Every election cycle that has passed since 1992, Democrats have been winning fewer and fewer counties. They have concentrated their vote almost exclusively in major urban areas that they heavily rely on to carry elections at both the state and federal level.
Not only that, but more importantly the Democratic party appears to have transformed into a party that caters mostly to wealthy professionals that are a part of the "elite". Usually Republicans have a solid advantage over Democrats when it comes to winning high-income households in elections. But in this election, Trump just *barely* edged Clinton in households with six-figure incomes. Compare this to 2012, when Romney solidly beat Obama in the same demographics. There seems to be a clear trend that Democrats have abandoned many in the middle to lower income brackets and have catered to much more affluent individuals.
To further make things worse, Democrats decided to double down on the same cosmopolitanism that cost them the election by re-electing Nancy Pelosi as US House Democratic leader. Pelosi is literally a caricature of out of touch coastal cosmopolitanism. While Hillary was a flawed candidate in many other ways, certainly one of her flaws was the fact that she was seen as an out of touch, cosmopolitan political elite who could not connect with ordinary Americans. The fact that a billionaire from New York City connected more with people from Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan than a Democrat should shock the party to its very core. The Democrats in the house have effectively elected a symbol of the very corruption, hypocrisy and elitism that voters expressly voted against.
What can Democrats do to regain the voters they used to represent? Or has that bridge been burned?
It bears repeating that the Democrats won the popular vote, and came damn close to winning the presidency.
Quote from Surging Chaos »
What can Democrats do to regain the voters they used to represent?
I don't think the Democrats will have to do anything. We've seen two presidencies enter office on a wave of support of people wanting to throw the previous administration out and get change going, and then immediately squander said support with blunders. And Trump is dumber than either of them. So I don't think this is going to take all that long.
We must remember that despite the fact that Trump ran as the Republican nominee, his campaign was based on a movement against the Republicans as well as against the Democrats, and won based on popular discontent with either party. But it's difficult to maintain the support of those who express disdain towards those in power when you yourself are in power. We'll see what happens.
It bears repeating that the Democrats won the popular vote, and came damn close to winning the presidency.
I would like to point out that Democrats won the popular vote when ~100 million people did not vote per http://www.electproject.org/2016g who have been tracking the voter turn out since 1980. A total of ~138 million votes were cast, ~231 million people were eligible to vote, other reports say ~200 million were registered to vote, so lets do the math here.
Hillary got 48.1% of the vote so 138 million * .481 = ~66.378 million votes total (65.84 million per http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president)
66.378/231 = 28.7% (66.378/200 = 33.2%)
so only 28.7% of ALL eligible voters voted for Hillary . So only ~1 in 4
and for registered voters it is ~1 in 3
Trump got 46% of the vote so 138 million * .46 = ~63.48 million votes total (62.98 million per http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president)
63.48/231 = 27.5% (63.48/200 = 31.7%)
so only 27.5% of ALL eligible voters voted for Trump. So only ~1 in 4
and for registered voters it is ~1 in 3
What does this information boil down to? Well, my interpretation is that BOTH Hillary and Trump did not win the popular vote. And, depending on which number you want to use (231 million eligible, 200 registered voted) only about 2 in 4 or 2 in 3 people voted or 50-66% voted for either
Now to your comment about "and came damn close to winning the presidency." There are 538 electoral votes available. Trump got 306 electoral votes, to Hillary's 232.
306/538 = 56.87% of the electoral vote went to Trump
232/538 = 43.12% of the electoral vote went to Hillary
That is not what I would consider "damm close to winning"
I would like to leave with a few final thoughts,
Electoral votes in all but two states are "All or nothing" I would like to see the electoral collage change so that the rules mandate the electoral voters to vote per the districts that they represent, not the majority for the whole state. IE in California, 25 of 58 counties voted majority republican, so 23 (25/58 rounded) electoral votes should be republican, not democratic. Or base it off total % voted so that 21 of the electoral votes go to Trump (31% which is what he got in CA) and 34 go to Hillary (62% which is what she got in CA)
In a republic democracy society like what the US experiences having AT BEST a 66% voter turn out is extremely bad.
I would like to leave with a few final thoughts,
Electoral votes in all but two states are "All or nothing" I would like to see the electoral collage change so that the rules mandate the electoral voters to vote per the districts that they represent, not the majority for the whole state. IE in California, 25 of 58 counties voted majority republican, so 23 (25/58 rounded) electoral votes should be republican, not democratic. Or base it off total % voted so that 21 of the electoral votes go to Trump (31% which is what he got in CA) and 34 go to Hillary (62% which is what she got in CA)
In a republic democracy society like what the US experiences having AT BEST a 66% voter turn out is extremely bad.
