Which explains why I hate the whole "red state/blue state" thing. These days it seems that liberals think everyone in a red state is ignorant and conservatives think everyone in a blue state is elitist. Historically I would guess that most states have changed back and forth over the years. Changes in population or social or economic issues which tip the balance don't mean that every resident of the state suddenly changes affiliation, and some are always independent. My son once volunteered for a presidential candidate in our state and was dismayed to learn that the national party wouldn't give any funds to the state organization because they had determined in their formula our state wasn't needed to win. That is why who wins the popular vote doesn't matter. If the system was different, money would be distributed differently, and the results would probably be about the same. It's called politics.
Though there are many factors and some anomalous years, if you look at the data (go on, take a look, it's interesting and revealing) it becomes clear that since the American Civil War the major defining factor in US presidential elections has been race. I'm loathe to admit this as I tend to disagree with people who see racism as the reason for everything, but, just look at the map. Democrats were the party of racists (in the south, and to a lesser extent in the mid-west) from 1860 until 1964. 100 years of Democrats owning the "solid south." Then what happened? The Civil Rights Act of 1964, introduced by a Democratic Congressman, signed into law by a Democratic president, and *immediately* the country flips completely, defying 100 years of precedent. The racist states turned from blue to red and vice versa. The only years that are different since then are 1968 when the Democrats splintered
... and formed the Dixiecrat party, and in 1976 when the Democrats ran a southern peanut farmer from Georgia. (he would go on to carry Georgia in 1980, as well) but the overall pattern in every other year for the past 150 years can be explained by this one thing. The racist states try to dress up their racism in different ways and call it different things. Things like "states rights" and "smaller government" which was their way of saying keep the federal government weak so that state and local governments are free to oppress their minority populations; and of course gun rights became a big thing because southern militias needed to be armed to keep said minorities in line. This one issue has shaped American political discourse so pervasively and for so long that most people don't even realize it, they think that their party is in favor of small government because they believe in fiscal responsibility or something like that.
and of course not all Republican voters are racist and many now actually do believe in these things racism aside but that is where our current two-party national divide originally came from and how many ideas that we now take for granted as conservative or liberal principles came to take shape.
Agree with you for the most part, but one thing that I disagree with is that Democrats were completely the "party of racists" up until 1960. The shift actually started happening earlier I think--FDR was the first major Democrat to win large numbers of black people, mostly due to the New Deal, and from then on black people have solidly stayed Democrats. This led to the kinda weird phenomenon where you had both black people and white supremacists voting for some of the same candidates for several decades.
Like I said, I don't think you're wrong, it's just you make it seem like it happened immediately whereas the political realignment was a more gradual process. On the state-wide level what you said is absolutely true because the black population has not historically played a large role in swinging votes.
There were many different gradual changes. All that I meant when I said that things flipped immediately was that the electoral college map flipped, with the South going from being solid blue to solid red, and the rest of the country vice versa. And it did. Look at the link I posted (paying specific attention to the states in the slavery and racism belt - Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and the Carolinas). The change could hardly be more rapid or more stark. But yes behind the scenes there was a lot of stuff going on and it took decades to unfold and in some places is still unfolding (like the fact that we still have a Democratic senator from West Virginia).
That's an exorbitant amount of time. I'm pretty sure a quick typist could type all 50 states twice in that amount of time. That's what I did to get New Hampshire. Started at Alabama and worked my way down alphabetically.
How about all quizzes being so short that only the top 2% typists can actually finish it on time, that way those of us in pursuit of knowledge can relax and take up gardening instead?
If I don't know answers I don't guess 100 things to be "right". I just skip to the next one and click Give Up. You can't learn anything if all you remember is typing everything that came into your head.
This group is changing steadily. Missouri is pretty safe for the GOP - even in Trump's worst polling periods it never looked like going blue. Virginia is increasingly behaving as a blue state, not a swing state. Pennsylvania, on the other hand, could become more of a swing state and North Carolina looks to be following Virginia's trajectory. Meanwhile I think Iowa could follow Missouri and move towards becoming a more GOP-leaning state.
North Carolina was won by Obama in 08, but since then has mainly gone GOP in national and local races. It seems like it was more of a fluke than anything.
