also in the worth reading categories

[rm]

via raaven
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/election/
Election result maps like you probably haven't seen them before. Certainly it makes "let's yell at the red states" an even less effective strategy than it was already turning out to be.

via womzilla:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/womzilla/105623.html?mode=reply
A lot more interesting than the "I won't go to Canada because it's just giving up" argument with out exposition. And then there's the likely debate in comments....

Comments

[neo-nym.livejournal.com]

Believe it or not, these maps actually make me feel better about the voting in a strange way. There was a lot of blue in some of those red states.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Those red/blue maps are terribly misleading (and the Republicans are allowed to play on it, but Clinton won in 96 with an 8 percent lead, and he was told he didn't have a mandate, but a message).

If you run it by the relative percentages, not the winner take all, the map is purple, some bluer than others, some redder, but none of them pure.

It was a 51-49 win.

It was the second closest elctoral college victory since the 2000 election, and one of the closest in the past century.

That needs to be pointed out, hammered on. If the mandate, the sweeping, "will of the people" and concommitant vox populi, vox dei, is not to take root and grow, we need to choke it, as a seedling, and remind them, at every turn, that he was a minority president, and now a bare majority president.

TK