Talk Elections

And let people guess how it would happen.

()

My explanation:  Ted Kennedy/Bob Byrd vs. pretty much any Republican ticket.

how do you post maps anyway

()

Looks like 1976 actually.

LOL.  You're right, it does.

()

()

()

how do you post maps

Go here and make a map:

https://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/evcalc.php

When your finished right click the image, go to properties and copy the url of the image... Or you can click the button that says Show Map Link.

Come back here and reply with

(img]http://yourimageurlhere.com[/img]

replace the first ( with a [

()

()

()

GOP 247
DEM 241
LP 50

Strong LP candidate from Florida makes some headway in libertarian leaning states and his home state.
1890s Bryant-style populism makes its way into the west
Democratic candidate from Kentucky with VP from New Mexico.
Republicans run someone from Connecticut with a VP from Wisconsin.

the question with my map is what happens in DC?

I'm stumped on that one. No possible way it could happen.

Oh wait... ;)

()

This one looks pretty cool.

That was the idea, but I also thought that seeing if someone could come up with something might be fun, as well. :)

As for what would make it happen... err, the center of the country, with low population, becomes rich and prosperous, thus resulting in its Republican lean. Rich people leave the northeast for the west. The sunbelt is taken over by immigrants, and Minnesota was always pretty nuts anyway, and probably convinced neighboring Wisconsin and Michigan to join in on the fun. Ohio finally gets mad about free trade, and starts voting solidly Democrat.

The Democrat campaigns on using DC residents as slave labor in order to appease the poverty of the nation's crust. Alaskans get tired of the two major parties, and half of the population votes write-in.

The Green Party really starts taking off in Hawaii.

And um, the mormon population in Idaho moved to Nevada.

I would say Washington is more libertarian-leaning than, for example, Colorado. They have no income tax.

Also, Massachusetts has a flat tax.

A very strange bill on I-80 polarizes the nation.

()

Some Democrat decides there's only one way to get secure voting, and hacks the Diebold electronic voting machine to get his message across. The "HI!" doesn't go over too well.

()

I kind of stole Liberty and Gabu's maps and merged them together in a way:

()

The American West becomes tired of the east coast ruling everything wants to be come an independent nation in the name of states' rights(Republicans side with West).  The American East wants to keep the Union as a whole in the name of economic growth (Democrats side with East).  The Heartland is undecided and is worried about a war with them as the central ground (Libertarians gain support of some Centralites, which explains the >40% only there).

An intoxicated Erc breaks into the Diabold headquaters and alters tha nation-wide results.

()

I notice that DC is cut off and Maryland votes Dem.  That would mean you had a GOP landslide, but DC had been somehow merged with Maryland and its results were still tipped by DC :)

Pretty much...it is a completely random map (well, as random as you can get with Excel's RAND() function).

()

Got another one...

()

()

Dennis Kucinich runs in Maryland, Reagan is brought back to life, and  is eligible to run for a third term

()

The head of the mormom church gets the Democratic nomination, and says that Mormoms that don't live in Utah are losers, and that the rest of states are whack. He comes out for DC statehood.  The Republican is from Massachusetts.

()

At least *my* random map looked quasi-coherent...

()

Arnold Schwarzenegger/Rudy Giuliani run against Harry Reid/Dave Freudenthal and base their entire campaign on the theme "we f#^$ing hate the Rocky Mountains and the plains".

()

George Wallace gets the 1996 Reform nomination instead of Perot.

()

Huge vote splitting in DC coupled with ultra-low turnout among leftists delivers -- aw,  it, the GOP Congress rigs it via Diebold. A good number of Republicans in California and Oregon die, and Alan Keyes runs for president in Illinois (and Illinois only, somehow).

()

Surprise Democrat win while losing the popular vote:

()

That would yield a tie, if I'm correct.

Take a closer look at Nebraska.

Ah, I see now.

Same setup as this year, but without Kerry's stupider errors.

A tidal wave miraculously sweeps through Omaha metro shortly after one person, Michael T. Seybold, votes for Kerry.

Its 1944, FDR gets the Republican nomination, Dewey getes the Democratic nomination, and the German counter-offensive at the Ardennes peaks just before the election.

Er, FDR was from New York and the South was the massive Democrat stronghold in those days.

Er, I have FDR winning New York and the Democrat and Republicans switched, so I don't see what your big problem is.

