Incredibly divided nation in a map

17 Comments

• Victor — November 9, 2012 at 5:14 am

  I think that this image is supposed to be printed in colors…
  • Wasay — December 21, 2012 at 10:42 am

    You should double check on that.
• Al — November 9, 2012 at 5:16 am

  Which great, proud pillar of journalism produced this?

  There’s a second lesser laugh in the fact that even if they had printed it properly in colour, they had two separate ranges with a colour scale – candidate, and labels for small states. Don’t know how that could have worked even with colour ink.
  • Victor — November 9, 2012 at 6:28 am

    A quick google search gave an answer with a bonus: a colour picture!

    It is WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324439804578103470239517336.html
    • Al — November 9, 2012 at 8:50 am

      Hahahaa it’s coming up as ‘Exclusive subscriber content’!

      You can share the black and white version for free online, but if you want your colour-coded map in colour, that kind of decadent extravagance is going to cost you.
  • Mike Stucka — November 9, 2012 at 6:45 am

    Wall Street Journal. And to Jamie Bull’s point, the “spokestotum” appears to still be there online.
• robu — November 9, 2012 at 5:25 am

  Well, if you look closely, all of the states are separated from each other.
• Jamie Bull — November 9, 2012 at 5:40 am

  Brilliant. Also, what’s a “spokestotum”?
• Jason Young — November 9, 2012 at 6:39 am

  There are fifty, FIFTY! different distinct entities on that map. I just don’t know how any President can unite them. Add one more, and things will just collapse in chaos.

  What? Puerto Rico what?
• mkinde — November 9, 2012 at 7:19 am

  Kind if encouraging, actually. Maybe we aren’t so divided after all!
• Raphael — November 9, 2012 at 7:56 am

  Are you sure it’s not irony?
  • Nate — November 9, 2012 at 9:56 am

    It is an opinion piece. You may be on to something. Hard to tell with no context at all. This was my guess as well.
• Dominic — November 9, 2012 at 10:18 pm

  I also preferred that Obama would dismiss after the election, but bad luck. People have had to re-think.
• Joe — November 10, 2012 at 6:44 am

  By being so incredibly one sided, the WSJ just feeds the division they’re bemoaning with this piece of terrible writing.
• Jørgen — November 11, 2012 at 12:07 pm

  Even with color, I find it hard to see how a map of winner by state would show whether the nation is divided or not. Wouldn’t it be better to have a chart with votes by gender, “race”, income group, or something like that?

  In the chartsnthings blog, I found a map (from the 1904 election) that truly shows a divided nation:

  http://chartsnthings.tumblr.com/post/35147782890/nytgraphics-theodore-roosevelt-r-defeats
• Matias — November 12, 2012 at 4:36 pm

  It happened to me a couple of times, specially when some editor rushed to finish the edition and forgot to tell me that the graphic was in a bw page.
• Chrissy Tan — December 22, 2012 at 6:59 pm

  Too many pieces, this jig-saw puzzle looks difficult to assemble together