Map with both people and land

[J. J.]

It is unlikely that Kerry would win a large city and not win the county that it was in.

If I were shock by the news that Democrats did well in cities, especially NYC, Phila, Chicago, and LA, I would find this interesting.  It's not particularly interesting.

[J. J.]

It is unlikely that Kerry would win a large city and not win the county that it was in.

Note that not all cities exist solely in one county.  Bush for example won Richmond County, NY.  This is one of the 5 counties of New York City.

Ah, correct. My question is, what difference does showing the big Kerry votes in the cities really have to do with anything?

[J. J.]

It is unlikely that Kerry would win a large city and not win the county that it was in.

Note that not all cities exist solely in one county.  Bush for example won Richmond County, NY.  This is one of the 5 counties of New York City.

Ah, correct. My question is, what difference does showing the big Kerry votes in the cities really have to do with anything?

Nothing, except showing Kerry votes. Yes, he did get votes. Maybe you find that offensive.

I just thought it might be interesting, it certainly struck me when I first saw it, to have a graphical representation of reality. That is what the whole site is about right? Apparently some people are offended by the fact that Kerry got votes and any map that shows it must be bitched about.

I don't find it "offensive" but I do question if it gives any real and new information.  I kinda figured out that Democrats tend to do well in cities.  I expected Kerry to win large totals in large cities.  I take it you realized that as well.

[J. J.]

I also realize that Republicans tend to do well in rural areas and win a large majority of the counties. Does that mean all the maps on Dave's site are useless to me?

No, because I have a general idea of where each city is.  I kinda know that the dark blue in the southeast corner of PA is Phila.  The county maps do show those Republican urban areas; it also shows, as in the case of Phila, the Democratic suburban areas.

[J. J.]

Not really.   It shows where one  candidate ran up vote totals.  From the 3-D map, I cannot see the other sections of PA, for example, where Kerry won, other than Pittsburgh and Phila.  I couldn't tell that there was a city, called San Diego, in southwestern part of CA.  It doesn't provide any useful information.

[J. J.]

There is no real comparative value from these maps.  I'd want one map that showed the comparisons between the two, including statewide total, if I were using this.

[J. J.]

There is no real comparative value from these maps.  I'd want one map that showed the comparisons between the two, including statewide total, if I were using this.

Well, the information is the same whether it is presented on one map or two maps.

You can find statewide totals on a table or bar chart, no need to use a map.

It's impossible to make that comparison using one map.  I cannot tell where Kerry lost from this map.

[J. J.]

There is no real comparative value from these maps.  I'd want one map that showed the comparisons between the two, including statewide total, if I were using this.

Well, the information is the same whether it is presented on one map or two maps.

You can find statewide totals on a table or bar chart, no need to use a map.

It's impossible to make that comparison using one map.  I cannot tell where Kerry lost from this map.

Kerry lost in the places that Bush won. 

Not necessarily.  I can't tell from these maps the relative strengths of each in any given area.  A side by side bar would help a bit.  It tells me that Kerry won in cities, to which I reply, "Duh."

[J. J.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As far as I can tell, each county was one by EITHER Bush OR Kerry. No county was won by both candidates simulataneously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The higher the bar, the higher the relative strength. The lower the bar, the lower the relative strength. That's what it means. It is also labelled.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that's all the map reveals, I guess the Washington Post could have just printed the sentence "KERRY WON IN CITIES" instead of creating that map? Perhaps you should e-mail the editors to enlighten them about their mistake for future elections?

[/quote]

Wrong again.  If I look at Phila for example, I can see that had about 500,000 votes.  It's hard for me to know how many Bush had.  I don't 700,000 votes case, or 1,400,000 votes cast.   I really provides very little information that is useful.

[J. J.]

Your sentences are not making any sense. I can barely make out what you're trying to say. But I'm guessing that you're trying to say it would be helpful to know how many votes Bush had in Philadelphia, for example, given the map shows Kerry won it by 500,000.

Let me ask you this: Does it change the popular vote balance in the state if Bush won 200,000 and Kerry won 700,000 or if Bush won 2,200,000 and Kerry won 2,700,000?

In both instances, Philadelphia contributes 500,000 to Kerry's margin. The results in all other counties are equal. The person who wins a positive margin wins the state. Hence, in both cases, Philadelphia county has the same impact, and it makes no difference.

Sorry, I'm capable of thinking faster than I can type.  :-)

It's the intracounty comparison.  The map would be useful if it would show the relative amount of the vote in each county.  For example, knowing that Kerry had about 500,000 votes in Phila is pretty meaningless unless I know how many votes Bush had there as well.  If he had 80,000 votes, that's one thing.  If he had 200,000 votes, it would mean something else entirely.

