRADIA	Mar 2016	#42
Just for Grins and Giggles...	Land of Enchantment	Mar 2016	#55
I see. HRC is winning primary states she'll likely lose in the GE.	aikoaiko	Mar 2016	#56

Response to Land of Enchantment (Original post)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 06:12 PM

thereismore (13,326 posts)

1. What strikes me is the deep contrast between adjacent counties in TX and OK.

Also, the green spots in VA are a good sign.

Reply to this post

Response to Land of Enchantment (Original post)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 06:17 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

2. Barack Obama lost CA, FL, NY, OH, PA, IN and NJ in the 08 Primaries.

How did that work out?

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 07:15 PM

RoccoR5955 (12,471 posts)

22. Those states have yet to vote

in 2016. Let's see how things work out. Bernie could win many of the ones you mentioned.

Reply to this post

Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #22)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 07:18 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

23. That still wouldn't invalidate my point

President Obama lost a bunch of states in the general election he won during the primary and won a bunch of states in the general election he lost during the primary. That suggests there is no correlation between primary success and failure and general election success and failure.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #23)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 07:31 PM

merrily (45,251 posts)

28. What IS your point? Many of the yellow states on that map will NOT go blue in the general.

That is the point of the OP. Do you agree or disagree?

Reply to this post

Response to merrily (Reply #28)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 01:39 AM

Major Hogwash (17,656 posts)

38. Hillary must win in Ohio tomorrow to remain viable in the primary.

Ohio is "the" KEY state for Hillary.
If she wins, then she draws closer to the magic number.
If she loses, then Bernie will win out for the rest of the primary season.

Everything changed after Michigan.

Reply to this post

Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #38)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 02:13 AM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

39. So, if Clinton loses (no matter the margin) Ohio...

...she can't win the nomination? Mmmkay.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 11:07 AM

Bonobo (29,257 posts)

44. Obama energized and enthused young-ish voters.

I was one of them.

On the other hand, Hillary sucks the energy out of them.

And I think you know it.

Reply to this post

Response to Land of Enchantment (Original post)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 06:19 PM

cyberpj (10,794 posts)

3. You're right, she sure has used up almost all of her southern fans. Now for the rest of the US. nt

Reply to this post

Response to Land of Enchantment (Original post)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 06:20 PM

NCTraveler (30,481 posts)

4. I really like what I see there.

Please give us Trump. It will be a historic electoral landslide in Clintons favor.

Reply to this post

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 06:20 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

5. Let's see if anybody can refute my post./nt

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 06:23 PM

NCTraveler (30,481 posts)

6. some have gotten so worked up that they believe...

Democrats won't vote for Clinton. The only way one can come to that conclusion is to ignore reality and facts. This reads like a pro Clinton post to me.

Reply to this post

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 06:26 PM

Fawke Em (11,366 posts)

8. Some will, yes, but our point is and has always been that left-leaning Independents and

Millennials won't.

It's hard to win an election if you're only getting 80 percent of 30 percent of the electorate.

Reply to this post

Response to Fawke Em (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 06:28 PM

NCTraveler (30,481 posts)

9. Can you point me to your evidence...

That Trump will beat Clinton. I find the narrative to be laughable with what is currently known.

Reply to this post

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 06:31 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

12. Middle class, non ideological Americans will come out in droves to vote against Trump.

He and the chaos that follows him will scare away anybody who is remotely vested in the system and doesn't want to see the country split in two and thrown into a "war of all against all."

The analogue is 1964.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 06:31 PM

Cavallo (348 posts)

11. I agree with it. Hopefully it will work for Bernie. And, I have a fear of when Barack leaves office.

If it is Bernie next, I believe we'll be fine. Anyone else and Barack will be an era that will probably be deeply missed for the rest of my life.

Reply to this post

Response to Cavallo (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 06:38 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

13. The assertion embodied in the seminal poster's premise

The assertion embodied in the seminal poster's premise is that a candidate who loses a state during the primary will lose it in the general election. Barack Obama lost all the states during the primary that I cited and then won them in the general election. Ironically, many of the states Barack Obama won during the primary he lost during the general election, states like Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Nebraska, Kansas, and Utah.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #13)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 06:55 PM

Land of Enchantment (1,217 posts)

14. As the seminal poster allow me

to state my premise because you have done a terrible job presuming what I intended by this thread.
I find these maps fascinating, especially how they illustrate both subtle and overt changes over time. The thread poses a question and is intended to provoke thought not derisiveness.

Reply to this post

Response to Land of Enchantment (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 06:57 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

16. I suspect we will see a map similar to 2008 and 2012.

We are probably a general election or two from putting AZ, TX, and GA in play.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 07:13 PM

Land of Enchantment (1,217 posts)

20. Here are some amazing maps I just found....

Check it out! Whoever found these and put this together is GOOD.

