US Gen. Election Thread FINALE - Votegeddon

[Ebliania]

Yes. But in order to hammer the message in you have to improve the area first.

That's why I'm hoping for a successful Trump administration. I'm probably much more optimistic than most people though.

I see him as establishment tbh, don't think this would happen any time soon

But how many times have I been wrong this year

[Soldati Senza Confini]

We have already tied "Liberal" to Democrats, we're beginning to do the same with "progressive". I see it first hand on Republican politicians social media. They always used to say stuff like "failed liberal policies", but now "liberal-progressive".

And trust me, I don't think there will be any progressive candidates I'd vote for.

Problem is, is it wiiiiiise?

I mean, I am not saying it because Republicans can win conservative voters. But, why would you want to exclude everyone but conservatives out of a party?

[Arlenton]

We have already tied "Liberal" to Democrats, we're beginning to do the same with "progressive". I see it first hand on Republican politicians social media. They always used to say stuff like "failed liberal policies", but now "liberal-progressive".

And trust me, I don't think there will be any progressive candidates I'd vote for.

Problem is, is it wiiiiiise?

I mean, I am not saying it because Republicans can win conservative voters. But, why would you want to exclude everyone but conservatives out of a party?

Oh no, of course not. The goal would be to paint Republcians as the "normal, common-sense, party". By painting Democrats, he more left wing/liberal/progressive party, as a bunch of batshit crazy SJWs and feminists, we could appeal more to moderates, as well as scare the conservatives into voting.

I'm very much against having the GOP alienate any groups, and against doing extremist policy ourselves.

[Ebliania]

Problem is, is it wiiiiiise?

I mean, I am not saying it because Republicans can win conservative voters. But, why would you want to exclude everyone but conservatives out of a party?

Oh no, of course not. The goal would be to paint Republcians as the "normal, common-sense, party". By painting Democrats, he more left wing/liberal/progressive party, as a bunch of batshit crazy SJWs and feminists, we could appeal more to moderates, as well as scare the conservatives into voting.

I'm very much against having the GOP alienate any groups, and against doing extremist policy ourselves.

But make sure you do something. If you do nothing then they might ride the wave anyway.

[The East Marches]

That could work very well. It would certainly play to the populations there. "Progressive" could easily become a pejorative in those areas quickly. My area still uses the old lingo of "liberal".

Isn't that what Republicans used to do before the 1960's? I don't think Republicans will be developing a progressive wing anytime soon though.

Used to do. I have an old image with "Young Republicans salute labor" or something of the like. I don't think they will ever be truly "progressive". Infact, I would argue that actually solving the problem would remove people's need to vote for them. I think they will do dribblets. That being said, they are showing they care and fight for farmers more than the Dems at the moment. Thats a shame in and of itself.

[Papal Sovereign State]

Let us give them a chance

[Valrifell]

Combine them with making the Rust Belt great again. They're the ones who'll fight for you, not the Dems.

That could work very well. It would certainly play to the populations there. "Progressive" could easily become a pejorative in those areas quickly. My area still uses the old lingo of "liberal".

Why would this work any better than having people call all Trump supporters racist and generally scummy?

[Ebliania]

That could work very well. It would certainly play to the populations there. "Progressive" could easily become a pejorative in those areas quickly. My area still uses the old lingo of "liberal".

Why would this work any better than having people call all Trump supporters racist and generally scummy?

Do that as well as throwing them a bone or two.

[Salandriagado]

Regarding the electoral college and rural voters, I have a rather surprising finding.

The EC doesn't favor them significantly. The EC favors small-population states, but those are not consistently rural states.

The states which have the most rural population, is surprising in itself. Places like Utah and Nevada with lots of open space are not particularly rural states (the open space doesn't have many people in it). And the two most rural states (biggest percentage of state population being rural) are two very liberal states: Maine and Vermont.

Urban and rural population by state (XLS spreadsheet) from US Census 2010

First, I'll graph all the states. Mainly so I won't be accused of cherry picking.

(Image)

Now, the states whose voters are advantaged by the Electoral College. Roughly speaking, the smaller the population of a state, the more advantaged its voters are. This is because every state gets 2 bonus Electors regardless of the number of House districts. But it's not strictly so, because the number of House districts per state only approximates the State's share of national population.

I've used someone else's calculations here to eliminate states whose voters are disadvantaged (Texas, California etc) compared to the average US voter.

