This is less a major post on the statistical implications of the Democratic primary in 2008 than it is a short presentation on a rather nice infographic I made of it back at the time that I wanted to put on this website. The color of the district is based on the percentage of the vote won by each candidate, with their colors stated rather clearly on the top. The little map in the top corner is who won each state (and by what margin), while the main map is the district level picture. It's rather self explanatory, I'd think. The three all-color states (Nebraska, Alaska, and North Dakota) weren't just incredibly heterogeneous -- I was just unable to track down district by district data for those three, and when I called their elections department they said they didn't keep it available, so I just improvised without making things up.

Also, the white districts are districts where (evidently) nobody voted or the votes were lost. Gray districts are districts in which Hillary and Obama were exactly tied. The map took me less time than you would probably expect, but it still was rather time consuming, and unfortunately I accidentally deleted the large PSD. So, I only have this gif, and can never edit anything. It's a little annoying. Whatever, though. Pretty nice map. Some things of note that I noticed in the making of it.

• Obama's bad performance in Appalachia was more profound than any of Hillary's bad perfromances in other regions.
• South Dakota, absent any informaton from North Dakota, seems to have been a general trend breaker.
• John Edwards only won one district in his home state. That's both hilarious and pathetic. Great work, John.

Anyhow, here's the map. Click on it for a larger version.