No One Lives In Trump's Red States!

[toobfreak]

Have you heard that lie as often as I have? What is the real truth here? Unlike the many Tramp-bashers here who spew constant unsubstantiated rhetoric, I will explore the facts of the matter as I always do. So what is the truth of the Blue and Red States?

1. Since nearly all states periodically change from Blue to Red to Blue again, any absolute claims about a state based on "color" must therefore be total BULL. Same holds true for "Trump Supporters" since a good many of them also voted for Obama! That alone negates 95% of all Trump or Trump Supporter bashing threads.
   
2. There is no "Blue" or "Red" states. Some states are indeed HARD Blue or Red, but many more states are purple that simply lean blue or red, and "Swing States" are those states which are close enough to the absolute middle that they could conceivably be "swung" to the other side at any given time.

As usual, I went back to a website and gathered data, then created my own chart as the graphical representation I was after to display didn't seem to already exist in the form I wanted to show it. Here was my source for population:

The 50 US States Ranked By Population

I used another chart I had on file that showed the outcome of the states in 2016 ranked by four shades of blue and red each representing 5-10-15-+ percent leaning for the given candidate. By putting these together, I was able to create a chart that showed the order of states BY ORDER OF POPULATION, and whether they were blue or red, and to what degree.

Since the question here is whether anyone lives in Red states, we are NOT concerned with the Size of the states nor the number of Electoral voters. Here is the result:

What can we conclude from this?

1. OF THE TEN MOST POPULOUS STATES: only THREE are Blue, the other SEVEN are Red.
2. OF THE TEN LEAST POPULOUS STATES: five are Blue, five are Red, and Maine is 75% Blue and 25% Red. So there is NO TRUTH in the claim that no one lives in Red states, and Trump bashers are lying sacks of shit! As usual, clueless or lying about the actual facts.

What CAN be said is that:

• 3 of the top 6 most populous states HEAVILY favored Hillary, while those red states which heavily favored Trump tended to be smaller. But then, those three Blue states are totally dominated by cities making up less than 1% of their areas (San Fran, LA, Chicago, and NYC). Therefore, democratic voters are centralized while Trump voters are diversified.
• In contrast, Trump's largest hard core (+15%) state ranked #16 (Tennessee).

Trump's red states have around 24 million more people in them than Hillary's Blue states. The Democrat's only chance to win is to pull and hold onto a few BIG cities like NYC, Chicago and LA, whereas Trump won by sheer volume, he got broad support across the states and across MANY more states.

 

[okfine]

Good luck... or is it Good Grief.

 

[toobfreak]

Good luck... or is it Good Grief.

Good luck with what, Fuckwit? Are you disputing the facts? Proven them wrong! I dare you!

 

[okfine]

Good luck... or is it Good Grief.

Good luck with what, Fuckwit? Are you disputing the facts? Proven them wrong! I dare you!

2020 dumbass.

 

[toobfreak]

Good luck... or is it Good Grief.

Good luck with what, Fuckwit? Are you disputing the facts? Proven them wrong! I dare you!

2020 dumbass.

Hey! The goon knows what year it is! Voila!

 

[Pogo]

Have you heard that lie as often as I have? What is the real truth here? Unlike the many Tramp-bashers here who spew constant unsubstantiated rhetoric, I will explore the facts of the matter as I always do. So what is the truth of the Blue and Red States?

1. Since nearly all states periodically change from Blue to Red to Blue again, any absolute claims about a state based on "color" must therefore be total BULL. Same holds true for "Trump Supporters" since a good many of them also voted for Obama! That alone negates 95% of all Trump or Trump Supporter bashing threads.
   
2. There is no "Blue" or "Red" states. Some states are indeed HARD Blue or Red, but many more states are purple that simply lean blue or red, and "Swing States" are those states which are close enough to the absolute middle that they could conceivably be "swung" to the other side at any given time.

