The
New York Times election maps (click on "Interactive feature") is very interesting. People who are just looking at "red" and "blue" states would do well to look at this, which breaks it down by county, population, and influence. You can see that it's not as simple as coast vs. center. Urban vs rural is the big theme--the rural areas are the most strongly Bush, as is most of Texas (unsurprising). (Austin, which is a liberal university town, and the overwhelmingly Hispanic Rio Grande Valley and El Paso went Kerry.) But in much of the South and Midwest, the pattern is more mixed, and many counties that went Bush weren't overwhelmingly so.
The population map is important; it keeps you from despairing at all the red areas on the map. It may look horrible that the western Great Plains is all deep red in the county map, but frankly it's not very relevant, because hardly anyone lives there. It's not as skewed as a map of Australia would be if they did a presidential election (the map of Australian parliamentary constituencies is a hoot) but western Kansas is pretty damn empty. Just ask anyone who's driven on I-70 to Denver. :-) (I've been told it's almost hypnotic; there's nothing but wheat fields as far as you can see.)