The average is gotten by dividing the national population by the total number of electors. National population is 313 million because that was the estimate in 2012 (the year of Fzxboy's calculations) and there are 538 Electors. It comes to 581.8 thousand persons per Elector. States with more persons per Elector are eliminated. I also excluded Ohio since I can't tell if it's above or below that line, so it's not clearly advantaged.
I've also marked the MOST advantaged states: 7 states where the Electoral representation is more than twice the national average. Unsurprisingly they are among the least populous.

(Image)

That's basically my case for why advantaging the least populous states does not significantly advantage RURAL voters.

For anyone who doesn't trust the method of determining 'advantaged' or 'disadvantaged' states, I've also used a simpler method. Here are the 25 least populous states, plus DC:

(Image)

I think people have been conflating rural states with smaller or underdeveloped or powerless or irrelevant states or states with small populations, when there isn't always a correlation there. (See: Rhode Island, Delaware, etc.)

Yeah, I think it's people missing that there are two ways to have a small population: either lots of empty space, or just not very much space at all.

[AiliailiA]

I think people have been conflating rural states with smaller or underdeveloped or powerless or irrelevant states or states with small populations, when there isn't always a correlation there. (See: Rhode Island, Delaware, etc.)

Yeah, I think it's people missing that there are two ways to have a small population: either lots of empty space, or just not very much space at all.

Since there's some interest in what I did, I've done another version. Instead of relying on incompatible sources, here I've used only the 2010 Census info. I've graphed population per elector against percentage rural population per state:

My interpretation of this is that while low-rural states are disadvantaged (bottom right sector) that doesn't deliver a large advantage to high-rural states. Most of the correlation is from electoral disadvantage rather than electoral advantage, and this is possible because the disadvanted states have most of the population.

However, I must retract my previous claim that there's no "significant" advantage to rural voters from the electoral college. It's not huge, but it's not insignificant either.

[Patridam]

And again, that is not the problem of the EC. That is a problem of partisanship.

There are voters on both sides in every state. The EC essentially means the votes of the losing side are irrelevant.

Also- I'm confused as to why, in an urbanized, post-industrial era where our agriculture is mechanized and we import and export food to and from distant lands, we continue with the whole fanciful bullshit about rural areas needing to be represented more than cities, and also why we assume urban voters would seek to fuck them over or why their local governments would prove incapable of protecting them.
If you're so afraid of the people from the Capitol oppressing the Districts or whatever, why not re-organize the entire system of states? Urban areas can become state-level entities, and rural areas can become their own things.

Because, as a person from a rural area, urban politicians (especially liberal ones, republicans are often out of touch with what is or isn't beneficial but they try to give a shit, democrats more or less say "be glad you have you're privilege and that you aren't this urban black person who may or may not be worse off than you") often fuck us over and the highest level of government that have any real understanding is township level (as county seats are urban most often, and if not are corrupt anyway) which is incapable of doing anything to protect us.

Plus, even though you say we are in a "post industrial society", or "post agricultural" or whatever, that's all rural areas ever had. Hamburg PA, where I am from had farming, the broom factory, and the slight service industry of the downtown. Whether you think that a town like that is relevant or sustainable in a modern world is irrelevant, because the people who live there don't want to abandon their home and their values because a liberal in a distant land reading dispatches from the provinces says they aren't relevant. Our farming industry has become mechanized and centralized - I'll accept that. Nobody really liked hand farming anyway. But I refuse to accept that we can do nothing to try fix the dead manufacturing industry and rural service industry, to replace what was once the largest broom factory in the world with a gadget plant and to fill the empty storefronts killed by walmart (and an unemployed workforce with no disposable income) with, if not stores, at least offices and startups.

In short: we feel screwed over and unrepresented, because we kind of are.

[Jamzmania]

I think people have been conflating rural states with smaller or underdeveloped or powerless or irrelevant states or states with small populations, when there isn't always a correlation there. (See: Rhode Island, Delaware, etc.)

Yeah, I think it's people missing that there are two ways to have a small population: either lots of empty space, or just not very much space at all.

Personally I've never thought it was about rural vs. urban. It's about states, period.

[AiliailiA]

Yeah, I think it's people missing that there are two ways to have a small population: either lots of empty space, or just not very much space at all.

Personally I've never thought it was about rural vs. urban. It's about states, period.

If Federal government was "about states, period" then there would be no US House.

And each state would send the same number of Electors to the College. It would be literally "whoever wins the most states becomes President" and as I pointed out before, the President would represent a minority of Americans. As little as 17% with the current populations of states.

[Jamzmania]

Personally I've never thought it was about rural vs. urban. It's about states, period.

If Federal government was "about states, period" then there would be no US House.

