These are some of the best election maps I’ve seen. They demonstrate a very strong relationship in the 2004 Presidential election, and I’d love to hear some insight:
Why is population density so clearly related to political affiliation?
Should we be surprised that progressive politics are so highly related to economic progress? What can we learn from that?
Why are such large parts of the population voting against their financial self-interests? Wealthy cities and the major financial centers are voting against the party that will lower their capital gains and dividend taxes. Financially troubled states are voting against the party that will provide national health care and invest in their children’s educations.
Is morality really the question? Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate of any of the 50 states. And Texas has the highest. Are words more important than action? How is it that speaking softly and doing the right thing can be painted so badly?
Finally, how is it that the kindness, thoughtfulness, hard work, and generosity of the Democratic Party can be portayed as weakness? How is it that the Republican Party with those same qualities is portrayed as heartless? Is it still about cowboys vs. indians, suits vs. hippies, us vs. them? Has anyone noticed that we’re on the same team and there are plenty of real bad guys out there?
Dan Von Kohorn 
>For me the divisions in the nation and beyond correlate to complexity. Progressives see the world for the complex place that it is. Living in the city is a constant reminder of this. People in the exurbs can pretend that the world is simple.