The Red Wide-Open Spaces of the USA

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

The point is that these two maps represent the exact same election yet tell vastly different stories about it. One of those stories is much more accurate than the other. 
 

An electoral map rendered in a traditional style shows county-by-county data from the 2016 presidential election. (Jetpack.AI)

 

An electoral map by Karim Douieb shows voting by population rather than strictly by geography. In place of vast swaths of red or blue, the map reveals the mixed nature of voting patterns. (Jetpack.AI)

Excellent post. I guess it's a good thing land doesn't do the voting.

[Airbrush]

19 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Excellent post. I guess it's a good thing land doesn't do the voting.

Yes excellent graphic above, iNow.  That tells the story.  Tiny red dots determine the red states, and big blue dots dominate blue states.

Edited December 28, 2020 by Airbrush

[Airbrush]

On 12/27/2020 at 2:02 PM, swansont said:

Now, tell me why the majority of people living in sparsely-populated counties almost always voting Republican matters, in terms of who gets more votes.

Are there information deserts?  Do people living in sparsely-populated areas have fewer TV news channels?  Are many people unable to afford cable or satellite TV?  If people get all their political news from local TV, how much of it is in favor of Trump or the GOP?  If more people had access to both blue and red points of view, maybe they would be better able to distinguish fact from fiction.  Trumpism is a fictional narrative, and the cult-members are AWARE it is a fiction.  They don't take him literally, they take him "seriously."

I noticed in the graphic (below) with dots of density, that the RED dots are usually smaller than the BLUE dots, with the exception of Arizona with a big red dot, a few high-population counties, and in Texas and Florida, that voted overwhelmingly red.

The constitution should get amended to redistribute senate seats.  The 5 largest-population states should get 3 senators each, and the 5 smallest-population states should get only 1 senate seat, to compensate for the tyranny of the GOP minority.  Or split California into two states and combine the Dakotas into one state.   That way you end up with 50 states.

On 12/27/2020 at 12:04 PM, iNow said:

The point is that these two maps represent the exact same election yet tell vastly different stories about it. One of those stories is much more accurate than the other. 
 

 

An electoral map by Karim Douieb shows voting by population rather than strictly by geography. In place of vast swaths of red or blue, the map reveals the mixed nature of voting patterns. (Jetpack.AI)

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by Airbrush

[MigL]

Like your post also INow.

It illustrates simple facts extremely well, and the Republicans have managed to work it to their favor.
But the one fact that is not apparent to any of us, nor to either Political party, is the huge chasm between what is important to rural voters, as opposed to urban voters.
If democrats start to address the grievances of rural voters, they might color some of those large swathes of red areas blue.
( I really don't think its lack of information, or D Trump's attractive personality )
And the Republicans would have to either fold, or change

Edited December 30, 2020 by MigL

[zapatos]

35 minutes ago, MigL said:

If democrats start to address the grievances of rural voters, they might color some of those large swathes of red areas blue.

There is always room for improvement but I'm afraid there are too many areas of conflict that won't likely ever be resolved.

In general...

Gun control will be opposed by conservatives and supported by liberals.

Liberals will fight for the disenfranchised and conservatives will fight to limit their access to the polls.

Liberals will stand up for the marginalized that the conservatives find objectionable (mostly having to do with sex/gender/etc.) and conservatives will be angry at them for "shoving their agenda down our throats".

Conservatives will prioritize individual rights, liberals will prioritize society.

Conservatives will want to limit support of those in need, liberals will maximize support of those in need.

Conservatives put business first, liberals put individuals first.

As long as red areas are more religious, uniformly white and lack first hand exposure to the rest of the world, I believe they will continue to be red for the foreseeable future, regardless of how democrats work to engage them. As Democrats will not give up their fundamental nature in order to appeal to conservatives, there is only so much reaching that can be done.

Personally I think it would be great if Republicans made meaningful outreach to blue areas. Maybe instead of moving further and further right they can lean toward those they are currently moving away from. If Republicans start to address the grievances of urban voters, they might color some of those large concentrations of blue areas red.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

If democrats start to address the grievances of rural voters, they might color some of those large swathes of red areas blue.

@CharonY addressed this earlier today in another thread. Summarized: This isn’t an issue of policy. The progressive policies of democrats are supported by majority of population. The right is simply ignoring policy in favor of identity, supporting candidates due to the R beside their name even when a vote for them is against their interests. 

[Phi for All]

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If Republicans start to address the grievances of urban voters, they might color some of those large concentrations of blue areas red.

I totally agree, and I think the most obvious starting place for bi-partisan conservative agendas is with infrastructure. Personally, I tend to be VERY conservative wrt roads and structure maintenance, and feel our best value is in spending small amounts continuously to keep things in good shape, rather than letting things fall apart before we're forced to fix them at emergency rates. I like letting asphalt cure properly to ensure long life as opposed to the convenience of driving on it the day it's put down. Clean water and air are actually conservative concepts imo (or used to be), something very basic to life in any society, and one that's more easily accomplished publicly than by multiple individual attempts.

But current Republicans don't seem to see it this way. Anything that regulates a business to tell them not to pollute gets voted down. I think businesses have too much influence over their employees, so I think the Dems should help fix that. Perhaps if health insurance wasn't tied to employers, folks could vote to help themselves without feeling like they might lose their job AND their insurance.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I tend to be VERY conservative wrt roads and structure maintenance, and feel our best value is in spending small amounts continuously to keep things in good shape, rather than letting things fall apart before we're forced to fix them at emergency rates

I'm also very conservative when it comes to fiscal responsibility. I used to be what would be called Independent and voted for Republicans more often than Democrats, back when Republicans were more serious about fiscal responsibility.

I hate that the Republican party is going so far right that people like McCain are considered RINOs and ridiculed by people in their own party. I was ready to vote for McCain until he trashed the bottom half of his ticket.

If the Republicans changed back the clock I'm sure I'd vote for them again. Although I'd have to turn right socially to meet them in the middle.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

If the Republicans changed back the clock I'm sure I'd vote for them again. Although I'd have to turn right socially to meet them in the middle.

Go all the way back to Eisenhower and you can sign me up too. How bizarre is it that Ike's policies are now considered leftist radical fantasies by GOP leadership?

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Go all the way back to Eisenhower and you can sign me up too. How bizarre is it that Ike's policies are now considered leftist radical fantasies by GOP leadership?

Ike is my Republican hero! 😃

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Ike is my Republican hero! 😃

I was hoping they'd spin Bernie Sanders as the Eisenhower candidate. I still think he'd be a better guy to have in charge right now.

Ike actually ticks a LOT of the boxes most modern Dems consider important, like reduction of military spending, higher taxes on the wealthy and a progressive rate that encourages investment rather than sitting on cash, and a deeper investment in public works and programs. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Even my bike...likes Ike!