Doing what you propose would allow gerrymandering to do even more damage than it already does. Look at North Carolina. Basically whatever party is in power during the census would make it nearly impossible for the other side to win.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Doing what you propose would allow gerrymandering to do even more damage than it already does. Look at North Carolina. Basically whatever party is in power during the census would make it nearly impossible for the other side to win.
I think that's going to vary from state to state. I live in Nebraska, one of the two states that splits its vote, and we don't have gerrymandered districts. Maybe because we only have three of them. But regardless, in the run-up to Election Day FiveThirtyEight had the NE-2 projected as the most competitive single electoral vote in the country. (Trump ultimately won by about 9,000 votes.) So it can work.
But what you really want is a rule tying the electoral vote directly to the proportion of the statewide popular vote.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Every election cycle that has passed since 1992, Democrats have been winning fewer and fewer counties. They have concentrated their vote almost exclusively in major urban areas that they heavily rely on to carry elections at both the state and federal level.
Not only that, but more importantly the Democratic party appears to have transformed into a party that caters mostly to wealthy professionals that are a part of the "elite". Usually Republicans have a solid advantage over Democrats when it comes to winning high-income households in elections. But in this election, Trump just *barely* edged Clinton in households with six-figure incomes. Compare this to 2012, when Romney solidly beat Obama in the same demographics. There seems to be a clear trend that Democrats have abandoned many in the middle to lower income brackets and have catered to much more affluent individuals.
To further make things worse, Democrats decided to double down on the same cosmopolitanism that cost them the election by re-electing Nancy Pelosi as US House Democratic leader. Pelosi is literally a caricature of out of touch coastal cosmopolitanism. While Hillary was a flawed candidate in many other ways, certainly one of her flaws was the fact that she was seen as an out of touch, cosmopolitan political elite who could not connect with ordinary Americans. The fact that a billionaire from New York City connected more with people from Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan than a Democrat should shock the party to its very core. The Democrats in the house have effectively elected a symbol of the very corruption, hypocrisy and elitism that voters expressly voted against.
What can Democrats do to regain the voters they used to represent? Or has that bridge been burned?
So, in the three elections prior to 1992, democrats got completely trounced. The one they won before that, Carter in 1976, was won by sweeping the deep south. Somehow I doubt Democrats are going to regain those voters.
So, in the three elections prior to 1992, democrats got completely trounced. The one they won before that, Carter in 1976, was won by sweeping the deep south. Somehow I doubt Democrats are going to regain those voters.
One could argue that the barring-a-fascist-takeover worse that Trump is, the better an option the left will look in the next election. Though that didn't work with Dubya, so...
So, in the three elections prior to 1992, democrats got completely trounced. The one they won before that, Carter in 1976, was won by sweeping the deep south. Somehow I doubt Democrats are going to regain those voters.
One could argue that the barring-a-fascist-takeover worse that Trump is, the better an option the left will look in the next election. Though that didn't work with Dubya, so...
Donald Trump offers exactly what Southern white voters want. Why would they think the left is a better option all of a sudden?
So, in the three elections prior to 1992, democrats got completely trounced. The one they won before that, Carter in 1976, was won by sweeping the deep south. Somehow I doubt Democrats are going to regain those voters.
One could argue that the barring-a-fascist-takeover worse that Trump is, the better an option the left will look in the next election. Though that didn't work with Dubya, so...
Donald Trump offers exactly what Southern white voters want. Why would they think the left is a better option all of a sudden?
But the northern and midwestern votes made more of the difference in this election. Of course the democrats are not going to win back the southern vote, but the midwest has more potential to go either way.
But the northern and midwestern votes made more of the difference in this election. Of course the democrats are not going to win back the southern vote, but the midwest has more potential to go either way.
The post you replied to said:
The one they won before that, Carter in 1976, was won by sweeping the deep south. Somehow I doubt Democrats are going to regain those voters.
Why did you even bother to quote that if you're not talking about those voters?
Now to your comment about "and came damn close to winning the presidency." There are 538 electoral votes available. Trump got 306 electoral votes, to Hillary's 232.
306/538 = 56.87% of the electoral vote went to Trump
232/538 = 43.12% of the electoral vote went to Hillary
That is not what I would consider "damm close to winning"
Except it is.
