Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2017, 12:00:39 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Torie)
| | |-+  2000 vs 2004: what result do you like better?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: (skip)
2000   -5 (22.7%)
2004   -17 (77.3%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 22

Author Topic: 2000 vs 2004: what result do you like better?  (Read 203 times)
DPKdebator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 729
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: 2.26

View Profile
« on: October 10, 2017, 08:37:58 pm »
Ignore

The 2000 and 2004 electoral maps might look very similar, but also have their differences. Which one do you think looks more aesthetically pleasing (not just at the state level, but counties/etc.)?
Logged

Political Matrix score: Economic +2.58, Social +2.26

Political Typology Quiz: Young Outsider

Political Compass score: Economic Left/Right .13, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian .82

Political Spectrum score: Right 2.27, Libertarian 2.31

"Every child in America should be able to play outside without fear." - President Donald J. Trump
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7220


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2017, 08:38:21 pm »
Ignore

2004 easily as it actually looks like a jigsaw puzzle.
Logged

Favorite Politicians from the last 50 years:




Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
SamTilden2020
Full Member
***
Posts: 101


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2017, 08:41:35 pm »
Ignore

'04.One of the few maps nowadays to not have a clunky Red spike between AZ and TX.
Logged

Political Genius from Somewhere

Long live the true 19th president, Mr. Samuel Jones Tilden!

bagelman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2472
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2017, 09:40:16 pm »
Ignore

'04 easily, aside from the map (which looks somewhat better), it didn't have the entire election decided upon a couple hundred votes in FL.
Logged

Solid4096
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 338


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 10, 2017, 09:53:30 pm »
Ignore

2004, although IA looks like a weird visual out-liar.
Logged

I always go by a strict no tossup policy when making predictions.

#RepealThe2nd
#BanAllGuns

#PalestiniansArePeopleToo
#SupportBDS
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 662


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2017, 01:11:10 pm »
Ignore

2004 for the reasons people mention, though it would have been cool if Bush could pick off one state in each of Kerry's areas - NH in the Northeast, Wisconsin in the west, and Oregon in the west.
Logged
Skill and Chance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3317
View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2017, 02:15:14 pm »
Ignore

2004.  It is easily the most aesthetically pleasing map since 1940.

For the 20th century, going purely on aesthetics:

1. 1904
2. 1916
3. 1940
4. 2004
5. 1924

Regionalism leads to much more visually appealing maps than the present cities/suburbs/rural divide, so I don't think we will see something as attractive looking as 2004 for quite some time.  Maybe a Dem winning by 5ish in the 2030's?



But this map gets very ugly very quickly if any New England states go for the Republican.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines