It certainly isn't the U.S.A.:

http://alt.cimedia.com/ajc/pdf/elect...s_uscounty.pdf




Oh I get it... the Democrats mention a “divide” when they really feel outnumbered and insignificant. If anything, there was more of a divide during the 2000 election and the ~500,000 vote difference, not 2004.

 

That is a terribly telling map. Thank you.

 

Every spec of red or blue represents an area that is divided. Very few areas chose a candidate by an overwhelming majority. California as a state was only 55/45.
You can rest assured the country is divided.

 

If americans are united in anything that map would imply stupidity.

-Chris

 

Wow.... That's almost as telling as the IQ graph right?

 

Um, salty, that map doesn't mention population density does it? Because, man - nevada is big - and it takes up alot of space - and gosh darn if that aint a convincing visual, but there IS NOTHING IN NEVADA. More people live in the dumpster behind chuckee cheeze than live in 100 square mile regions of nevada and many of the great plain states. Without a nod to population density, this map aint worth a shizot and is just an excuse to you red bastards to gloat more than you already are.

Don't be a retard, I'd expect more out of you.

LOL, it would appear so.

 

If anything, this is a more accurate map, thanks to GRADATION. Although its much more convincing when it looks like everyone in middle america agreed. You still have to take into account population density here....

 

You mean the truth is somewhere in the middle

huh.... something to think about

 

too bad the Democratic party can't wrap their brains around that idea. This polarization of the country is bad for the country.

 

Yeah the polarization of this country is all the democratic parties fault...

Ok.........

 

I don't think he was trying to say that... I think he was speaking as a democrat, wishing that his party could lose it's 'crazy liberal' image.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Its funny... it seems that the large metropolotan areas overwhelmingly voted for Kerry. Wouldn't they be the most 'at risk' of a terrorist attack? ...Shows you who people think would have been able to do a better job protecting America.

Maybe population density will rise enough in the next four years so that a democratic president can be elected.... This time around, the city-folk couldn't quite overcome the numbers in the bible belt and rural midwest.

Seriously now, do you think that, in general, people in less densely poulated areas are better informed than those in large cities? I realize there is an overall difference between the values held in these two different general areas, but I also believe that there is a greater wealth of knolwledge and differing viewpoints in more higly-populated areas. This, I believe allows people in areas of high pop. density to put more thought and consideration into their vote, in general.

Those people in the red areas must not discount the large number of people in the blue areas. People who live in large cities are confronted with worsening modern problems (such as pollution and poverty) and the need to push for progressive measures to comply and assist with the growth of cities. I'm not saying that the red areas have never heard of these things, I'm just saying people in rural areas are generally less aware, more isolated from the outside world, and problems like air pollution have not YET materialized- so what's the rush to change? Go ahead- drill for oil in the largest untouched refuge in the Americas, what do we care----> Cheeper gas fer my RIG!



Moving on, I still think If the Dems had a slightly more widely-appealing candidate, they would have won no problem.

 

^^^^
I could'nt agree more with the above statement. Although you may be in for another upset in 2008.

 

OoOOoOooo, pretty!

 

Are you trying to marginalize the info this map depicts?

It seems to me that whenever a good counterpoint is made toward you, you seem to always avoid acknowledging that point by throwing out some unrelated, tounge-in-cheek response like the one above. They may seem harmless to you, but to others It's the equivalent of laughing at them. If you were moderate, as you claim to be, you should be able to see the other side. I guess you may to yourself- you certainly don't appear to in many cases. Or is it an ego thing where you can't publicly admit errors- in that case, I understand.


...Just look at the popular vote... Bush won by a WHOPPING 3%. The vote was divided nearly 50-50. I don't see how you can be serious when you say that you don't see the division in the country.