There are 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency. Hillary needed 38 more to make that total. Had she won the states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, states that normally lean blue but went red in this abnormal election, she would have won the election. Clinton lost by 0.3% of the vote in Michigan, 1% in Wisconsin, and 1.2% in Pennsylvania.
That is damn close.
It's why this narrative of a blue collar revolt, a revolution of the white working class is so ridiculous. Trump barely won the presidency, and even in the states he was able to wrestle away from the Democrats, he only was able to just barely scrape by. And certainly this notion of a landslide victory that Trump seems to think he achieved is ridiculous. Trump did not win by a landslide, he won by the skin of his teeth.
Which brings me to a particular point: in order for a republic to function, people need to be thinkers. They need to have bull***** detectors capable of detecting lies and rejecting them. And with that, I segue to another point you made:
In a republic democracy society like what the US experiences having AT BEST a 66% voter turn out is extremely bad.
This is an excellent point, and I completely agree. Voter apathy is a problem in any republic, especially ours in an election like this. It's ridiculous to have so many people not vote.
THAT BEING SAID, I posit that if you have a voter populace that is that apathetic, to the point where in such a monumental election, they still couldn't be bothered to show up [presuming they weren't disenfranchised, which is a completely separate issue, though one absolutely worth addressing], for them to fail to turn out to vote is actually the best case scenario.
Well, not the BEST case scenario, the best case scenario is to have 100% of all people eligible to vote to be mature, responsible people who did the proper research, put enough effort to really think about the election, and then turned out to vote. But we don't have that kind of best case scenario, and in such a reality, far worse is for apathetic voters who did not take the time and the care to ensure that they were properly informed of the issues behind this election to then go ahead and vote. It is far worse for people who are not willing to think to vote than not vote.
With that in mind, let's go to the OP:
Not only that, but more importantly the Democratic party appears to have transformed into a party that caters mostly to wealthy professionals that are a part of the "elite". Usually Republicans have a solid advantage over Democrats when it comes to winning high-income households in elections. But in this election, Trump just *barely* edged Clinton in households with six-figure incomes. Compare this to 2012, when Romney solidly beat Obama in the same demographics. There seems to be a clear trend that Democrats have abandoned many in the middle to lower income brackets and have catered to much more affluent individuals.
To further make things worse, Democrats decided to double down on the same cosmopolitanism that cost them the election by re-electing Nancy Pelosi as US House Democratic leader. Pelosi is literally a caricature of out of touch coastal cosmopolitanism. While Hillary was a flawed candidate in many other ways, certainly one of her flaws was the fact that she was seen as an out of touch, cosmopolitan political elite who could not connect with ordinary Americans. The fact that a billionaire from New York City connected more with people from Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan than a Democrat should shock the party to its very core. The Democrats in the house have effectively elected a symbol of the very corruption, hypocrisy and elitism that voters expressly voted against.
What can Democrats do to regain the voters they used to represent? Or has that bridge been burned?
This is ridiculous.
I have already pointed out that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, rendering the narrative that this election is a result of the "silent majority" in this country speaking up an absurdity.
I have already pointed out how Trump only barely won this election, rendering the narrative that Trump represents a sort of white working class uprising an absurdity.
Yet here is an OP trying to create the same narrative, that Trump represents a landslide populist revolution against the wealthy elite, a narrative which is clearly absurd at this juncture now that the man has demonstrated his cabinet choices and the ineptitude exhibited therein. "That the voters expressly voted against?" On what parallel universe does Trump represent anything other than a wealthy elite out of touch with reality?
As I said, this narrative is absurd. But why would anyone put it forth? Because it's the narrative the Trump campaign is spouting.
And so I go back to my previous point: yes, it is important to have an electorate that actively participate. But far more important than that is the need for an electorate to think critically and have built in bull***** filters, because without it, there is no defense against a person who comes in spouting nonsense that obviously has no basis in reality. And there is no more fitting description for Donald Trump.
The fact of the matter is the Democrats lost due to their nominating an extremely unpopular candidate, in addition to widespread disapproval of Obamacare and its effects on insurance premiums. And even then, they only lost barely. For the Democrats to win, they merely need to portray Trump as incompetent, unable to lead the country, and bad for America. This won't be hard, because Trump is all of these things.
And so I go back to my previous point: yes, it is important to have an electorate that actively participate. But far more important than that is the need for an electorate to think critically and have built in bull***** filters, because without it, there is no defense against a person who comes in spouting nonsense that obviously has no basis in reality. And there is no more fitting description for Donald Trump.
