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.
In case you skipped elementary school civics: each state gets two senators, no matter how big, or how small. So a bunch of rural states with ten million people living in each of them get the same amount of Senators as California with ten million people in one city. Hence, it is impossible for the Democrats to win the Senate without getting some piece of the rural vote.
Why is basic math so hard for some to understand?
Snark aside, virtually every state has urban areas and rural areas. Since the entire state selects the Senators, the Senators have to win the numbers game, and that means that urban areas are more dominant in the selection of Senators (something the Senators themselves are well aware of). Urban areas also tend to be more liberal, so even Senators from Republican states are going to be more liberal than Representatives from hard-core rural districts.
Unfortunately I think we still have another decade or so of the GOP in it's existing form with it's out of date views regarding social issues, minorities, etc. Remember, the GOP is currently largely confined to the Deep South and the Midwest in states where upwards of 70% of voters are Republicans or lean Republican ... it's like being in an echo chamber. It's going to take a few more thumpings at the hands of Democrats and possibly the loss of the Senate and the House before they get the hint.
The GOP is actually big everywhere after Obama. And in the Mountain states and the southwest it's a complete different party almost. Not to mention the younger generation is nothing like the older one.
Withing ten years the GOP will be the Libertarian Party light, if for no other reason than their losing everyone else.
The GOP is actually big everywhere after Obama. And in the Mountain states and the southwest it's a complete different party almost. Not to mention the younger generation is nothing like the older one.
Withing ten years the GOP will be the Libertarian Party light, if for no other reason than their losing everyone else.
For the GOP to become a Libertarian style party, it would require them to force out the far right wing as well as the religious zealots. That isn't gonna happen any time soon. If you want to support a Libertarian, there is an actual party called the Libertarian Party that would be happy to take any new support they can get.
@victorianpunk - could you please provide your definition of what constitutes a rural state?
A state that has agriculture and/or energy as its main industries and/or a state that has a higher number of people living in rural and small town areas than in urban centers.
A state that has agriculture and/or energy as its main industries and/or a state that has a higher number of people living in rural and small town areas than in urban centers.
So which states are you referring to specifically.....and how many electoral votes do those states total?
A state that has agriculture and/or energy as its main industries and/or a state that has a higher number of people living in rural and small town areas than in urban centers.
Would it surprise you to know that only four states have majority rural populations? Maine (61%), Vermont (61%), Mississippi (51%), and West Virginia (51%)? And Vermont's got a socialist senator!
As regards, agriculture or energy, don't both of these sectors of the economy actually employ significantly fewer people than say manufacturing or retail? In 2012, mining (which includes energy) employed only 0.8 million people, and Agriculture (including forestry, fishing, and hunting) employed only 2.1 million people, while the non agricultural/energy sectors employed 116 million people. I guess what I'm saying is that the rural economic sector of agriculture and energy that you describe is minute compared to the rest of the economy with regards to population employed.
I think that the reason why the Democrats aren't troubled about the white, rural voters is because there are simply much fewer rural voters than urban/suburban voters.
which accounts for 100 electoral votes. 438 are split based on population.
In most math classes, 438 trumps 100 as often as it wants to.
The 438 represent the 435 Congressmen plus 3 D.C. electors.
What do electoral votes have to do with the Senate? New flash: America is more than the presidency.
And you need to Senate to pass anything. There are two houses in the American legislature: the Senate, and the Congress. Again, elementary school civics.
Would it surprise you to know that only four states have majority rural populations? Maine (61%), Vermont (61%), Mississippi (51%), and West Virginia (51%)? And Vermont's got a socialist senator!
And all but Vermont are pretty Republican (One of the two Senators from Maine is independent, but he caucuses with the GOP) And Vermont is known for having a bunch of retired hippies, and is a fluke on the election map, just as the city of Fort Worth is a fluke, being bigger than Seattle but being a Republican stronghold.
Quote:
As regards, agriculture or energy, don't both of these sectors of the economy actually employ significantly fewer people than say manufacturing or retail?
Yes and there are significantly fewer black people then white people in America, so should a party ignore them too?
Quote:
I think that the reason why the Democrats aren't troubled about the white, rural voters is because there are simply much fewer rural voters than urban/suburban voters.
The suburban vote is going GOP too. Hell, like I said, in a few years they will have nothing but minorities and inner-city white hipsters voting for them. Look at the South: just twenty years ago it was still competitive. Now, with the exceptions of Virginia and Florida, it's lost. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/up...html?_r=0'
But I guess nobody lives in Tennessee, Kentucky, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, or Arkansas? Awful of empty space in the US...
What do electoral votes have to do with the Senate? New flash: America is more than the presidency.
And you need to Senate to pass anything. There are two houses in the American legislature: the Senate, and the Congress. Again, elementary school civics.
Well seeing in the OP you wrote, you are going on about presidential candidates and how states vote in presidential elections.....therefore it has everything to do with electoral vote.....did you go so far off your strawman argument that you forgot what you were originally arguing about?
So tell us, how will the GOP be getting to 270?
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.