Oops, wait a minute, I didn't see that FDR was the Republican.

Carry on. :)

()

Gabu- no prob :)


"Cactus Jack" Garner somehow wins the 1940 Democratic nomination and runs a weak campaign, focused around Kansas and Utah.

Mad props to whoever can figure this one out (I didn't make this randomly):

()

That's almost 1972 with a 10% swing in every state to McGovern... am I close?

Yeah, that's half of it. There's another part to it as well.

Bah, I haven't gotten it yet, but I'll be back. :P

It's the 1892 map with states changed.

()

This map is not random, it actually has a VERY simple explanation.

Who can figure it out?

Alabama-Kansas is Republican
Kentucky-North Carolina is Third Party
North Dakota-Wyoming is Democrat

You got it True Dem

The Republican claimed he'd give benefits to the states near the beginning of the alphabet.
The Democrat claimed he'd give special treatment to the states at the end of the alphabet.
Seeing a prime opportunity a third party candidate jumped in promising to favor the states at the middle of the alphabet.

You might also notice that those at the very beinning (AL, AK) are the darkest blue, those at the very middle (MO, MT) are the darkest green and those at the very end (WI, WY) are the darkest red.

()

This one has a simple answer.

Give it some thought:

()

States with short names (like Iowa) vote Dem (the shortest ones more heavily so) and the states with long names (like North Carolina) vote Rep (the longer ones more heavily so

Ooh, you're good. :)

It's the 1984 percentages in a 2004 map.

()

()

()

here's a good one...

1936 percentages with 2004 map

1968 percentages with 2004 map.

original states are red (current surface area). Except W.Va. is wrong.

West Virginia was part of Virginia.

So was Kentucky. Tennessee was a part of N.Carolina. Maine was a part of Massachusetts. Vermont was in dispute between several states. Oh, and DC was a part of Maryland.

hey, I can't make 'em perfect.  It's the original 13 states, that's all I was looking for.

Bob Dole's vote share in 1996.

hey how do you color states green?

Pick a year other than 2004.

Yeah, but then the electoral votes are changed.

Well the electoral votes don't have to show up on the map. You can calculate it though using the 2004 EV calc.

()

Two Democratic/Independent Senators (because of Vermont)=Red
Two Republican Senators=Blue
In case of a tie, the House delegation is used.

Is it something like this.  The only problems are Florida and Montana I believe.

() (http://www.imageshack.us)

The Democratic Blob has attacked!!!! :O

It's a little simpler than that!

()

()

The states are colored in accordance with the longest serving senator?

Yep, the map shows the party affiliations of each state's senior senator.

Does Tennessee have a senior senator?

Bill Frist.

10%? swing to Perot in 1992, although NC is off.

I thought he was elected along side Al Gore's replacement.

That's right, it's 1992 with a 10% swing to Perot.  I deliberately switched NC to Clinton, because I figured that as Bush only won the state by such a close margin against Clinton, Perot would have pushed Clinton over the top.  I did the same with South Dakota.

I'm not sure about that, but Bill Frist was first elected in 1994, and Lamar Alexander in 2002, which makes Frist the longest serving.

Similarly, both Oregon senators were elected in 1996, thanks to a special election.  Ron Wyden is the senior senator, and Gordon Smith is the junior.

()

I meant I thought they were both elected for the first time in 1994.

I think whichever senator swore in first became the senior senator.  I don't know if that was Frist or Fred Thompson.

1980 with 1964

I thought they were all sworn in at the same time:

()

Well I'm still not sure then.  But it doesn't matter now, because Bill Frist has longer tenure than Lamar Alexander, which makes him the senior senator.

I think it's Somliland and East Timor attacking.

It's the American flag.

It's less than a 10% swing to Perot, because Maine is less than 40%.    Also, more of the swing had to come from Bush because North Carolina switched.  I don't understand why South Dakota switched though, Florida was closer, and it didn't switch.

()

I think it's the John Quincy Adams reelection map, in a 2004 election.

Hehe, but no. Think 2004.

()

I was thinking this was the party affiliations of the representatives of each state's last congressional district.  Except that Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Wisconsin are wrong, so now I don't know.

I had the same idea. I'm sure it's something to do with Congressional delegation.

You're sort of on the right track.  I also incorporated an idea from one of your other maps.

The longest serving representative of each state?

