Democratic analysts say they need Trump voters to win, I just don't understand their strategy

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
a reply to: The2Billies

Of course they do. A solid 25-30 percent of voters are swing voters. ANY candidate running against an incumbent President needs to get some of that swing vote back. Swing voters decide every Presidential election.

Trump earned enough of the swing vote to win in 2016, ergo, the eventual Democratic nominee needs to successfully win over enough of that swing vote to win in November.

But how are they going about winning over the people they labeled as racist/sexist/homophobic/smelly Walmart voters? What do you see as their strategy to make these people want to vote for the Democratic nominee?

a reply to: chr0naut

California has 55 EC's

Wyoming has 3 EC's, which is the lowest number a State can have.

Therefore you would need 19 Wyomings to band together to overcome 1 California.

Cry me a river.

Here's what's stupid: we have a non-State with 3 electoral votes, the District of Columbia. One city can overcome the choice of a true State even though it has no voting Representatives or Senators. THAT is idiotic.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: chr0naut

Actually. It’s worth more in the American system. It’s to ensure a few states don’t dictate the presidential election. This system ensures states and their populations like Wyoming are still a factor in the presidential election.

That is why Trump was elected. Because you don't have an equitable one person, one vote system, which leads political manipulators to put all their efforts into winning the states/districts that matter and ignoring the states/districts that don't.

Also the numbers that decide states proportions were set in the 1700's. Just some food for thought.

What do you not understand what has been explained repeatedly to you. Our system for our county gives weight to the people that live in what we call flyover states.

CynConcepts summed it up very nicely.
originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: chr0naut

One must remember that America is not just a single island state like New ZEALAND for example. We are 50 states united by a constitutional agreement. All states have their own constitutional agreement as well regarding their election in state.

In effect, our electoral college ensures voters from the more populous coastal states do not override the votes in the flyover states. Coastal States would not understand the needs of their States nor vice versus. As each citizen is considered equal, so is each state in America.

Removing the electoral college voting in effect would be terminating State rights and their contract with the United Federal government.

I thought that was what I said.

a reply to: The2Billies



Because they are INSANE and Have NO Freakin' Chance of Defeating President Trump EVER .........

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

½ a million people in Wyoming have as much voting power as 37.2 million in California.

easily the stupidest easiest debunked lie here today
california has 55 electoral votes
wyoming has 3 electoral votes

next!

California - population 37,254,523 divided by 55 EC votes = 1/677,354 state EC votes/person.
Wyoming - population 563,626 divided by 3 EC votes = 1/187,875 state EC votes/person.

So each person's vote from Wyoming is about 3.6 times the value of each person's vote from California.

You can't deny the inequality. That is what giving an unequal vote to different states means.

a reply to: chr0naut

And how is that a bad thing?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: chr0naut

And how is that a bad thing?

It's the 21st Century now. You don't have to support the states that have lots of trappers and log cabins.

a reply to: chr0naut

Yes but the founders wanted to make sure the "Mob" did not rule the entire country.

Why should coastal liberals control everything ? 10 million people in condo's and apartments should not rule the lives of the 1000 people in cabins in Wyoming.

Some points.

One, the Constitution, Electoral College aren't going away. Not without a Constitutional Convention or revolution.

Two, how are democrats going to convince the independents that higher taxes and fewer freedoms is a good thing?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: chr0naut

And how is that a bad thing?

It's the 21st Century now. You don't have to support the states that have lots of trappers and log cabins.

Wow, you really said that?

You think as a liberal/Democrat that the government has no obligation to support or assist or give any regard for the states that have smaller populations? Do you feel like this because these states voted for Trump : OR : do you as a liberal/Democrat feel that the government has no obligation to support the states that voted for Trump because they are full of hicks and gun clingers (my interpretation of what you said). If that is the case shouldn't the US offer to allow those states to leave the Union, if the US has no obligation and should not give those states the same services they give, let's say CA or NY?

Can I use you response as an example of what Democrats really think about people in states who are in flyover country: i.e. The people in the states that voted for Trump are mostly hicks living in log cabins, and their is no need for the government to pay any attention to them.

That as a liberal/Democrat they are irrelevant and the government can ignore them and give them no services they give other states? So why shouldn't those states be asked to leave the Union, since you implied they are parasites to the Union.

THANKS for you open honesty and I'd love to pass it on for others to read as an example of what the Democratic Party thinks about people in those states.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

½ a million people in Wyoming have as much voting power as 37.2 million in California.

easily the stupidest easiest debunked lie here today
california has 55 electoral votes
wyoming has 3 electoral votes

next!

California - population 37,254,523 divided by 55 EC votes = 1/677,354 state EC votes/person.
Wyoming - population 563,626 divided by 3 EC votes = 1/187,875 state EC votes/person.

So each person's vote from Wyoming is about 3.6 times the value of each person's vote from California.

You can't deny the inequality. That is what giving an unequal vote to different states means.

What you are missing out on is that each individual has one vote. That one vote counts in their own State districts. The majority still decides the electorates vote. The electorates are based on total of individuals population numbers in state whether they vote or not.