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=97330.0

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 07:32 PM

merrily (45,251 posts)

29. Let's see if anyone can refute the OP. Your post sure didn't.

Reply to this post

Response to merrily (Reply #29)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 01:25 AM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

37. See post #36

The maps in the OP are incredibly misleading and unrepresentative of reality. They remind me of the map Bush supporters were pushing after the Gore v Bush debacle.

Reply to this post

Response to Garrett78 (Reply #37)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 11:16 AM

merrily (45,251 posts)

46. Reply 36 does not do the trick re: the electoral vote--and I am

not a poster who has ever treated all counties identically.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778561 (Countin' yer county.)

Reply to this post

Response to merrily (Reply #46)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:04 PM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

52. See post #51

But that's exactly what the maps in the OP do. They treat all counties as if they're equal and all margins of victory as if they're equal. Such maps don't even remotely represent what the US actually looks like politically.

Reply to this post

Response to Garrett78 (Reply #52)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:33 PM

merrily (45,251 posts)

53. Nonetheless, your posts 36 and 51 don't cut it.

Reply to this post

Response to merrily (Reply #53)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:37 PM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

54. Don't cut what exactly?

Reply to this post

Response to Land of Enchantment (Original post)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 06:26 PM

SheilaT (23,156 posts)

7. And here I was hoping this would be a thread

on the virtues of using real maps, rather than a GPS.

Reply to this post

Response to SheilaT (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 06:29 PM

NCTraveler (30,481 posts)

10. As a true lover of maps.

Reply to this post

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #10)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 06:57 PM

SheilaT (23,156 posts)

15. Yes. I love maps. They are my Wish Book.

While I very much understand the value and virtues of a GPS, unless you're someone with a genuine deficit in the part of your brain that ought to be able to read maps (and those people exist, I know), you should take a gander at a map of where you're headed before programming in the GPS.

I was recently in communication with someone who not only cannot make sense of maps, but who gets lost very easily because of a genuine inability to recognize landmarks. It makes that person's life difficult and constrained, although they've learned to live with it, because it's been that way their entire life.

Meanwhile, I gleefully read maps and plot my route to somewhere.

Reply to this post

Response to SheilaT (Reply #15)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 07:02 PM

NCTraveler (30,481 posts)

18. I collect maps.

I have a thing for many in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. The manner in which many were commissioned and the propaganda value at the time really interests me.

I can also read today's maps. Lol

Reply to this post

Response to Land of Enchantment (Original post)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 06:57 PM

valerief (53,235 posts)

17. I know it doesn't matter because of our fucked up electoral system, but it

would be interesting to see the Bernie/Hillary map shaded for population (darker means more people).

Reply to this post

Response to valerief (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 07:15 PM

Land of Enchantment (1,217 posts)

21. Just found this link

and it has several interesting ones..maybe you can find it here:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=97330.0

[link:http://

Reply to this post

Response to Land of Enchantment (Reply #21)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 07:21 PM

valerief (53,235 posts)

25. Yes, thanks. It was the first post! Well, except this is more percent of vote than count.

Reply to this post

Response to valerief (Reply #25)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 07:31 PM

Land of Enchantment (1,217 posts)

27. Nice job valerief...thanks for the help!

I went all the way back to the early 1900's and it is amazing. I could look at this stuff all day.

Reply to this post

Response to Land of Enchantment (Original post)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 07:02 PM

brooklynite (86,913 posts)

19. Barack Obama won all those Southern States in the 2008 Primary...

...so, probably no chance to win, right?

Reply to this post

Response to Land of Enchantment (Original post)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 07:20 PM

Kaleva (34,691 posts)

24. Here is the 2008 primary map which you left out

Reply to this post

Response to Kaleva (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 07:33 PM

Land of Enchantment (1,217 posts)

30. Thank you Kaleva, nice

I had trouble with some but will keep trying--I'm kinda old and this is kinda new to me.

Reply to this post

Response to Land of Enchantment (Reply #30)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 08:45 PM

Kaleva (34,691 posts)

35. I'm learning something new all the time myself!

If i really want to embarrass myself, I'll try and play Call of Duty with my adult step-sons and son-in-law.

Reply to this post

Response to Kaleva (Reply #24)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 11:18 AM

merrily (45,251 posts)

47. Clinton is not Obama, any more than Sanders is Obama.

Clinton 2016 is not even Clinton 2008.

Reply to this post

Response to Land of Enchantment (Original post)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 07:27 PM

So Far From Heaven (354 posts)

26. What would be really interesting

would be a comparison of general election outcomes by democratic candidates who lost most of the general election blue states in the primaries. In other words, is there a causal link between winning or losing the general election based on winning percentage of blue state primaries?