Correct.

These maps are kind of linked:

()

()

Top: State Senate
Bottom: State House

Damn, jfern you beat me to it ;)

()

Correct.

Notice how Maine is the only state where the leading party doesn't have an absolute majority in its House (thanks to 3 Independents and 1 Green).  And also how Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama retain large Democratic majorities in both their Senates and Houses.

Senior senator?

A little late, but also correct. :P

How long each state has gone for each party, but why is Utah lighter than Wyoming and Idaho?

Try this one
()

and its counterpart
()

Correct, based on the number of Presidents in a row (Example-if it's been solid GW Bush it's >30%, Clinton >40%, etc.)  Utah's only lighter because I guess I accidentally clicked >80% rather than >90%

Okay, I'll solve it.
Party to win majority of counties in 2004.

Haha.  That's an interesting, though a bit depressing, map Lewis.  :P

At least your guys have New Jersey.
Aren't you glad Democrats are winning a majority of counties in New Jersey? :)

Out of curiousity, how would such a map look using 2000 results?

Identical except for New Hampshire. I think. I'd want to check a couple of states, but I can't think of any other that might switch. I know NH would.

Ah, I was thinking maybe Iowa would switch.  I haven't looked in a while but Gore did pretty well county wise in Iowa even if he won by a hair in the PV.

Kerry did too. I think the net swing in the number of counties was something like two or three. Several counties switched either way.

Here's one for 1996.
()
In case you think South Carolina is weird...Dem lead is tiny. And so is the Rep lead in Kentucky, Georgia, Florida, and Oklahoma.

EDIT - Overlooked Michigan.
EDEDIT - And Iowa.

()

Dem: 301
Rep: 237

A 10% Goldwater swing?

Yep.

()

Dem 401
Rep 129

Hm? A bird and a plane (R) vs. Superman (D)?

No one got it! In the one on top the Republican wins every state that a US president was born in (SC is too close to call because no one knows for sure if Andrew Jackson was actually born there or in North Carolina). The one on the bottom is the states a president or a vice-president was born in, and yes, the congressional districts for Maine and Nebraska really are accurate

I believe it's something with the vote of every state since 1824 or something.  For all the states made after 1824, it's their first vote in a presidential electin.  Am I close?

I think that might be partially right, but it also looks almost identical to 1856.

But that was Utah's vote in its first election in 1896.  This was also its first election.

After looking through old election results, I'm going to guess that it's each state's first popular vote result on or after 1856.

I think John Lewis (D) the longest-serving Rep. from GA.

I just checked, and yes he is.  John Lewis was elected in 1986 - six years before four other Georgian Reps.

()

Here's two easy ones.

()

()

Ok, no one has gotten yet, its probably too hard. Its a Goldwater vs. McGovern race drawn from a combination of the 1964 and 1972 maps where I gave each candidate a the fraction of the total Goldwater/McGovern percentage for that state. So if Goldwater got 38% in 1964 and McGovern won 37% in 1972, Goldwater won with 51%. Basically it's a map of which red states were more lopsided for Johnson in '64 than for Nixon '72 and blue states were more lopsided for Nixon in '72 than for Johnson in '64.

The conductor: 10% swings toward McGovern & Carter.

Correct, since 1856 was the first election with the two major parties.

You're right, I messed that one up.

Red: States that are not Utah
Blue: States that are Utah

Do I win? ;D

It's 1976 with a swing of like 1 billion to Carter

It's not a uniform swing.  For Carter to get a majority in Alaska, he would need a swing of 14.35%, but that would put him over 80% in Georgia, which he is not in this map.

Looks to me like 1976 shifted a considerable amount to Carter...

I think Ebowed assumed Carter got over 40% in every state that Ford didn't get 60%, but Carter got less than 40% in quite a few states.

()

10% swing to Bush in 2000.

I just gave a big swing to Carter.  It was kind of random.  But yeah, it was based on 1976.

()

2004 map with 1952 percentages.

()

Rep: 277
Dem: 254

1932 election, with the stock market crash occuring starting that Monday.

Im gonna post mine again, since it was ignored.

How did you end up losing Mississippi?

Harry is a beloved Senator anf former Governor of course from the State of Mississippi.

And here is 2036 :)

()

PB: 104
ILV: 161
Randy Jones's Corpse: 273

;D

()

()

No, but you're in the right era.

