electoral geography

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 2:08 pm

maps showing trump's america and clinton's

lots of dems in not much space.

republicans spread out over most of the country

pictured, the divide is more dramatic than i thought:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... v=top-news

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:58 pm

The maps that are resized for populations are a little more representative. Looking at these maps, you'd think Trump had a massive voter advantage. There are also places like WV that are deep red, and those like PA that are 49.5/50.5 split.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:03 pm

There's a depressed mood at Vox following the election...

[A]t the sub-presidential level, the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.

Republicans control the House, and they control the Senate. District lines are drawn in such a way that the median House district is far more conservative than the median American voter -- resulting in situations like 2012 where House Democrats secured more votes than House Republicans but the GOP retained a healthy majority. The Senate, too, is in effect naturally gerrymandered to favor Republicans. Two years from now the Democratic Party will need to fight to retain seats in very difficult states like North Dakota, Montana, West Virginia, Indiana, and Missouri along with merely contestable ones in places like Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

In state government things are worse, if anything. The GOP now controls historical record number of governors' mansions, including a majority of New England governorships. Tuesday's election swapped around a few state legislative houses but left Democrats controlling a distinct minority. The same story applies further down ballot, where most elected attorneys general, insurance commissioners, secretaries of state, and so forth are Republicans. [...]

Meanwhile, Democrats' very weakness down ballot threatens to breed more weakness. The 2010 midterm elections went very poorly for Democrats, pushing the blue-to-purple states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio into total Republican control. In all three states, the new GOP regimes used their newfound clout to enact anti-union measures. Those measures, by weakening the progressive infrastructure in the states, helped contribute to an ongoing reddening trend that reached its fruition in Trump seizing those states' electoral votes.

This same basic pattern threatens to reassert itself across large swaths of the country.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... ile-rubble

Shafpocalypse Now · Post by **Shafpocalypse Now** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:27 pm

Dem leadership did it to themself by pushing for HRC. That's the bottom line.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:56 pm

bottom line is hillary got 2 million more votes than the other bleach blonde running for pres.

so it's not entirely straightforward.

milosz · Post by **milosz** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:58 pm

Entire giant red states have the population of a decent city. Their existence as state-level entities is an accident of history we'll all be saddled with.

milosz · Post by **milosz** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:00 pm

Even inside of those red states with more people than cows, cities went blue. In Texas alone, Dallas County broke the 60% mark for Clinton, Travis/Harris/Bexar were right there.

It's not a geographic divide, it's a population density divide.

Pinky · Post by **Pinky** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 10:09 pm

dead man walking wrote:bottom line is hillary got 2 million more votes than the other bleach blonde running for pres.

so it's not entirely straightforward.

It's less straightforward that the popular vote count suggests. The popular vote count itself is a function of the Electoral College system. The vote count with the Electoral College is not necessarily what it would be without the Electoral College.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 10:15 pm

did she get more votes?

yes or no?

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 10:17 pm

Since I know some of you are interested. It's back up: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/

milosz · Post by **milosz** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 10:18 pm

Not all that much less straightforward - Trump might campaign in California to pick up votes but Hillary would campaign in Texas, yada yada yada. Given that the electoral college disadvantages the population centers where Democrats win, that math is unlikely to benefit Republicans. Both could happily still ignore vast swaths of the midwest (or as I call it Methandoxyland), of course - being sparsely populated AND single-party.

The side benefit, if you're into this sort of thing, is a forced moderation - if Trump wants to pick up popular votes in California or Washington, promising to nominate pro-life and anti-Obergefell Justices isn't going to fly. If Hillary wants to pick up popular votes in Texas, assault weapons bans aren't going on the agenda.

Fuzzy Dunlop · Post by **Fuzzy Dunlop** » Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:36 am

dead man walking wrote:did she get more votes?

yes or no?

Yes, but try to think about this... what if some people in states like California, Massachusetts, etc. just didn't vote because they knew there was no way Trump would win their state even if they voted?

c'mon dude, you're smarter than this.

Fuzzy Dunlop · Post by **Fuzzy Dunlop** » Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:37 am

Pinky wrote:The popular vote count itself is a function of the Electoral College system. The vote count with the Electoral College is not necessarily what it would be without the Electoral College.