Indiana did the same thing with Obama in 08. I'd still say NC is a swing state though. Enough large cities to be close to 50/50. The rural and urban highly contrast each other.
This is the fifth election in which the Democrat won the popular vote but a different candidate won the presidency. (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and now 2016. 1824 Republicans weren't around but the other elections the Republican won)
Before 1964 the Democratic and Republican parties were very different, with completely different platforms and constituencies. I'd be careful drawing any broad conclusions going back to the 1800s. But the fact that this has happened twice in the last two decades is troubling.
It's not troubling at all. The electoral college protects small states and keeps them in the participation process. Otherwise we'd have the 2-3 biggest states picking all the winners in every election.
No we'd get the citizens of the USA picking the winner. There's no reason why voters in WY should havemore say than voters in CA, and if we used a popular vote states wouldn't decide anything. The 10 million people of GA would count exactly the same as the 10 million people of OK+CT+IA. Also this would eliminate the way the minority in each state is subsumed by the majority, rendering their votes meaningless. That applies as much to Republicans voting in CA as it does to Democrats voting in TX. Finally, the main purpose of the EC as devised by the founding fathers was to protect against dangerous but popular demagogues (like Trump) coming to power. The founders were very wary of direct democracy for this reason. They knew such villains could appeal to the plebes before betraying them. If the EC decides to vote against Trump this year it'll have done what it was designed to do. But it probably won't, and if it doesn't, then it is useless.
LOL what a silly argument. Voters in WY already do not have more say than voters in CA. WY has 3 electoral votes, CA has 55 which is about a 1700% increase over WY. States are assigned a number of votes based on their population. The higher the population, the more electoral votes. The presidential election is NOT a popularity contest, and the founders didn't want it to be. They formed a republic, and they knew that direct democracy (which is what the popular vote is, not the EC) always leads to fascism. The founders were brilliant when they created the Electoral College. The election gives States the right to send delegates to the Electoral College. Otherwise we wouldn't be the United STATES, and also, the Electoral College protects the minority, not the majority as you say, by giving power to ALL the states and giving a voice to the people who don't live in the 5 biggest cities.
So if the Electoral College votes against Trump, it's doing what it is "supposed to do?" No. The electoral college is supposed to vote the way the citizens voted according to their respective state. Yes they could go and vote the other way if they wanted to, but they'd disgrace themselves and trash their careers in the process. But you're right, it probably won't happen. Just getting one to switch will be problematic. They need how many to overturn Trump, about 46? That'd be like winning the lottery 46 times. Not gonna happen.
So Trump is a "demagogue?" Demagogues don't use rational arguments. I watched all the debates. Trump had nothing but rational arguments, unlike his opponent, who basically had no message at all, other than "vote for me because I am a woman" and "I will continue Obama's policies" which are proven disasters. Trump laid out specifics and she didn't have an answer for anything. She thought if she smiled and laughed a lot, that would be enough. The laugh is on her.
Here's my two cents: the electoral college is stupid (see CGP Grey video), Trump didn't win the popular vote but won the electoral college (see different CGP Grey video) because he played his cards well (there'll probably be a CGP Grey video on that soon). He may not have won fairly, but that's not a problem with him, it's a problem with the country, and the way we elect our leaders.
Everybody has campaigned how they've campaigned because of the EC. If candidates really wanted to win the popular vote, they'd campaign in population-rich areas, not in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Maine, etc. The EC makes candidates campaign in those states.
Well you can make an argument that the states in the United States are like small countries. Similar to how the UN security council gives 1 vote per member.
Now, i'm not saying this is a strong argument, but it was an incentive for some states to join the United States following independence.
The Electoral College votes are unevenly distributed, and the bigger states like California and Texas don't get the representation they deserve, while tiny states like Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska all get 3 votes. It also gives the majorities in each state an advantage, so in safely Democratic states like California and solidly Republican ones like Alabama the minor party really has no shot at winning, rendering their votes essentially useless for the purpose of electing the candidate they voted for. It's only in the swing states that people's votes really count since that is what can tip the election in favor of either candidate. This can barely be called democratic, as in a democracy all votes count equally. I find this system absurd, and don't see any reason as to why the US doesn't go by popular vote, since that is after all what determines what the majority of people want. Also, in the Electoral College, a candidate can technically win with only 21.91% of the vote.
