Some interesting maps for you to consider - The Orange Mane

Pat Bowlen · 11-15-2004, 12:40 AM

Thoughts?

Rohirrim · 11-15-2004, 07:14 AM

Man, somebody could do a thesis on that one.

Mile High Shack · 11-15-2004, 07:17 AM

yeah we shore do thank ee for younins mighty powerful noledge to help us dum hicks out

gee golly, wut wood we'ins do within' out ya'all.

orangeatheist · 11-15-2004, 11:24 AM

And here's the 1992 Election results map:

What are you trying to imply, "Bowlen"?

mosca · 11-15-2004, 11:43 AM

neato.

Spider · 11-15-2004, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

And here's the 1992 Election results map:

What are you trying to imply, "Bowlen"?

Clinton was bigger then a Rock star

W*GS · 11-15-2004, 11:57 AM

The problem with these sorts of maps is that the information is presented in a very poor manner - a bigger area on the map doesn't mean very much. Since states west of the Mississippi tend to be larger in area than those east of it, and their political subdivisions tend to be larger, one gets a very distorted view of the numbers. Some big county in Wyoming, for example, looks much more important because of its area (despite its tiny population) than one in (say) Connecticut, which has 10x the people.

Geographic maps are generally very poor means to communicate numbers.

Spider · 11-15-2004, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

The problem with these sorts of maps is that the information is presented in a very poor manner - a bigger area on the map doesn't mean very much. Since states west of the Mississippi tend to be larger in area than those east of it, and their political subdivisions tend to be larger, one gets a very distorted view of the numbers. Some big county in Wyoming, for example, looks much more important because of its area (despite its tiny population) than one in (say) Connecticut, which has 10x the people.

Geographic maps are generally very poor means to communicate numbers.

Agreed ........

Arkie · 11-15-2004, 02:24 PM

Check out these maps. It's like we were the complete opposite 50 years ago. All the republican states are in the north and they are blue.

1952

1956

1960

Mile High Shack · 11-15-2004, 02:50 PM

the 50's and 60's southern democrat is vastly different than the "new" democrat in the north

orangeatheist · 11-15-2004, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

the 50's and 60's southern democrat is vastly different than the "new" democrat in the north

Ah! True! But we all know that "Bowlen" was trying to imply that the same slave-owning mentality of yore voted for Bush two weeks ago.

Billy Clyde Puckett · 11-15-2004, 06:18 PM

So Pat, Are you playing the race card?

Kaylore · 11-15-2004, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat Bowlen

Thoughts?

Here is my thought.

Pat Bowlen · 11-15-2004, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Guy

So Pat, Are you playing the race card?

Think harder.

patteeu · 11-15-2004, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat Bowlen

Thoughts?

I like the color scheme in the map on the left better than that in the one on the right. I think it's the brown that turns me off. Couldn't they have used more vibrant colors in that one? I also think we could do without the rivers on the right map, they make it marginally harder to identify the geopolitical boundaries IMO. And finally, the labels on the left map are easier to read than those on the right map. Overall, I'd say the left map is far superior.

What's your opinion, Pat?

Crushaholic · 11-15-2004, 09:30 PM

This map is actually funny...

Western Socialist Bloc and the Nanny States of America...

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 11-15-2004, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

And here's the 1992 Election results map:

What are you trying to imply, "Bowlen"?

Ah, the good old days (before the GOP elevated election fraud to a science.)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 11-15-2004, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat Bowlen

Thoughts?

Coincidence?

I think not.

Pat Bowlen · 11-15-2004, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

What's your opinion, Pat?

In my opinion you need to try harder to be funnier. That post was awful.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 11-16-2004, 12:25 AM

More interesting maps...

