Post random maps here

[12th Doctor]

For this map, gray does not denote a tie.

I would say states where candidates over performed in the 1912 election, including Debs.

[12th Doctor]

For this map, gray does not denote a tie.

I would say states where candidates over performed in the 1912 election, including Debs.

You're on the right track, but I wouldn't say 'over-performed'.

Well, it can't be underperformed because Debs did exceptionally well in all the grey states.  But the arangement of the Blue state in the south mean that....

Ohhhh... Taft is grey.

TR is Blue

Wilson is red and Debs is Green.  The map denotes where each finished dead last.

[12th Doctor]

For this map, gray does not denote a tie.

I would say states where candidates over performed in the 1912 election, including Debs.

You're on the right track, but I wouldn't say 'over-performed'.

Well, it can't be underperformed because Debs did exceptionally well in all the grey states.  But the arangement of the Blue state in the south mean that....

Ohhhh... Taft is grey.

TR is Blue

Wilson is red and Debs is Green.  The map denotes where each finished dead last.

Wait, no, that doesn't work at all, TR finished firsr in PA.  Everything else I said seems to match up, though

[12th Doctor]

For this map, gray does not denote a tie.

I would say states where candidates over performed in the 1912 election, including Debs.

You're on the right track, but I wouldn't say 'over-performed'.

Well, it can't be underperformed because Debs did exceptionally well in all the grey states. But the arangement of the Blue state in the south mean that....

Ohhhh... Taft is grey.

TR is Blue

Wilson is red and Debs is Green. The map denotes where each finished dead last.

Well you're close enough. 

The map shows who came third in each state.  The color arrangement is still the same, but gray is for Debs.

Note that Taft was bumped down to fourth in a few states, and wasn't even on the ballot in OK and SD.

Damn, well, at least I was in the right ballpark.

[12th Doctor]

U.S. in 2008 if the trends from 2000-2004 where continued in the same pattern but doubled from 2004-2008?

Nope.  Take a look at the electoral votes to get the decade.

My best guess would be that this is what 1996 would have looked like, had Perot recieved the same percentages he did in 1992.  Perot's inflated totals come off of the totals of the winner of each state.

[12th Doctor]

Red-300
Blue-238

Hint: It has to do with one of John Dibble's favorite business...

Those states that have outlawed smoking in public places are in blue, those that have not our in red

I really have no clue though...

eh, that's a good crack at it, but not it
The business I'm mentioning is a restaraunt chain...

Hardee's vs no Hardee's?

[12th Doctor]

Red-300
Blue-238

Hint: It has to do with one of John Dibble's favorite business...

Those states that have outlawed smoking in public places are in blue, those that have not our in red

I really have no clue though...

eh, that's a good crack at it, but not it
The business I'm mentioning is a restaraunt chain...

Smokey Bones/No Smokey Bones.

*Salivates*

We have one here in Erie.  Just ate there tonight.

[12th Doctor]

U.S. in 2008 if the trends from 2000-2004 where continued in the same pattern but doubled from 2004-2008?

Nope.  Take a look at the electoral votes to get the decade.

My best guess would be that this is what 1996 would have looked like, had Perot recieved the same percentages he did in 1992.  Perot's inflated totals come off of the totals of the winner of each state.

Good guess, but it only has to do with 1992.

Perot takes 5% of the winner of each state/CD in the 1992 election.

[12th Doctor]

Another combination of two elections.  You just have to guess which ones:

I'm guessing the this map is 1904 and 1932.

or

Now that I look at it closer, 1928 and 1932.

[12th Doctor]

Another combination of two elections.  You just have to guess which ones:

I'm guessing the this map is 1904 and 1932.

or

Now that I look at it closer, 1928 and 1932.

Correct on the second time.

BTW, I ran this on the Electoral Calculator.  Hoover loses, but by a less embarasing 292-239 

P.S. Winning Minnesota, Utah, Kentucky and Montana would put Hoover over the mark with 269-262

[12th Doctor]

But in 1928, he only gets 228 EVs.

Heh, true, I was using the 1932 numbers.

[12th Doctor]

How do you go back to 1824?

If you type the year number into the URL address, it takes you to a calculator for that year, but it's really messed up.

Not working for me