Will the Electoral College soon spell doom for the GOP?

If Texas becomes reliably blue, republicans aren’t going to continue to lose the popular vote, also, so I don’t know how eliminating the Electoral College will profit them.

A blue Texas will be the death of the GOP regardless. They'll get blown out in the popular vote and the EC every election.

If they end up wanting to abolish it, Dems will join in.

On November 23rd states will start to certify the election results and then it's all over for Dump and the GOP.

If you look at the election totals, we’re evenly divided nation. It’s foolish to think the Democrats outnumber Republicans. The fact the Democrats lost seats in the house and appears not to have gained in the Senate demonstrates that we can easily lose.

The electoral college must go, but the Republicans are far from agreeing.

R6, the Senate is even more anti-democratic than the EC, so the results there don’t support your conclusion. And by virtue of partisan redistricting following the 2010 red wave, the House has not been much better. The Dems have lost the popular presidential vote only once (2004) since 1988, so that also doesn’t support your argument about how evenly divided we supposedly are.

Trump won the Mexicans in Texas because he sent them all a $1200 check with his name on it. These are very low information voters. Democrats need to get to work now on how to get into these communities. Beto queening around, flailing his arms ain’t gonna cut it.

[quote]If Texas becomes reliably blue, republicans aren’t going to continue to lose the popular vote, also, so I don’t know how eliminating the Electoral College will profit them.

Then you're not paying attention. Dems have won 7 of the last 8 popular votes. If the Republican party continues to cater to racists and bigots, they will never again win the popular vote. There's just so much white trash who will continue to vote for white trash who only know how to get a vote the way Trump does. Most youth are exposed to different types of people. You think a party that plays to hate, can win over that youth?

[quote] If the Republican party continues to cater to racists and bigots, they will never again win the popular vote.

It's already too late for them. I think they've likely lost one, maybe two generations who associate them with bigotry. To borrow an overused term, their 'brand' is shit.

Yes, Republicans would still be the radical minority of the popular vote.

I would be ashamed of winning by cheating through all the ways the GOP cheats: USPS sabotage, gerrymandering and poll taxes.

All of it should be abolished. Congressmen should be allotted by party portion of the votes and senators should only represent voting power equal to 1/2 of their home state's population.

People shouldn’t be so quick to want to abolish the electoral college. With the 3rd part voters won’t it be hard to elect a president that doesn’t win 50% of the vote. You could end up with a president that the majority of the country doesn’t want.

The problem is going to be that the Democrats may gain Texas but will lose Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and, ultimately, Minnesota. They are barely hanging on even now. The Electoral College is the stupidest idea ever but the majority of the states will never agree to do away with it.

[quote] Trump won the Mexicans in Texas

No he didn’t. Democrats carried the Mexican-American vote by a country mile.

[quote]The Electoral College is the stupidest idea ever but the majority of the states will never agree to do away with it.

Don't forget the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

It's more likely to happen than the Electoral College being eliminated as it circumvents it.

With it, multiple states with a combined 270 Electoral votes agree to cast all of their votes to the popular candidate thus eliminating the need for the college.

States sign into the pact and it "activates" when they have enough states to reach 270 Electoral College votes.

As of November 2020 they have 196 Electoral College votes from states that have signed on. They need 74 more college votes from other states.

States That Have Agreed: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington State

Next Up to Decide in 2021: Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, South Carolina and Ohio bills involving joining the pact are making their way through upper/lower houses. It seems like Virginia will definitely join and it's somewhat likely PA will as well.

The electoral college needs to be abolished or reflect the actual populations of the states. Same goes with the Senate. It is beyond ridiculous that multiple red states combined with populations lower than ONE blue state or even a city in that one blue state, has so much power. And to add insult to injury, many of those states do not pay shit and are dependent on that blue state with a far larger population.

You do realize, don't you, that the House is supposed to represent states by population and the Senate represents states regardless of population. There is a reason that California has 53 House members and Nevada has four.

Also, I know that the Voter Compact achieves the end result of getting rid of the Electoral College without actually having to have a constitutional amendment to get rid of it, but, gee, what do all of the states have in common that support it? Oh, I don't know...maybe every single one of them is already a blue state. Red states aren't going to go along. The only way they will is if they consistently lose the EC for multiple elections in a row. They KNOW they currently can't win based on the popular vote.

[quote]You do realize, don't you, that the House is supposed to represent states by population and the Senate represents states regardless of population.

Yes, I'm fully aware of how it works and it doesn't make it right. It is a joke that someone from KY with a population half of NYC alone with no fucking money that only takes from MY state has the power that he does. And BTW, you bring up the House? The GOP will be redrawing (aka gerrymandering in TWO years), so it'll be an even more fucked up minority-rule situation when the GOP does that, too.

The Senate is held by a party which LOST the popular vote in 2018 by 12 million votes. 12 MILLION. The Senate is not a representation of the actual population. It is a situation a minority of people who give nothing to the national till get to rule over the majority who pay to keep the lights on including those of that minority.

I'll never forget that cunt from KY telling blue cities to go bankrupt during covid and Cuomo put that evil hick in his place and reminded him fwherr his fucking leech state gets their money. If blue states fail, then KY shrivels up and dies.

where*

The EC needs to be abolished. The Senate needs to be reconfigured in order reflect population count or be done with it.

