Alan Boyle has some state and county maps that are more, well, nuanced.

For the record, I should note that I am on the "red" side of the political spectrum only in the very limited sense that I favored George Bush over John Kerry.

Same here. I was only mildly happy that W won. The red vs blue really isn't a real ideological divide because red in one state probably wouldn't equate equally with red in another. I've voted straight ticket Libertarian ever since I could vote so, while I did vote for Bush, I don't really consider myself 'red'.

Now that the heat of the election is over and I see the vote totals that the anti-gay marriage ammendment got in Georgia I think it all just re-enforces the idea that I'm neither red nor blue, I'm black... as in the vacuum of space kind of black.

My whole rationale for voting for Bush was that he could keep the West intact long enough for some significant number of people to leave the planet permanently. After that I'm not sure I care what happens down in the gravity wells.... ;-)

Well, I was extremely happy that Bush won, but not because I agree with all of his policy positions. Only the most important ones.

Here's a somewhat more depressing map:

http://attenuation.net/files/iq.htm

Note that i dont care, nor do i think its any how important. Just something somebody showed me today

The purple maps would be a lot more meaningful if they took the range 40-60 instead of 0-100. All they are doing is smearing the differences into an average.

Another interesting exercise is to compare the 2000 map with 2004, easy to do with Photoshop and the "subtract" function when you start form identical base maps. One thing you notice is most of the areas outside the midwest that went Bush->Kerry are in vacation areas-- Teton Cty., Wyo, Lake Tahoe area, Calif, Colo. Rockies, Northern N.H., Shenandoah valley, etc.

Rand,

This comment is a joke. From reading your posts here, it's easy to see that you are an extremely partisan red republican. If you and your Republican elite nationalists want to keep on making these kinds of arrogant statements, you're going to keep widening the division in America. I should have known that the Republicans could not be gracious in victory. They seem determined to punish the rest of us for daring to resist their radical agenda.

Shame on you.

. . .it's easy to see that you are an extremely partisan red republican.

Your post reduces to: if you don't pay attention to us, then me and my friends won't like you any more.

You wouldn't even make such an argument if you really thought those listening didn't give a damn about what you think. If you really thought we all here were just intolerant haters who would just as soon see you sent to the re-education camps, then, if you were in a position of strength -- if your side won the election, for example -- you'd be threatening us with your strength, and if you were in a position of weakness, you'd be quiet like a mouse and hope to avoid detection. Nobody tries to appeal to the conscience of those he truly feels have no conscience.

In fact, you only make this argument because you know very well that those listening are quite sensitive to any criticism of being arrogant, ungracious, and partisan -- because they try very hard not to be.

For that reason, I expect Rand will take your complaint as a genuine compliment. When even his enemies appeal to a man's conscience and principles, he knows that conscience and those principles are widely respected indeed.

From reading your posts here, it's easy to see that you are an extremely partisan red republican.

Then it's easy for you to see things that are not so. Apparently, anyone who doesn't agree with you is "an extremely partisan red republican."

It must be nice to live in such a simple world.