>>>>But not when you look at a map scaled by population. This site has some interesting maps:
>>>>
>>>>http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/
>>>>
>>>
>>>My reaction - given how hard a time Steve Kornacki had with election maps last week, I think MSNBC first needs to improve their map systems before they handle a cartogram. :)
>>
>>What does the link I posted have to do with MSNBC?
>>
>>Tamar
>
>
>I was being facetious. MSNBC had a rough night. Poor Rachel Maddow had to be corrected by Chris Matthews, and Kornacki's map kept malfunctioning. And then there was a ton of bad analysis overall, like the strong implication that voting for Johnson/Stein cost HRC the election. The WSJ just did some analysis and reported that HRC would have needed 70% of the third party vote in states like PA, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, etc. There's absolutely no evidence to support that, despite the whining from Rachel Maddow that those who vote 3rd party don't care who wins.
>
>But to answer your question,my reply had about as much to do with the link, as a cartogram has to do with who won the election.

The cartogram has nothing to do with who won, but it has a lot to do with whether it was a landslide. If you look at the standard red-blue map, it looks like the country is a wide swatch of red, with little blue islands on the coast. But when you correct for population, you see the reality that the country is pretty evenly divided, which is what the popular vote says.

Tamar