United States

Yes.

Nice. You've seen this, I presume:

http://idisk.mac.com/glwebb-public/new_map.jpg

Then there's this:

http://www.citypages.com/databank/25/1248/article12626.asp

Yes, saw the Jesusland while I was doing this one. I liked Mena's Canada 2.0, too:

http://mena.typepad.com/dollarshort/2004/11/canada_20.html

Two more takes, links courtesy of KF:

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/11/03/purple_haze.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

One more:

http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ervdb/JAVA/election2004/

While these more nuanced versions are interesting to political scientists and armchair pundits, they don't make much difference where it counts: in determining who wins the Electoral College votes, state-by-state.

In retrospect perhaps not -- but surely it's that "nuanced" version of information about voting patterns that allows parties to target money and energy to the places where they can get the most bang for their buck, yes? I mean, it's true that as a unit it's a state, not a county or a precinct that matters. But it's the precincts that are the smallest units of final data on who voted for whom. And unlike with polls, there's no reporting bias.

So, I guess I'd say that if by "political scientists" you include Karl Rove's profession, then you're right.

You’re right of course Bill. I was reacting more to the idea that the shades of purple somehow take the edge off Tuesday’s result.

Well on that one you're quite right -- except maybe insofar as it should remind us not to cede all future political contests, large and small, in those regions. OK, so that doesn't take the edge off so much as it tells us what we ought to do once our wounds have been bound up...

It’s the inverse MeFi! You’re right... No, you’re right!

Electoral maps as exploding marshmallows:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/