It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A different look at the results - By county, And Purple Haze?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   
OK a new map ...neat!

the "Purple Haze" that results if you create a red-to-blue palette based on voting percentages.




www.princeton.edu...

Or this one weighted by votes etc....more telling and accurate!



www.electoral-vote.com...




Well here is a picture county by county....
A nation divided? I think not.........wow, this is amazing!

UPDATED: Follow this link for demographics! So the stupid people voted Bush? Better check the figures.......

www.usatoday.com...



2004 Bush/Kerry

Square miles of counties won = Bush 3.28 million Kerry 741,000
Population (2003) of counties won Bush 150.9 million Kerry 103.6 million
Counties won by less than 5 percentage points Bush 162 Kerry 131

Note: County election data is not reported for Alaska,




2000 Gore/Bush

In 2000, George W. Bush carried 2,439 counties to 674 for Sen. Al Gore. Bush lost the popular vote but won the election.

Square miles of counties won = Bush 2,432,603 Gore 577,029
Population (1999) of counties won Bush = 148,000,000 Gore 133,000,000
Counties won by less than 5 percentage points = Bush 229 Gore 175

Note: County election data was not reported for Alaska, Counties in blue, indicating a vote for Gore include Indian reservations in Montana, New Mexico and South Dakota.







Or a pop density map




And the hispanic vote in which Bush got 43%!

www.census.gov...


And the Black vote in which Bush got 11%!

www.census.gov...


[edit on 3-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 3-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 3-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 3-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 3-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 3-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 3-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 3-11-2004 by edsinger]

EDIT: Changed huge images to links.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by Kano]

[edit on 4-11-2004 by edsinger]



[edit on 4-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 5-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 5-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 5-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 5-11-2004 by edsinger]



IBM

posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Wow nice picture, how is it that such a small population of the likes of california and new york was won by kerry, from the picture it seems like it would have gone to bush. I guess the population density in the cities is so great that it doesnt matter what the suburbs hold against Los Angeles and New York City, and Philadelphia. Good Job Bush



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 11:40 PM
link   
dude..pop vote dif...around 3.5 million...thats close...i think you forgot population density.....oh well. it doesn't matter...



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 11:40 PM
link   
is this the actaul map of the election? because I saw a map exactly the same that sited HISTORICAL data by county that looked like that... I am just wondering if this is up to date data and if so ... how are those the final counts so fast?



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 11:44 PM
link   
in comparing both gore - kerry areas I see the differences in the maps so I recant my previous posts... but does it say something that the areas still grey on the map are historically democratic? Meaning why do those specific areas take longer to get the vote in? Just a thought



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Thats a interesting map alot more red in Cali then I would have thought but thats not where the most of the population is.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   
The question I have is if the blacks in the deep south were for kerry, why not more counties?

But the totals....

We I can see the trend, the big cities will go democratic, all except maybe Cinncinnatti!

Ohio, you ROCK!

Edit take a look at this statistic


The only places where Kerry won more than 60 percent of the vote: Massachusetts, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia. Bush topped 60 percent in 14 states.

newsmax.com...

[edit on 4-11-2004 by edsinger]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 12:56 AM
link   
newsflash:

Bible Humpers decide elections



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by aukaiman55
newsflash:

Bible Humpers decide elections


Uh that would be me and many other believers! Yes we did not nessesarily decide it but 4 million evangelicals came out that didnt in 2000, I think the difference was the hispanic vote, 43% Bush is unprecendented.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Bush won the election by a million or so votes, that means that 54 million people voted against the man, which means there is a pure divide in this country. You don't divide the country by land you idiot, land doesn't vote, people do.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

The only places where Kerry won more than 60 percent of the vote: Massachusetts, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia.



Personal note to OBL/AQ: Kerry won Fulton County! When you start attacking the Red States--and we all know that Georgia is one of the reddest of the red--SPARE ATLANTA! We did everything we could!



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
Bush won the election by a million or so votes, that means that 54 million people voted against the man, which means there is a pure divide in this country. You don't divide the country by land you idiot, land doesn't vote, people do.


Well calling me an idiot doesnt make your liberal POS candidate a winner, this thread was to show you that the populous areas (Urban) went Kerry, but since only a "idiot" as you would say, would vote for Bush, then you live in the land of idiots, LOOK AT THE MAP....

Bush won handily! There is still hope for America and the liberals have been set back another 2 years at least!



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   
this is why the electoral college exists, so the populated areas dont control the vote, this shows it is working as intended.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   
THat is so true....


Plus I have updated the map, the lastest is out.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
this is why the electoral college exists, so the populated areas dont control the vote, this shows it is working as intended.


I would say that "winner takes all" system is the main idea. Without it the electoral college would be useless



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Well this way Montana doesnt have # forced on it by New York and the big cities, if they want a candidate to win, they must find a middle of the road one...

Actually I like the electoral College, the founding Fathers really knew their stuff.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:39 PM
link   

...but since only a "idiot" as you would say, would vote for Bush, then you live in the land of idiots, LOOK AT THE MAP....


Yes, unfortunately, that's true. I concur with the UK Daily Mirror front page form today. If you haven't seen it, look it up.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Ok, Ed...since you've got this totally broken down.....you may the best one to explain something that's been puzzlin' me..

What was the final numbers on the District of Columbia. Last I saw was something like 90% Kerry, 9% Bush. Was that the final count? Why so heavily Kerry? ( No rhetoric please...just the facts, man)



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by frayed1
Ok, Ed...since you've got this totally broken down.....you may the best one to explain something that's been puzzlin' me..

What was the final numbers on the District of Columbia. Last I saw was something like 90% Kerry, 9% Bush. Was that the final count? Why so heavily Kerry? ( No rhetoric please...just the facts, man)



Well I dont think it was 90%, but the population of DC is almost all African American, but lots of them did vote Bush. In the End, 80% didnt vote for Bush....DC has never went republican in the last 50 years.

I was wrong...


Kerry Dem 183,876 90 %
Bush Rep 19,007 9 %
Nader Ind 1,318 1 %


[edit on 4-11-2004 by edsinger]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Do you have access to the maps for 1996/1992. Curious as to how they look in comparison. Thanks in advance if you do.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join