As usual, I went back to a website and gathered data, then created my own chart as the graphical representation I was after to display didn't seem to already exist in the form I wanted to show it. Here was my source for population:

The 50 US States Ranked By Population

I used another chart I had on file that showed the outcome of the states in 2016 ranked by four shades of blue and red each representing 5-10-15-+ percent leaning for the given candidate. By putting these together, I was able to create a chart that showed the order of states BY ORDER OF POPULATION, and whether they were blue or red, and to what degree.

Since the question here is whether anyone lives in Red states, we are NOT concerned with the Size of the states nor the number of Electoral voters. Here is the result:


View attachment 311754


What can we conclude from this?

1. OF THE TEN MOST POPULOUS STATES: only THREE are Blue, the other SEVEN are Red.
2. OF THE TEN LEAST POPULOUS STATES: five are Blue, five are Red, and Maine is 75% Blue and 25% Red. So there is NO TRUTH in the claim that no one lives in Red states, and Trump bashers are lying sacks of shit! As usual, clueless or lying about the actual facts.

What CAN be said is that:

• 3 of the top 6 most populous states HEAVILY favored Hillary, while those red states which heavily favored Trump tended to be smaller. But then, those three Blue states are totally dominated by cities making up less than 1% of their areas (San Fran, LA, Chicago, and NYC). Therefore, democratic voters are centralized while Trump voters are diversified.
• In contrast, Trump's largest hard core (+15%) state ranked #16 (Tennessee).

Trump's red states have around 24 million more people in them than Hillary's Blue states. The Democrat's only chance to win is to pull and hold onto a few BIG cities like NYC, Chicago and LA, whereas Trump won by sheer volume, he got broad support across the states and across MANY more states.

This is an interesting color code chart, albeit one that only takes a single election into account, meaning it reflects only the particular candidate combination of that specific election. Would be more useful if it took at least the last five or ten and averaged them.

It's also got a shortcoming in only including the two colors Blue and Red. See Utah for example, where the Republican vote won only 45% yet it looks deep red, which its vote was certainly not.

The point that "there are no blue or red states" is well taken though. Obviously there were Rump voters in California and Clinton voters in Mississippi. Obviously there were McGovern or Goldwater or (whoever) voters everywhere. not just in "Blue" or "Red" states.

HOW MANY of those blue/red voters in "red/blue" states didn't even bother to vote because they already knew their state was going red/blue so what was the point? In 2016, the election cited, only 55% of the eligible electorate bothered to show up. In any other country that holds elections that would be a mark of national shame.

The reason for the above, AND the reason any such concept of "blue state" and "red state" exists at all, rests on one entity ---- the Electoral College, specifically the corrupt WTA system as it's practiced. In the chart above the "blue" colors of Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada and Virginia, AND the "red" colored states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, AridZona, North Carolina and the aforementioned Utah should ALL be in some neutral color because NONE of these states' voters returned even half their vote for any candidate, yet ALL of them sent their entire Electoral vote to a single candidate who could not break 50%.

The WTA/EC system depresses turnout, divides the country into artificial so-called "red", "blue" and "swing" states, throws millions of votes into the dumpster, denies those "red" and "blue" states attention from the candidates, and by setting up an artificial dichotomy where you can buy the car in any color you like as long as it's Red or Blue, DENIES any third party the opportunity to ever challenge the Duopoly. That's why we get limited to "two parties", really a single party that dresses up in alternate colors, both of which know they don't have to present a quality candidate, all they have to do is produce one who's not as bad as the other color.

And that's why every election in all of our lifetimes has been a pseudoelection between "Bad" and "Worse", or as it's usually rendered, "the lesser of two evils" James Madison was correct when he called for an Amendment to abolish this silly practice; he could see where it was going even then.


And as far as the article's purported point of "broad support" ----- to use its same criteria ---- the sum total of the states where Rump squeaked by with as little as 45% of the vote is about 67.8 million. The sum total population where Clinton did the same thing is about 23 million. That's almost a three-to-one ratio of not-so-broad support.

