Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 23, 2020, 11:35:01 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (Primary) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs? (Moderators: Stuck with Sanders, Apocrypha)
  Post random maps here
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 103 104 105 106 107 [108] 109 110 111 112 113 ... 239 Print
Author Topic: Post random maps here  (Read 848187 times)
yougo1000
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,125
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2675 on: May 13, 2010, 05:00:46 pm »



R: 266
D: 265

talk about close elections.
Logged
Ronald Reagan
Spl2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 292
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2676 on: May 13, 2010, 09:37:17 pm »

Logged
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,809
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2677 on: May 13, 2010, 11:09:38 pm »
« Edited: May 13, 2010, 11:12:23 pm by David Lee Roth »

Wrongo.
It's a map of the strongest popular vote performance per state in each election since 1840 with the colors representing the party that achieved the shaded percentage vote.
I made a similar map that included all elections since 1824, but Jackson and Adams were such outliers in some states that I had to make another more narrow map.
Someday I might make one of all elections since 1900, which should be interesting.
What I found interesting is that minus Jackson's performance in 1832 in the Deep South, the best candidate in the Deep South was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the infamous baby's daddy of modern day American "liberalism".
Logged
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,809
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2678 on: May 13, 2010, 11:10:52 pm »
« Edited: May 13, 2010, 11:27:13 pm by David Lee Roth »


This is the original map I made of the strongest popular vote performances per state since 1824.
Blue=Adams Republicans
Red=Jackson Democrats
Someday when I have enough time and not so much stuff to do I'll make a modified map of this that lists the years in which the highest vote percentages were achieved by state.
Logged
Trends are real, and I f**king hate it
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,991
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2679 on: May 14, 2010, 06:55:14 am »

What I found interesting is that minus Jackson's performance in 1832 in the Deep South, the best candidate in the Deep South was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the infamous baby's daddy of modern day American "liberalism".

Oh, please... Roll Eyes I think you know how intellectually dishonest this attack is.
Logged
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,809
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2680 on: May 14, 2010, 07:19:52 am »

What I found interesting is that minus Jackson's performance in 1832 in the Deep South, the best candidate in the Deep South was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the infamous baby's daddy of modern day American "liberalism".

Oh, please... Roll Eyes I think you know how intellectually dishonest this attack is.

Okay I'll admit that alot of those votes were probably just in reaction to a Great Depression, poor whites and blacks were discriminated against at the voting booth, and that it was in 1932.....the first year that FDR ran for office that quite a few of these states voted for him by said margins.
But even without a Great Depression.................do you really think any of those states would've voted for FDR by any amount less than they voted for (at the very least) Al Smith?
Logged
Trends are real, and I f**king hate it
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,991
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2681 on: May 14, 2010, 08:22:43 am »

What I found interesting is that minus Jackson's performance in 1832 in the Deep South, the best candidate in the Deep South was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the infamous baby's daddy of modern day American "liberalism".

Oh, please... Roll Eyes I think you know how intellectually dishonest this attack is.

Okay I'll admit that alot of those votes were probably just in reaction to a Great Depression, poor whites and blacks were discriminated against at the voting booth, and that it was in 1932.....the first year that FDR ran for office that quite a few of these states voted for him by said margins.
But even without a Great Depression.................do you really think any of those states would've voted for FDR by any amount less than they voted for (at the very least) Al Smith?

Smith was a Catholic. For any other democrat, I have no reason to think they would poll worse than FDR in the climate of Great Depression.
Logged
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,809
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2682 on: May 14, 2010, 10:02:38 am »
« Edited: May 14, 2010, 02:08:42 pm by David Lee Roth »

What I found interesting is that minus Jackson's performance in 1832 in the Deep South, the best candidate in the Deep South was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the infamous baby's daddy of modern day American "liberalism".

Oh, please... Roll Eyes I think you know how intellectually dishonest this attack is.

Okay I'll admit that alot of those votes were probably just in reaction to a Great Depression, poor whites and blacks were discriminated against at the voting booth, and that it was in 1932.....the first year that FDR ran for office that quite a few of these states voted for him by said margins.
But even without a Great Depression.................do you really think any of those states would've voted for FDR by any amount less than they voted for (at the very least) Al Smith?

Smith was a Catholic. For any other democrat, I have no reason to think they would poll worse than FDR in the climate of Great Depression.