The fact of the matter is the Democrats lost due to their nominating an extremely unpopular candidate, in addition to widespread disapproval of Obamacare and its effects on insurance premiums. And even then, they only lost barely. For the Democrats to win, they merely need to portray Trump as incompetent, unable to lead the country, and bad for America. This won't be hard, because Trump is all of these things.
In a republic democracy society like what the US experiences having AT BEST a 66% voter turn out is extremely bad.
This is an excellent point, and I completely agree. Voter apathy is a problem in any republic, especially ours in an election like this. It's ridiculous to have so many people not vote.
THAT BEING SAID, I posit that if you have a voter populace that is that apathetic, to the point where in such a monumental election, they still couldn't be bothered to show up [presuming they weren't disenfranchised, which is a completely separate issue, though one absolutely worth addressing], for them to fail to turn out to vote is actually the best case scenario.
Well, not the BEST case scenario, the best case scenario is to have 100% of all people eligible to vote to be mature, responsible people who did the proper research, put enough effort to really think about the election, and then turned out to vote. But we don't have that kind of best case scenario, and in such a reality, far worse is for apathetic voters who did not take the time and the care to ensure that they were properly informed of the issues behind this election to then go ahead and vote. It is far worse for people who are not willing to think to vote than not vote.
A perfectly fair point, but I have no confidence that the people who are apathetic enough to not vote are actually significantly less informed than those who do. Whether someone votes tells us whether they are motivated and have an opinion, it doesn't tell use whether they are informed or reasonable.
And people will always be able to not properly vote or incur fees rather than vote, even if making a vote is mandatory. People already do even when voting is entirely voluntary.
So I'm not sure whether voluntary voting improves the quality of the vote.
A perfectly fair point, but I have no confidence that the people who are apathetic enough to not vote are actually significantly less informed than those who do. Whether someone votes tells us whether they are motivated and have an opinion, it doesn't tell use whether they are informed or reasonable.
And people will always be able to not properly vote or incur fees rather than vote, even if making a vote is mandatory. People already do even when voting is entirely voluntary.
So I'm not sure whether voluntary voting improves the quality of the vote.
Non-voters are generally less knowledgeable than voters. See for example:
(scroll down to "Knowledge Differences between Voters and Non-Voters")
Although if we're comparing to mandatory voting, it may be the case that some portion of those people would feel compelled to inform themselves if they knew they had to vote.
A perfectly fair point, but I have no confidence that the people who are apathetic enough to not vote are actually significantly less informed than those who do. Whether someone votes tells us whether they are motivated and have an opinion, it doesn't tell use whether they are informed or reasonable.
True, but I think it's reasonable to say that someone who does not vote out of a lack of interest in participating in the election is less likely than someone who plans on voting to have put the time into doing the necessary research to have an informed opinion, on the grounds that the person who is not voting out of a lack of interest in participating in the election is not interested.
And we should not make this a debate on mandatory voting. The US has no mandatory voting policy, and even if such a thing were ruled not-unconstitutional (it wouldn't), it is not going to implemented in the near future.
A perfectly fair point, but I have no confidence that the people who are apathetic enough to not vote are actually significantly less informed than those who do. Whether someone votes tells us whether they are motivated and have an opinion, it doesn't tell use whether they are informed or reasonable.
True, but I think it's reasonable to say that someone who does not vote out of a lack of interest in participating in the election is less likely than someone who plans on voting to have put the time into doing the necessary research to have an informed opinion, on the grounds that the person who is not voting out of a lack of interest in participating in the election is not interested.
And we should not make this a debate on mandatory voting. The US has no mandatory voting policy, and even if such a thing were ruled not-unconstitutional (it wouldn't), it is not going to implemented in the near future.
I mean the US should absolutely have mandatory voting. But way, way more than that it needs to reform its voting laws so you don't have to vote on a ******* tuesday, because seriously what the hell is that. (I mean I know why but it does tend to disenfranchise people). Failing that, a national public holiday every four years. You need to take districting out of the hands of partisans and into the hands of sane people like, oh, most countries, and you need to get rid of the absurdity that is the electoral college. And, for preference, the states existing because I'd be willing to bet it is grossly ineffecient.
And we should not make this a debate on mandatory voting. The US has no mandatory voting policy, and even if such a thing were ruled not-unconstitutional (it wouldn't), it is not going to implemented in the near future.
