2016 Electoral map

[baja]

Originally Posted by razorwire77

Imagine 2020 when Texas becomes a purple state.

Face it the country is going socialist. What will follow is the same problems that many European countries have.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Here me now and believe me later. I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you of what anyone can clearly see is happening. The Republican party is on the ropes, and the libertarians have the strongest candidate in their history. You scoff at a million votes as though Obama won by 10 million.

The libertarian party has 4 years to mobilize with the strongest candidate they've ever had against the weakest Republican party in over 100 years. Just remember where you heard it first when it all goes down.

Yeah, I don't buy it, much as I would prefer to see a debate on issues between a Democrat and a Libertarian as opposed to a Republican.

Although Lincoln was elected as a Republican while the party was still relatively unknown, that was over 150 years ago, and the political landscape has changed so much that a candidate not belonging to the two "establishment" parties has almost no chance of being elected, let alone recognized nationally. The Citizens United decision will only serve to reinforce this, as the D's and R's have acquired so much political capital (both in the way of economic support and party infrastructure) over the past 100 years, that neither of them are going away anytime soon, least of all to a fringe movement that many people only use as a way to protest the establishment. For as much of an advantage the Democrats have had over the Republicans with regard to party infrastructure over the past 8 years, the Republicans have 10 times that advantage over the Libertarians.

From a political science perspective, it's a pipe dream at best. There is literally no statistical or historical basis on which to make the claim that a Libertarian will get any more than a fraction of the vote. Look at Perot. He was a nationally recognized name before the election, took part in the debates...may have gotten almost 20% of the vote, but didn't win a single state.

If you should have learned anything from the past 15 years, it's that popular vote means nothing...well, next to nothing...in presidential politics.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Ohio’s GOP Secretary of State Already Has A Plan To Rig The 2016 Election For Republicans

In other words, the left is scared ****less having gotten slaughtered in '10 and having barely won this election, so they're already preparing to lose in '16. Crying election rigging has become your sour grapes go-to since '00.

I can understand that though, anti-abortion Tea Party fave Ken Buck came very close to winning in a district that includes the notorious ideological toilet known as the City and County of Denver, and Tancredo got 36% of the vote in Denver which must make liberal eyes absolutely bleed.

Aside from the media self-massaging over the trendy selfish identity group blocs voting Democrat and interpreting overall Democratic votes as vindication of such divisive identity bloc voting (so much for being a post-racial uniter, go figure!), the Democrats fully know that catering to such insular, non-inclusive, one-issue selfish hounds is what is needed to stay remotely competitive which is why the Democrats keep doing it (as historically their economic policies tend to stink and those who don't are like Clinton who compromised with the GOP with welfare reform), and thus openly catered to them even while insisting quite loudly that their voters aren't selfish, narcissistic one-issue voters. Reality is setting in and the Democrats are preparing for '16 in advance.

And here we thought you all had this great "mandate"... Oh wait, you said that in '09, and then after getting your asses kicked in the polls in '10, the word 'mandate' went to the memory hole around the same time that Bush's "General Betray-us" became Obama's General Petraeus.

Enjoy your next 4 years you barely eked out at the polls, good liberal friends, and don't get too skerred.



Keep believing the confirmation bias bilge being excreted by the usual MSM suspects, and please, be who you all really are so everyone can get a nice good look at you. Don't go scampering off when the light is turned on.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

In other words, the left is scared ****less having gotten slaughtered in '10 and having barely won this election, so they're already preparing to lose in '16.

"Having barely won" this election?

L0L!

What planet are you living on?

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

"Having barely won" this election?

L0L!

What planet are you living on?

Check the popular vote. It wasn't remotely a "blowout." Compare it to 2008's popular vote. Hint: 7 million votes fewer for Obama this time around. It concerns liberals enough that they're already coming up with 2016 pre-loss conspiracy theories.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by baja

Face it the country is going socialist. What will follow is the same problems that many European countries have.

I doubt it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Check the popular vote. It wasn't remotely a "blowout." Compare it to 2008's popular vote. Hint: 7 million votes fewer for Obama this time around. It concerns liberals enough that they're already coming up with 2016 pre-loss conspiracy theories.

You might want to read up on this thing called "The Electoral College."
It's going to be your nemesis for many years to come.

At any rate, here on Planet Earth, Obama almost swept the battleground states on his way to winning 332 electoral votes.