 

[ESay]

The reason for the above, AND the reason any such concept of "blue state" and "red state" exists at all, rests on one entity ---- the Electoral College, specifically the corrupt WTA system as it's practiced. In the chart above the "blue" colors of Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada and Virginia, AND the "red" colored states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, AridZona, North Carolina and the aforementioned Utah should ALL be in some neutral color because NONE of these states' voters returned even half their vote for any candidate, yet ALL of them sent their entire Electoral vote to a single candidate who could not break 50%.

The EC helps keep balance between the voters of particular state (when the majority of this state has a say in the election) and the overall population of the US (every state has its share in the EC in accordance with the number of people living in it). No?

 

[Pogo]

The reason for the above, AND the reason any such concept of "blue state" and "red state" exists at all, rests on one entity ---- the Electoral College, specifically the corrupt WTA system as it's practiced. In the chart above the "blue" colors of Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada and Virginia, AND the "red" colored states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, AridZona, North Carolina and the aforementioned Utah should ALL be in some neutral color because NONE of these states' voters returned even half their vote for any candidate, yet ALL of them sent their entire Electoral vote to a single candidate who could not break 50%.

The EC helps keep balance between the voters of particular state (when the majority of this state has a say in the election) and the overall population of the US (every state has its share in the EC in accordance with the number of people living in it). No?

No.

In every state mentioned above, NOBODY won a majority. That was the point.

What's additionally interesting about that is, if the same thing happens in the EC vote, that is, no candidate gets a majority (currently 270), then there is no winner and the election is thrown to the House of Representatives. Yet nothing like that happens on the state level.

 

[22lcidw]

Have you heard that lie as often as I have? What is the real truth here? Unlike the many Tramp-bashers here who spew constant unsubstantiated rhetoric, I will explore the facts of the matter as I always do. So what is the truth of the Blue and Red States?

1. Since nearly all states periodically change from Blue to Red to Blue again, any absolute claims about a state based on "color" must therefore be total BULL. Same holds true for "Trump Supporters" since a good many of them also voted for Obama! That alone negates 95% of all Trump or Trump Supporter bashing threads.
   
2. There is no "Blue" or "Red" states. Some states are indeed HARD Blue or Red, but many more states are purple that simply lean blue or red, and "Swing States" are those states which are close enough to the absolute middle that they could conceivably be "swung" to the other side at any given time.

As usual, I went back to a website and gathered data, then created my own chart as the graphical representation I was after to display didn't seem to already exist in the form I wanted to show it. Here was my source for population:

The 50 US States Ranked By Population

I used another chart I had on file that showed the outcome of the states in 2016 ranked by four shades of blue and red each representing 5-10-15-+ percent leaning for the given candidate. By putting these together, I was able to create a chart that showed the order of states BY ORDER OF POPULATION, and whether they were blue or red, and to what degree.

Since the question here is whether anyone lives in Red states, we are NOT concerned with the Size of the states nor the number of Electoral voters. Here is the result:


View attachment 311754


What can we conclude from this?

1. OF THE TEN MOST POPULOUS STATES: only THREE are Blue, the other SEVEN are Red.
2. OF THE TEN LEAST POPULOUS STATES: five are Blue, five are Red, and Maine is 75% Blue and 25% Red. So there is NO TRUTH in the claim that no one lives in Red states, and Trump bashers are lying sacks of shit! As usual, clueless or lying about the actual facts.

What CAN be said is that:

• 3 of the top 6 most populous states HEAVILY favored Hillary, while those red states which heavily favored Trump tended to be smaller. But then, those three Blue states are totally dominated by cities making up less than 1% of their areas (San Fran, LA, Chicago, and NYC). Therefore, democratic voters are centralized while Trump voters are diversified.
• In contrast, Trump's largest hard core (+15%) state ranked #16 (Tennessee).

Trump's red states have around 24 million more people in them than Hillary's Blue states. The Democrat's only chance to win is to pull and hold onto a few BIG cities like NYC, Chicago and LA, whereas Trump won by sheer volume, he got broad support across the states and across MANY more states.

