Unfortunately I have to tell you it's meaningless, for the following reasons:
(1) Bush is not running for re-election. He's ineligible and likely unelectable.
(2) Elections are not won on how popular the incumbent is, but rather on which candidate is the least unpopular. Without a Democrat to compare Bush to, this really doesn't mean much, re: change.
(3) The map doesn't break down by Congressional districts, which is where the election will actually be fought. In reality, only about thirty to forty Congressional races are expected to be competitive, with as many as a hundred entirely uncontested. The Democrats would have to take over two-thirds of the "contested" races in the House, and pretty much run the entire table in the Senate, to gain control of Congress, and impeachment-sized majorities are out of the question.
Clearly this is a map of population density. The most densly populated regions are more darkly blue, and the pink states are those which have a very low occurance of urban centers.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-01 03:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-01 03:31 am (UTC)(1) Bush is not running for re-election. He's ineligible and likely unelectable.
(2) Elections are not won on how popular the incumbent is, but rather on which candidate is the least unpopular. Without a Democrat to compare Bush to, this really doesn't mean much, re: change.
(3) The map doesn't break down by Congressional districts, which is where the election will actually be fought. In reality, only about thirty to forty Congressional races are expected to be competitive, with as many as a hundred entirely uncontested. The Democrats would have to take over two-thirds of the "contested" races in the House, and pretty much run the entire table in the Senate, to gain control of Congress, and impeachment-sized majorities are out of the question.
In that light, the map's empty data.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-01 04:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-01 09:53 am (UTC)