Notice how only +15 pts leads are filled blue on the map above.
I love that you haven’t even bothered to correct this obviously inaccurate map, says a lot about the quality of this blog.
And even if this map were accurate, it doesn’t reflect population at all – the county that contains NYC is – population-wise – worth more than the entire states of North Dakota and South Dakota combined.
um, my county is wrong too. where did you get these results?
Yes, sure a lot of this electoral map is red (though this is a 2004 map, yes?), but grass and rock can’t vote and a lot of the area in red is very rural and sparsely populated. It’s more about human population than land area.
i have a question. Why did so many niggers that have been able to vote for years all of the sudden decide that the presidential race was important and FINALLY register to vote? them niggers need to go back to africa. fukin monkeys
not only is this map inaccurate (here is an accurate by county map – http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html ) it is also misleading. A lot of the red areas are very sparsely populated. I think the votes where people actually live are what matters. I just flew over Oklahoma and Northern TX on my way out west on a clear day. There is NOTHING there, just a whole lot of desert and tiny towns every couple hundred miles or so.
And judging from some of the other comments on this blog, the education levels in those red areas aren’t very high either.
its actually REALLY inaccurate. I think this is the 2004 map. New England had almost no red in at at all this time, only one county in Maine.