()

Harry runs against George W. Bush. Harry is hut greatly by his lack of experience, but he gets a boost when Bush declares that he wishes that California would fall into the ocean.

()

Wait a second, he's already had two terms. :)

Yeah, but that would help in in AZ.  Must have wished CA falls into the ocean and a massive wave turned AZ into a big swimming pool.

The news networks decide they don't care about the actual results and play with colors in Microsoft Paint

Governor approval ratings?

Ah, but his corpse hasn't :)

Sad news though. The Randy Jones Timeline may have been deleted!!!!!!!!! :O

haha, well you're both wrong. Think counties.

Yep. :)

First county in a state IIRC. I posted that a while ago, on another similar thread.

Ah yes, very good. I remember the similar thread, but dont remember your map.

I'll post it again, since no one bothered with it before.
()

()

Treat Ind <30% as gray, I'm too lazy to change it.

Based on the 2004 presidential election:

()

X_X

()

This is an easy one

()

Reagan vs. Mondale, but Mondale says everyone in his home state are "fascist pigs".  Also, a huge terrorist attack blows up Minneapolis and St. Paul.  Reagan immediately rescues the rest of the state, while Mondale calls the terrorists brave.

1992, with Perot getting a good chunk of Clinton's votes?

Two-headed mix of Tim Pawlenty and Paul Wellstone/Jimmy "The Scab" Sentorelli (R) vs. Satan/Marion Berry (D).

New map:

()

>40% = ?
>60% = ?


Also, this map of mine is still open:

Is it something to do with how long a state has had Senators from a certain party?

No, but you're two-thirds on the right track for talking about senators.

Senators and governor [60%+ all in same party, 40%+ just 2/3]? I don't know if this works, and I don't feel like checking it.

Got it. :)

()

Nope, close though (Does not involve Perot)

Nobody got this one.  It was the election result in each state's county that had the highest number of total votes.

Hardly a surprising map, thanks to the urban/Democratic connection.

A 30% swing to Nader or so (in 2000)?

()

Pretty creative. I would have figured it out had i noticed this thread earlier ;)


This one also is based on something:

()

35% actually. Taking 20% from the Democrats and 15% from the GOP.

Very good!

()

()

Ok, this is the opposite of what someone else did.
Hint: It has nothing to do with a strong south candidate.

()
Try this one too (VERY easy)

()

As you can see, i was having some fun :)

Red states have lost EVs over time, and blue states have gained them.  Gray states have stayed the same since statehood.

I have to admit that the only reason I got this one is 'cause somebody else did it before. ;)

Haha, well it's correct anyway.  BTW, Delaware only had 4 EVs for one decade (the 1810s IIRC)

()

Based on 2004.  Probably will require some research

()

Is it based on 1992 or 1996?

No, 2004.  You might have to do a bit of looking around (BTW, Oregon is a really a tie between GOP and Independent)

()

()

This one may take some research.

By the look of it it reminds me again of 1992 or 1996.  I don't know.

()

The answer to this one is really simple, although it may take some thinking to get it.

()
May be got with blind guesswork, but creating it required some research.
Ignore the Maine & Nebraska CDs.
Grey means tied. Vermont is tied between Democrats and Independents.
Hint: Look at the EV.

Something about Forum Posters?

No. It does have something to do with numbers of individuals though.

is it based of a FDR election?

Nope, it's based on a presidential election roughly halfway between FDR's last election and the present.

Is it based on 1976?

Yep.

Here's a stab-the number of Congresspeople born in each state?

DING. We have a winner.

C'mon, people, if you're thinking this hard about what convoluted mess the answer could be, you're thinking too hard. :)

Something like a 5 point swing to Carter in Ford states, and vice-versa in Carter states.  This wouldn't explain Wisconsin though.

Oops.  I somehow missed changing Wisconsin.

You're correct; the answer was "a five-point swing to the loser in every state".

()

I got lucky, I was looking up the Minnesota congressmen right before I saw this and noticed a number were born in ND, I wonder why that is.

Yeah, three of them - Martin Olav Sabo, Jim Ramstad, Colin Peterson. I think there's a strong out-migration pattern. IIRC Hubert Humphrey was born in ND too.
Looks good for BRTD's future political career. :)

()

This should be a tough one.

oh, cummon, guess already.  Okay, here's a hint: it has nothing to do with presidential candidates.
That said, guess and bump!

