Talk:1852: Election Map

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 08:34, 20 June 2017 by (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

Is that Georgia's 6th district? Homusubi (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Yup. See map here. It looks a little squished, but that's probably to create the angled effect of the screen. AxleHelios (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks like it. That looks like the results from the recent (April) Special Election. There are one or two counties that aren't accurate (colored blue here that went red and vice versa), but I estimate a 99.9% chance that this is the 6th. Here are the election results. OldCorps (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
It's also supposed to be live coverage, so it might vary from the final results (ie, some are just projections). They seem fairly close ones too... SS07A was 56/43, AP01C was 53/46; AP14 was 51/48; SS12, AP09a and Blackwell 01 was 50/49 (albeit Blackwell swung red and the others swung blue)... there are probably more places colored wrong, but I've made my point and I'm too lazy to continue looking. 18:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
(EDIT) Sorry, they were all red. And I think that includes ALL of the districts I mentioned Oh, and Sewell Mill 03 and JC08 also turned red. Perhaps the Democrats were a bit too optimistic when calling the projections? 18:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it worth a mention that Randall came out as a strong Democrat in the comics last October, and thus, there's a secondary hidden meaning that the red districts are moving "away" from Cueball? Seebert (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

That is probably just a coincidence.Mulan15262 (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I had that thought also, that the red districts/states/whatevers are figuratively moving away from the Dem's desired look for the country and the blues are moving toward it. But more than likely it's just a coincidence between Red/Blue Shifts and the colors associated with the political parties. The title text regarding the Green Party lends itself to the coincidence argument more than a pre-planned correlation. OldCorps (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
In what way does endorsing one candidate over the other make him a "strong" Democrat? He could be a weak Democrat. Or anti-Republican. Or just anti-Trump. Or just pro-Hillary. You're drawing an interesting conclusion from just the October comic. 08:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It really seems more like the red is in the northwest and the blue is in the southeast. It's almost symmetric. In fact, if you tilt your head to the right, it almost looks like a blue flare dress with a blood splatter on the left side. ...Yeah, I suppose that was a bit morbid. 18:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

While the pure physics explanation is good and probably right, given Randall's background, I'd point out that there's an alternate explanation: that's a Doppler weather RADAR storm-relative velocity product, and the proximity of approaching and receding winds in certain patterns is an indicator of certain types of severe weather. Randall missed out on the opportunity to make a "political hook echo" joke. 19:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope. First I thought also about a weather report. But it shows the color green! This doesn't fit to the title text.--Dgbrt (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Which party is red and which is green? Sorry, I'm not from thé U.S. and don't know. 20:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

D is blue and R is red. This should be mentioned at the explanation.--Dgbrt (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Dgbrt and I had a back and forth, where we started with the text, If the Green Party won, its regions would likely be colored green, which would not work for Cueball's Doppler effect analysis.. I noted "Greenshift doesn't implicitly break Dopper analysis, it just implies a great magnitude of shift. And a blueshift isn't necessarily a shift *TO* blue, merely TOWARDS blue (and Green)" and he replied "There is no greenshift in physics. It's either red (longer wavelength) or blue (shorter wavelength). This means when red appears as green it is blueshiftet." I don't quite see Dbrt's point with respect to the text, which now claims which would not fit to Cueball's Doppler effect analysis. Yes, we only talk about redshift and blueshift in physics, but those shifts don't give us a map with red and blue districts (or stars). They give us light that shifts slightly toward the red or slightly toward the blue (and toward the green). So it's not quite clear how to map red/blue districts to redshift/blueshift. But either way, green is not a problem -- it's not that it would "not work" or "not fit" as Dgbrt keeps editing the article to claim. It just would mean some districts were a lot more blue (or were green). Cueball could simply say "The green regions are approaching us REALLY FAST." Can someone justify Dgbrt's edits here? JohnHawkinson (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I am a physicist and in physics there is only redshift/blueshift used as a term for a shift to longer/shorter wavelengths. Most data is obtained beyond visible light and pictures are artificial enhanced. And the colors only represent the speed in respect to us. Red->away from us, white->no motion, and blue->object comes closer. All observations can be done without any color, only the spectral lines are analyzed. Red/blue just indicates the direction of the shift - forward/backward. No further directions are possible.--Dgbrt (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I study astronomy and I confirm that red always represents maximum redshift and blue maximum blueshift (by maximum I mean maximum seen in that pecific observation). However, green and yellow are sometimes used to represent no or little motion. So green could match Cueball explanation, but only if it was near the center. However, the term "greenshift" never appears. 22:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is no such term as "greenshift" in physics. But in the xkcd comic universe where red and blue represent redshift and blueshift, we are faced with the possibility of green. This implies it would be "greenshift," despite the term not existing. But whether we call it greenshift or not, that's not really the point: my point, which Dgbrt seems to disagree with, is that presence of green (whether it is called "greenshift" or "stronger blueshift") is not an inherent problem to Cueball's Doppler analysis. Or if it is, please explain why that's so? JohnHawkinson (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)