katallison: (Default)
katallison ([personal profile] katallison) wrote2004-11-04 02:56 pm
Entry tags:

(no subject)

[livejournal.com profile] sockkpuppett earlier posted the US voting breakdown, state by state, as shades of purple, instead of blue vs. red; here's the same thing, except county by county.

I find this fascinating, especially as a countermeasure to the generalizations about the South and Midwest that have been flying around the past couple of days. Consider, for example, that very blueish-toned band of counties meandering from Louisiana through Alabama and Mississippi and into South Carolina. Or those blue spots in the upper Great Plains--I can't even identify what, if any, cities those would map onto. (Since state boundaries aren't shown, one thing this map also reveals to me is my less-than-perfect grasp of geography. *g*)

I should locate a good color printer and run myself a copy of this, to tack up over my desk. Nothing about this country is as simple as I am sometimes, in my bitter moments, tempted to believe.
sanguinity: woodcut by M.C. Escher, "Snakes" (Default)

Blue in the Upper Great Plains

[personal profile] sanguinity 2005-10-27 03:58 pm (UTC)(link)
Link-hopping, hope you don't mind. Started out from [livejournal.com profile] matociquala's journal hopped to someone who quoted your question about the blue in the upper great plains, so I came over here because I wanted to comment:

I had the same question when I saw that map last year, and I did some research on a few of those bright plue patches. Most of them show nothing there on maps of their respective states -- half the county is federally protected wild area, and the other half doesn't even show a town, let alone a largely democratic city. So who's voting, I wondered? National Park Rangers? And why isn't there even the slightest tinge of purple?

It turns out that every blue patch I looked at is a reservation. Native American tribes who are really, really pissed with Bush.