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 11-16-2004, 12:27 AM

More red state morals

Percent Low Birth-weight Babies (National Rank)

41 Georgia 8.8
41 Arkansas 8.8
43 North Carolina 8.9
44 Maryland 9.0
45 Tennessee 9.2
46 Delaware 9.3
47 Alabama 9.6
47 South Carolina 9.6
49 Louisiana 10.4
50 (worst) Mississippi 10.7

Infant mortality rate

41 Arkansas 8.3
42 North Carolina 8.5
43 Georgia 8.6
44 Tennessee 8.7
45 North Dakota 8.8
46 South Carolina 8.9
47 Alabama 9.4
48 Louisiana 9.8
49 Mississippi 10.5
50 (worst) Delaware 10.7

Teen birth rate

41 Oklahoma 31
42 Alabama 32
42 Arkansas 32
42 South Carolina 32
45 Louisiana 33
45 Georgia 33
47 Arizona 37
48 New Mexico 38
49 (worst) Mississippi 39
49 (worst) Texas 39

Percent of teens who are high school dropouts

43 Texas 12
43 Kentucky 12
43 New Mexico 12
43 Florida 12
43 Louisiana 12
48 Colorado 13
49 Nevada 14
50 (worst) Arizona 16

Overall Child Health Rank

40 Georgia 40
41 North Carolina 41
42 West Virginia 42
43 Tennessee 43
44 Arkansas 44
45 Arizona 45
46 South Carolina 46
47 Alabama 47
48 New Mexico 48
49 Louisiana 49
50 (worst) Mississippi 50

http://www.aecf.org/cgi-bin/kc.cgi?action=newranking

mosca · 11-16-2004, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

More red state morals

Percent Low Birth-weight Babies (National Rank)

Infant mortality rate

what a cheap shot waiting to happen. trying to say that the kerry states enjoy a moral superiority due to a lesser rate of lower birth-weight and lower infant mortality? LABF, nice demonstration of you being truly sick and deluded.

patteeu · 11-16-2004, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat Bowlen

In my opinion you need to try harder to be funnier. That post was awful.

The whole thread is awful, but I'm talking about your opinion of the two maps that you posted.

Arkie · 11-16-2004, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

More red state morals

Percent Low Birth-weight Babies (National Rank)

41 Georgia 8.8
41 Arkansas 8.8
43 North Carolina 8.9
44 Maryland 9.0
45 Tennessee 9.2
46 Delaware 9.3
47 Alabama 9.6
47 South Carolina 9.6
49 Louisiana 10.4
50 (worst) Mississippi 10.7

Infant mortality rate

41 Arkansas 8.3
42 North Carolina 8.5
43 Georgia 8.6
44 Tennessee 8.7
45 North Dakota 8.8
46 South Carolina 8.9
47 Alabama 9.4
48 Louisiana 9.8
49 Mississippi 10.5
50 (worst) Delaware 10.7

Teen birth rate

41 Oklahoma 31
42 Alabama 32
42 Arkansas 32
42 South Carolina 32
45 Louisiana 33
45 Georgia 33
47 Arizona 37
48 New Mexico 38
49 (worst) Mississippi 39
49 (worst) Texas 39

Percent of teens who are high school dropouts

43 Texas 12
43 Kentucky 12
43 New Mexico 12
43 Florida 12
43 Louisiana 12
48 Colorado 13
49 Nevada 14
50 (worst) Arizona 16

Overall Child Health Rank

40 Georgia 40
41 North Carolina 41
42 West Virginia 42
43 Tennessee 43
44 Arkansas 44
45 Arizona 45
46 South Carolina 46
47 Alabama 47
48 New Mexico 48
49 Louisiana 49
50 (worst) Mississippi 50

http://www.aecf.org/cgi-bin/kc.cgi?action=newranking

Those are the same states that used to vote Democrat. I think Arkansas has improved since Bill Clinton's 12 year governance. Mississippi and Arkansas were always fighting for that last place spot. I'm surprised that Delaware is on a couple of the lists. I thought they had excellent doctors and medical facilities in the Northeast.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 11-16-2004, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mosca

what a cheap shot waiting to happen.

To a willfully ignorant ostrich like you, the truth and the facts are always a cheap shot.

11-15-2004, 12:40 AM	#1
Pat Bowlen President/Chief Executive Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 2,691	Some interesting maps for you to consider Thoughts?