Also, the Electoral College doesn't actually benefit the small states, since presidential candidates don't really care about them unless it's an insanely close election. This means that the EC doesn't really benefit anyone and should be abolished altogether. Popular vote benefits everyone equally, no matter if you live in a big city of in the countryside.
I personally think that not having the electoral college will make elections more interesting. Rather than both candidates visiting the same swing states each time, we would see republicans campaigning in California, or Dems campaigning in Rural Mississippi.
With that said though, the margin of victory the Dems get in CA and NY simply outweighs everything else. So, it would not be the best way.
Let's see why the electoral college is bad. Just plain bad.
Technically, the last Republican to win the popular vote was 32 years ago, in 1988 (Bush managed to win it in 2004 but wouldn't Al Gore won it in 2000, so he would be President if the popular vote counted).
WY vs. CA. California has 19 times as many Electoral Votes as Wyoming. However, California's actual population is 68 times as big as Wyoming's. Republicans have most of these incredibly tiny-sized states (in population), which explains why Republicans tend to win the electoral vote a lot but not the popular vote.)
Now, take into account all of these facts and you'll should've realized why the using electoral college for presidential elections isn't a good practice and why we should switch to the using the popular vote instead.
Talking about the electoral college as the end all be all and then claiming that tiny little New Hampshire has more power than California is bonkers. This line of thinking is the natural progression of the legislation getting weaker and weaker and the American people allowing the Executive to get stronger and stronger. Sure, California has less presidential votes per capita than New Hampshire, but it also makes up 1/8 of the entire House of Representatives. We would see this as a fair balance, except we have allowed the president to act as a de-facto king, ruling on high with executive orders and the legislature just getting out of the way except to pass large omnibus spending packages. If we got our government back to the way it was intended, there wouldn't be the need for this argument.
I love going back and reading comments before the election and then those since trying to justify how Clinton should be President even though she lost the popular without California by 1.4 million votes. Lets face it, California is NOT a good gauge for the country as a whole. As for those not happy about the electoral college (and making excuses about it because Hillary lost), the candidates enter into it knowing how the system works and they accept it. It is the most fair, giving every state a total number based on the percentage of their population of that state. It is how the system has always been. The infants love it only when their candidate wins and throw temper tantrums when they don't. Us grown ups accept when we don't like who won and hope for something else in the next election.
You know that whether or not you like California's political atmosphere, it's still a state, right. So as far as I'm aware, you can't just remove the votes of any state. If not, time to remove the votes the Republicans get in Texas, Georgia and North Carolina.
"The electoral college exists to ensure every state has a say!"
"Oh and by the way this state doesn't count because I don't like them."
The first statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but at least it's better than plain hypocrisy. The EC in recent times has made the US, and the world, horribly polarising. As applied it favours conservatism, which doesn't really work out when we've got a huge looming global crisis on our hands in climate change. I doubt the US will survive the next 50 years strong, unless the EC is abandoned.
For now. Now that the same party is in charge of the house, senate, and white house, historically that hasn't ended well for that party. I'd expect the swing states to start to swing back. Florida is becoming pretty republican these days and I don't think will be a swing state much longer.
Yeah there's a reason for that... Florida seems to be soaking up all the conservatives that are leaving states like New York and California. Florida's population boom in the recent few years has been great for the GOP there in the same way the population boom in Texas has been looking pretty good for Democrats there.
The state is solid red, though, outside of NoVA, Richmond, and some parts of the Norfolk metro area. As those areas have become more densely populated it turned more and more purple, and is now starting to become blue. But before 2008 Virginia had voted for the Republican candidate for president in every single election going back to 1952 except once ('64).
Going by the most recent polling data, the 10 most competitive states this year look to be (in descending order):
Ohio
North Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Iowa
Texas
Arkansas
New Hampshire
Arizona
and Pennsylvania
I'm not really sure I believe that Arkansas poll. If that was a fluke, then Nevada would slide in to the 10th most competitive spot. Would be pretty crazy if Trump lost in Arkansas. But the fact that Texas and Georgia are competitive this year is also bad news for him. Those have traditionally been Republican strongholds and also where they get a substantial chunk of their electoral college votes.
