Man, woke up. Thread moved. This is going to take a bit. Probably a lot I missed or just didn't have the energy to respond to.
But how much compared to CA? 
Also, same thing I said to Neon--- This election is an anomaly. Thats why all the poll data is wrong. It does not fit any of the models.
You are better off using historic data from past elections.
Between them? They're about half a CA -- its margin was ~2.5m D, and there was +1.2m between those seven (note: Between them and texas, CA would have about been canceled out).
You want historic margins? 2012:ID 208 MO 259 WY 101 ND 64 SD 65 KS 252 OK 448: Total 1.3m
CA's margin? 3m. For funsies? Texas was a million, which means they were about a tennessee from matching cali.
2000: ID 198 MO 78 WY 87 ND 79 SD 72 KS 223 OK 270: Total 1m. CA 1.2m. Texas? 1.3m, which would have canceled CA on its own.
Oddly enough, the popular vote
margins, which are what would matter in a popular election, aren't too abnormal this election.
newsflash. Only ONE of those is a swing state.
TX is so red, you couldnt possiby make it any redder.
Ca and NYC are so blue, you couldnt possibly make them any bluer.
Fl is the swing state.
Real newsflash: Texas spent like half the counting period flipping, and is something like 2-3 generations from either going blue or being a persistent battleground state. It's been getting less red the more the latino population grows and the GOP shits on it, and the more its urban areas continue to grow. Popular vote wise? There was less than a million difference this race, with a population of 27 and turnout of ~8, bit shy of double that registered voters, and time and a bit in voting age population. You're significantly overstating how red the state is.
NY likely would have been
in play if sanders had been running -- the financial sector and whatnot have big influence there, and they would have been
significantly less supportive of the guy that spends most of his time yelling more or less about how they need to be destroyed and the economy turned to shambles, with all that means for the rest of local efforts. It probably would have still gone blue, but the margin would almost certainly have been notably smaller.
CA actually
is solid blue, with nothing much that could change that, but so far as a national popular vote goes, you kinda' have to remember that its R contingent is
larger than some other states have total population. Under the EC? Entire states worth of population in CA is being ignored, because their voice not only doesn't matter in that system, but is actively ripped from them and used to support their opponents.
Easily the worst part about the EC is the flat fact that
completely disenfranchises a massive chunk of the country -- and not just does that, but does that in just about the worst way possible, by taking their support, spitting on it, and then giving it to people they didn't vote for. Part of that's the FTFP, but the rest is how the votes clump up under an elector and how disproportionate the effect of a person's vote is between states. Someone out in the boonies just matters more than someone in the city, significantly so, so far as EC goes (Fun fact: Voters in arizona? Under the EC, matters around 550
times more than ones from cali). Even under a proportional instead of FTFP EC system, places like cali would be seeing thousands upon thousands of people get their vote functionally stripped from them, just because so many more people are allocated to a single elector. You could maybe change that by actually assigning the number of electors a state gets based specifically on population and nothing else, but that would bugger smaller states as much as anything.
... anyway.
Plus the fact that she kind of ignored the class that Trump was pandering to, or came off as hollow.
Strangle. The class that trump pandered to was the class most of what clinton actually bloody said was aimed
right at, if not exclusively due to the sheer blunt truth that shit that
actually helps them helps a
lot of people. The
fact is that the attention she gave to that class was ignored by media and population, in
massive spite of the amount she did.
Every time I hear that line, my grudging and horrified belief in the voodoo curse grows. Somehow any and all liberal efforts directed towards rural/post-manufacturing workers and communities is being actively erased from the minds of my countrymen and fellow humans. I'm trying to say that as a joke but the more people talk about this election over these last few days the less certain I'm actually managing it.
Not just directed at you, though, smj. It came up multiple times since I went to sleep.
A segment of Trump's own voters don't even support him, they're just tired of political establishment and party corruption and think he'll screw it up for all of them.
Majority, MSH. Majority.
Most of trump's voters didn't like him, from what we could tell. They weren't voting for him, they were voting for his lies and whatever antipathy they had for the democrat party, for whatever particular reasons applied to them. Like a competent con man, he was good at lying in the right way to get people to ignore everything else he said and did.
Don't you sit there and lecture me on working class financial despair. I've been saying the Dems need to make that their thing since 2012.
It's been their thing since before you were born. It is expressly (a major part of) what is behind the emphasis on education, the emphasis on infrastructure, the emphasis on health care, the emphasis on community integration, strengthening, and cultural enrichment, the emphasis on work outreach, unemployment benefits, minimum wage, and on, and on, and
on. What they needed to do on that front wasn't make it a focus, because it was already
the focus, even above and beyond social issues, it was lie out their fucking ass about what they were going to manage and how they were going to go about it, while saying sod all about actual implementation. That's what made trump competitive in this election. Now, sanders, yeah, sanders would have done that, he's just worse at it than trump. In a fight between ideologue and con man the former's probably not going to win.
Yep. One of the main underlying problems for not just healthcare. A state that does not uphold a framework in which the people can provide adequatly for themselves is doomed to become a failed state, for it loses it's legitimacy of social contract.
Fun fact: The political group that has been persistently working to undermine that framework for decades? Just got elected :3
