Trippy NYT election graphic on voting shifts

The New York Times is killing it with election-related infographics, and they're not even Flash-based!

This one sort of combines wind and voting. Readers in WA or CO may want to toke up before clicking.

(HT: Lena Groeger)

• [SamSam]

  Yup, not Flash-based at all — these are all the brainchild of Mike Bostock and his excellent d3 JavaScript visualization library.

  There is basically no need for Flash any more for anything.

  • [acerplatanoides]

    I don’t know. It’s nice to hard reboot sometimes. It’s good for that.

• [Maurice Reeves]

  The article states that the country shifted right, but I don’t think that that’s accurate at all.  I think, if anything, it shifted left, especially on social issues.  I contend that the only reason Romney won the primary at all (aside from his other opponents being completely unelectable) was because he was the most moderate of the bunch, but as he continued to shift right to pander to the harder elements in his party (including vocal support for “Rape is the will of God” Mourdock) moderates abandoned him and returned to Obama.  I mean, several more states approved gay marriage, two states completely legalized marijuana, more women were elected to office, and many of the Tea Party candidates in the House that were voted in two years ago are going home.  I think that if Romney had stuck to his guns and maintained his moderate stance, and spoke as a voice of reason, science, and compassion, he could have carried the nation.

  Remember, Bush won, in large part, because the “security moms” put him in.  Those women have abandoned the GOP over it’s continuing descent into something like an American Taliban.

  • [Mr. Customer]

    Nothing that ideologically complex is really implied, it all depends on where the chart sets the baseline. Comparing party votes between 2008 and 2012 will obviously show a rightward slant, as this election was much closer than that one. It would show a slight leftward slant if you compared versus 2010 (or 2004, 2000, etc.)

    Think of it as the delta-v for our ideological velocity.

• [theophrastvs]

  i suppose i’m somehow wrong to have expected a bit more blue dots (or *any*) along on (my beloved) west coast?  (the whole coast having supported Obama at least in terms of electoral college)  hnnn

  • [thaum]

    It’s about movement, not current state. If they still voted Obama, they won’t get a blue dot.

    • [theophrastvs]

       thankee, (i was wrong).   once liberal, still liberal:  red dot.

      • [wrybread]

        My understanding is that if once liberal, still liberal, it gets no dot at all. In other words the dots are plotting only voters who voted differently than they did in the last election.