Two maps, separated by 150 years show the same unmistakeable pattern. One map shows where cotton was produced in 1860. The other map shows the same states and indicates which counties Obama won there in 2008. The two maps are virtually identical.

The link between these two maps is not causal, but correlational; and the correlation is African Americans.

(click image to see larger version)

Schiff became known for his introverted and intense approach to his craft as well as his low-key delivery style, often employing a quiet, gruff tone that earned him the nickname “The Hoarse Whisperer” among many West Wing fans.

Here’s an excerpt from longer piece that will be published in Saturday’s Independent:

The night was pretty nice: Election night in New York City. On Eighth Avenue, from a block away, I heard a roar of a crowd the size and depth you hear in stadiums reserved for moments of historic relevance like World Cup overtime goals or World Series winning home runs or the fall of Max Schmelling from Joe Louis’ fists. I reached the digital screen in Times Square to see that California had fallen blue and the fat lady was singing. Along with that lady about a million people joined in, it seemed, singing arias of celebration, crying and laughing and shouting and hugging. Victory.

Read the whole thing. It’s worth it.

UPDATE: Here is a terrific montage of election night reporting from the networks as well as inspiring highlights from Obama’s victory speech from Hyde Park:

This is our moment. This is our time. To put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids. To restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace. To reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth that out of many we are one. that while we breathe we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubt from those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.

Now NBC’s Ana Maria Arumi plays with the numbers and comes up with some what-ifs that are kind of interesting.

What if you eliminated from the voting pool all voters under the age of 30?
If you do that, McCain narrowly wins Indiana and North Carolina.

What if there were no Latinos voting?
McCain gets both New Mexico and Indiana.

What if no African Americans voted?
McCain would have taken Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. In other words, that would have been enough to give us President-Elect McCain.

Of course, you could play the same game with other demographic groups: women, men, older white women, younger more affluent men, etc.

Interesting stuff.

“John McCain’s going to win North Carolina,” Graham said as he introduced McCain here today. “I’ll beat Michael Phelps in swimming before Barack Obama wins North Carolina. Don’t let me down because I can’t swim.”

Today, President-elect Obama was declared the winner in North Carolina.

Michael Phelps could not be reached for comment.

Democrats have won the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 presidential elections.

Democrats have won the presidency in 3 of the last 5 presidential elections.

Democrats have increased their popular vote total in 7 of the last 7 presidential elections (see the chart below), while Republicans have done so in just 3 elections, staying flat once, and dropping 3 times.

But a picture is always worth a thousand words and this graphic knocked me out (click to see larger version):

The New York Times has produced a unique map (above, click to see larger version) comparing voting patterns in the 2008 presidential election with those in 2004. In brief, those areas in blue indicate regions that voted more Democratic compared to last time; the areas in red indicate regions that voted more Republican.

Other than Arizona, only Arkansas and Tennessee moved more decidedly to the Republicans. East Texas, southtern Louisiana, northern Alabama, the Florida panhandle and a large swath in Appalachia also went redder than last time.

Draw your own conclusions.

Chief of Staff: I keep reading that Rahm Emanuel is the top guy. I have a hard time buying that, given the differences in tone and style between the two men. But then again, I didn’t like the other early pick, Tom Daschle — too wimpy. If I had to choose, I’d go with Emanuel. Other picks include John Podesta.

Attorney General: Remember when John Edwards had a lock on this position? Um, remember John Edwards? OK, maybe not. Janet Napolitano’s name is getting mentioned a lot now. She was an early supporter of Obama and she apparently wants the job. On the other hand, I’m also reading that she wants to run for McCain’s Senate seat in 2010 — in fact, early polling shows her leading by double-digits.

Secretary of State: Dick Lugar’s name gets tossed into the ring as well as John Kerry and Richard Holbrooke. Lugar worked with Obama, early on in the Senate, on loose nukes legislation and his confirmation hearings would be a breeze. Ditto Kerry although with Kerry you risk losing both Senators from Massachusetts on top of Biden (and Obama!) that’s a lot of reliable Democratic Senators to say goodbye to. Richard Holbrooke is a Clinton retread but has a pretty solid reputation.