Just out of Curiousity why would mandatory voting get ruled unconstitutional? Has it been tested before or has no one tried implementing it?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
A perfectly fair point, but I have no confidence that the people who are apathetic enough to not vote are actually significantly less informed than those who do. Whether someone votes tells us whether they are motivated and have an opinion, it doesn't tell use whether they are informed or reasonable.
True, but I think it's reasonable to say that someone who does not vote out of a lack of interest in participating in the election is less likely than someone who plans on voting to have put the time into doing the necessary research to have an informed opinion, on the grounds that the person who is not voting out of a lack of interest in participating in the election is not interested.
They may be not interested though because they are informed but aren't happy with things so lack the confidence to make them go to the effort of doing it.
And being interested in the election can end up being worse if they are interested at least in part because of any sort of malicious intent.
But way, way more than that it needs to reform its voting laws so you don't have to vote on a ******* tuesday, because seriously what the hell is that. (I mean I know why but it does tend to disenfranchise people). Failing that, a national public holiday every four years.
Every year, actually. We do have elections in off-years.
...and you need to get rid of the absurdity that is the electoral college.
Which part of the electoral college? Because one of the most important parts we've already gotten rid of. It was the part where the college was a deliberative body not beholden to the votes of the electorate, in a measure intended to protect the country from populist demagogues. A lot of people wish we still had that part right now.
And, for preference, the states existing because I'd be willing to bet it is grossly ineffecient.
*spit-take* I'd take you up on that bet in a hot minute. Name one modern country of any size that doesn't use some sort of regional government set-up. Hell, most of them (including yours) are federal systems modeled to a greater or lesser extent on the United States. History is unequivocal on this point: overcentralization is what's grossly inefficient.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
[quote from="Medail »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/766271-is-the-future-of-the-democratic-party-purely?comment=3"]
I have already pointed out how Trump only barely won this election, rendering the narrative that Trump represents a sort of white working class uprising an absurdity.
Is it, though? He's wasn't just the TV personality that he was before the election - nor was he Joe Populist. He came out and was as crazy as he wanted to be, maybe crazier than that. He said things that made you wonder whether the Democratic establishment was operating some kind of mind control device on him to get him to sabotage himself. He had no clue what he was doing before this started and he ran against a well-established politician. He spent less than her. He didn't have the appeal of being the first female POTUS. The Republican party itself turned on him - the most we've seen a party rebel against their own candidate in a century. The overwhelming majority of the media was in full attack mode against him.
Not only should he have lost, he should have been trounced. And he won. Barely or not... he won. Dude, how the hell did that happen?
As for the subject at hand, yeah, I think the Democrats will stay the party of minorities and the cosmopolitan elements of the majority. They may move even further in that direction now. Whites will be a minority very shortly in the States, so the Democrats just have to stick to the game plan.
Is it, though? He's wasn't just the TV personality that he was before the election - nor was he Joe Populist. He came out and was as crazy as he wanted to be, maybe crazier than that. He said things that made you wonder whether the Democratic establishment was operating some kind of mind control device on him to get him to sabotage himself. He had no clue what he was doing before this started and he ran against a well-established politician. He spent less than her. He didn't have the appeal of being the first female POTUS. The Republican party itself turned on him - the most we've seen a party rebel against their own candidate in a century. The overwhelming majority of the media was in full attack mode against him.
Not only should he have lost, he should have been trounced. And he won. Barely or not... he won. Dude, how the hell did that happen?
Because a huge number of people in the country yearn for outright racism and xenophobia in their politicians, and an even bigger number are useful idiots who think any racism ended in 1964 and will spend their time bemoaning the fact that anyone would dare use the word racism, while giving actual racism a pass.
Is it, though? He's wasn't just the TV personality that he was before the election - nor was he Joe Populist. He came out and was as crazy as he wanted to be, maybe crazier than that. He said things that made you wonder whether the Democratic establishment was operating some kind of mind control device on him to get him to sabotage himself. He had no clue what he was doing before this started and he ran against a well-established politician. He spent less than her. He didn't have the appeal of being the first female POTUS. The Republican party itself turned on him - the most we've seen a party rebel against their own candidate in a century. The overwhelming majority of the media was in full attack mode against him.
Not only should he have lost, he should have been trounced. And he won. Barely or not... he won. Dude, how the hell did that happen?
Because a huge number of people in the country yearn for outright racism and xenophobia in their politicians, and an even bigger number are useful idiots who think any racism ended in 1964 and will spend their time bemoaning the fact that anyone would dare use the word racism, while giving actual racism a pass.