Obama won the popular vote in 2012 with a more comfortable margin than your hero the court-appointed pinhead (who lost the popular vote in 2000) in 2004.

And "pre-loss conspiracy theories?"

It's just you and the rest of Planet Fox vs. all those federal judges, eh?

[El Minion]

Originally Posted by El Minion

I forget who I was watching but this pollster (Silver of 538?) said that due to changing demographics and that R's are more rural thus favoring more House seat opportunities to win since D's tend to be urban, that this split government is the new normal. Senate races will tend to favor D's slightly however consistently due to state wide turnout and that D's get an extra boost every 4th year for the POTUS election hence what we have today: split congress with D as POTUS.





Fun Fact: Romney received fewer popular votes than McCain and Kerry.

Election Results by County

Mark Newman of the University of Michigan has produced a map of the presidential election in which each county is colored red or blue depending on who won it. He also has cartograms and other maps of the election, which are reproduced here under the Creative Commons license.




It is pretty striking how many counties Romney won. It is also striking that Obama got 2.5 million more votes than Romney. If the blue counties are as blue as the red counties are red, that means that more people live in the small number of blue counties than in all the red ones combined. In other words, while there aren't many blue counties, that's where most of the people live. To give an example of this disparity, 3.8 million people live in the 469 square miles of the city of Los Angeles. This is half a million more people than the combined populations of Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, which together cover 1.6 million square miles. These four states are 3,400 times larger than Los Angeles but have appreciably fewer people. In other words, while the land area of the red counties is vastly greater than that of the blue counties, there are hardly any people living in many of them.

The map clearly shows Obama's strengths: the Northeast, the upper Midwest, the West Coast, and the Colorado-New Mexico axis. There is also some strength in the South. In Southern Florida, Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties are full of New York transplants who are strong Democrats. There is also a blue band that curves down from North Carolina. These are counties with large black populations.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

To give an example of this disparity, 3.8 million people live in the 469 square miles of the city of Los Angeles.

The greater L.A. area is ~18 million.

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by baja

Face it the country is going socialist. What will follow is the same problems that many European countries have.

Actually, most of Europe's problems at this point is caused from different countries with different standards of living trying to use the same currency.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

Actually, most of Europe's problems at this point is caused from different countries with different standards of living trying to use the same currency.

Not to mention that comparing our economy with Europe, or...well, anyone else on earth, ever, is...

Dumb.

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Not to mention that comparing our economy with Europe, or...well, anyone else on earth, ever, is...

Dumb.

Well, China's economy is pretty good maybe we should turn to communism?

[cutthemdown]

Hilliary wont run again.

[GreasyQtip]

Fun map that more visually represents the distribution of votes. Middle is popular, bottom is electoral.



http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...%2C_blue_state

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

In other words, the left is scared ****less having gotten slaughtered in '10 and having barely won this election, so they're already preparing to lose in '16. Crying election rigging has become your sour grapes go-to since '00.

You lost women by 37%.

You lost Hispanics, Asians and African Americans by ENORMOUS margins.

Each of those segments of the population are growing.

But yeah. We're TERRIFIED of the old white person brigade.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

When is a landslide *NOT* a landslide in TEApublican bizzaro world? When the black guy does it.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

When is a landslide *NOT* a landslide in TEApublican bizzaro world? When the black guy does it.

Wow! The truth hurts.

[Bacchus]

Pretty funny, look at south central U.S. See the triangle of blue dots? That is the Texas Triangle. Dallas-Austin-Houston and the blue dot underneath Austin is San Antonio.

[Rohirrim]

Looks like Oklahoma and Utah don't have a single, blue dot.

[Odysseus]

Originally Posted by Taco John

That map means nothing right now. In 2016, Gary Johnson will be running again as the libertarian candidate. The next election is going to be a three party race, you can count on it.

They co opted the Tea Party. Do you think Gary Johnson could be co opted?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Looks like Oklahoma and Utah don't have a single, blue dot.

Oklahoma is the most conservative state int he U.S.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The map we're used to seeing exaggerates the size of the Republican vote, since there are a lot of red states that are large in area but small in population. In this cartogram, where 1 square = 1 electoral vote, Obama's mandate becomes easier to see.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[Odysseus]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

--- The problem, as Obama has stated, is education.