And each state would send the same number of Electors to the College. It would be literally "whoever wins the most states becomes President" and as I pointed out before, the President would represent a minority of Americans. As little as 17% with the current populations of states.

I'm talking about the Electoral College, not the federal government.

[Jerzylvania]

That could work very well. It would certainly play to the populations there. "Progressive" could easily become a pejorative in those areas quickly. My area still uses the old lingo of "liberal".

Isn't that what Republicans used to do before the 1960's? I don't think Republicans will be developing a progressive wing anytime soon though.

They'll just keep hoping for an Electoral College miracle every once in awhile as the popular vote goes to the Dems. Why change?

[Ebliania]

So. Who gains seats in 2018? The Democrats or the GOP?

Dems is my first bet considering Trump's great resumé

[AiliailiA]

If Federal government was "about states, period" then there would be no US House.

And each state would send the same number of Electors to the College. It would be literally "whoever wins the most states becomes President" and as I pointed out before, the President would represent a minority of Americans. As little as 17% with the current populations of states.

I'm talking about the Electoral College, not the federal government.

The House is "the People's House" and the Senate is "the State's House" right?

The electoral college favors small-population states since there are 2 extra electors per state (corresponding to Senators), beyond the number of House districts in the state. But the Electors corresponding to House districts outnumber those extras ... by 435 to 100. There are 3 others for DC which isn't a state and doesn't have a (voting) Representative.

The Electoral College is "the people's" more than "the states'" by a factor of more than 4 to 1.

If the Electoral College was "about states, period" then a voter in Wyoming would have 67 times more influence than a voter in California.

Thankfully, it fucking isn't.

[Jerzylvania]

So. Who gains seats in 2018? The Democrats or the GOP?

Dems is my first bet considering Trump's great resumé

Especially those charming Bankruptcies. Definitely Dems.

[The Romulan Republic]

So. Who gains seats in 2018? The Democrats or the GOP?

Dems is my first bet considering Trump's great resumé

Especially those charming Bankruptcies. Definitely Dems.

I am very wary of this kind of thinking.

For two years now, we have had people saying that Trump is a joke, that he can't possibly win. Again and again I warned people about complacency regarding Trump (though I admit I succumbed somewhat at times myself).

And now, he's won the election.

We cannot just assume Trump will screw up and hand the next couple races to us on a silver platter. And if we do, we may be bemoaning our shocking yet entirely predictable defeat again in two years, and four.

[Tananat]

Also, more Democrat Senators are up for re-election in two years than Republicans, so whilst the Dems will likely make gains in the House, the Senate may remain out of reach.

[AiliailiA]

So. Who gains seats in 2018? The Democrats or the GOP?

Dems is my first bet considering Trump's great resumé

A gain of 3 for Dems in the Senate isn't likely, given the 2012 class which is up in 2018. They'd have to hold some quite red states for starters, then win 3 more.

It sounds odd after years of Democrats despairing of ever winning the House, but if Trump and the Republican Congress are really dreadful, the House is a better bet for Democrats than the Senate!

I haven't looked at the new House, there's not much point until the counting is finalized. But in the old one, Democrats would have needed a swing of 15% across the board to take the majority.

[Valaran]

So. Who gains seats in 2018? The Democrats or the GOP?

Dems is my first bet considering Trump's great resumé

Won't really matter, because its near impossible for the Dems to regain either the House or Senate then.

[The Portland Territory]

So. Who gains seats in 2018? The Democrats or the GOP?

Dems is my first bet considering Trump's great resumé

If that was the case, then shouldn't of Clinton win the election in a "landslide" like the pundits predicted?

[Balkenreich]

So. Who gains seats in 2018? The Democrats or the GOP?

Dems is my first bet considering Trump's great resumé

If that was the case, then shouldn't of Clinton win the election in a "landslide" like the pundits predicted?

Greatest 4chan prank ever.

[Jerzylvania]

Especially those charming Bankruptcies. Definitely Dems.

I am very wary of this kind of thinking.

For two years now, we have had people saying that Trump is a joke, that he can't possibly win. Again and again I warned people about complacency regarding Trump (though I admit I succumbed somewhat at times myself).

And now, he's won the election.

We cannot just assume Trump will screw up and hand the next couple races to us on a silver platter. And if we do, we may be bemoaning our shocking yet entirely predictable defeat again in two years, and four.

Trump won because of FBI Director Comey's vague but perfectly timed letter which was only possible bc Hillary never answered her email problem adequately. She had flaws and they were exploited masterfully in the last two weeks whereas Trump's flaws were not. I had said all along that this race was Hillary's to lose and dammit she found a way to lose it.