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 answer to OP question is no. On the broader scale, movement of Californians and Hispanics has affected the voting pattern in Nevada, Colorado, and possibly Arizona. Georgia is becoming less red. At the same time, the growing states are almost all Republican so the Census will be kind to Republicans.
Not really. Not compared to the sunbelt. The two states combined only have 19 electoral votes. Oregon might receive 1 electoral vote, its first in decades, after 2020.
Incredible growth is found in places like North Carolina, Florida, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Arizona. i.e. 118 electoral votes. At least 6 more electoral votes will be moved to this region after 2020.
What cost Hillary the election was the American voter were disgusted with the state of the country and the priorities of a feckless leader for the last eight years: Obamacare, Black Lives Matter, men in women's locker rooms and bathrooms, unfettered illegal immigration, a feeble foreign policy.
America is done with Progressivism. Middle American asserted its power at the voting booth to bring this country back to a democracy and it feels sooooooo good.
So basically, bigots came out to vote in the handful of battleground states....that makes sense, all of those things were used as scare tactics for the past 8 years and the right wing followers all voted in favor of their fears and hatred.
But you get what you wanted, so I hope you enjoy what Trump has in store for you.
Yep, Washing ton projected to not gain a seat, Oregon one, but that measly gain is far outweighed by growth in the states you noted. Have to look at things from a wide perspective to gain perspective.
100 years of progressism may be finally starting to roll back. Six years of conservative election gains do not quite make a trend, but if as things are currently projected pan out, than we'll be looking at twelve years by 2022. That is a definite trend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Not really. Not compared to the sunbelt. The two states combined only have 19 electoral votes. Oregon might receive 1 electoral vote, its first in decades, after 2020.
Incredible growth is found in places like North Carolina, Florida, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Arizona. i.e. 118 electoral votes. At least 6 more electoral votes will be moved to this region after 2020.
It goes a lot deeper than that. Between the hacking and Comey, Hillary had insurmountable problems. I believe anyone would have won against her. She had been perceived as having too much baggage for the job.
The Northwest is experiencing incredible growth. Seattle has more people wanting to buy houses than there are houses to buy, and while California is the number one state they come from, number two is Texas, followed by Oregon, Arizona and Florida.
The Northwest is indeed very liberal, Trump only received 8% of the Seattle vote and Bernie Sanders won both Washington and Oregon in the primaries. That being said, the difference is not the Northwest. The difference is urban vs. rural. Democrats reside in cities and seem to be experiencing better economies as a result. Republicans are distributed across the country and seem to be suffering economically. Democrats won millions more votes but the electoral college favored Republicans.
Yes, those pesky Republicans with their banjos and moonshine do seem to present a problem .
The census determined that Washington and Oregon took in historically high rates of domestic migrants from 7/1/2015 to 8/1/2015.
How many were incoming liberals from the Midwestern swing states? Did a Midwestern liberal urge to flock to the politically like-minded cost Hillary enough voters to swing the election?
Putin determined the election at the ballot boxes, remember that!
It goes a lot deeper than that. Between the hacking and Comey, Hillary had insurmountable problems. I believe anyone would have won against her. She had been perceived as having too much baggage for the job.
I'm not so sure about that. Any other R career politician would have been 'Romneyized"....
Portrayed as an uncaring elitist. And other than Trump, none of them would have been smart enough to use Twitter and bypass the media scum who were in the tank for Hillary. Kasich is both likeable and competent --- other than that, I'm not sure any of them could have won.
The census determined that Washington and Oregon took in historically high rates of domestic migrants from 7/1/2015 to 8/1/2015.
How many were incoming liberals from the Midwestern swing states? Did a Midwestern liberal urge to flock to the politically like-minded cost Hillary enough voters to swing the election?
What cost Hillary the election was her moral, mental and physical incompetence. All the opposing team needed to do was watch her self-destruct which she did in a timely manner to my delight.
I cannot believe that people do not get the reason that she was defeated, and my guess is that they looked at Hillary through the rose-colored glasses of liberal media. Sad.
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.
.