Did he actually say anything racist during the campaign trail, though? I could see chauvinist being a pretty appropriate word for him what with the way he treats women and all.
Let me try to put this in my own words and you tell me if this is what you mean. Do you mean that: he has been suspicious of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Muslims and, while Mexicans and Muslims aren't a race (so that you can't be racist against Mexicans or Muslims), they still have associations with "brownness" and that kind of talk triggered all the people that have a latent (or not latent, actually) hatred of brown people?
Did he actually say anything racist during the campaign trail, though? I could see chauvinist being a pretty appropriate word for him what with the way he treats women and all.
Let me try to put this in my own words and you tell me if this is what you mean. Do you mean that: he has been suspicious of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Muslims and, while Mexicans and Muslims aren't a race (so that you can't be racist against Mexicans or Muslims), they still have associations with "brownness" and that kind of talk triggered all the people that have a latent (or not latent, actually) hatred of brown people?
My mistake, I should have included "quibble over what is and is not a race" in the list of behaviors used to excuse racism.
Did he actually say anything racist during the campaign trail, though? I could see chauvinist being a pretty appropriate word for him what with the way he treats women and all.
Let me try to put this in my own words and you tell me if this is what you mean. Do you mean that: he has been suspicious of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Muslims and, while Mexicans and Muslims aren't a race (so that you can't be racist against Mexicans or Muslims), they still have associations with "brownness" and that kind of talk triggered all the people that have a latent (or not latent, actually) hatred of brown people?
My mistake, I should have included "quibble over what is and is not a race" in the list of behaviors used to excuse racism.
To reinforce the point: Correcting the label from "racist" to "bigot" doesn't improve things any.
Not only that, but more importantly the Democratic party appears to have transformed into a party that caters mostly to wealthy professionals that are a part of the "elite". Usually Republicans have a solid advantage over Democrats when it comes to winning high-income households in elections. But in this election, Trump just *barely* edged Clinton in households with six-figure incomes. Compare this to 2012, when Romney solidly beat Obama in the same demographics. There seems to be a clear trend that Democrats have abandoned many in the middle to lower income brackets and have catered to much more affluent individuals.
To further make things worse, Democrats decided to double down on the same cosmopolitanism that cost them the election by re-electing Nancy Pelosi as US House Democratic leader. Pelosi is literally a caricature of out of touch coastal cosmopolitanism. While Hillary was a flawed candidate in many other ways, certainly one of her flaws was the fact that she was seen as an out of touch, cosmopolitan political elite who could not connect with ordinary Americans. The fact that a billionaire from New York City connected more with people from Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan than a Democrat should shock the party to its very core. The Democrats in the house have effectively elected a symbol of the very corruption, hypocrisy and elitism that voters expressly voted against.
What can Democrats do to regain the voters they used to represent? Or has that bridge been burned?
I don't think the Democrats will have to do anything. We've seen two presidencies enter office on a wave of support of people wanting to throw the previous administration out and get change going, and then immediately squander said support with blunders. And Trump is dumber than either of them. So I don't think this is going to take all that long.
We must remember that despite the fact that Trump ran as the Republican nominee, his campaign was based on a movement against the Republicans as well as against the Democrats, and won based on popular discontent with either party. But it's difficult to maintain the support of those who express disdain towards those in power when you yourself are in power. We'll see what happens.
I would like to point out that Democrats won the popular vote when ~100 million people did not vote per http://www.electproject.org/2016g who have been tracking the voter turn out since 1980. A total of ~138 million votes were cast, ~231 million people were eligible to vote, other reports say ~200 million were registered to vote, so lets do the math here.
Hillary got 48.1% of the vote so 138 million * .481 = ~66.378 million votes total (65.84 million per http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president)
66.378/231 = 28.7% (66.378/200 = 33.2%)
so only 28.7% of ALL eligible voters voted for Hillary . So only ~1 in 4
and for registered voters it is ~1 in 3
Trump got 46% of the vote so 138 million * .46 = ~63.48 million votes total (62.98 million per http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president)
63.48/231 = 27.5% (63.48/200 = 31.7%)
so only 27.5% of ALL eligible voters voted for Trump. So only ~1 in 4
and for registered voters it is ~1 in 3
What does this information boil down to? Well, my interpretation is that BOTH Hillary and Trump did not win the popular vote. And, depending on which number you want to use (231 million eligible, 200 registered voted) only about 2 in 4 or 2 in 3 people voted or 50-66% voted for either
Now to your comment about "and came damn close to winning the presidency." There are 538 electoral votes available. Trump got 306 electoral votes, to Hillary's 232.