Secretary of Defense: Lame duck Robert Gates may not be so lame after all. Keeping him around may give Obama the necessary cover to pull out of Iraq. Long shot, Lincolnesque, wildcard pick: John McCain.

Secretary of Treasury: Paul Volcker gets high marks from Democrats and Republicans alike, a quality that Obama values highly (except, apparently, in the case of Rahm Emanuel). Wildcard pick: Warren Buffet.

All the Rest: Who cares? All the other cabinet positions are career-killers. The only excitement would be in guessing who stays behind during each State of the Union address.

Bear in mind that I’m pulling this out of my you-know-what. The actual appointees will probably be entirely different. But I would bet Obama starts naming names sooner rather than later in order to send a message that he understands the gravity of the situation this country is in — and that he is ready to lead.

A crowd estimated at about 1,000 people celebrated in front of the White House Tuesday night after Barack Obama won the U.S. presidential election…Some people in the crowd at the White House chanted “O-bam-ma!” and “Whose house? Obama’s house!” The report said strangers embraced one another and people danced on bus shelters.

From CNN:

At least 1,000 people gathered on Washington’s Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House late Tuesday night, shouting “Obama! Obama!” and “Yes we can!” Uniformed Secret Service officers were overheard, saying they’d never seen anything like it.**

Last night, only Fox News had video of this. It was pretty wild with Brit Hume reporting that the Secret Service detail at the gates were grinning at the crowd, taking cellphone pictures while the crowd totally freaked out in joy. It was mostly a young crowd. Just before Fox cut away from the scene, the camera panned over a celebrant who hoisted a sign that read “Evict Bush Now!” Huffed Hume (paraphrasing), “Now, now, there’ll be plenty of time for Bush to pack up his stuff and leave…”

**Probably the last time the White House saw a demonstration of joy like this was the night Harry Truman returned to the White House after the campaign of 1948 — you know, “Dewey beats Truman.”

Just a quick reminder that I’ve added a tab along the top of the page that contains a widget from MSNBC on election results. It won’t start updating until polls begin to close on Tuesday evening, but use it after that.

UPDATE: I’ve added TPM’s cool elections results map to the page:

Starting at 6 PM Eastern the map will start streaming live election results for the presidential, Senate and House races. You can either hover over a state or district to see the results or click on the state or district to see results down to the county level. One thing. You don’t need to refresh the site to get new results from the map. It’s all automatic. So do not refresh the whole site. You don’t need to to get the latest results from the map.

If you’re a political junkie like me and you want results as they happen and not wait for the networks and not go skipping around the ‘Net looking for results, come back here and check it out.

Geauxbama!

The desperate Wingosphere has latched on to an out of context quote by Barack Obama “discovered” in an interview posted online since January by the San Francisco Chronicle, spreading what no doubt will be a very effective last minute fear tactic designed to influence any vacillating members of the low-info, Appalachian coal mining, don’t-need-much-of-an-excuse-to-vote-against-the-black-guy voters in Southern Ohio and Western PA and VA.  (Hidden in plain sight.)

MoveOn.org was livid with Obama because of his stance on coal.  This lie that Obama is anti-coal is so Rovian you almost have to admire the last minute smear attack on what was an Obama weakness that only in Appalachia is a strength.  Genius or dumb luck, this one is really something else.  If there was more time, it’s a backfire issue that would reveal Obama at his reaching-over-the-aisle best.  Now it’s just a rhetorical hand grenade.

I remember last spring when coal, specifically Obama’s flip-flops on liquefied coal technology became a big frickin’ deal to a lot of my John Edwards supporting friends in Blogtopia.  So stark the differences between Obama and Edwards, many of the enviro-bloggers were convinced that Edwards would win the primary on this issue alone.  No really, especially since one of Obama’s co-sponsors on the bill promoting the use of the dirtiest of all fossil fuels as a transportation gasoline substitute — guaranteed to make global warming worst, not better — was Larry “Wide-Stance” Craig.

That’s right, Obama is so opposed to the coal industry, wants to funnel huge amounts of tax dollars to them.  Obama supports of federal money for coal as an “alternative fuel.”