This is an interesting color code chart, albeit one that only takes a single election into account, meaning it reflects only the particular candidate combination of that specific election. Would be more useful if it took at least the last five or ten and averaged them.

It's also got a shortcoming in only including the two colors Blue and Red. See Utah for example, where the Republican vote won only 45% yet it looks deep red, which its vote was certainly not.

The point that "there are no blue or red states" is well taken though. Obviously there were Rump voters in California and Clinton voters in Mississippi. Obviously there were McGovern or Goldwater or (whoever) voters everywhere. not just in "Blue" or "Red" states.

HOW MANY of those blue/red voters in "red/blue" states didn't even bother to vote because they already knew their state was going red/blue so what was the point? In 2016, the election cited, only 55% of the eligible electorate bothered to show up. In any other country that holds elections that would be a mark of national shame.

The reason for the above, AND the reason any such concept of "blue state" and "red state" exists at all, rests on one entity ---- the Electoral College, specifically the corrupt WTA system as it's practiced. In the chart above the "blue" colors of Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada and Virginia, AND the "red" colored states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, AridZona, North Carolina and the aforementioned Utah should ALL be in some neutral color because NONE of these states' voters returned even half their vote for any candidate, yet ALL of them sent their entire Electoral vote to a single candidate who could not break 50%.

The WTA/EC system depresses turnout, divides the country into artificial so-called "red", "blue" and "swing" states, throws millions of votes into the dumpster, denies those "red" and "blue" states attention from the candidates, and by setting up an artificial dichotomy where you can buy the car in any color you like as long as it's Red or Blue, DENIES any third party the opportunity to ever challenge the Duopoly. That's why we get limited to "two parties", really a single party that dresses up in alternate colors, both of which know they don't have to present a quality candidate, all they have to do is produce one who's not as bad as the other color.

And that's why every election in all of our lifetimes has been a pseudoelection between "Bad" and "Worse", or as it's usually rendered, "the lesser of two evils" James Madison was correct when he called for an Amendment to abolish this silly practice; he could see where it was going even then.


And as far as the article's purported point of "broad support" ----- to use its same criteria ---- the sum total of the states where Rump squeaked by with as little as 45% of the vote is about 67.8 million. The sum total population where Clinton did the same thing is about 23 million. That's almost a three-to-one ratio of not-so-broad support.

Does the constitution say that the vote has to be over 50%? There is nothing in that document about having two major parties. The EC was put in to give a bit of power to those who have none. In the 19th century the urban areas had little power compared to the rural areas. The EC took that into consideration. The urban areas grew massively in the 20th century. And the rural areas have little power compared to the urban areas today. In the last election the EC took that into consideration. The truth is, the rural areas do not need the urban areas. But the urban areas need the rural areas. I know. It doesn't go down so good.

 

[ESay]

The reason for the above, AND the reason any such concept of "blue state" and "red state" exists at all, rests on one entity ---- the Electoral College, specifically the corrupt WTA system as it's practiced. In the chart above the "blue" colors of Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada and Virginia, AND the "red" colored states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, AridZona, North Carolina and the aforementioned Utah should ALL be in some neutral color because NONE of these states' voters returned even half their vote for any candidate, yet ALL of them sent their entire Electoral vote to a single candidate who could not break 50%.

The EC helps keep balance between the voters of particular state (when the majority of this state has a say in the election) and the overall population of the US (every state has its share in the EC in accordance with the number of people living in it). No?

No.

In every state mentioned above, NOBODY won a majority. That was the point.

What's additionally interesting about that is, if the same thing happens in the EC vote, that is, no candidate gets a majority (currently 270), then there is no winner and the election is thrown to the House of Representatives. Yet nothing like that happens on the state level.

So, if some politician gets 48% voters of some state, what do you propose to do? Some kind of a second round of the election between two winning candidates?

Putting this matter before the state's House doesn't seem reasonable, as long as two-parties system exists.