The Next President is...

[guineapigfury]

I think the popular vote argument would hold more water if the candidates had been trying to win that.  Campaigns to win the popular vote would look very different than campaigns to win the Electoral College vote.  The GOP just got handed the Presidency, both Houses of Congress, 33 Governorships, unified control of 32 State Legislatures and partial control of 5 more.  If that isn't a mandate, the word does not have meaning.

[M2]

On 12/23/2016 at 8:54 PM, nsplayr said:

There are literally millions of likely born-and-bred and proud Texans who cast votes for Hillary...

Bullshit.  No born-and-bred proud Texan would ever vote for Hillary.  All her votes came from those California rejects living in Austin, or illegals wanting free handouts. 

You're just quibbling.

[M2]

22 hours ago, nsplayr said:

That is the attitude I'm talking about! The population of Austin is like 800K people and Hillary won 3.8 million votes in Texas.  As much as it may rub up against conventional wisdom, there are lots and lots (i.e. hundreds of thousands to millions) of cowboy hat-wearing, truck-driving, Don't Mess With Texas Hillary voters in Texas.

Since you have a habit of talking about things you're not knowledgeable on, I'll do you the favor and correct you on this one as well.  I see you're trying to justify the votes your girl got in this state, but I can tell you as a resident that no cowboy hat-wearing, truck-driving Texan placed a vote for her and I challenge you to back up that claim with facts.  If you look at the popular vote in Texas, the only blue counties are mainly those along the Mexican border and can be attributed to the large illegal population that resides there.  The rest was overwhelmingly Trump. 


Texas was a conservative Democratic stronghold for many years.  For approximately 100 years from after Reconstruction until the 1990s, the Democrats dominated Texas politics.  Now  Republicans control all statewide Texas offices, to include the governor and both houses of the state legislature, and have a majority in the Texas congressional delegation. This makes Texas one of the most Republican states in the U.S.  Urban areas like Dallas, Austin, Houston and San Antonio are still largely Democrats; but  suburbs of these cities remain heavily Republican.

So your claim that "cowboy hat-wearing, truck-driving Texans" voted for Hillary are pure fantasy.  It's the typical liberal and welfare-recipient votes that supported her in many other states. 

[viper154]

As someone who lives 5 miles from west Texas I can promise you no cowboy hat wearing, truck driving, Texan voted for Hil dawg. Banner that's been hanging in the center of town since June and still proudly flying. Stereotypical truck included. 

[nsplayr]

On 12/25/2016 at 3:03 PM, M2 said:

Since you have a habit of talking about things you're not knowledgeable on, I'll do you the favor and correct you on this one as well.  I see you're trying to justify the votes your girl got in this state, but I can tell you as a resident that no cowboy hat-wearing, truck-driving Texan placed a vote for her and I challenge you to back up that claim with facts.  

This makes Texas one of the most Republican states in the U.S.

BLUF: lots of text here. Feel free to skip.  Merry Christmas.  I'll check out of this thread for a while and let others have the floor...PM me if you want to discuss further.

M2, First of all, I'm not sure where that graphic is from, but it is not an accurate representation of the county-by-county Presidential election results in 2016.

Hillary won Dallas county, Harris and Fort Bend counties (Houston area), Bexar county (San Antonio) and Travis county (Austin) among others.  I may not be the Texas expert you are, but those counties are not depicted as blue in your graphic.  Jefferson and Newton counties are also depicted as blue despite the fact that Trump won those counties.

Honest mistake I'm sure, but I encourage you to check your sources more carefully if you're gonna come off the top rope claiming to be some kind of expert on the state and calling me out.

You said there were no born-and-bred and proud Texans that voted for Hillary and challenged me for some facts.  My initial argument is that 3.8 million people voted for Hillary in Texas under full GOP control in terms of setting up and running the election...I assumed that was proof enough.  But if you wanna go into the weeds even further, let's do it!

Look at what's been called the most Republican county in the whole United States, King county, Texas.  There were 159 votes cast in King county in the 2016 general election, and Donald Trump received 149 of them.  A total ass-kicking indicative of the county being extremely conservative, no doubt.  But Hillary received 5 votes in King county, not zero.  Five votes in a county whose election process is almost certainly run by extremely conservative republicans who would not be inclined to allow for errant Hillary votes to be counted. The state also has a voter ID requirement.  Are you telling me there were 5 people who cheated your Republican-run system in King county on election day?  In a county where everyone almost certainly knows everyone?  If you think that's the case, you should probably contact the election officials from that county.

