Maps of the Two Americas- Trump, Clinton

Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Maps of the Two Americas- Trump, Clinton

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • November 17, 2016 at 12:53 pm #58739
    bnw
    Blocked

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/16/us/politics/the-two-americas-of-2016.html?_r=0

    Too see both maps click on link.
    The Two Americas of 2016
    By TIM WALLACE NOV. 16, 2016

    For many Americans, it feels as if the 2016 election split the country in two.

    To visualize this, we took the election results and created two new imaginary nations by slicing the country along the sharp divide between Republican and Democratic Americas.

    Trump’s America

    Geographically, Donald J. Trump won most of the land area of the United States. A country consisting of areas he won retains more than 80 percent of the nation’s counties.

    While Trump country is vast, its edges have been eroded by coastal Democrats, and it is riddled with large inland lakes of Clinton voters who were generally concentrated in dense urban areas.

    Clinton’s America

    By Tim Wallace/The New York Times

    Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly won the cities, like Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City, but Mr. Trump won many of the suburbs, isolating the cities in a sea of Republican voters.

    Mrs. Clinton’s island nation has large atolls and small island chains with liberal cores, like college towns, Native American reservations and areas with black and Hispanic majorities. While the land area is small, the residents here voted for Mrs. Clinton in large enough numbers to make her the winner of the overall popular vote.

    Land Area
    Clinton’s America
    15%
    530,000 square miles

    Trump’s America
    85%
    3,000,000 square miles

    Population
    Clinton’s America
    54%
    174 million

    Trump’s America
    46%
    148 million

    Popular Vote
    As of Wednesday, Nov. 16.

    For Clinton
    50.4%
    61.8 million

    For Trump
    49.6%
    60.8 million

    • This topic was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by bnw.

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

    November 17, 2016 at 3:42 pm #58747
    Mackeyser
    Moderator

    Will repeat this.

    If CA had the same representation as Wyoming, CA would have 199 Electoral College Votes.

    the point of the House was to allocate representation by population. Unfortunately, you can’t get less than 1. Which means that instead of making Wyoming, ND and SD vote for a combined Rep (that’s just one alternative), citizens of large states like CA, TX and NY are UNDERREPRESENTED.

    When the Constitution was passed until 1913, we didn’t directly elect Senators. Now that’s changed.

    We used to elect the Electors directly, not the President. The Electors were on the ballot. Lots of people don’t remember that. That didn’t stop until sometime after WWII. So, that’s a really recent phenomenon, relatively speaking.

    There’s no reason for the Electoral College any more. The argument that rural states will be ignored doesn’t make any sense. Of the 27 rural states, NONE of them received ANY visits from either of the Candidates. NONE. Moreover, the Candidates ONLY visited 12 battleground states. When they did, they ONLY visited metro areas. NEITHER left heavily populated areas.

    So, the rural argument is moot. Rural America is ALREADY being ignored. Nebraska, SD, ND, WY, UT, AK and a host of other states have their votes just as taken for granted as CA, NY and MA.

    Moreover, statistically, there’s real statistical analysis that Trump would likely have won a popular vote contest without the Electoral college. I mean how many Conservatives didn’t vote in CA or NY? How many Conservatives didn’t vote in TX or UT or a host of other states. The incremental increase for voters if each vote actually mattered between Alabama, California, Nevada, New York and Tennessee a) would have changed the dynamic substantially and b) would have increased voter turnout because it wouldn’t matter if a person’s in the minority in their state.

    I believe in the principle that every vote matters and that in a democracy, we must encourage every citizen to participate.

    I don’t say the electoral college should be abolished because I think it would have led to a Clinton victory. I don’t. I still think Trump would have won. I think it should be abolished because it’s an outdated institution that disenfranchises people across the political spectrum which is wrong in principle.

    Sports is the crucible of human virtue. The distillate remains are human vice.

    November 17, 2016 at 4:27 pm #58756
    bnw
    Blocked

    Without 3 million illegals voting Trump easily wins the popular vote. Then theres the dead people voting and voting machine fraud and ballots lost or destroyed etc.

    The electoral college gives the ignored states a voice. The big 5 electoral states of CA, NY, TX, FL, IL? are already either guaranteed democrat or at least in play. That is a great advantage to the democrat party. Instead of bitching they should pay more attention to the suburban and rural voters everywhere that aren’t illegal alien voters.

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.