Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The political consequences of "the Big Sort" continued in 2016 as larger and larger percentages of voters lived in counties that weren't competitive in the Presidential Election. The statement that "I don't know anyone who is voting for the Democrat/Republican" has never been truer. Sixty percent of all voters lived in counties that were carried by 20% or more. Between 1992 and 2016, the % of total voters who lived in counties where a presidential candidate's margin was 50% or more rose from 4% of counties in 1992 to 21% in 2016.
More hogwash from the Left, still trying to come up with a reason for their loss other than the real reason, that they lost because of their political ideology and the flawed candidate they chose.
Now one might argue that Trump was a "flawed candidate" also, but the fact remains that his "flaws" were not ideological ones, but he was seen as the only candidate that could/would restore America to it's former greatness; ie, the lamp of Liberty to the world, represented by the Statue of Liberty holding out her Lamp to the world.
The opening statement that "Trump's victory ...was among the narrowest in history" is patently false. It was an Electoral landslide not seen since Ronald Reagan's historic defeat of Jimmy Carter. That's not even arguable.
Moreover, well over 50% of Americans approve of Trump's performance so far, according to the latest Rasmussen poll.
Until the Democrats face the facts and realize that their "progressive" ideology (Marxist/socialism) is the problem, the country is going to remain "red."
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 03-08-2017 at 11:58 AM..
First of all, I don't see why you're upset. The article is based on data, not electoral fantasies. Fewer and fewer counties are contestable in prsidential elections as we become more polarized. That's a fact. I wasn't trying to score political points; just posting what I thought were interesting and pertinent facts on the aelections board.
As for the statement that particularly got your panties in a wad, let's examine it. The article said that Trump's win "was among the narrowest in history". You said that it was a landslide unseen since Reagan.
Fact:
The article you referenced didn't specify if the writer was talking about electoral or popular vote, so let's examine both.
1. If he was referencing popular vote, it was certainly one of the narrowest wins in history because it's only one of a handful of examples of a President being elected while losing the popular vote (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000). By that historic measure, Trump certainly didn't win by a landslide.
2. If he was talking about percentage of total electoral votes received, Trump's win ranks 46th out of 56 presidential elections. So by electoral college percentage, Trump didn't win by a landslide either.
3. Finally, let's look at your claim that Trump won by the largest electoral college margin since Reagan.
1988: George H.W. Bush won 426 to 111 over Dukakis
1992: Bill Clinton 370 G.H.W. Bush 168
1996: Clinton 379 Dole 159
2000: Dubya 271 Algore 266
2004: Dubya 286 Kerry 251
2008: Obama 365 McCain 173
2012: Obama 332 Romney 206
2016 Trump 304 H. Clinton 227
Trump's win wasn't even the largest Republican win since Reagan and ranks 5th out of 7 elections.
Check facts before you retweet Trump's nonsense, or perhaps, find a more apropos handle/board nickname.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 03-08-2017 at 01:19 PM..
First of all, I don't see why you're upset. The article is based on data, not electoral fantasies. Fewer and fewer counties are contestable in prsidential elections as we become more polarized. That's a fact. I wasn't trying to score political points; just posting what I thought were interesting and pertinent facts on the aelections board.
As for the statement that particularly got your panties in a wad, let's examine it. The article said that Trump's win "was among the narrowest in history". You said that it was a landslide unseen since Reagan.
Fact:
The article you referenced didn't specify if the writer was talking about electoral or popular vote, so let's examine both.
1. If he was referencing popular vote, it was certainly one of the narrowest wins in history because it's only one of a handful of examples of a President being elected while losing the popular vote (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000). By that historic measure, Trump certainly didn't win by a landslide.
2. If he was talking about percentage of total electoral votes received, Trump's win ranks 46th out of 56 presidential elections. So by electoral college percentage, Trump didn't win by a landslide either.
3. Finally, let's look at your claim that Trump won by the largest electoral college margin since Reagan.
1988: George H.W. Bush won 426 to 111 over Dukakis
1992: Bill Clinton 370 G.H.W. Bush 168
1996: Clinton 379 Dole 159
2000: Dubya 271 Algore 266
2004: Dubya 286 Kerry 251
2008: Obama 365 McCain 173
2012: Obama 332 Romney 206
2016 Trump 304 H. Clinton 227
Trump's win wasn't even the largest Republican win since Reagan and ranks 5th out of 7 elections.
Check facts before you retweet Trump's nonsense, or perhaps, find a more apropos handle/board nickname.
Upset? I'm not upset at all. I just responded to a view that isn't based on reality. Believe what you want.
Trump earned 306 electoral votes (small point). Because a couple of electors went rogue is irrelevant. The "popular vote" is also irrelevant, because we don't elect the President by popular vote. We vote as 50 sovereign states (I know you've heard this before), and that's the only vote that counts. Trump won the popular vote in more states than Hillary; hence, the huge electoral victory (landslide). Nothing else matters.
Upset? I'm not upset at all. I just responded to a view that isn't based on reality. Believe what you want.
Trump earned 306 electoral votes (small point). Because a couple of electors went rogue is irrelevant. The "popular vote" is also irrelevant, because we don't elect the President by popular vote. We vote as 50 sovereign states (I know you've heard this before), and that's the only vote that counts. Trump won the popular vote in more states than Hillary; hence, the huge electoral victory (landslide). Nothing else matters.
If you're only getting your information from Donald Trump and don't fact check it, you're the one not dealing with reality.
More hogwash from the Left, still trying to come up with a reason for their loss other than the real reason, that they lost because of their political ideology and the flawed candidate they chose.
They didn't lose because of their ideology. They did lose because of a highly flawed candidate and a two faced president that was supposed to represent their ideology but didn't.
I've pointed out (with no one countering the argument) that people did not run to Trump, they simply abandoned Hillary just like the party had done to them.
If Obama had been the president that candidate Obama said he would be, even an extremely flawed Hillary wins.
Trump badly beat a war mongering corporatist. That is not the ideology that is being pushed even though granted, it was very difficult to tell under Obama.
Upset? I'm not upset at all. I just responded to a view that isn't based on reality. Believe what you want.
Trump earned 306 electoral votes (small point). Because a couple of electors went rogue is irrelevant. The "popular vote" is also irrelevant, because we don't elect the President by popular vote. We vote as 50 sovereign states (I know you've heard this before), and that's the only vote that counts. Trump won the popular vote in more states than Hillary; hence, the huge electoral victory (landslide). Nothing else matters.
50 sovereign states? Oh god u would have known that is completely false if you didn't sleep through Civics 101.
I didn't vote in this election because I knew Hillary would win NY. Voting for a Republican in NY is a waste of time, since the state is so blue (due to NYC).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daywalk
50 sovereign states? Oh god u would have known that is completely false if you didn't sleep through Civics 101.
Illegal immigrant votes shouldn't count.
03-08-2017, 07:40 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Upset? I'm not upset at all. I just responded to a view that isn't based on reality. Believe what you want.
No, you just posted a reply that had literally nothing to do with the topic.
Feel free to start your own thread about whatever it is you're ranting about.
This thread is about the growing electoral margins in areas that used to be fairly competitive.
The problem is there hasn't been a good Purple Candidate in a long time. If there was things would be different but the left keeps stepping left, or threatening to, so the reaction of the right is what it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