While you're making phone calls (or a road trip!), maybe it would be more productive to see if you can find any of those 5 Hillary voters in King county and talk to them, see where they're coming from.  Are they illegal latinos on welfare looking for a handout like you implied?  Maybe hold-out Johnson Democrats who've been voting blue for their whole lives?  Or young people rebelling against their Republican parents? There's one way to find out for sure, and you're much closer than me.

My entire argument is basically this - Trump voters in blue states are not all racists who wanna grab America by the pussy and punch Muslim refugees; Hillary voters in red states are not all welfare queen illegal transgendered people who want their own special snowflake bathroom.  Try to understand the other side, work on a positive political message, build more coalitions and do less identity politics.  I was hopeful that might be a more broadly agreeable message even in deep-red territory like BO.net.

On Texas being one of the most conservative states in the U.S., in many ways that you pointed out, you're right.  But in terms of Presidential electoral politics that simply wasn't the case in 2016.  Texas was the 15th closest state in terms of the margin between the winner and the loser (Trump +9.0%).  There were 20 other state more Republican than Texas in terms of Trump's margin.  So yes, Texas is quite Republican and a 9-point victory is still a solid victory, but you guys should check your 6 down there the same way that Democrats should have checked ours in MI, WI, and MN and ME (all states in the top 8 closest that Hillary won [minus MI that she lost] yet are not normally thought of as "swing states").

Look, I'm trying to forward a message that the both parties need to do a better job of representing all of their voters and all Americans in general.  I want the Democrats to pay more attention to the non-college educated white christian men from the south, midwest and rust belt who feel alienated by some of the liberal cultural war issues and left behind by the modern economy.  Not a lot of those voters voted for Democrats in 2016, but some did and others maybe would have with a different message and candidate.  Democrats need to stand up for and speak for those Americans.

By the same token I want the Republicans to pay more attention to young voters, people of color and religious and ethnic minorities who feel alienated by some of the recent GOP rhetoric on immigration and civil rights in particular and who feel scared by the incoming administration.  Not many voted Republican in 2016 (some did), but I would encourage the GOP to try to better represent those Americans too.

 if you made it this far and still give a damn.

Edited December 27, 2016 by nsplayr

[brickhistory]

Paraphrasing a Churchill quote (I believe):

If you aren't liberal when you are young, you haven't a heart.

If you aren't conservative as you get older, you haven't a brain.

As the military tends to make us grow up a tad faster than the average bear, I think that is one reason why the military tends conservative.

 

[ThreeHoler]

As someone who lives 5 miles from west Texas I can promise you no cowboy hat wearing, truck driving, Texan voted for Hil dawg. Banner that's been hanging in the center of town since June and still proudly flying. Stereotypical truck included. 

Not enough lift kit for Texas. Suspicious of actual location.

[guineapigfury]

Just Portales being Portales.

[JarheadBoom]

15 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

Not enough lift kit for Texas. Suspicious of actual location.

 

 

 

But it does have an oversized cow catcher front bumper...

[Disco_Nav963]

20 hours ago, viper154 said:

As someone who lives 5 miles from west Texas I can promise you no cowboy hat wearing, truck driving, Texan voted for Hil dawg. Banner that's been hanging in the center of town since June and still proudly flying. Stereotypical truck included. 

This one did (after voting for Bush 43, McCain, and Romney in turn)... But I sold the F-250 some years back so maybe doesn't count.

[matmacwc]

5 minutes ago, Kiloalpha said:

Texas does face a demographic problem in the future. The influx of millennials and transplants into Austin and DFW means that the traditional advantage of Republicans will slowly fade as the traditional liberal centers begin to spill out into the suburbs. 

You don't think that is part of the plan?

[tk1313]

On 12/25/2016 at 4:03 PM, M2 said:

Since you have a habit of talking about things you're not knowledgeable on, I'll do you the favor and correct you on this one as well.  I see you're trying to justify the votes your girl got in this state, but I can tell you as a resident that no cowboy hat-wearing, truck-driving Texan placed a vote for her and I challenge you to back up that claim with facts.  If you look at the popular vote in Texas, the only blue counties are mainly those along the Mexican border and can be attributed to the large illegal population that resides there.  The rest was overwhelmingly Trump. 


