RedDenver Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Big Red 40 said: I watched the election results of the last three elections, most states were decided early and by large margins. Hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions, of minds would have to change to swing those electoral college results. It would take a major upheaval, and lots of time to change that if it happened.at all. The glaring thing to me is the 100 million + registered voters who didn't vote at all. Higher voter turnout usually favors the left , and i think that complacency was a huge factor in the 2016 election loss. I agree we need a better candidate to engage the nonvoters, and i think is the current crap show continues, swing voters will sour on the GOP, and will be looking for change also. The 2016 Presidential election was decided by approximately 27k votes in Nevada (6 electoral votes), 45k in Minnesota (10 electoral votes), 23k votes in Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), 11k votes in Michigan (16 electoral votes), and 44k votes in Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes). Additionally, the following states with 6+ electoral votes were decided by 250k votes or less: Colorado (9 electoral votes) Utah (6 electoral votes) Arizona (11 electoral votes) Oregon (7 electoral votes) Iowa (6 electoral votes) Nevada (6 electoral votes) Kansas (6 electoral votes) Mississippi (6 electoral votes) North Carolina (15 electoral votes) Virginia (13 electoral votes) Georgia (16 electoral votes) Florida (29 electoral votes) Connecticut (7 electoral votes) That's a total of 18 states and 199 (37%) electoral votes. Even if we only count states with 10+ electoral votes, that's 9 states and 140 (26%) electoral votes. And that's not counting the smaller population states with <6 electoral votes. The major upheaval is already happening, and these elections are closer than you might think. Edited December 16, 2017 by RedDenver Link to comment
Big Red 40 Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 250 thousand people is a lot right? Link to comment
Big Red 40 Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 Also idk if stats are available as to how much the numbers differed from 2012 in those states ? Link to comment
RedDenver Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 57 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said: 250 thousand people is a lot right? Not really. For example, 250k is 21% of the total votes in Kansas from 2016, but only 9% in Colorado and 2.7% in Florida. 4 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said: Also idk if stats are available as to how much the numbers differed from 2012 in those states ? To compare to the 2012 election, in Wisconsin 1620k voted for Obama and 1410k voted for Romney whereas 1382k voted for Clinton and 1405k voted for Trump; that's a change of -5k for the Repubs and -238k for the Dems which ended up changing the outcome in Wisconsin. Link to comment
zoogs Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 It's not a lot. Small margins moved the wrong way in 2016. Turnout was insufficient. Trump is the upheaval. We lost, and we'll continue to unless we learn something from it. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted December 20, 2017 Share Posted December 20, 2017 This is a reminder that every single vote counts. It's why it drives me nuts to see such apathy towards voting in the U.S. from a lot of people. If we don't start by exercising our individual right to vote, we'll never have the type of representative democracy we deserve to have. Final vote tally: Simmonds: 11,608 Yancey: 11,607 1 Link to comment
Big Red 40 Posted December 20, 2017 Share Posted December 20, 2017 That's the difference between the craptastic electoral college where your vote counts far less depending on the state you live in, and popular vote system where every vote actually counts. 2 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted December 20, 2017 Share Posted December 20, 2017 This will be recounted again. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted December 20, 2017 Share Posted December 20, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said: I mean, he's not wrong. On one hand, the GOP being uncompromising led to a wave of Tea Party elections and put us where we are today. They're currently completely, almost to a person with very few exceptions, unwilling to compromise or be bipartisan on pretty much anything. Any single piece of significant legislation they're doing their way & they refuse to work with Dems. Good, bad, indifferent... that's where we're at. I know a lot of people think the process seems completely corrupted at this point and the lack of bipartisanship is hurting Washington and the average person. On the other hand, Democrats need to convince people they have the courage of their convictions. They need voters to believe they actually believe the ideas they espouse and will put them in place if people elect them. Too many people think politicians are just dishonest liars paying lip service to different groups to get elected. Dems have a golden opportunity to call out the GOP as phony/corrupt/dishonest and present an honest alternative. Equivocating and trying to meet an opponent halfway who has no interest in working with you in good faith will only weaken their position. De Blasio is right in that Dems need to be unafraid to actually walk the walk if people elect them to do so. No more lip service. No more equivocation. Edited December 20, 2017 by dudeguyy Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted December 20, 2017 Share Posted December 20, 2017 For reference, when the GOP won back the House in 2010, they won the House vote by roughly 7 points. They gained 63 seats from that margin. When Dems took back the House in 2006, they won by 8 points exactly. They gained 31 seats. When Newt Gingrich led the Republican Revolution & took back the House in 1994, they won by roughly 7 points. They gained 51 seats. Dems need to win 24 seats to take back the House next year. If these numbers on the generic ballot hold (or worsen) and prove out in the polling booths next fall, this is a number that would absolutely decimate Republicans' hold on Congress. Link to comment
zoogs Posted December 20, 2017 Share Posted December 20, 2017 Yes, you have to be uncompromising. If anyone can look at what Republican aims are in this country and think, "well, it's only reasonable to meet that halfway", well, hopefully one day they'll look back and find this stance regrettable. The Democrats, if anything, need to be pushed in a less compromising direction than where they are now. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 On 12/20/2017 at 0:33 PM, zoogs said: Yes, you have to be uncompromising. If anyone can look at what Republican aims are in this country and think, "well, it's only reasonable to meet that halfway", well, hopefully one day they'll look back and find this stance regrettable. The Democrats, if anything, need to be pushed in a less compromising direction than where they are now. I think uncompromising is the wrong word. What the Dems need is to be forceful and strong in their convictions, but willing to compromise to make progress. Of course, compromise requires give and take by both sides, so if the Repubs won't give, then there's no reason the Dems to do so either. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 Uncompromising has gotten us to where we are today. Link to comment
zoogs Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 Wrong. Taking advantage of people's inclination to compromise, or to see compromise as reasonable, is what allows awful people to get anywhere. You can't compromise with people divorced from reality and bent on self-enrichment at the expense of others without encouraging them to go even further and see what more they can get away with. How much more they can push the "center" towards their side. Link to comment
Recommended Posts