None of the other states are surprising. My home state of Virginia is leaning more blue all the time. Happy to see that sanity is prevailing there.
It's like how South Carolina in 2016 had a couple polls showing Hillary winning there and she lost soundly on election night. There's always going to be some funky polls that are head-scratching to look back on.
Saying Florida isn't a swing state anymore is a rushed conclusion in my opinion, I'd wait for the 2022 midterms and 2024 election to see. For all we know, it could have been a fluke because of the much-more-Republican-than-usual Cuban vote in Miami-Dade. Other than that, I'd agree.
Yeah, it is well-known that Cuban-Americans are repelled by the notion of "socialism," and the GOP has been selling the notion that the current Democratic party is a Marxist cabal. Now that Biden is actually in office and the Democrats control the Senate, I think many people will see there is not going to be a socialist revolution. Biden's stimulus plan seems very popular and he has, at least in the early going, avoided engaging in the cultural wars and general spirit of mania that characterized the previous administration. I think it will bring back some voters. I also don't think anyone has any idea what the Republican votership will look like without Trump. He's such an anomaly. Will his fanbase follow an "establishment" candidate? If a Trump surrogate wins the nomination, can he inspire the same fervor without Trump's unique personal appeal? Seems impossible to tell, and four years is a long time.
I think the 2022 midterms kind of confirmed the point. Florida, while not likely to be solid Republican as far as raw margins (R+10 or more), is going to be comfortably Republican in 2024 regardless of who the nominee is. It's just zooming to the right the same way Colorado rocketed to the left since the Obama years.
New Hampshire was solidly Republican pre-WW2 except for Wilson and FDR, and again until a blip in 64 for LBJ. After that it was Republican again until Clinton, went for Bush 04 but not Bush 08, and stayed Dem since with a VERY narrow gap in 16. It also has a GOP trifecta at the state level. It couldn't be more of a swing state!
Minnesota will never vote red (at least on a national level) anytime soon—the Democratic majority nearly always overpowers the Republicans, no matter how small the margin.
Like I said, I don't think you're wrong, it's just you make it seem like it happened immediately whereas the political realignment was a more gradual process. On the state-wide level what you said is absolutely true because the black population has not historically played a large role in swinging votes.
Now, i'm not saying this is a strong argument, but it was an incentive for some states to join the United States following independence.
With that said though, the margin of victory the Dems get in CA and NY simply outweighs everything else. So, it would not be the best way.
Technically, the last Republican to win the popular vote was 32 years ago, in 1988 (Bush managed to win it in 2004 but wouldn't Al Gore won it in 2000, so he would be President if the popular vote counted).
WY vs. CA. California has 19 times as many Electoral Votes as Wyoming. However, California's actual population is 68 times as big as Wyoming's. Republicans have most of these incredibly tiny-sized states (in population), which explains why Republicans tend to win the electoral vote a lot but not the popular vote.)
Now, take into account all of these facts and you'll should've realized why the using electoral college for presidential elections isn't a good practice and why we should switch to the using the popular vote instead.
"Oh and by the way this state doesn't count because I don't like them."
The first statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but at least it's better than plain hypocrisy. The EC in recent times has made the US, and the world, horribly polarising. As applied it favours conservatism, which doesn't really work out when we've got a huge looming global crisis on our hands in climate change. I doubt the US will survive the next 50 years strong, unless the EC is abandoned.
The Untied States.
Ohio
North Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Iowa
Texas
Arkansas
New Hampshire
Arizona
and Pennsylvania
I'm not really sure I believe that Arkansas poll. If that was a fluke, then Nevada would slide in to the 10th most competitive spot. Would be pretty crazy if Trump lost in Arkansas. But the fact that Texas and Georgia are competitive this year is also bad news for him. Those have traditionally been Republican strongholds and also where they get a substantial chunk of their electoral college votes.
None of the other states are surprising. My home state of Virginia is leaning more blue all the time. Happy to see that sanity is prevailing there.