I'm a diehard progressive, in a bi-racial marriage. I know from personal experience how deep racism goes in America. And the Democratic Party is not progressive enough for me.

Having said that: I'm also a scientist. I stick to facts, and shoot down hypotheses much more than I support them. It's a job requirement. I don't think that this map will show ONLY the presence of racism. Some things to consider:

1) John McCain is from Arizona and Sarah Palin is from Alaska. Both of those states show many counties which are Redder than in 2004. But look at Arizona again. The northeast corner is Redder? That area is almost completely occupied by the Navajo reservation. For all his flaws, I understand that McCain has been rather helpful to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. McCain might actually have a real constituency there. And in any case, the home-state advantage of both the President and VP candidates is apparent. 2) Now Arkansas looks bad, but not all of this will be because of racism. It reflects, at least in part, the fact that Hillary Clinton did not win the Democratic nomination. Her relationship with Arkansas is longer and deeper than the one she has established with New York. I bet that the people there were very disappointed that she wasn't running.

3) Finally, this map shows changes in the RATIO of Red votes to Blue votes. But it doesn't say anything about TURNOUT. There are two ways to change a vote ratio: voters can change the way they vote, OR they can simply show up at the polls one year, and not the next.

The best possible data set would be obtained by a survey asking individuals about their votes in 2004 and this year.