davef
Princess
I like them too.They tell you a lot more than the graphics that just show the final apportionment by state. (Here's the direct link to the map so you can see it all more clearly.)
See:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ionwidecountymapshadedbypercentagewon.svg.png
New York State is a perfect example. It went for Clinton by 18 points, I think, but look at the red in what we call the upstate areas. That's "rust belt" country, more like Ohio than like New York City or Long Island. What's the blue blob? Albany County, heavily minority, and also an old time Democratic machine that's been in power for over 100 years. Or, look at Florida. South east Florida, heavily Jewish and black and Hispanic, went Clinton, but the Cuban-American vote, very middle and upper class, and low turnout by blacks kept the margins for her too low. Along the all important I-4 corridor, looks like she got Orlando, which is heavily Puerto Rican, and Hillsborough, which is Tampa, with its large African American population, but the rest went red, especially the areas with big military bases and closer to "southern" states.
The operatives are drilling down into these numbers in order to understand precisely what went on. They know who voted now, in what precincts, of what party affiliation.
@Twilight,
I've only been there once so I may well be wrong, but don't the Cascades separate farming and ranching areas from more urban areas?
Just a general word about the electoral college. I don't like it myself, but it's here to stay according to virtually everyone I've ever heard discuss it, as it's part of the Constitution. To change it would require a 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress, plus the approval of the President, plus approval of 3/4 of the state legislatures. The smaller or less populous states and their representatives in Congress are never going to give up that much power.
The founders meant to insure that smaller states would not be overwhelmed by larger ones. That's why they set up a federal system.
Of course, as others have pointed out, everybody knows the rules going in, and all their planning is based on the Electoral College.
As to whether this is a "sweeping" victory or not, as Tomenable said, we have to look at the broader picture. This is the first time in a very long time that one party will have control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress. Add to that the fact that the vast majority of state legislatures and governors of states are also Republican. Even in terms of the electoral college it could turn out to be a massive victory, with Trump ultimately getting over 300 electoral votes.
However, the fact remains that this is a deeply divided country. Clinton did get slightly more of the popular vote in terms of percentages. Most importantly, those electoral college wins by state were also by the thinnest of margins in a lot of cases. Plus, if anyone thinks that Trump and the Republicans in the Congress are on the same page, they should think again. I honestly don't know what Trump believes in a lot of cases, but he was a Democrat until three years ago, so that should tell you something. He's no Paul Ryan.
I'm not a fan of a single party taking it all, I support a subset of policies and ideals from both political parties. And this may sound strange coming out of me, but since he was democratic a few years ago, he may find himself falling back to his old democratic ways every now and then; and with that in mind I'm a lot less worried about him being president.
And I'm less inclined to believe he's going to be a rehash of dubya.