Prodded by intense lobbying from the coal industry,
lawmakers from coal states are proposing that taxpayers guarantee
billions of dollars in construction loans for coal-to-liquid production
plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big
government purchases for the next 25 years¦
Among the proposed inducements winding through House and Senate
committees: loan guarantees for six to 10 major coal-to-liquid plants,
each likely to cost at least $3 billion; a tax credit of 51 cents for
every gallon of coal-based fuel sold through 2020; automatic subsidies
if oil prices drop below $40 a barrel; and permission for the Air Force
to sign 25-year contracts for almost a billion gallons a year of
coal-based jet fuel.

I understand how Sarah Palin and her supporters could miss this obscure bit of news, buried on the Front Page of the New York Times.  They don’t read and they don’t care.

The Friends of the Earth environmental group endorsed John Edwards, and not Obama or Clinton in no small part because of this coal thing.

Q:   What is your position on Coal to
Liquid technology?   One Democratic presidential candidate cosponsored
a bill to provide taxpayer subsidies for this technology.  Edwards
opposes CtL.  What does using, let alone subsidizing, CtL really mean
for our environment?A:   Liquid coal is a bad idea for our
country and planet. It contributes twice the amount of carbon emissions
to our atmosphere that petroleum does, consuming an inordinate amount
of water per unit of fuel, and requiring the expansion of ecologically
and socially disastrous mining practices. Unlike Clinton and Obama,
Edwards is the only leading candidate to oppose coal-to-liquid
technology.

We thought this was the ultimate stupid move for someone vying for the Democratic nomination.  You should see my email:

So why then, environmentalists ask, is Obama backing a law supporting the expanded use of coal, whose emissions are cooking the globe? It seems the answer is twofold: his interest in energy independence — and his interest in downstate Illinois, where the senator’s green tinge makes the coal industry queasy.

The coal industry praises Obama’s reintroduction, with Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 last week, which would provide incentives for research and plant construction. The industry says the technology, which converts coal into diesel engine fuel, would reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil through a new, home-mined fuel that burns as cleanly as gasoline.

See, Edwards was much more enviro-friendly than either Clinton or Obama, as note at the time by Politico, much to the delight of the green contingent of Edwards’ supporters.  I wasn’t really all that green for an Edwards backer, but I noted the argument, which is why I know the latest stuff about Obama out to bankrupt the coal industry is pure fantasy.  We were bitching that Obama was in the pocket of Big Coal.

The Edwards website is history, but I’m sure there’s evidence in the Way-Back Machine.  Edwards never directly mentioned his opposition to coal-to-liquid; his energy proposal included other means to utilize coal while reducing emissions, that and the absence of coal to liquid are indicated below in some of the Press Releases I saved when Obama’s stance on Liquid Coal became an issue.  This was supposed to show a contrast with Obama:

Edwards opposes coal-to-liquid technology as a viable clean fuel alternative.  John Edwards’ energy plan includes utilizing coal in a “major role” so that the U.S. and the world can meet its energy needs, but he has advocated for carbon capture methods so that hazardous carbon emissions are dramatically reduced.  Edwards advocates for coal gasification technology and carbon sequestration technology in energy production, a method supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council to combat global warming.

EDWARDS PROPOSED INCREASED INVESTMENT FOR SAFE STORAGE OF CARBON DIOXIDE FROM COAL POWERED PRODUCTION

2007: Edwards Called For New Coal Power Plants To Have Coal Capture Technology So That Emissions Are Stored And Not Released Into the Atmosphere.  “Edwards believes we need to find a way to use coal without heating the planet. As president, Edwards will require that all new coal-fired plants be built with the required technology to capture their carbon dioxide emissions, so plants built today will be able to permanently and safely store their carbon emissions tomorrow. He also committed to investing $1 billion a year in research and testing to jumpstart the means to store large amounts of carbon dioxide safely underground.” [Edwards for President press release, 3/26/07, http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070326-cleaner-coal/]

As you can tell, we actually thought this was a smoking gun kind of issue, that the Al Gore wing of the Democratic Party could not possibly support Barack Obama mainly due to his friendly attitude on coal. For Sarah Palin and her drooling Wingnut circus to claim he’s out to destroy the industry is ludicrous.