306/538 = 56.87% of the electoral vote went to Trump
232/538 = 43.12% of the electoral vote went to Hillary
That is not what I would consider "damm close to winning"
I would like to leave with a few final thoughts,
Electoral votes in all but two states are "All or nothing" I would like to see the electoral collage change so that the rules mandate the electoral voters to vote per the districts that they represent, not the majority for the whole state. IE in California, 25 of 58 counties voted majority republican, so 23 (25/58 rounded) electoral votes should be republican, not democratic. Or base it off total % voted so that 21 of the electoral votes go to Trump (31% which is what he got in CA) and 34 go to Hillary (62% which is what she got in CA)
In a republic democracy society like what the US experiences having AT BEST a 66% voter turn out is extremely bad.
Doing what you propose would allow gerrymandering to do even more damage than it already does. Look at North Carolina. Basically whatever party is in power during the census would make it nearly impossible for the other side to win.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
But what you really want is a rule tying the electoral vote directly to the proportion of the statewide popular vote.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So, in the three elections prior to 1992, democrats got completely trounced. The one they won before that, Carter in 1976, was won by sweeping the deep south. Somehow I doubt Democrats are going to regain those voters.
One could argue that the barring-a-fascist-takeover worse that Trump is, the better an option the left will look in the next election. Though that didn't work with Dubya, so...
Donald Trump offers exactly what Southern white voters want. Why would they think the left is a better option all of a sudden?
But the northern and midwestern votes made more of the difference in this election. Of course the democrats are not going to win back the southern vote, but the midwest has more potential to go either way.
The post you replied to said:
Why did you even bother to quote that if you're not talking about those voters?
There are 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency. Hillary needed 38 more to make that total. Had she won the states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, states that normally lean blue but went red in this abnormal election, she would have won the election. Clinton lost by 0.3% of the vote in Michigan, 1% in Wisconsin, and 1.2% in Pennsylvania.
That is damn close.
It's why this narrative of a blue collar revolt, a revolution of the white working class is so ridiculous. Trump barely won the presidency, and even in the states he was able to wrestle away from the Democrats, he only was able to just barely scrape by. And certainly this notion of a landslide victory that Trump seems to think he achieved is ridiculous. Trump did not win by a landslide, he won by the skin of his teeth.
Which brings me to a particular point: in order for a republic to function, people need to be thinkers. They need to have bull***** detectors capable of detecting lies and rejecting them. And with that, I segue to another point you made:
This is an excellent point, and I completely agree. Voter apathy is a problem in any republic, especially ours in an election like this. It's ridiculous to have so many people not vote.
THAT BEING SAID, I posit that if you have a voter populace that is that apathetic, to the point where in such a monumental election, they still couldn't be bothered to show up [presuming they weren't disenfranchised, which is a completely separate issue, though one absolutely worth addressing], for them to fail to turn out to vote is actually the best case scenario.
Well, not the BEST case scenario, the best case scenario is to have 100% of all people eligible to vote to be mature, responsible people who did the proper research, put enough effort to really think about the election, and then turned out to vote. But we don't have that kind of best case scenario, and in such a reality, far worse is for apathetic voters who did not take the time and the care to ensure that they were properly informed of the issues behind this election to then go ahead and vote. It is far worse for people who are not willing to think to vote than not vote.
With that in mind, let's go to the OP:
This is ridiculous.
I have already pointed out that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, rendering the narrative that this election is a result of the "silent majority" in this country speaking up an absurdity.
I have already pointed out how Trump only barely won this election, rendering the narrative that Trump represents a sort of white working class uprising an absurdity.
Yet here is an OP trying to create the same narrative, that Trump represents a landslide populist revolution against the wealthy elite, a narrative which is clearly absurd at this juncture now that the man has demonstrated his cabinet choices and the ineptitude exhibited therein. "That the voters expressly voted against?" On what parallel universe does Trump represent anything other than a wealthy elite out of touch with reality?
As I said, this narrative is absurd. But why would anyone put it forth? Because it's the narrative the Trump campaign is spouting.
And so I go back to my previous point: yes, it is important to have an electorate that actively participate. But far more important than that is the need for an electorate to think critically and have built in bull***** filters, because without it, there is no defense against a person who comes in spouting nonsense that obviously has no basis in reality. And there is no more fitting description for Donald Trump.