California still has more say nationally with their 55 elector votes over Wyoming 3 elector votes. They also, have more say legislatively by having more House representatives. Thus why the Census 2020 is so important to them and why even illegal immigrants are welcomed for now.

After the census is completed and they gain more political clout, they may already plan to blame Trump and remove their sanctuary statuses. It will be 10 years until the next census. Only 2 and 4 to the next elections.


Edit add: a reply to: The2Billies

That poster is not an American. He is not a liberal nor democrat, much further left than that since Politics are different in New Zealand.

a reply to: CynConcepts
originally posted by: chr0naut

Chr0naut's not even an American but is a super far lefty?

Explains why he disdains average everyday people who make the world run (farmers, people who work in manufacturing (most manufacture plants are in rural areas, people who keep utilities, electricity and water running etc.)

From my experience with far lefties, they think that the elite urban class are smarter than everyone else, and know best how everyone else should live their lives and how they ought to think.

Where would the arrogant conceited urbanites be without those rural people?

If the # hit the fan, urbanites would starve or die from dehydration and have no electricity (electric plants are located in rural areas for safety) and freeze to death or die from heat stroke. In other words, they will not be able to survive without those log cabin dwellers. That is how the "we lefties/liberals who are superior and smarter than rural conservatives, will totally and quickly fall into anarchy and run into the rural areas demanding help because they can't survive without the trappers and log cabin dwellers.

Where would the log cabin, gun toting, conservative ruralites be without the lefty liberal urbanites?

The log cabin dwellers would be eating because they have the land and know how to grow food and how to hunt for food, most have water on their land or wells and so will have water to drink, many who are very rural have solar panels/windmills and other methods of self-sufficient electricity. In other words they really won't miss the urbanites at all and will be able to weather most natural or man made disasters.

In reality, the trapper/log cabin dwellers who are mostly conservative can and would live quite easily without the urbanites

The mostly liberal Urbanites who want to control the minutia of everyone's life because "they are smarter and better in every way" than conservative ruralites - would degenerate within a few weeks at most into feral "every person for themselves" - and will die for lack of water and food, and will die from freezing or heat stroke without the log cabin dwellers.

So if urban far lefties think they don't need the "trappers and log cabin dwellers" - well maybe the ruralites should just ignore them and let them fend for themselves because the lefties think they don't need the nasty rural people who are mostly conservative.

Heh you just gave me a great idea chr0naut,
if the urbanites think they don't need the conservative rural people, maybe the rural people should go on strike against the urban lefties and show them how much they don't need them - and stop sending them food, or fix the electric/water plants that supply the urban areas, or manufacturer goods, or process foods as most of these plants are in rural areas.
GREAT IDEA CHR0NAUT!
Since the far left doesn't need log cabin dwellers, maybe the conservatives should allow them to live without them for a few months - because in that short time the liberal urbanites will become feral and die in mass.

originally posted by: The2Billies

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: chr0naut

And how is that a bad thing?

It's the 21st Century now. You don't have to support the states that have lots of trappers and log cabins.

Wow, you really said that?

You think as a liberal/Democrat

I am not a liberal Democrat.

that the government has no obligation to support or assist or give any regard for the states that have smaller populations?

Do you feel like this because these states voted for Trump : OR : do you as a liberal/Democrat

I am not a liberal Democrat.

feel that the government has no obligation to support the states that voted for Trump because they are full of hicks and gun clingers (my interpretation of what you said).

Don't try to reinterpret what I said. You don't appear to have the muscles.



I was clearly talking about how the Electoral College is not valid in the 21st Century (*Hint: It hearkens back to the time when there were hillbillies, trappers and log cabins across multiple backwater states).



- In the 21st Century, modern transport has made delivery just about anywhere across the US, pretty much same day. They can refrigerate it, too, so it doesn't go off. Wow!

- In the 21st Century, people from all the states share the same syndicated radio, TV and internet connection.

- No longer is there any major cultural or lifestyle differences between states.

- Most of the infrastructure is already in place to support the population, even in 'remote' areas, which means that living costs are no longer vastly different, as it was way back then.

If that is the case shouldn't the US offer to allow those states to leave the Union, if the US has no obligation and should not give those states the same services they give, let's say CA or NY?

I thought I was the one suggesting that there should be equality of voting rights for all registered voting citizens from all states?

Do you see that voting rights has nothing to do with budget allocation and that the government is entirely free to mess with citizen rights and state rights, despite having a weird system that ensures that today, EC voting is over complicated, easily compromised, unequal and based on a situation that was relevant 150 years ago.

Can I use you response as an example of what Democrats really think about people in states who are in flyover country: i.e. The people in the states that voted for Trump are mostly hicks living in log cabins, and their is no need for the government to pay any attention to them.

By all means, misunderstand and misquote what I was saying, attribute it to some group irrelevant to me, and broadcast it publicly. I can do nothing to stop you from making a fool of yourself.

That as a liberal/Democrat they are irrelevant and the government can ignore them and give them no services they give other states?

