What's new
By:

2020 Presidential election

Beer said:
I'm not so sure that's true.

NYC and LA are about the same politically. Throw in the San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose area. It's the same too. Not sure where Chicago stands but I'd assume it's closer to NYC than it is Phoenix in terms of politics. So basically the top 4 biggest cities/areas are all the same. It makes it really tough to overcome.

Look at this graph. Only like 10% of the cities are conservative, and they are all on the very small end population wise.

www.pewresearch.org

Chart of the Week: The most liberal and conservative big cities

Big cities in the U.S. tend toward the liberal side of the political spectrum, even when they're within conservative states (residents of Austin sometimes
www.pewresearch.org www.pewresearch.org

I'm not even a conservative but there has to be some balance or you get the wackadoo left running amok. If it were completely slanted right you'd get the same wackadoo right policies. I don't know what the answer is but I do know letting NYC, LA and San Fran run the country is not a good idea.
Click to expand...
Thing is that you have no way to know if this is true. Conservatives in those cities simply don't vote a lot of time cause their vote doesn't matter.
Just like I had never voted before 2016 cause my vote doesn't matter here in Utah.

If the electoral college were eliminated then I think you would discover that there are a lot more conservatives on california than you think there are.

Also, let's say you are correct about there being only 10%. Right now it's basically as if there are zero conservatives based on how the electoral college works. At least the popular vote would capture those 10% of votes for the conservatives.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
Thing is that you have no way to know if this is true. Conservatives in those cities simply don't vote a lot of time cause their vote doesn't matter.
Just like I had never voted before 2016 cause my vote doesn't matter here in Utah.

If the electoral college were eliminated then I think you would discover that there are a lot more conservatives on california than you think there are.

Also, let's say you are correct about there being only 10%. Right now it's basically as if there are zero conservatives based on how the electoral college works. At least the popular vote would capture those 10% of votes for the conservatives.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

Agree with you on this. Plus you would see candidates campaigning there and showing a larger interest in the state's issues. The votes would follow.
It would clearly help the Republican party more. The population of NY and California is almost 60 million.
 
JazzyFresh said:
I've heard it all before and it's a worthless conversation. If you want two packed dirty cities to control the entire election that's on you. Trump absolutely destroyed Hillary in counties yet take away two citie and Trump destroyed the popular vote too.
Click to expand...

"Counties", as an aggregate, are not people. The voters in those cities are.
 
This is becoming more and more frequent from the left and they aren't even hiding it anymore. In this very forum I've been threatened to be killed by some tattle tale wannabe terrorist @Gameface. @The Thriller has been openly advocating violence for years. I can honestly say that ill probably be put in an internment camp if Biden wins.



Read the comments and how evil a good chunk of Democrats are. This is frightening. @Eenie-Meenie this is why we are so pro gun. Your party is rather threatening. All because you lost an election. Nothing more
 
Last edited:
JazzyFresh said:
I hate this conversation because it's simply common sense to me. Do people in LA know what it's like for dairy farmers in Iowa? Should a densely populated area be dictating what happens to them? Should New York be the only city responsible for ranchers in Idaho?
Click to expand...

These are good questions. I feel that when discussing them we need to also keep in mind:
1) The interests of the people in LA, NYC, the diary farmers, and the ranchers are complementary, not in opposition. The city people still want to drink milk and eat steak, and the country people rely on the city people to support an economy (most of the economic growth they rely on is generated in cities).
2) The system that allows for out-sized influence still relies on the notion of cooperation to get things done. The whole point of the filibuster has been to make sure everyone is working for the common good, not a narrow segment of the population. Perhaps it's just my vision, but since 2008 or so it seems like Republicans have been much more interested in control than in cooperation.
3) Even within a rural state, you still have the urban areas with most of the population.

I think the Electoral College and Senate representation can be very good idea, but it requires politicians to act in a certain matter, and I just don't know if that is possible today.
 
JazzyFresh said:
I hate this conversation because it's simply common sense to me. Do people in LA know what it's like for dairy farmers in Iowa?
Click to expand...

Interesting that you would post this.
I have an uncle that owns a huge dairy farm. In LA.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Eminence said:
Yeah, Iowa doesn't really do dairy. We've got corn/beans/pigs and that's about it.
Click to expand...
And that's the silly thing about this discussion. People are acting like everyone in new York or LA are all the same and everyone in iowa are all the same yet different from the people in new York and LA.

Iowa has lawyers and business executives and farmers and warehouse workers etc etc etc. LA has lawyers and business executives and farmers and warehouse workers etc.
You know what they all have in common? They are all Americans whose individual votes don't count on an individual level.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
There are some really good posts about the EC in the last page or two of this thread. Well done.