Here's an interesting one. Based on a trendline.
()
EDIT - just noticed I ed up on Maine and Nebraska. Mistook 1 and 2...

Do they have some sort of Congressman breeding factory in North Dakota?

Seem to. Three of MN's eight are originally from there.

What's this called?

()

Winfield, generally what we do here is post maps and then others think of theoretical races. As opposed to what you are doing, which appears to be the political equivilant of a wet dream. :P

1972. Ronald Reagan/Bob Dole vs. Ed Muskie / Walter Mondale vs. John Connally / Spiro Agnew.

I'll solve this one. It's based on 1976 and 2000. I had every party increase by as much (as a percentage of the vote) over the 1976 total as they actually decreased, or decrease as much as they actually increased.

Crudely put indeed, however, the offending maps shall be deleted from this site without further adieu, so as to not offend the sensitivities of any other posters on this thread.   

Maps I had posted 
1.  GOP Mark Sanford vs. Dem Patty Murray, Sanford wins all but state of Washington and DC.
2.  GOP George Allen vs. Dem Barney Frank, Allen wins all but state of Massachusetts and DC.
I had put the answers with the maps instead of leaving the answers blank.  Next time I will put up maps witn no answers.  Sorry! 

What's this?()

It appears to be a map :)

I thought there were maps in Germany ???

Kerry's % of the vote in every state.  OK, ID and UT are less than 30

You know he was joking dont you?

No, the only states east of the Mississippi Kerry didn't get over 40% in were Indiana, Kentucky, Alabama, and Mississippi.

And he didn't crack 60% in Vermont, either.
It's a trendline based on 96 and 04 Dem percentages. If current trends continued (they won't o/c), Idaho and Oklahoma would be under 30% by 2012, and Utah under 20%.

()
Last time anybody cracked 60% in a given state. Colours coded to years.
D30 - 1936
D40 - 1964
D50 - 2000
D60 - 2004

R30 - 1920
R40 - 1972
R50 - 1984
R60 - 1988
R70 - 2000
R80 - 2004

Uh... 1964 with a strong third-party candidate?

I have no clue whatsoever.

Random distribution, you rolled a die for every state?

here's a hint, it has nothing to do with candidates, it's about an issue...

Red = State has a progressive income tax
Blue = State has a flat income tax
Green = State has no income tax

Isn't Alaska wrong?

I'm assuming that that's just a mistake, because every single other state works with the above scheme.

EDIT: Also, come to think of it, Florida should be green as well.

Big swing to Wallace in '68 election.

That would probably work, but what about Idaho and Nevada?

Yes! You are GOOD.

I thought the only one I had mixed up was Rhode Island, which I was not completely sure one so I marked red.

Maryland has a state income tax... :P

()

This should be simple.

Small swing to Dewey in the 1948 election.

Wow!  You're fast!

Right you are. 

Ohio 0.24%, California 0.44%, Illinois 0.84% swing to Dewey would give him 267 electoral votes, one more than required to win the 1948 election.

()

1912?

Yea, it is if T. Roosevelt and Taft would have worked 2gether instead of running against each other.

()

Hobbes: It's 2004, with states carried by 60 percent or over switched to the other candidate.

()
What's this?
Non-political btw. Demographic.

()
Political.

1912-related?

Yes.

Let me take a shot at it. 1912 if all of Teddy Roosevelt's votes went for Wilson?

Doesn't explain Michigan.

Maybe TR is taken off the ballot altogether... or something.

()

It's a map for a Hoover win in 1932.

Goldwater wins.

Too easy I guess. lol

()

political

Actually, I meant that to be a Alfred Landon win in 1936.

Just try and guess this one:

()

Almost got it. It's the percentage of the major-party (ie, Dem or Rep) vote. Michigan is the only state where Wilson came third, btw.

Anyone to try this?

()

Which pair of Democrats could pull this in modern day?

A pair like Bredeson/Rendell or something similar, which will never happen.

Yes, partially correct. I was thinking Bredesen/Lieberman or vice-versa.

It definitely couldn't be vice-versa.  The Southerner has to be first on the ticket in order for that many states to be red.

