You know it is bad when even Wolf Blitzer, the man whose name I cannot say or even think in anything less than a shrill staccato scream with a Bavarian twist, can't inform me. I have been looking for a diagram which best captures the results of the Super Tuesday primaries and not been satisfied. Here's what I see so far, clickably of course, in terms of front page presentations:
- The New York Times has a simple bar graph on the front page of its web site. It does not include all races and one block is worth another block visually though percentage of the vote is included in the block. The internal table is more fantastic and lickable:
- CNN has a good layout of tables with neato Web 2.0 round corners but it is hard to get any sort of big picture. This may honestly express the complexity of the event but if I wanted complexity I would not be looking for graphical representations of information:
- Ben's favorite source, RealClearPolitics goes for the uni-table and creates something of a yawner and does not place the two parties side-by-side:
- The BBC has some interactive thing happening that looks about as hard to operate as a flight simulator and what is it with the colour choices? Give-up grey and baby poop?
- The Votemaster has a nice national map but it is meant to convey all primary and caucus results over time and those colour selections give me a cavity. The pop-up over each state is good but me thinks this is still not quite the thing:
Comments
Brother Iain - February 6, 2008 3:09 PM
Huckabee won in the Wrath-of-God-weather states.
Romney did well in states where men secretly have more than one wife.
I'll work up a pie chart if you like.
Alan - February 6, 2008 3:54 PM
Make sure you use a colour scheme that reminds me of a barfing bubble gum machine.
Alan - February 6, 2008 9:33 PM
Once upon a time, before web 2.0, I knew a place where if an icon design or other element of a design was lovely it was worthy of a lick of the screen. Just saying.
ry - February 6, 2008 10:05 PM
I know it was meant to be funny, but it wasn't(kinda like Chris Rock's latest concert movie), Master Brother Iain. Colorado and Massachusetts Mormon strongholds where one keeps more than one wife or something? Couldn't you, y'know, come up with a more innovative way of slamming Mormons or something? That was kinda lame, not to mention borderline bigoted(imo).
I still say that, since McCain is likely to be the Rep candidate, that the closest to winning ticket they can form is a McCain-THompson(well liked Southerner) slate, or McCain-Southern Govenor of choice slate. McCain can do well out West. He has a slom chance of winning California(slim, I'm not stupid. It's been a democrat holding for a long time, but that's more than anyone since Reagan has had). With the West and the South that should be enough Electors to win the WH.
Alan - February 6, 2008 10:07 PM
Your imo is boring, ry. Political correctness of the most tedious sort.
Brother Iain - February 7, 2008 12:51 AM
Who said anything about Mormons?
Hans - February 7, 2008 10:31 AM
How did we get ever get along without rounded corners on our computer graphics?
ry - February 11, 2008 2:57 PM
Gee, Al, so if I said the Minn candidate, who happens to be Moslem, won by carrying 'the turban wearing portions of his region', it wouldn't be bigoted at all? An, oh, come off it. The polygamy and Mormonism thing is such an over done and well done bit that you claim you couldn't possibly have intended to infer Mormonism, Master Brother Iain? You don'y lie well, do you?
Alan - February 11, 2008 3:34 PM
Four days for that come back?