Red and Blue

I just want to share some interesting maps of the election results I ran across today.

This one has red and blue colored by county, rather than by state. It dramatically shows how much the red/blue divide is a rural/urban one — the map is overwhelmingly red even though the gap in the popular vote was just a few million. Ole Eichhorn also compares it to a similar display of the 2000 results.

This one shades each state somewhere on the Red-Blue continuum, depending on the percentage of the popular vote. It’s a visible reminder that there are people who supported both candidates in every state of the union.

***

I’m officially looking for a new job. While I still think there’s a need for dedicated career civil servants to provide a continuity of knowledge across administrations, I don’t think I have the temperament to do it for another 4 years. If any of my readers have suggestions for places to look, I’d love to hear them.

***

Jimbo commented that fillibustering isn’t an effective legislative strategy. I disagree — I think we’d be a lot worse off now than we are if the Dems hadn’t held the line in the Senate against the excesses of the Republicans in the House. And I don’t think the public ever really holds the minority accountable for lack of action. But it’s certainly not enough to stand against things — we need to say what we’re for as well.

And we need to pay more attention to local and state politics. The Hot Flash Report provides a nice summary of how the Christian Right started in the 1980s by getting their people to turn out for school board races, and built a base that has carried them forward to today. The closest Democratic equivalent is unions, which are getting weaker and weaker by the year.

One Response to “Red and Blue”

  1. Josh Ferguson Says:

    A comment on filibustering…. Each house, constitutionally, has the right to set its own rules. The Senate chose to include a rule that allows a Senator to have unlimited time to speak and that that Senator can turn the time over to whomever they want which is where the fillibuster comes from. What I have a problem with is when a Senate rule creates a situation that is unconstitutional. Specifically, the constitution requires a simple majority vote to approve a judge. The fillibuster effectively changes that to a 2/3 majority. There’s no way that a Senate rule of operation should supersede the Constitution.

Leave a Reply


× 3 = three