Plus Lieberman as candidate would lose vast sh**tloads of northeastern and western votes.

hint (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-CONTEXT=dt&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_PCT019&-tree_id=4001&-redoLog=false&-all_geo_types=N&-geo_id=04000US01&-geo_id=04000US02&-geo_id=04000US04&-geo_id=04000US05&-geo_id=04000US06&-geo_id=04000US08&-geo_id=04000US09&-geo_id=04000US10&-geo_id=04000US11&-geo_id=04000US12&-geo_id=04000US13&-geo_id=04000US15&-geo_id=04000US16&-geo_id=04000US17&-geo_id=04000US18&-geo_id=04000US19&-geo_id=04000US20&-geo_id=04000US21&-geo_id=04000US22&-geo_id=04000US23&-geo_id=04000US24&-geo_id=04000US25&-geo_id=04000US26&-geo_id=04000US27&-geo_id=04000US28&-geo_id=04000US29&-geo_id=04000US30&-geo_id=04000US31&-geo_id=04000US32&-geo_id=04000US33&-geo_id=04000US34&-geo_id=04000US35&-geo_id=04000US36&-geo_id=04000US37&-geo_id=04000US38&-geo_id=04000US39&-geo_id=04000US40&-geo_id=04000US41&-geo_id=04000US42&-geo_id=04000US44&-geo_id=04000US45&-geo_id=04000US46&-geo_id=04000US47&-geo_id=04000US48&-geo_id=04000US49&-geo_id=04000US50&-geo_id=04000US51&-geo_id=04000US53&-geo_id=04000US54&-geo_id=04000US55&-geo_id=04000US56&-geo_id=04000US72&-geo_id=NBSP&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en)

Hmph. Nobody tries to guess. I'll have to punish you guys with a new map.

Red - Mexicans are largest immigrant group (by place of birth).
Blue - They're not.

()

hmmm......this is a tough one. political or non-political?

Political.  And looking at this again, I colored West Virginia wrong it should be Dem >80%.  And here's a hint:  Red means liberal and blue means conervative.  Not necessarily Republican and Democrat.

()
()
Maps are related to each other.

political or non-political?

Political. 2004 election.

is it results according to 2 certain age brackets?

No. The grey in Alaska and DC might give you a clue btw. :)

It's the most and least non-hispanic White county in every state. Note that there' a no. of states (such as Iowa) where the least White county is still lily-white.

Here's a hint while it is political, it doesn't have to do with the Presidency, a bit of research may be required, and the map was no longer applicable in January 2005.

Oh easy!
dark red = two democratic senators
light red = split
light blue = split
dark blue = two republican senators

Close, but what do the percentages mean, and why did I choose red for some splits and blue for others

No idea what the %'s mean. The split I feel is :

light red = Senior Republican senator
light blue = Senior Democratic senator

Something to do with the last Senate, presumably.

Although the color scheme (percentage-wise) beats me.

Yeah it's the last Senate.  It has to with liberal/conservative rather than Rep/Dem (I think I mentioned earlier that WV should be red not blue)

Something about Senator's ratings?

Yeah,  I'd guess its the collective ratings for both of each states' senators (from the last Senate) from the ACU or somesuch.

Growing states vs aging states?

I'd already solved this one. I might do one intra-US migration patterns...

()

Any ideas?

Yeah it's a composite of the ACU ratingsl

Here goes. Specially for you.
Red=positive lifetime internal migration balance (ie, more people living here born in other states of the union or DC than people born here but living in other states of the union or DC)
Blue=negative lifetime internal migration balance
()

1960 election with a swing to Nixon

()

Non-political.  Red/blue are arbitary, but gray is not.

Right.

Hawaii 0.06%, Illinois 0.19%, Missouri 0.52%, New Jersey 0.80% swing to Nixon would give Nixon 278 EV and the election.

()

GOP 56%, Dem 44%

()

Does it have to do with 1992 or 1996?

1996, yes.

Hmm...I notice the percentages are still the same

()
try and figure that one out

Here's my opinion of a Clinton/Richardson vs. McCain/Sanford race:

()

()

How did I make this map?

You probably made it using the EV Calculator.

()

()

1932 switching the parties, I believe.

Yeppers!

()
DEM - 212
GOP - 326

()
has to do with this thread.

Welcome to the forum, antoehr Georgia libertarian!  Anyway, maybe a composite of all the maps on here so far (if so, nice work)

Heh, I'm a little too lazy to try something that complicated. Good guess though.