I just want to add that right now most states don’t actually matter to candidates.Look at Utah for example. Republicans don’t actually have to try to win here, because they know it’ll go Republican. Democrats know it’s a tough go. I don’t know if anyone read this, but Kamala Harris actually took some time to learn about Utah’s culture and history before the debate. This was the cool article. However, it’s disappointing to know that her efforts and people like me, won’t actually matter when it comes to our votes for the presidential election because our state will go for Trump.

Wouldn’t it be smarter to force candidates to actually have to compete everywhere for votes? I think everyone benefits if votes from every corner of the nation actually counted. Why base votes of states and not voters? There are conservatives in park city just as there are liberals in St George. I think abolishing the EC would go a long way to ending the polarization and stalemate we see In DC.
 
It’ll be funny to watch republicans turn against the EC once Texas becomes reliably blue. The Democratic Blue Wall of the two coasts and Texas will persuade republicans that the EC maybe wasn’t exactly the Bulwark against one party rule they thought it was.
 
One Brow said:
These are good questions. I feel that when discussing them we need to also keep in mind:
1) The interests of the people in LA, NYC, the diary farmers, and the ranchers are complementary, not in opposition. The city people still want to drink milk and eat steak, and the country people rely on the city people to support an economy (most of the economic growth they rely on is generated in cities).
2) The system that allows for out-sized influence still relies on the notion of cooperation to get things done. The whole point of the filibuster has been to make sure everyone is working for the common good, not a narrow segment of the population. Perhaps it's just my vision, but since 2008 or so it seems like Republicans have been much more interested in control than in cooperation.
3) Even within a rural state, you still have the urban areas with most of the population.

I think the Electoral College and Senate representation can be very good idea, but it requires politicians to act in a certain matter, and I just don't know if that is possible today.
Click to expand...

I think the use of race to create a wall of states to vote against their own interests is one of the greatest lessons we can take over the past century. I think it would be wise to abandon the strategies of Kevin Phillips, that has empowered a white affluent oligarchy to rule over southern states. And with today’s campaign finance laws, it’s just too easy for a handful of billionaires to really swing states in their favor. A handful of states in their favor can change the course of history. Imagine if the Supreme Court had two more liberal judges instead of two conservatives ones? People wouldn’t be worried about losing their healthcare.

Ultimately, ridding ourselves of such institutions, like the electoral college, will make the country more democratic and potentially break the tribalism we see today.
 
JazzyFresh said:
Oops meant to quote @fishonjazz not Eminence twice
Damn you guys! I just pulled random things out but I think the point was made.

For once I agree with Thriller that the conversations were legit.
Click to expand...
Wasn't your point that people in LA don't know anything about dairy farms? There are dairy farmers in LA so the point wasn't really made.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
And that's the silly thing about this discussion. People are acting like everyone in new York or LA are all the same and everyone in iowa are all the same yet different from the people in new York and LA.

Iowa has lawyers and business executives and farmers and warehouse workers etc etc etc. LA has lawyers and business executives and farmers and warehouse workers etc.
You know what they all have in common? They are all Americans whose individual votes don't count on an individual level.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
The Thriller said:
There are some really good posts about the EC in the last page or two of this thread. Well done.

I just want to add that right now most states don’t actually matter to candidates.Look at Utah for example. Republicans don’t actually have to try to win here, because they know it’ll go Republican. Democrats know it’s a tough go. I don’t know if anyone read this, but Kamala Harris actually took some time to learn about Utah’s culture and history before the debate. This was the cool article. However, it’s disappointing to know that her efforts and people like me, won’t actually matter when it comes to our votes for the presidential election because our state will go for Trump.

Wouldn’t it be smarter to force candidates to actually have to compete everywhere for votes? I think everyone benefits if votes from every corner of the nation actually counted. Why base votes of states and not voters? There are conservatives in park city just as there are liberals in St George. I think abolishing the EC would go a long way to ending the polarization and stalemate we see In DC.
Click to expand...
The Thriller said:
I think the use of race to create a wall of states to vote against their own interests is one of the greatest lessons we can take over the past century. I think it would be wise to abandon the strategies of Kevin Phillips, that has empowered a white affluent oligarchy to rule over southern states. And with today’s campaign finance laws, it’s just too easy for a handful of billionaires to really swing states in their favor. A handful of states in their favor can change the course of history. Imagine if the Supreme Court had two more liberal judges instead of two conservatives ones? People wouldn’t be worried about losing their healthcare.

Ultimately, ridding ourselves of such institutions, like the electoral college, will make the country more democratic and potentially break the tribalism we see today.
Click to expand...