Well put

kreator · Post by **kreator** » Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:49 am

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:
dead man walking wrote:did she get more votes?

yes or no?
Yes, but try to think about this... what if some people in states like California, Massachusetts, etc. just didn't vote because they knew there was no way Trump would win their state even if they voted?

c'mon dude, you're smarter than this.

Exactly. Something like 57% of eligible voters actually cast votes. For many of them they choose not to vote because we have the electoral college. Others just don't care. It's really hard to say what would have happened if the rules were changed. The way they campaigned would have been completely different for sure.

In other news, the Denver Broncos won the Super Bowl this year but had over 100 fewer yards than the Panthers. You'd think if they changed the game so it was based on yards not points that maybe they would have changed their strategy a bit?

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Thu Nov 17, 2016 1:33 pm

so based on what people have said, while squirming to avoid a direct answer. yes, she won more votes.

it that really so difficult to admit?

kreator · Post by **kreator** » Thu Nov 17, 2016 3:37 pm

dead man walking wrote:so based on what people have said, while squirming to avoid a direct answer. yes, she won more votes.

it that really so difficult to admit?

No. It's not "winning" when you make up your own rules post facto. Like me saying, admit it, the Panthers won where it really counted.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Thu Nov 17, 2016 4:38 pm

read the sentence: ". . . won more votes."

that's different from saying, " . . . won the election."

winning the popular vote is perhaps a weak consolation prize, but does provide some context for trump's win, and trump's opponents could well use it as a shillelagh.

as they should.

milosz · Post by **milosz** » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:55 pm

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:
dead man walking wrote:did she get more votes?

yes or no?
Yes, but try to think about this... what if some people in states like California, Massachusetts, etc. just didn't vote because they knew there was no way Trump would win their state even if they voted?

c'mon dude, you're smarter than this.

How many Hillary voters in California didn't vote because she was automatically going to win the state?
replace California and win with Texas and lose
replace Hillary with Trump and California with Texas

Lots of what-ifs, but there's no reason to believe a shift to the popular vote would be a boon to either party. Each of them has locked-in states that leads to supporters or opponents choosing not to vote because their vote is irrelevant.

Fuzzy Dunlop · Post by **Fuzzy Dunlop** » Fri Nov 18, 2016 3:39 am

milosz wrote:
Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:
dead man walking wrote:did she get more votes?

yes or no?
Yes, but try to think about this... what if some people in states like California, Massachusetts, etc. just didn't vote because they knew there was no way Trump would win their state even if they voted?

c'mon dude, you're smarter than this.
How many Hillary voters in California didn't vote because she was automatically going to win the state?
replace California and win with Texas and lose
replace Hillary with Trump and California with Texas

Lots of what-ifs, but there's no reason to believe a shift to the popular vote would be a boon to either party. Each of them has locked-in states that leads to supporters or opponents choosing not to vote because their vote is irrelevant.

Agreed, it could end up providing benefit to either party. My point is that the popular vote doesn't mean shit when everybody voted based on the electoral college premise.

milosz · Post by **milosz** » Fri Nov 18, 2016 3:57 am

It still means something - it means that more Americans chose her. There's no legal weight behind that but it should color the political landscape.

More Americans voted for Democrats this time around in the Senate (by an enormous margin) as well, as has become common for the last 25 years. It's the irony of the narrative of poor put upon rurals being held back by them educated urban elites - the system is rigged, rigged to be a boon to the shitholes of America.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:56 am

milosz wrote:It still means something - it means that more Americans chose her. There's no legal weight behind that but it should color the political landscape.

More Americans voted for Democrats this time around in the Senate (by an enormous margin) as well, as has become common for the last 25 years. It's the irony of the narrative of poor put upon rurals being held back by them educated urban elites - the system is rigged, rigged to be a boon to the shitholes of America.

Apparently Dems should have a supermajority in the CA legislature
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-gov ... 30248.html
Bullet trains for everybody!

IGX

electoral geography

electoral geography

Re: electoral geography

Re: electoral geography

Re: electoral geography

Re: electoral geography

Re: electoral geography

Re: electoral geography

Re: electoral geography

Re: electoral geography

Re: electoral geography

Re: electoral geography

Re: electoral geography

Re: electoral geography

Re: electoral geography

Re: electoral geography

Re: electoral geography

Re: electoral geography

Re: electoral geography

Re: electoral geography

Re: electoral geography

Re: electoral geography