Hey Bacon King.  I am the other King of this forum. :D

Blue States posted in this thread, red states didn't?????

Nope, but very close.

Red states had the majority of their posters vote for Bush, Blue for Kerry?

A trend between 2000 and 2004 vs. the national average?

I'll go ahead and answer mine. Blue states are the states of people who have posted maps in this thread.

Argh!!! I was sooooo close!!

()
What do they red states represent?  Blue?

It certainly looks like a population of some sort.

Red states are the 13th largest, the blue states are the rest? ???

It doesn't look like it since AZ, IN, MD and TN are included while VA, MA and GA ar enot.

This is not the easiest one!  Keep tryin'! :)
HINT:  It does have something to do with population.

Is it non-political or political?

Fewest number of states necessary to win the election?

Apolitical...not the fewest no. of states...y'all, think smaller than states!

States that contain the top 20 largest cities in the U.S.  I was shocked to see Charlotte and Memphis are more heavily populated than Boston

Yep!  Way to go!  Charlotte's a BIG city now :)

()
This one's kind of easy.

This is easy:
()

What the presidential race would look like if the only people eligible to vote were democrats from ME, CA, NV, CO, KS, TX or AK.

:P

No, it has to do with the counties.

does it have to do with population of counties?  demographics?  growth rates?  size?

What could cause this in a Presidential election?  Your thoughts?

()

What could cause this in a Presidential election?  Your thoughts?

()

It has to do with election results.

Bush/Douglas vs. Lieberman/Kennedy in October 2001.  But, in the campaign, Ted Kennedy dies and Patrick Kennedy takes his place.  :)

In October 2001, wouldn't the general election have been already over? :P

He's referring to the fact that it's right after 9/11.

Aha.

What causes this?

()

StatesRights/Ebowed vs Bullmoose/King

Okay, here's one last hint: 1992.

States in which Perot won counties.

Bingo!!!! Cashcow wins!! +7.2537 sexy points for Cashcow!

()

()

()

Hatch/Grassley vs. Biden/Cantwell

That probabaly has some thing to do with the 1924 election.

Guesses, anyone? I made all three maps by the same method.

It's not that hard, actually.

No two states ever have the same color shade?

Are different regions from different years or something?

Here's a hint

Map 1: 1980, 2000
Map 2: 1984, 1924
Map 3: 1916, 2004

Identify the relationship.

The average of the two percentages or number of votes?

Nope

Okay, how about this. Focus on map two. Think about Minnesota and South Carolina for a second.

If you add the overall vote totals of the two years?

No. What was the most Democratic state in 1984?

I know they switched the most Democratic states, but how do the other states fit?

Alright, I'll just give it away. I made a list of the number of each shade for 1984:

--1984--
4  R 70%
26 R 60%
19 R 50%
1  D 40%
1  D 80%

I then deleted DC, Alaska, and Hawaii.

Then I applied the shades in order, from most Republican to most Democratic, based on Coolidge's percentage of the vote.

Same for the other two, except different elections/candidates.

()

()

Republican Ticket
Gov Jeb Bush (FL) Pres
Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani (NY) VP

Democratic Ticket
Gov Ed Rendell (PA) Pres
Gov Kathleen Sebelius (KS) VP

Independent Ticket
Sen Orrin Hatch (UT) Pres
Gov Robert Taft (OH) VP

()

Um, Clinton would lose California in a landslide against Roy Moore?

()

Basically I'm just posting crazy maps, so a generation from now I can dig up this thread after a presidential election and say I nailed it.

A campaign of "Let's nuke the Northeast, especially Maine, but maybe spare New Hampshire" versus "Let's nuke everything other than the Northeast, and Nevada is a really stupid state that sucks."

I was thinking blacks and Catholic Hispanics flock to the northeast.

Whites in Washington actually voted Kerry, but other than that, this makes sense.

()

Might have been done before.

1972. Red states had counties won be George McGovern... I think. I tried something similar (never posted it), and it had similar results.

()


For this map, gray does not denote a tie.

I would say states where candidates over performed in the 1912 election, including Debs.

You're on the right track, but I wouldn't say 'over-performed'.

Well, it can't be underperformed because Debs did exceptionally well in all the grey states.  But the arangement of the Blue state in the south mean that....

Ohhhh... Taft is grey.