Texas was a conservative Democratic stronghold for many years.  For approximately 100 years from after Reconstruction until the 1990s, the Democrats dominated Texas politics.  Now  Republicans control all statewide Texas offices, to include the governor and both houses of the state legislature, and have a majority in the Texas congressional delegation. This makes Texas one of the most Republican states in the U.S.  Urban areas like Dallas, Austin, Houston and San Antonio are still largely Democrats; but  suburbs of these cities remain heavily Republican.

So your claim that "cowboy hat-wearing, truck-driving Texans" voted for Hillary are pure fantasy.  It's the typical liberal and welfare-recipient votes that supported her in many other states. 

Illinois, my favorite electoral map this year, is a current Democratic stronghold. Let's play a couple guessing games:
1. Where is the city with some of the strictest gun laws located?
2. Where is the city with one of the highest gun-related murder rates in the US is located?

HINT: One city is the answer to both questions - sometimes nicknamed "Chiraq" for it's warzone-like atmosphere.

 

 

[HU&W]

Here's an interesting map.  It sizes the counties according to population, and it shades them according to how much of a majority was won.  It really shows that the nation is far more politically blended than one would expect.

[HuggyU2]

Looks like a Rorschach Test to me. 

[SurelySerious]

Here's an interesting map.  It sizes the counties according to population, and it shades them according to how much of a majority was won.  It really shows that the nation is far more politically blended than one would expect.

I think it shows just the opposite. All of the blue are in high population concentrations, whereas the red are in less populated areas, just as in all the other depictions.

[busdriver]

Urban vs Rural.  It certainly isn't new.

[HeloDude]

12 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

I think it shows just the opposite. All of the blue are in high population concentrations, whereas the red are in less populated areas, just as in all the other depictions.

He said "it sizes the counties according to population"...so this map already adjusted for differences in population.  Unless I'm missing something?

[sqwatch]

Here's an interesting map.  It sizes the counties according to population, and it shades them according to how much of a majority was won.  It really shows that the nation is far more politically blended than one would expect.

Whe I look at this, I see a dead Smurf. Not sure how it makes anyone feel better about Hilary/trump.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brickhistory]

On 12/27/2016 at 10:19 PM, HU&W said:

Here's an interesting map.  It sizes the counties according to population, and it shades them according to how much of a majority was won.  It really shows that the nation is far more politically blended than one would expect.

 

 

[SurelySerious]

He said "it sizes the counties according to population"...so this map already adjusted for differences in population.  Unless I'm missing something?

His claim was that it provided some new insight that proves the nation is more diverse than we think. I claim it only shows the same as all the other voting maps: big cities are blue strongholds, everywhere else is generally red.

[HU&W]

2 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

His claim was that it provided some new insight that proves the nation is more diverse than we think. I claim it only shows the same as all the other voting maps: big cities are blue strongholds, everywhere else is generally red.

I don't think I said there's a new insight.  There's just a lot more purple in the form of bluish red and red-ish blue (politically blended) than I had expected; both in cities and the midwest.  I especially found insight in the islands of deepest blue (DC & San Fran) and the web of solid red, while I was surprised by some of the places I'd expected to be solid blue that were actually purple.

[tk1313]

I still agree with huggy. Mangled butterfly... Final Answer.

Edited December 29, 2016 by tk1313

[HerkPerfMan]

1 hour ago, HU&W said:

I don't think I said there's a new insight.  There's just a lot more purple in the form of bluish red and red-ish blue (politically blended) than I had expected; both in cities and the midwest.  I especially found insight in the islands of deepest blue (DC & San Fran) and the web of solid red, while I was surprised by some of the places I'd expected to be solid blue that were actually purple.

Right, nothing new just an alternative perspective. The problem with the state (or county) election maps is that they exaggerate the gap between right and left based on physical geography, and completely overlook the large portion of "purple" voters.

The "dead smurf" map also shows how disadvantaged Democrats are by the Electoral College since they are concentrated in a few geographies. The bottom line is that not all votes are equal - it depends where you live.

2,900,000 votes >> 80,000 votes

80,000 votes in MI, WI, and PA >> 2,900,000 votes anywhere else

The best strategy for the Democrats in 2020 would be offer relocation packages for CA residents to move to swing states. No need to sway anyone or win hearts and minds - just change where you vote.

Anyway, the Organization of Cartographers for Social Equality would be happy we're having this discussion.

 

[Duck]

I don't know man, I'm kinda hoping California just kinda falls off into the sea.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[HossHarris]

Or secedes