Reply to this post

Response to So Far From Heaven (Reply #26)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 07:38 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

31. Please see Posts 2 and 23.

Thank you in advance.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #31)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 07:41 PM

So Far From Heaven (354 posts)

32. And your regression index came out to be what number again?

I'm talking real statistical work here, not casual bs.

Reply to this post

Response to So Far From Heaven (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 08:07 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (98,829 posts)

34. I am sure there is peer reviewed research out there...

I am sure there is peer reviewed research out there and I would wager it confirms my casual observation. On the other hand it is so obvious that there is a lack of correlation I wouldn't be surprised to see a dearth of research in that area.

Reply to this post

Response to Land of Enchantment (Original post)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 07:52 PM

MuseRider (33,481 posts)

33. Holy Cow look at Kansas! I knew he won here

by quite a lot but every single county? So Kansas Democrats, though small in numbers voted for the Democratic Socialist?

OK, no more talk about the dopes here, yes there are lots of dopes and awful people but the Democrats are pretty solidly Democrats and our Independents are pretty liberal as well.

That said, I hear our Super Delegates are all going to vote for Hillary. There you have it, the people vs the party. I just hope the delegates here for Bernie are actually let through the door unlike what happened to the Kucinich delegates. Something tells me the state party is just going to have to swallow this as much as they do not want to. Again,

Reply to this post

Response to Land of Enchantment (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 01:15 AM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

36. Here's what the US actually looks like, politically:

" target="_blank">

Here's the image Bush supporters loved to show off following the 2000 election: " target="_blank">

Rather misleading, don't you think?

As I shared in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511460282

When you treat all counties as if they have the same number of people and you treat all margins of victory as the same, you really shouldn't be taken seriously.

Reply to this post

Response to Garrett78 (Reply #36)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:24 AM

Land of Enchantment (1,217 posts)

40. Thanks! Very helpful and I agree

I found this one later and though you would would appreciate it.

Reply to this post

Response to Land of Enchantment (Reply #40)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:00 PM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

51. That's better than the standard blue-red map.

And it's certainly better than the county ones like those in the OP.

But it's still too black-and-white (er, blue-and-red) and doesn't truly represent what the US looks like politically (because it still has the problem of treating all margins of victory the same). Now, in the electoral college, margins of victory don't matter, but it's still good to know which areas may be on the verge of flipping. Plus, electoral college aside, it's good to know what the US actually looks like politically.

Reply to this post

Response to Land of Enchantment (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:48 AM

Godhumor (6,437 posts)

41. If red states don't matter because they're safely red, then blue states

Don't matter because they're safely blue. You can't claim one without the other.

Reply to this post

Response to Godhumor (Reply #41)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 11:04 AM

merrily (45,251 posts)

43. Blue states will matter to Dems in the general. Red states will not.

Certain Democrats cite the lessons of the President elections of 1972 and 1980 so incorrectly. However, one of those lessons was that Democratic candidates who cannot generate enthusiasm among Democrats can lose supposed guarantied blue states, especially when the GOP candidate does generate excitement.

Reply to this post

Response to merrily (Reply #43)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 11:15 AM

Godhumor (6,437 posts)

45. The idea is very simple

If red states in the GE don't matter now, because there is no hope for winning them in the GE, then the other side is also true (Who cares about the blue states in the primaries because they will vote for the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is.). Either people acknowledge that both red and blue state voters matter in selecting our nominee, or we negate 43 states and only give a shit about the 7 purple states--after all, they're going to decide the president. We should tailor our candidate to their wants before any other.

Reply to this post

Response to Godhumor (Reply #45)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 11:19 AM

merrily (45,251 posts)

48. Um, thanks for the Hillarysplaining. My post was very simple, too.

I won't be offensive and purport to break down my simple post for you, though. I try not to condescend.

Reply to this post

Response to merrily (Reply #48)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 11:27 AM

Godhumor (6,437 posts)

49. And my response was simple, as well

I just disagree with your assessment that Bernie somehow guarantees safe blue states while Hillary doesn't. But that Hillary dominating the South doesn't translate into flipping safe red states because they're safe.

Either both or true or neither is. To diminish the importance of one to prop up the other while altering the rules of the governing assumptions is farcical

And it is not Hillsplaining; it is just logic. On the other hand, the continued insistence of certain people that the South doesn't matter and should have a diminished role in our nomination process is something else entirely.

With all respect, of course.

Reply to this post

Response to Godhumor (Reply #49)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 11:31 AM

merrily (45,251 posts)

50. You've now passed from condescending to something worse. Kindly quote my alleged assessment that

"Bernie somehow guarantees safe blue states."

Also, did you even read my post for comprehension and think about the Presidential elections of 1972, 1980 and 1984 before claiming my post to you was about guarantied "safe" blue states?

Reply to this post

Response to Land of Enchantment (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 11:03 AM

ISUGRADIA (2,571 posts)