Most Attractive Election Map?

[Ragnaroni]

I mean which ones look the best. IMO Bush 2004 is really up there with the Democrats only on the West Coast, Upper Midwest and New England (with no EV for Rs in Maine). Reagan's map are ugly due to the randoms spots of blue while FDR suffers the same fate.

1924 would be another one but Wisconsin ruins the map...

Your thoughts?

[°Leprechaun]

I mean which ones look the best. IMO Bush 2004 is really up there with the Democrats only on the West Coast, Upper Midwest and New England (with no EV for Rs in Maine). Reagan's map are ugly due to the randoms spots of blue while FDR suffers the same fate.

1924 would be another one but Wisconsin ruins the map...

Your thoughts?

Yes, I find 1924 to be one of the best:

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1924

All the maps on one page, for a quick look to find the best map:

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/comparemaps.php?year=1924&type=national&fips=0&f=0&off=0&elect=0

The county maps are interesting as well; take a look at 1976:

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/countymap.php?year=1976&f=0&off=0&elect=0

[Ragnaroni]

I mean which ones look the best. IMO Bush 2004 is really up there with the Democrats only on the West Coast, Upper Midwest and New England (with no EV for Rs in Maine). Reagan's map are ugly due to the randoms spots of blue while FDR suffers the same fate.

1924 would be another one but Wisconsin ruins the map...

Your thoughts?

Yes, I find 1924 to be one of the best:

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1924

All the maps on one page, for a quick look to find the best map:

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/comparemaps.php?year=1924&type=national&fips=0&f=0&off=0&elect=0

The county maps are interesting as well; take a look at 1976:

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/countymap.php?year=1976&f=0&off=0&elect=0

If 1924 didn't have LaFollette, it would be my top pick but its second place. The counties is interesting, I'll have a look and judge my favorites!

[Sir Mohamed]

While I strongly dislike the result, I agree on 2004. The Jesusland vs. Coast map. 1920 is also a hot contender, which is basically the South vs. everything else.

[Ragnaroni]

While I strongly dislike the result, I agree on 2004. The Jesusland vs. Coast map. 1920 is also a hot contender, which is basically the South vs. everything else.

Completely fair, the issue with 1920 is TN makes the map look bad imo.

1920:

1924 is way nicer imo :

[TDAS04]

1964 would have been it, if we could have traded Florida for Arizona.

[Hope For A New Era]

I've always thought 2012 was the best, and clearly superior to 2004. It somehow looks "balanced" in a way that 2004 simply does not.

2004 has a weird blue Illinois peninsula and a tiny string on the west coast, 2012 has Virginia and Colorado balancing out Illinois at that latitude and Nevada filling out the west more.

1924 is also nice, and 1964 would be if not for Arizona.


The 2020 dream 413 map is also very aesthetically pleasing for the same reason as 2012, it just has a very balanced look to it somehow.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

I always liked the 1996 map. Largely due to the western Dem strip from Washington to Arizona + the southeast GOP strip from Virginia to Mississippi. Looks contiguous overall even with Indiana and Florida, though the latter is helped by the panhandle being on the same latitude as Southern Louisiana

[President Johnson]

1916 somewhat feels a little bit like a "land doesn't vote" map. There's a lot of blue, but Wilson just barely won enough electoral votes to secure a second term.

[Ragnaroni]

I've always thought 2012 was the best, and clearly superior to 2004. It somehow looks "balanced" in a way that 2004 simply does not.

2004 has a weird blue Illinois peninsula and a tiny string on the west coast, 2012 has Virginia and Colorado balancing out Illinois at that latitude and Nevada filling out the west more.

1924 is also nice, and 1964 would be if not for Arizona.


The 2020 dream 413 map is also very aesthetically pleasing for the same reason as 2012, it just has a very balanced look to it somehow.

Illinois does ruin the 2004 map for me. If it was red it would easily be a 10/10 map. 1964 sans AZ would be up there too. Personally even as a kid, 2012's map messed with my OCD (CO, NM and FL especially). But it is always interesting to see what others think.

[Mr. Smith]

1948 or 1992.

[E-Dawg]

I've always thought 2012 was the best, and clearly superior to 2004. It somehow looks "balanced" in a way that 2004 simply does not.

2008 is superior to 2012 because Indiana does not stick out in 2008. The united Northeast + Great Lakes block looks nice.

Also, 1996 is up there as one of the best, only thing holding it back is Indiana (once again) in the sea of blue.

[Orser67]

1904 is another one on the lines of 1920 and 1924, though it would look better with MD flipped

1824 is the most fun-looking map imho

[BigVic]

1916 somewhat feels a little bit like a "land doesn't vote" map. There's a lot of blue, but Wilson just barely won enough electoral votes to secure a second term.