11-15-2004, 09:30 PM	#16
Crushaholic Armchair Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Topeka, KS Posts: 22,043	This map is actually funny... Western Socialist Bloc and the Nanny States of America... Last edited by Crushaholic; 07-31-2006 at 02:34 PM..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-15-2004, 07:14 AM	#2
Rohirrim Partisan Human Cannonball Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater Posts: 48,842	Man, somebody could do a thesis on that one.

11-15-2004, 07:17 AM	#3
Mile High Shack Ring of Famer Cock-a-doodle-do Join Date: May 2001 Location: Somewhere Posts: 17,010	yeah we shore do thank ee for younins mighty powerful noledge to help us dum hicks out gee golly, wut wood we'ins do within' out ya'all.

11-15-2004, 11:24 AM	#4
orangeatheist Champion of the Godless Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 3,012	And here's the 1992 Election results map: What are you trying to imply, "Bowlen"?

11-15-2004, 11:43 AM	#5
mosca grand pubah honest optimism Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,950 Adopt-a-Bronco: Bubby Brister	neato.

11-15-2004, 11:57 AM	#7
W*GS Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Earth Posts: 19,511	The problem with these sorts of maps is that the information is presented in a very poor manner - a bigger area on the map doesn't mean very much. Since states west of the Mississippi tend to be larger in area than those east of it, and their political subdivisions tend to be larger, one gets a very distorted view of the numbers. Some big county in Wyoming, for example, looks much more important because of its area (despite its tiny population) than one in (say) Connecticut, which has 10x the people. Geographic maps are generally very poor means to communicate numbers.

11-15-2004, 02:24 PM	#9
Arkie Ring of Famer Gggggrrrrrr rrrraaaahhh Arrrrhhhn. Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 9,082 Adopt-a-Bronco: Quinton Carter	Check out these maps. It's like we were the complete opposite 50 years ago. All the republican states are in the north and they are blue. 1952 1956 1960

11-15-2004, 02:50 PM	#10
Mile High Shack Ring of Famer Cock-a-doodle-do Join Date: May 2001 Location: Somewhere Posts: 17,010	the 50's and 60's southern democrat is vastly different than the "new" democrat in the north

11-15-2004, 06:18 PM	#12
Billy Clyde Puckett Billy=Semi Tough Big Guy Looking down on KC, SD and Oakland Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: between 5,000 and 10,000 feet elevation Posts: 12,665 Adopt-a-Bronco: John Elway	So Pat, Are you playing the race card?

11-16-2004, 12:25 AM	#20
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694	More interesting maps...

11-16-2004, 12:27 AM	#21
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694	More red state morals Percent Low Birth-weight Babies (National Rank) 41 Georgia 8.8 41 Arkansas 8.8 43 North Carolina 8.9 44 Maryland 9.0 45 Tennessee 9.2 46 Delaware 9.3 47 Alabama 9.6 47 South Carolina 9.6 49 Louisiana 10.4 50 (worst) Mississippi 10.7 Infant mortality rate 41 Arkansas 8.3 42 North Carolina 8.5 43 Georgia 8.6 44 Tennessee 8.7 45 North Dakota 8.8 46 South Carolina 8.9 47 Alabama 9.4 48 Louisiana 9.8 49 Mississippi 10.5 50 (worst) Delaware 10.7 Teen birth rate 41 Oklahoma 31 42 Alabama 32 42 Arkansas 32 42 South Carolina 32 45 Louisiana 33 45 Georgia 33 47 Arizona 37 48 New Mexico 38 49 (worst) Mississippi 39 49 (worst) Texas 39 Percent of teens who are high school dropouts 43 Texas 12 43 Kentucky 12 43 New Mexico 12 43 Florida 12 43 Louisiana 12 48 Colorado 13 49 Nevada 14 50 (worst) Arizona 16 Overall Child Health Rank 40 Georgia 40 41 North Carolina 41 42 West Virginia 42 43 Tennessee 43 44 Arkansas 44 45 Arizona 45 46 South Carolina 46 47 Alabama 47 48 New Mexico 48 49 Louisiana 49 50 (worst) Mississippi 50 http://www.aecf.org/cgi-bin/kc.cgi?action=newranking