Mapas eleitorais e potenciais
Na The New Republic:
One thing that this map makes clear is that pretty much the single most important factor in this race has been Hillary Clinton’s astonishing weakness in the northwestern quadrant of the country. If you draw a line from Monterey, California, eastward to (approximately) Evansville, Indiana, and then north to Canada, you have an enormous chunk of the country in which there’s very little red. So little, in fact, that Obama’s delegate margins in these states have put the race essentially out of reach: Obama’s net gain of 24 delegates from Minnesota exceeds Clinton’s net gain from New Jersey (11) and Pennsylvania (12), even though those two states have about three and a half times the total number of delegates as Minnesota does.
you have a state that is made up almost exclusively of Clinton’s voters. But there’s a deeper historical explanation that we have to apply as well — one nicely illustrated by the origins of West Virginia itself.
During the 18th and 19th centuries, in the middle Atlantic and particularly in the Southern states, there was a long-standing cleavage between the coastal and ‘piedmont’ regions on the one hand and the upcountry areas to the west on the other. It’s really the coastal lowlands and the Appalachian districts. On the other side of the Appalachian mountain range the pattern is flipped, with the Appalachians in the east and the lowlands in the west.
These regions were settled disproportionately by Scots-Irish immigrants who pushed into the hill country to the west in part because that’s where the affordable land was but also because they wanted to get away from the more stratified and inegalitarian society of the east which was built by English settlers and their African slaves. Crucially, slavery never really took root in these areas. And this is why during the Civil War, Unionism (as in support for the federal union and opposition to the treason of secession) ran strong through the Appalachian upcountry, even into Deep South states like Alabama and Mississippi.
E, para terminar, uma série de mapas, na Daily Kos, com as porcentagens proporcionais por cor, quanto mais azul, mais favorável ao Obama, quanto mais vermelho, mais favorável para Clinton:
Este de cima é para o voto popular, aqui em baixo, de acordo com delegados:
Para quem curte, como é o meu caso, este bombardeio de dados e estatísticas, vale visitar o sáite. É da onde saiu o mapa que a New Republic colocou na matéria deles, e tem um bocado de referências. A primeira que eu colocaria, é que dá um panorama legal do potencial do Obama na geral.
Quanto mais vermelho o estado, maior a rejeição da candidatura do Obama, e quanto mais azul, maior a rejeição da Hillary. Estados mais bem distribuidos, certamente tem mais facilidade em continuar votando com os democratas, não importa o fato do Obama ser o candidato. Estados mais azuis, devem beneficiar diretamente o Obama; e estados vermelhos podem ser os que vão decidir a eleição para um lado ou para o outro, conforme os democratas destas regiões decidirem votar.