Granted, I'm not implying that FDR was any more evil than say someone like William H. Murray (anyone who has read my Great Depression timeline knows this, hell FDR is like the friggin hero in that TL), just that how people focused on what "liberal" or "conservative" was back then.  I also used it to demonstrate quite easily how sensitive "liberals" and "progressives" are to any mention of how well FDR did with Southerners (admit, your response was so predictable).  SUre he didn't campaign on hanging negroes or federalizing segregation, but he sure as hell didn't ignore Southern wants in his campaigns.  That's because in reality FDR wasn't the gallant advancer of liberal causes as he's portrayed in history books but rather as a consensus builder.  In addition to winning the South and record numbers he also won the American West in record numbers in places like New Mexico in 1932 (I believe he might be the ONLY candidate to ever win over 60% of the popular vote in New Mexico in 1932 and 1936), Arizona 1936, and California in 1936 (with 66.95% of the popular vote).
I'm not arguing that FDR was really a southern bred William H. Murray Democrat, but he wouldn'tve come second only to Andrew Jackson in popular vote terms if he didn't agree to leave the Southern states to their own devices in regards to Civil Rights during the 1930's.  Would it be so far fetched for me to suggest that by taking a moderate stance in regards to Southern policies FDR might've done better than most other Democrats because some anti-segregation whites in the Deep South might've voted (alongside segregationists) for FDR instead of the Republican?  With the exception of the Japanese internment camps he was miles ahead of his predecessor on nearly every social policy.
Logged
Trends are real, and I f**king hate it
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,991
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2683 on: May 14, 2010, 10:41:27 am »
« Edited: May 14, 2010, 10:43:41 am by Antonio V »

I also used it to demonstrate quite easily how sensitive "liberals" and "progressives" are to any mention of how well FDR did with Southerners (admit, your response was so predictable).

Of course it was predictable. I said your comment was intellectually dishonest because I found it intellectually dishonest, and you eventually admitted that in great part it had nothing to do with your point. I just don't like this way of debating, using provocation in order to support your argumentation.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And what did you expect him to do ? Campaigning throughout the South saying "you racist bastards, please don't vote for me !" ? Roosevelt was a "consensus builder" because at the time democrats were totally dependent to the South, and taking anti-segregation stances at the time would have been a political suicide. As soon as a new progressive democratic coalition was buil, the party started to evolve on the Civil Rights issue BTW, the GOP could have campaigned for civil rights far before, and without any political risk. If there is a party which should be blamed for how late racial equality has been enforced in the US, it's definitely the GOP. And anyways, Roosevelt was as much as a liberal as a democrat could be at the time, and on a long term he made his party strong enough to be able to afford the loss of the South, and thus to abolish Segregation. Of course this is a personal opinion, but I think we could thank him a bit for what happened 30 years later.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well yes, but anyways I don't think segregation was a very important issue. The South considered it as granted since the beginning of the Century, and the North wasn't really willing to change this anymore.
Logged
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,809
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2684 on: May 14, 2010, 02:15:57 pm »

I also used it to demonstrate quite easily how sensitive "liberals" and "progressives" are to any mention of how well FDR did with Southerners (admit, your response was so predictable).

Of course it was predictable. I said your comment was intellectually dishonest because I found it intellectually dishonest, and you eventually admitted that in great part it had nothing to do with your point. I just don't like this way of debating, using provocation in order to support your argumentation.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And what did you expect him to do ? Campaigning throughout the South saying "you racist bastards, please don't vote for me !" ? Roosevelt was a "consensus builder" because at the time democrats were totally dependent to the South, and taking anti-segregation stances at the time would have been a political suicide. As soon as a new progressive democratic coalition was buil, the party started to evolve on the Civil Rights issue BTW, the GOP could have campaigned for civil rights far before, and without any political risk. If there is a party which should be blamed for how late racial equality has been enforced in the US, it's definitely the GOP. And anyways, Roosevelt was as much as a liberal as a democrat could be at the time, and on a long term he made his party strong enough to be able to afford the loss of the South, and thus to abolish Segregation. Of course this is a personal opinion, but I think we could thank him a bit for what happened 30 years later.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well yes, but anyways I don't think segregation was a very important issue. The South considered it as granted since the beginning of the Century, and the North wasn't really willing to change this anymore.

My point is this is a "Post a Random Map" thread and I described what my random map was about, put a random factoid up (granted using the words "baby's daddy" was an easy provocation) and it has now evolved into a total bitchfest.
Logged
Trends are real, and I f**king hate it
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,991
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2685 on: May 14, 2010, 02:19:18 pm »

Bitchfest ? Huh It seemed to me that we were discussing.
Logged
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,809
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2686 on: May 14, 2010, 02:33:27 pm »

Bitchfest ? Huh It seemed to me that we were discussing.

Sorry it seems like at various times in your posts you seemed to sound like I offended you in some manner.
And also, reason why I bring up FDR so many times is that because to me liberal worship of FDR reminds me a lot of conservative worship of Reagan: misguided and tons of excuses made for both as to why they exemplify their ideologies when also being anything but in some cases.  I am just as annoyed by FDR being called "liberal" while he remained quiet on Civil Rights for his first 8 years just as much as I am annoyed by Reagan being called "conservative" while supporting massive deficit spending.
And (what do you know) Reagan seemed to do really well in the so-called "libertarian west".
Logged
Trends are real, and I f**king hate it
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,991
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2687 on: May 14, 2010, 03:30:11 pm »

Bitchfest ? Huh It seemed to me that we were discussing.

Sorry it seems like at various times in your posts you seemed to sound like I offended you in some manner.