The fact of the matter is the Democrats lost due to their nominating an extremely unpopular candidate, in addition to widespread disapproval of Obamacare and its effects on insurance premiums. And even then, they only lost barely. For the Democrats to win, they merely need to portray Trump as incompetent, unable to lead the country, and bad for America. This won't be hard, because Trump is all of these things.
I was making a point of an alternative, not a contradiction. But Highroller made the point at the end of their post even better.
A perfectly fair point, but I have no confidence that the people who are apathetic enough to not vote are actually significantly less informed than those who do. Whether someone votes tells us whether they are motivated and have an opinion, it doesn't tell use whether they are informed or reasonable.
And people will always be able to not properly vote or incur fees rather than vote, even if making a vote is mandatory. People already do even when voting is entirely voluntary.
So I'm not sure whether voluntary voting improves the quality of the vote.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Non-voters are generally less knowledgeable than voters. See for example:
http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/10/what-voters-know-about-campaign-2012/
(scroll down to "Knowledge Differences between Voters and Non-Voters")
Although if we're comparing to mandatory voting, it may be the case that some portion of those people would feel compelled to inform themselves if they knew they had to vote.
And we should not make this a debate on mandatory voting. The US has no mandatory voting policy, and even if such a thing were ruled not-unconstitutional (it wouldn't), it is not going to implemented in the near future.
I mean the US should absolutely have mandatory voting. But way, way more than that it needs to reform its voting laws so you don't have to vote on a ******* tuesday, because seriously what the hell is that. (I mean I know why but it does tend to disenfranchise people). Failing that, a national public holiday every four years. You need to take districting out of the hands of partisans and into the hands of sane people like, oh, most countries, and you need to get rid of the absurdity that is the electoral college. And, for preference, the states existing because I'd be willing to bet it is grossly ineffecient.
Just out of Curiousity why would mandatory voting get ruled unconstitutional? Has it been tested before or has no one tried implementing it?
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
They may be not interested though because they are informed but aren't happy with things so lack the confidence to make them go to the effort of doing it.
And being interested in the election can end up being worse if they are interested at least in part because of any sort of malicious intent.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Every year, actually. We do have elections in off-years.
Yes.
Which part of the electoral college? Because one of the most important parts we've already gotten rid of. It was the part where the college was a deliberative body not beholden to the votes of the electorate, in a measure intended to protect the country from populist demagogues. A lot of people wish we still had that part right now.
*spit-take* I'd take you up on that bet in a hot minute. Name one modern country of any size that doesn't use some sort of regional government set-up. Hell, most of them (including yours) are federal systems modeled to a greater or lesser extent on the United States. History is unequivocal on this point: overcentralization is what's grossly inefficient.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
*The next two posts are responses about mandatory voting* C'mon guys...
Any further discussion should go to another thread. This is about the Democratic party and its future.
Is it, though? He's wasn't just the TV personality that he was before the election - nor was he Joe Populist. He came out and was as crazy as he wanted to be, maybe crazier than that. He said things that made you wonder whether the Democratic establishment was operating some kind of mind control device on him to get him to sabotage himself. He had no clue what he was doing before this started and he ran against a well-established politician. He spent less than her. He didn't have the appeal of being the first female POTUS. The Republican party itself turned on him - the most we've seen a party rebel against their own candidate in a century. The overwhelming majority of the media was in full attack mode against him.
Not only should he have lost, he should have been trounced. And he won. Barely or not... he won. Dude, how the hell did that happen?
As for the subject at hand, yeah, I think the Democrats will stay the party of minorities and the cosmopolitan elements of the majority. They may move even further in that direction now. Whites will be a minority very shortly in the States, so the Democrats just have to stick to the game plan.
Because a huge number of people in the country yearn for outright racism and xenophobia in their politicians, and an even bigger number are useful idiots who think any racism ended in 1964 and will spend their time bemoaning the fact that anyone would dare use the word racism, while giving actual racism a pass.
Did he actually say anything racist during the campaign trail, though? I could see chauvinist being a pretty appropriate word for him what with the way he treats women and all.
Let me try to put this in my own words and you tell me if this is what you mean. Do you mean that: he has been suspicious of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Muslims and, while Mexicans and Muslims aren't a race (so that you can't be racist against Mexicans or Muslims), they still have associations with "brownness" and that kind of talk triggered all the people that have a latent (or not latent, actually) hatred of brown people?
My mistake, I should have included "quibble over what is and is not a race" in the list of behaviors used to excuse racism.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)