I genuinely hope this election is scaring the **** out of the RNC, and that the scales are beginning to fall from the eyes of many people who voted along party lines-- both Republican and Democrat-- strictly on principle. We are lazy in our country, and have gotten so buried in the dogma of these two parties that we are losing our humanity and ability to think for ourselves. Showing our politicians we don't need them as much as they think we do is a message that desperately needs to be sent.
 
JazzyFresh said:
This is becoming more and more frequent from the left and they aren't even hiding it anymore. In this very forum I've been threatened to be killed by some tattle tale wannabe terrorist @Gameface. @The Thriller has been openly advocating violence for years. I can honestly say that ill probably be put in an internment camp if Biden wins.



Read the comments and how evil a good chunk of Democrats are. This is frightening. @Eenie-Meenie this is why we are so pro gun. Your party is rather threatening. All because you lost an election. Nothing more
Click to expand...


@The Thriller
I might owe you an apology.
While I do think you are bit dogmatic towards the Democrat party, I'm sorry for calling you 'a bit' like @JazzyFresh

You posted your honest beliefs, you are a sane human being.
Also, I know you may have this person(s) on ignore, but could you possibly help me find out what the absolutely ****ing hell is going on with the post I quoted?

TYIA
-JM4L
 
gandalfe said:
If you haven't read it, this (fairly long) piece explains exactly what can happen this election, except that the conclusion is that WE JUST DON'T KNOW. We're closing in on uncharted territory here, folks.

The Election That Could Break America
Click to expand...

I don’t get this doomsday speech. Maybe the article you’re referring would be more enlightening? But I’m seeing some doomsday speech and I don’t quite understand it. America hasn’t been this united in a long time. Democrats have their largest and more diverse coalition we’ve seen in generations. Think about it, you have Republicans like The Lincoln Project to Democratic Socialists supporting Joe Biden. Biden is up double digits nationally and is leading beyond the MoE in almost every swing state. This is going to be a wipeout election for Trump. If his cult following doesn’t want to play democracy anymore, that’s fine. There’s far more of us (70 percent of america) than them.

Personally, I think what’s going to be tough is the next two years. Covid, the economy, rebuilding our institutions, and foreign policy are all going to be huge challenges that Biden is going to have to spend political capital on rebuilding. You see what North Korea busted out today?
 
The Thriller said:
I don’t get this doomsday speech. Maybe the article you’re referring would be more enlightening? But I’m seeing some doomsday speech and I don’t quite understand it. America hasn’t been this united in a long time. Democrats have their largest and more diverse coalition we’ve seen in generations. Think about it, you have Republicans like The Lincoln Project to Democratic Socialists supporting Joe Biden. Biden is up double digits nationally and is leading beyond the MoE in almost every swing state. This is going to be a wipeout election for Trump. If his cult following doesn’t want to play democracy anymore, that’s fine. There’s far more of us (70 percent of america) than them.

Personally, I think what’s going to be tough is the next two years. Covid, the economy, rebuilding our institutions, and foreign policy are all going to be huge challenges that Biden is going to have to spend political capital on rebuilding. You see what North Korea busted out today?
Click to expand...
It is going to monumentally important for people to get out and vote. The only way for this election to result in a smooth transfer of power is for the landslide to be big. Big enough that the GOP refuses to support Trump's inevitable challenge of the results. So big that there's no possibility anything happened other than the American people voted to send his *** packing.

Get the **** out and vote people. I don't even care if it is for Trump. This should be the biggest voter turnout in modern history. We NEED to know that the people have spoken!
 
Gameface said:
It is going to monumentally important for people to get out and vote. The only way for this election to result in a smooth transfer of power is for the landslide to be big. Big enough that the GOP refuses to support Trump's inevitable challenge of the results. So big that there's no possibility anything happened other than the American people voted to send his *** packing.

Get the **** out and vote people. I don't even care if it is for Trump. This should be the biggest voter turnout in modern history. We NEED to know that the people have spoken!
Click to expand...

I agree. But aren’t people already doing that?



All indications show that Americans haven’t been this engaged in at least a few generations.

I honestly think 2016 has made us overly cautious. Trump is about to get his *** whooped. And he deserves it. People from all walks of life are sick and tired Of this chaos.

So while it’s good to remind people to not get complacent, I honestly don’t think that’ll be a problem. I think what happens after Nov 3 is going to be scary. The next two years could be dark. Especially if the economy really tanks and people lose healthcare because of the Supreme Court in the next few months because Mitch wants to burn the country down by withholding stimulus. Covid, the economy, foreign policy, and the Trump stench in the DOJ is going to take a generation to fix.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top