NJ and PA are on the extraverted side, and those have a high concentration of city-dwellers. The New England results might be traditional taciturnity (think Silent Cal) - or social pressures of a more recent vintage.

Seems to go along pretty well with existing stereotypes. Big-city easterners are extraverted, selfish, and neurotic; the South and Midwest are both friendly but a bit stodgy, and traditional New England is taciturn.

David B.: I'm guessing that he'd argue that totalitarianism is unstable in the long term, and the current partition, like E and W Germany, is only a short-term fluctuation. Just look at how far behind East Asia as a whole was a century ago, and where they are now.

This is pretty typical molecular biology methodology: our molbio lab course had us go through a similar procedure to identify a gene associated with colon cancer. It's interesting that this painstaking approach is still widespread in the genomic era as a means of discovering, from the ground up, the function of a gene, rather than being relegated to simply checking on solutions that genomics produces.

It is true, though, that looking at the issues, Obama is even more liberal than Clinton. It's hard to tell amidst all the "hope" rhetoric, but it's there.

I agree that Obama is probably more electable than Hillary - not only is he less divisive and more likeable, it's much harder to argue against populism and generalities than hard issues, even though Clinton is a bit more moderate. 
 
I don't know about the Republican side, though. McCain has the benefit of attracting independents, but with all the antipathy from the conservative base, he may not be able to get the turnout that the more ideological "pure" Romney can.