Again that wasn't what I was saying, and nor do I speak for liberal Democrats.

Damn, those voices in your head must be screamingly loud!

So why shouldn't those states be asked to leave the Union, since you implied they are parasites to the Union.

Nope didn't. I was suggesting equality of voting powers to all citizen. One person, one vote. Has nothing to do with state economics.

THANKS for you open honesty and I'd love to pass it on for others to read as an example of what the Democratic Party thinks about people in those states.

I always try and be as honest as I can. That is why it always amuses me when I state facts, often supported with links to credentialed sources, and someone responds, writing "LIES" in all capitals (and they almost always are Trump supporters, LOL).

a reply to: chr0naut

Because this isn't only about the people. It is also about the states themselves as political entities.

Each state is its own separate entity co-equal in the grand scheme, no matter how many or few live within its borders. This is why the Representatives of the House are apportioned according to population and selected by the actual people of the country (and states), and it's why the Senate is governing body of two Senators for each state, and they used to be selected by the governing bodies of each state, not selected by a direct vote of the people. That had to be changed by an amendment because the COTUS did not originally have them elected that way. They were intended to represent the voices of the state governments.

For this reason, each state gets two electors to represent its voice as a governed entity co-equal with all others.

In that sense, there is no difference between Wyoming and California. So each gets two electors to signify that equality of status.

Then each gets electors in proportion to population. But if a voter in Cali feels all butt hurt about it, nothing stops them from moving to Wyoming to make their vote "more important", but I'm sure voters in Wyoming would find that laughable.

This clown STILL whining about the ‘popular vote’

Give it a rest

You leftists will NEVER speak those words again after November. The ‘popular vote’ is President Trump’s this time around

What will be the pathetic excuse then?

a reply to: chr0naut


Since you aren't a US citizen, you don't have skin in the game.

You write and talk like a US far left radical liberal Democrat.

But from your other comments you appear to have trouble understanding the importance of the electoral college and how it actually works. I have seen this several times in your writings.

As a non-citizen you are trying to tell another country how to run their affairs - it comes off to me as ultra-left liberal condescension and arrogance. A sort of "we know better how you should run your affairs then you do" "So I'll tell you the correct way to run your country because I am smarter and know better how you should run your life than you do".

As someone who is trying to tell another nation how to run it's affairs, I think your comments are basically, condescending and arrogant - to think you know better what a nation half a world away from you should do then the citizens themselves.

Therefore, I will use the current liberal practice of "you are cancelled" as far as I am concerned. Why? Because you are saying how you think people who are half a world away should run their affairs which is clearly an attitude which mirrors those of a 1600-1700's colonial overlords or missionaries to Hawaii who were determined to "civilize" the natives and change the way they ran their lives.

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

½ a million people in Wyoming have as much voting power as 37.2 million in California.

easily the stupidest easiest debunked lie here today
california has 55 electoral votes
wyoming has 3 electoral votes

next!

California - population 37,254,523 divided by 55 EC votes = 1/677,354 state EC votes/person.
Wyoming - population 563,626 divided by 3 EC votes = 1/187,875 state EC votes/person.

So each person's vote from Wyoming is about 3.6 times the value of each person's vote from California.

You can't deny the inequality. That is what giving an unequal vote to different states means.

What you are missing out on is that each individual has one vote. That one vote counts in their own State districts. The majority still decides the electorates vote. The electorates are based on total of individuals population numbers in state whether they vote or not.

California still has more say nationally with their 55 elector votes over Wyoming 3 elector votes. They also, have more say legislatively by having more House representatives. Thus why the Census 2020 is so important to them and why even illegal immigrants are welcomed for now.

After the census is completed and they gain more political clout, they may already plan to blame Trump and remove their sanctuary statuses. It will be 10 years until the next census. Only 2 and 4 to the next elections.

Edit add: a reply to: The2Billies

That poster is not an American. He is not a liberal nor democrat, much further left than that since Politics are different in New Zealand.

The biggest problem is that the government distribution of resources has nothing at all to do with the Electoral College.

That whole justification for the EC is rubbish. It was valid 100 or so years ago, not now.

a reply to: chr0naut
The STATES, as 50 independent entities, elect the President. The President's job is to represent and lead the States, not a democratically popular opinion of American citizens.

You seem to want our President perform a role that is delegated to our REPRESENTATIVES. Representatives are elected by majority vote in their districts, and represent the citizens of the district. They vote much more closely to their district's opinions, as they are up for election every 2 years. The amount of Representatives each state has changes depending on the results of the population census taken every 10 years.

a reply to: chr0naut

Ok.

WE GET IT.

YOU DON'T LIKE OUR COUNTRY.

But we're not going to crap our Constitution just because you, as an anti-American foreigner, don't like it.

It doesn't work that way.

Now AS an American, I'm actually a defender of rights and free speech. So I would only encourage you as an anti-American foreigner, to speak up and enjoy a right you are probably trying to deny.

a reply to: chr0naut

We don't care what you think of our EC.