Arguing against you is the same as bitching now ? I don't think I was using a particularly aggressive tone, I simply expressed a disagreement with what you said.
And while, as I said, I felt pretty annoyed by the way you started this debate, I always find worthwhile to discuss with you. Wink So if you are interested in answering to my few points, feel free to do.
Logged
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,072
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.94, S: 1.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2688 on: May 15, 2010, 08:48:21 pm »



Logged
Trends are real, and I f**king hate it
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,991
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2689 on: May 16, 2010, 03:36:19 am »
« Edited: May 17, 2010, 05:04:11 am by Antonio V »

The second one is just having the first column entirely red and the second entirely blue. Tongue

For the second one... I'll guess it is alternating blue/red/blue/red every time.
Logged
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,809
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2690 on: May 16, 2010, 02:02:33 pm »

Bitchfest ? Huh It seemed to me that we were discussing.

Sorry it seems like at various times in your posts you seemed to sound like I offended you in some manner.

Arguing against you is the same as bitching now ? I don't think I was using a particularly aggressive tone, I simply expressed a disagreement with what you said.
And while, as I said, I felt pretty annoyed by the way you started this debate, I always find worthwhile to discuss with you. Wink So if you are interested in answering to my few points, feel free to do.

Sorry man, I had very little sleep that day and couldn't think coherently.
I'm being serious.

But still it's interesting how some of the data matches up that I've collected, like William Bryan, populist extraordinaire, being the best candidate in the American West.
Logged
Trends are real, and I f**king hate it
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,991
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2691 on: May 17, 2010, 05:04:37 am »

Bitchfest ? Huh It seemed to me that we were discussing.

Sorry it seems like at various times in your posts you seemed to sound like I offended you in some manner.

Arguing against you is the same as bitching now ? I don't think I was using a particularly aggressive tone, I simply expressed a disagreement with what you said.
And while, as I said, I felt pretty annoyed by the way you started this debate, I always find worthwhile to discuss with you. Wink So if you are interested in answering to my few points, feel free to do.

Sorry man, I had very little sleep that day and couldn't think coherently.
I'm being serious.

But still it's interesting how some of the data matches up that I've collected, like William Bryan, populist extraordinaire, being the best candidate in the American West.

The map was quite interesting indeed.
Logged
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,072
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.94, S: 1.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2692 on: May 17, 2010, 06:28:57 pm »

The second one is just having the first column entirely red and the second entirely blue. Tongue

For the second one... I'll guess it is alternating blue/red/blue/red every time.
Bingo! Smiley
Logged
Trends are real, and I f**king hate it
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,991
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2693 on: May 18, 2010, 06:19:24 am »

The second one is just having the first column entirely red and the second entirely blue. Tongue

For the second one... I'll guess it is alternating blue/red/blue/red every time.
Bingo! Smiley

I knew because I tried several times. Tongue
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,388
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2694 on: May 22, 2010, 11:44:14 am »


I'm really curious about this one.
Logged
ComeAndTakeIt53
CalebR
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 58
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2695 on: May 29, 2010, 10:26:28 pm »
« Edited: May 29, 2010, 10:28:53 pm by CalebR »



Red=Republicans
Blue=Democrats
Logged
When Tables Deserve To Die
The Obamanation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,285
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2696 on: June 03, 2010, 09:05:06 pm »


Well, MS/AL stick out for some reason.

Do MS/AL have something to do with 1968, and NH something to do with 2000?

You're correct with 2000, but not 1968. You're on the right track though.

The red and green ones all went for Gore in 2000 (or were lost by Bush in 2000, depending on how you want to look at it), so that's a starting point.

THat is correct, and indeed, that is the starting point to figuring out what my map means.
[/quote]

The map is a comparrison between the elections of 1960 and 2000.

Green: Nixon/Gore
Red: Kennedy/Gore
Gray: Kennedy/Bush
Blue: Nixon/Bush
Yellow: Unpledged/Bush
Logged
Psychic Octopus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,958
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2697 on: June 03, 2010, 09:11:22 pm »

Welcome to the forum, Obamanation.
Logged
When Tables Deserve To Die
The Obamanation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,285
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2698 on: June 03, 2010, 09:13:42 pm »

Thank you. I've been lurking this place for a while and I thought I'd sign up.
Logged
Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey
hantheguitarman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,025


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2699 on: June 03, 2010, 09:20:01 pm »


Well, MS/AL stick out for some reason.

Do MS/AL have something to do with 1968, and NH something to do with 2000?

You're correct with 2000, but not 1968. You're on the right track though.

The red and green ones all went for Gore in 2000 (or were lost by Bush in 2000, depending on how you want to look at it), so that's a starting point.

THat is correct, and indeed, that is the starting point to figuring out what my map means.

The map is a comparrison between the elections of 1960 and 2000.

Green: Nixon/Gore
Red: Kennedy/Gore
Gray: Kennedy/Bush
Blue: Nixon/Bush
Yellow: Unpledged/Bush
[/quote]

BAM you got it! Welcome to the forum! Cheesy
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 103 104 105 106 107 [108] 109 110 111 112 113 ... 239 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC