Opinion of West Wing's Electoral Maps

[Free Bird]

I know it's just a show, but my God they made no sense, ESPECIALLY 1998 and 2006. This is a real shame, too, considering the realism they were attempting.

[badgate]

We never get a definitive '98 map; there are inconsistencies throughout even the Sorkin era with regards to that. Overall I don't think I ever thought it looked unrealistic. Perhaps a few odd states which could be explained away by being the home states of the Republican ticket. I've also always imagined that Bartlet came off more populist the first time around.

You already know my thoughts on the 2006 map. I've no desire to waste either of our time [my time] by telling you how wrong you are again.

[Free Bird]

We never get a definitive '98 map; there are inconsistencies throughout even the Sorkin era with regards to that. Overall I don't think I ever thought it looked unrealistic. Perhaps a few odd states which could be explained away by being the home states of the Republican ticket. I've also always imagined that Bartlet came off more populist the first time around.

You already know my thoughts on the 2006 map. I've no desire to waste either of our time [my time] by telling you how wrong you are again.

I am aware of your thoughts on 2006. I wanted to discuss the idea as a whole. BTW this is 1998... behold

[Ebsy]

2006 made a mockery of all the loyal poli sci majors that religious watched the show for its entire run.

[JonathanSwift]

Preposterous.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I know it's just a show, but my God they made no sense, ESPECIALLY 1998 and 2006. This is a real shame, too, considering the realism they were attempting.

The West Wing never attempted anything remotely resembling realism.  The maps are about as believable as the rest of the show.

[Phony Moderate]

I watched The West Wing election 2006 two-parter the other day, actually (not for the first time). Laughed fairly hard when South Carolina was called for Santos and even harder when Vermont was called for Vinick. The entire election results in fact provided great comic relief to make up for the tragic death of Leo McGarry/John Spencer.

[Phony Moderate]

Actually, there are quite a few errors in the two 2006 election night episodes:

- No Vinick concession speech or even a reference to one.
- Santos' election night rally hall was said to contain "two thousand people"; there are clearly no more than a hundred or so.
- Vinick's staff being very upset at losing Texas, when earlier it was implied that they were expecting it, plus at the time of its call Texas was irrelevant to them - they needed California and one other.
- Just before Maine was called, the Jeanne whatshername character stated that the gap between the candidates was 0.1% and that the networks shouldn't call it and that the staff should call the networks and tell them not to (does any campaign actually do such a thing?). Then 30 seconds later Maine was called for Vinick and he was shown to be ahead by a 52-48 margin.
- North Dakota was said to be leaning Santos in the exit polls, but it was called the moment the polls closed there.
- Oregon was won by 2,000 votes by Santos ("anything less than 3,500 is an automatic recount" said the DNC Chair). No mention of any recount requests, and Vinick's campaign team instead focused on Nevada, which he lost by 30,000 votes - quite a decent margin for a state with a relatively small population.
- It was mentioned on about four or five seperate occasions that MN, WI and OH had been called.
- Very little talk about Florida, despite being one of the five "big states" of the campaign,

I'm sure there are others. A good show overall...but...yeah, flaws.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Well, it's an alternate universe where presidential elections are held when we have our mid-terms, where Ronald Reagan never became president and where 9/11 apparently never happened.

Why shouldn't they have different swing-states and different Republican/Democratic strongholds when the past 30 years of history or so is different from our own??

[badgate]

We never get a definitive '98 map; there are inconsistencies throughout even the Sorkin era with regards to that. Overall I don't think I ever thought it looked unrealistic. Perhaps a few odd states which could be explained away by being the home states of the Republican ticket. I've also always imagined that Bartlet came off more populist the first time around.

You already know my thoughts on the 2006 map. I've no desire to waste either of our time [my time] by telling you how wrong you are again.

I am aware of your thoughts on 2006. I wanted to discuss the idea as a whole. BTW this is 1998... behold

Yes, I've seen this too. There is definitely some guesswork going on here, probably because whoever made this felt compelled to match the number of electoral votes that Leo says they won in the season 5 finale "Memorial Day." I don't consider this map to be canon. Recall that in the Sorkin Era, it's stated that Bartlet won with a plurality, though no significant third party candidate (a la Ross Perot or even Ralph Nader) is ever mentioned. But then in the Wells Era, we have Leo stating in the aforementioned flashback episode that Bartlet had won a specific number of electoral votes (I want to say 318 but I'm not sure).

[Ebsy]

They also did a weird thing during the 2006 nomination contest where the delegates for each state were winner takes all. It made for pretty decent television, but it was an odd change to make.

[© tweed]

their President Forver was definitely on "exotic mode" or whatever its called.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Don't forget multiple ballots for the Democratic nomination, when there hasn't been a multi-ballot convention since 1952.

Bartlett's reelection was pretty dumb too...carrying Nebraska...seriously?