[J. J.]

Well first thing, you don't know how many votes Kerry had in Phila. You know how many more votes Kerry had than Bush. I think that addresses your entire complaint. Thanks.

Wrong again.  The map shows how many votes Kerry had, not his percentage or even the number of votes over Kerry had over Bush.  The map just shows raw votes, which does tell me much more than cities have a lot of voters and Kerry voters tend to live in cities.  It is not a particularly useful map.

[J. J.]

It does show the the difference in areas where Kerry won.  I does not show clearly enough the difference between Bush and Kerry. 

Using PA for an example, it shows 392,000 more votes for Kerry in Phila than Bush received.  It doesn't show how how many more votes for Bush there were in the "T" region of PA (this excludes southwestern PA and the suburban Phila counties).  If that number is less than 392,000, then the map is good.  Bush, however, did get more than 392,000 from that region.

This show that Kerry had support in many large cities; that is hardly news.  What is important in PA, for example, is that Kerry won the Republican counties bordering Phila.  The map doesn't show that too well.

[J. J.]

a 3-D graphic is best for this sort of thing.

Well, yes, if the maps would show the amount that that Kerry or Bush had (or that they lost by), it would be a much more useful map.  This one doesn't.

[J. J.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, yes, if the maps would show the amount that that Kerry or Bush had (or that they lost by), it would be a much more useful map.  This one doesn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It does show these things. It does NOT show absolute vote numbers.

It does show the Kerry plurality, i.e. how many votes Kerry had over Bush; I went back and looked.  It doesn't however show the amount Kerry lost by on the same map.  It's not redundent; it determines who wins the election.

Knowing that Kerry had a 392,000 plurality in Phila tells me only two things.  One, there are at least 392,000 voters in Phila.  Two, Kerry is relatively more popular in Phila.  We don't know how relatively popular Kerry is in Phila, how relatively popular he is in the rest of the state, and how many votes there are in the rest of the state.

In fact, the Democrats were talking about a 400 K vote plurality from Phila before the election, to secure the state; they were just short of that.  Just saying that Kerry had X votes over Bush doesn't really tell you very much.

[J. J.]

But that's WHY there are two maps.


No...



Then what does, pray?

It is hard to match up the two maps.  If all the information was on one map, it would be useful.

Yes.  Looking at Kerry map of PA, I cannot tell how much he lost Berks county, for example.  May just a little, or maybe enough to take a big bite out of his totals in Phila.

What does is how well Kerry ran in a lot of those red counties; you cannot tell that from the Kerry map.  Sorry, but it just isn't clear enough.

This map tells you that Kepy tended to run up large vote totals in small areas, cities.  I kinda suspected that.

[J. J.]

It is hard to match up the two maps.  If all the information was on one map, it would be useful.

Yes.  Looking at Kerry map of PA, I cannot tell how much he lost Berks county, for example.  May just a little, or maybe enough to take a big bite out of his totals in Phila.

What does is how well Kerry ran in a lot of those red counties; you cannot tell that from the Kerry map.  Sorry, but it just isn't clear enough.

This map tells you that Kepy tended to run up large vote totals in small areas, cities.  I kinda suspected that.

Once again, populations are just a means to an ends. Having a big margin in a small county or a small margin in a big county if the margins are the same in absolute numbers comes out the same. A campaign strategist would be indifferent between the two, all other things equal. The goal isn't to see which areas have more people living in them but which areas are relatively more Republican or Democratic.

As for the rest... it just involves looking at both maps. If that's too hard, I don't know what else to say.

A campaign strategists, on a statewide level, is going to look at the balance of votes.  Knowing that the candidate of your party either won or lost a county by 392,000 isn't going to tell you too much unless you can tell it the opposition party candidate won or lost the other regions in that state by more or less than 392,000 votes.  Running up a big total in one or two parts of a state isn't going to determine if that state goes to your candidate or not.  You need to know if there are enough votes in the rest of the state for the opposition candidate to counteract those votes.

Cities (excepting Washington, DC) do not have electoral votes.  I don't know how much clearer it can be. 

[J. J.]

I won't speak about stragegists in PA, but in IL, the kind of data on the linked maps are exactly what we use. The focus is almost entirely on the excess that Republicans can run up in the Collar counties and Downstate, to counteract the excess of Democratic votes from Cook. As the returns come in after the election, it's the excess margin in each county, not the total votes we focus on. In the end if our excess exceeds their excess we win, if not we lose.

The problem is that map doesn't show that.  Looking at one map, I can see Kerry's total in Phila (and Allegheny Co), but I can't readily see how many votes are out there in Blair Co. for Bush, for example.