TR is Blue

Wilson is red and Debs is Green.  The map denotes where each finished dead last.

Wait, no, that doesn't work at all, TR finished firsr in PA.  Everything else I said seems to match up, though

Well you're close enough.  :)

The map shows who came third in each state.  The color arrangement is still the same, but gray is for Debs.

Note that Taft was bumped down to fourth in a few states, and wasn't even on the ballot in OK and SD.

Damn, well, at least I was in the right ballpark.

Yeah, you got it. You could make one where McGovern had to have one more than one county.

Funny that it's less than 60% for MA.

Green: McCain/Feingold
Blue: Bush (Jeb)/Santorum !
Red: Clinton/Dean !!!

()

U.S. in 2008 if the trends from 2000-2004 where continued in the same pattern but doubled from 2004-2008?

Nope.  Take a look at the electoral votes to get the decade.

()

Red-300
Blue-238

()

Bush makes considerable gains in the midwest (2004)?

https://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/state.php?f=0&fips=20&year=2004

 Is there an easy way to post maps?

()

()

I might need some time to figure this one out.

Hint: It has to do with one of John Dibble's favorite business...

Those states that have outlawed smoking in public places are in blue, those that have not our in red ???

I really have no clue though...

My best guess would be that this is what 1996 would have looked like, had Perot recieved the same percentages he did in 1992.  Perot's inflated totals come off of the totals of the winner of each state.

eh, that's a good crack at it, but not it
The business I'm mentioning is a restaraunt chain...

Blue States- No Olive Garden
Red States- Has an Olive Garden?

??? ???

Hardee's vs no Hardee's?

Good guess, but it only has to do with 1992.

Smokey Bones/No Smokey Bones. :)

hmm, I don't know about Smoky bones, but we have Hardee's here and Olive Garden here in Michigan.  Besides it's not the restaurant I'm thinking, but still, the states with/states without dichotomy is correct.  And yes, the blue is without.

Waffle House? :)

It's similar to the other one I posted.

YES!!!  We have a winner.  Makes me want to become a red stater.  The Waffle House dichotomy is what's ultimately dividing America!!!

Then drive like 40 miles south to Ohio for breakfast.

well, from where I am (Sterling Heights), the drive Ohio is about 1hr, 10 min provided there's no rush hour.  Then going down I-75 it's about driving another 45 minuted until I saw the first Waffle House.  Considering this is a four hour drive (plus the way back) and gas prices are rising really fast, I think I'll save Waffle House for those occasional vacations, and savor it while I'm not on vacation.

()

Russ Feingold/ Joesph Stalin
vs.
Jesus Christ/ Moses

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Alright, since you've all been impatiently patiently enthusiastic about the results, I shall reveal them.

Blue - Harding lost zero to one county.
Red - Harding lost more than one county.

Alaska and Hawaii were left for confusion.

Why? Would Feingold beat Jesus?

No, but Wisconsin would vote for Jesus

And Vermont wouldn't. :D

()

()

()

I'll give you a hint, Red-Democrat, Blue-Republican :D

Byrd/Richardson

Vs.

McCain/J. bush

nope

*Salivates*

We have one here in Erie.  Just ate there tonight.

Perot takes 5% of the winner of each state/CD in the 1992 election.

I'll give you a hint.  Numbers!!!

()

99% correct...instead of going to Perot it goes to the 3rd place candidate (I think the only state it effects is ME)

Something to do with 1988, methinks...

()

Howard Dean v. GW Bush, 2004

That's 2004 with 1852 polarization.

That's a pretty cool map.

Yes it is....

Lloyd Bentsen v. George Bush?

Here's a fun one:

()

States that have an ocean coastline versus states that don't.

Another "Random" map:

()

Blue: 271
Red: 267

Blue states founded before 1825, red states afterwards.

Correct. (admitted, not founded, though)

Yeah, that was pretty obvious.

Here's a curveball:

()

Red: 274
Blue: 264

Something about population densities?

()

1992 map, w/Perot votes split evenly.

Warner/Bayh v McCain/Gordon Smith

()

Janet Napolitano/Gene Taylor v. Norm Coleman/Gordon Smith

That's the first county's results in each state (going in alphabetical order).

Yep.  The more dense, the more red.  Red is > 65 per mi^2, and blue is < 65 per mi^2.

Not bad... that's probably about how it would turn out.