IN to the left of OH

[Pericles]

1904 looks good, the South vs everyone else but due to the South's size the landslide doesn't look too unbalanced geographically. It's also a Republican win I actually don't oppose.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

1904 looks good, the South vs everyone else but due to the South's size the landslide doesn't look too unbalanced geographically. It's also a Republican win I actually don't oppose.

1904 is among the better ones, yeah.

[Sir Mohamed]

While I strongly dislike the result, I agree on 2004. The Jesusland vs. Coast map. 1920 is also a hot contender, which is basically the South vs. everything else.

Completely fair, the issue with 1920 is TN makes the map look bad imo.

1920:

1924 is way nicer imo :

True, though TN in 1920 looks kind of funny, tbh. WI going to a 3rd party candidate in 1924 somewhat bothers the optics me a little.

[Ragnaroni]

While I strongly dislike the result, I agree on 2004. The Jesusland vs. Coast map. 1920 is also a hot contender, which is basically the South vs. everything else.

Completely fair, the issue with 1920 is TN makes the map look bad imo.

1920:

1924 is way nicer imo :

True, though TN in 1920 looks kind of funny, tbh. WI going to a 3rd party candidate in 1924 somewhat bothers the optics me a little.

WI grinds my gears so much in the '24 election. LIKE IT WOULD BE PERFECT otherwise!

[Alben Barkley]

I've always thought 2012 was the best, and clearly superior to 2004. It somehow looks "balanced" in a way that 2004 simply does not.

2004 has a weird blue Illinois peninsula and a tiny string on the west coast, 2012 has Virginia and Colorado balancing out Illinois at that latitude and Nevada filling out the west more.

1924 is also nice, and 1964 would be if not for Arizona.


The 2020 dream 413 map is also very aesthetically pleasing for the same reason as 2012, it just has a very balanced look to it somehow.

Illinois does ruin the 2004 map for me. If it was red it would easily be a 10/10 map. 1964 sans AZ would be up there too. Personally even as a kid, 2012's map messed with my OCD (CO, NM and FL especially). But it is always interesting to see what others think.

Flip Iowa and Missouri and then Illinois doesn't stick out in 2004. Plus it gives Kerry exactly 270 EVs, assuming there isn't still a faithless elector in Minnesota who voted for Edwards twice. Imagine if it went 269-269 because of that...

[Ragnaroni]

I've always thought 2012 was the best, and clearly superior to 2004. It somehow looks "balanced" in a way that 2004 simply does not.

2004 has a weird blue Illinois peninsula and a tiny string on the west coast, 2012 has Virginia and Colorado balancing out Illinois at that latitude and Nevada filling out the west more.

1924 is also nice, and 1964 would be if not for Arizona.


The 2020 dream 413 map is also very aesthetically pleasing for the same reason as 2012, it just has a very balanced look to it somehow.

Illinois does ruin the 2004 map for me. If it was red it would easily be a 10/10 map. 1964 sans AZ would be up there too. Personally even as a kid, 2012's map messed with my OCD (CO, NM and FL especially). But it is always interesting to see what others think.

Flip Iowa and Missouri and then Illinois doesn't stick out in 2004. Plus it gives Kerry exactly 270 EVs, assuming there isn't still a faithless elector in Minnesota who voted for Edwards twice. Imagine if it went 269-269 because of that...

So this :




Personally I think this looks sexier :

[Alben Barkley]

1916 somewhat feels a little bit like a "land doesn't vote" map. There's a lot of blue, but Wilson just barely won enough electoral votes to secure a second term.

IN to the left of OH

I mean yes, on a map, Indiana is literally to the "left" (West) of Ohio. But if you mean Indiana voted politically to the left of Ohio in 1916, you are mistaken. Has the anti-Wilson circlejerk really reached a point where one of the most progressive presidents in history is now seen as to the "right" of the anti-New Deal SCOTUS Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes? Yes, Wilson re-segregated federal government jobs. That was bad, but it's not like the Taft or Harding administrations made black people Secretary of State. Yes, Wilson praised The Birth of a Nation. That was bad, but so did millions of other Americans who made it the biggest blockbuster in history to that time. This does not outweigh the fact that the man started the FTC, Federal Reserve, pushed for women's suffrage, ending child labor, laid all the groundwork for the New Deal (FDR served in his cabinet and saw him as a lodestar), etc. and had an amazing vision for a liberal world order. He was one of the greatest presidents of all-time, and one of the 2 or 3 most progressive by any objective standard. I am beyond sick of this internet meme-motivated assault on him of the past few years.