There’s no such thing as one party never winning again. Eventually, the party in power always crashes, no matter how long a winning streak.

I meant to say that if Texas turns reliably blue Republicans ARE going to continue to lose the popular vote, not AREN’T.

Yes, R14, the Dems future in the midwest may be bleak, but this states will be losing population, thus EVs, in the future, while Texas, Georgia, NC & AZ, previously owned by the republicans, will continue to grow, adding EVs that will more than offset the loss of the midwestern states.

My issue with allowing the masses to dictate policy is that, were that so, we still wouldn't have gay marriage, women wouldn't have the right to vote, African Americans would still be enslaved. Had any of those issues been up for popular vote, they would have failed. It becomes mob rule and mobs are irrational, ideological and selfish.

R25, we are still a representative republic. Getting rid of the electoral college would not change that. It would just make it actually representative. We're not going to have the nation voting on legislation. Do you think that it's better having the minority dictate our legislation? A minority that is on the wrong side of every single thing you listed?

The UK doesn’t have a national direct vote for Prime Minister, nor does Canada, why should we?

“ The problem is going to be that the Democrats may gain Texas but will lose Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and, ultimately, Minnesota.”

THIS

Democrats need to camp out in PA and the Midwest. It should be grooming candidates and messages specifically for this pivotal region.

Biden should anoint a Midwest Economic Recovery Commission

Donald Trump won Texas by 6 points. It wasn't that close. If he won it by 3 I could maybe see a blue Texas in 2024. But no, 2028 at the earliest.

TX has two of the most evil Republicans representing it. I have no hope for that state for at least a decade.

r26, ethically, I think minority representation allowing whichever minority that is to better their lot in life and the opportunities afforded them is vital to democracy.

The issue is that [italic]this particular minority[/italic] are the Kings and Queens, Dukes and Duchesses of a neo-Feudal America.

Stripping them of equal say, in the long run, strips every minority of having equal say.

I concur. Texas in the end was a disappointment. Democrats lost huge ground with Latinos in the state especially along the Rio Grande, and suburbs remained quite red. Republican turnout was turbocharged while Democratic turnout was meh. Not good

R2

[quote] If Texas becomes reliably blue, republicans aren’t going to continue to lose the popular vote, also, so I don’t know how eliminating the Electoral College will profit them.

Clearly your brain 🧠 has been addled by years of drug and alcohol abuse.

Texas going blue is a swing of 92 electors which is more than sufficient to propel the D candidate to victory.

That’s when Repubs will begin screaming for EC reform.

The Electoral College is not “Why America Is Fucked Up”; The Electoral College exposes [italic]what is fucked up about America[/italic]. It’s not a symptom, so much as a magnifying glass.

[quote]My issue with allowing the masses to dictate policy is that, were that so, we still wouldn't have gay marriage, women wouldn't have the right to vote, African Americans would still be enslaved.

But none of those advances came through the minoritarian institutions of the Senate and Electoral College. They came through judicial decisions, amendments to the Constitution (which are, in fact, determined by state legislatures, thus ultimately by popular vote), and/or civil war.

I don’t think Texas will go blue this decade. A lot of work needs to be done to reduce erosion among Latinos, and to turn the huge suburbs from red to blue. Black turnout was disappointing

[quote]The UK doesn’t have a national direct vote for Prime Minister, nor does Canada, why should we?

You're comparing apples and oranges. The prime minister in a parliamentary democracy isn't determined by an indirect vote (e.g. an electoral college); it's determined by which party wins the popular vote for seats in the legislative body: the leader of that party is appointed prime minister by the head of state (or her representative).

R37, my point was that the Electoral College is another check and balance against mob rule. If the masses had been given a direct vote on gay marriage, there would be no nationwide gay marriage in the US. Etc. The Supreme Court, in this particular instance and in design, exists as another check and balance against the masses trampling on the freedoms of the few.

[quote]If the masses had been given a direct vote on gay marriage

But this thread is about the Electoral College and by extension the Senate as a minoritarian institution. No one's arguing for giving the general electorate (what you call "the masses") a direct vote on individual liberties. And anyway, the Supreme Court as it's currently constituted is likely to "exist as another check and balance against" those individual liberties like gay marriage, not against those trampling them.

I've heard this prediction of Texas turning blue for 30 years. A lot of wishful thinking.

Our current predicament is not caused by the Electoral College giving equal say to a minority. Our problem is that this specific minority is the most powerful global caucus on Earth, working solely in the interests of excessively wealthy, straight, white, christo-fascist men. If all the Mitch McConnells were, instead, naturalized asylum seekers, we would not be having this conversation. So, it’s not the system, in this case, that is the problem, it’s the specific group. And I really do not want to see the Left begin to operate, as the Right does, with the short-sightedness of company boards, with an only on raising ‘profits’ for the next quarter. This is a long game, which requires looking at a much bigger picture.

An ^eye only

None of the arguments you cite have jackshit with an electoral college versus popular vote for President r40.

The electoral college just gives slightly more power to smaller states and punishes states with a large population. You would need to make an argument based on that reality.

Can somebody tell me how texas will turn blue? I dont see it happening unless big tech and big business floods texas with californians.

Georgia turned blue because it has a large number of African Americans, most of the state lives in metro ATL, and there is a large and growing number of educated whites. Texas demographics are much more prone to vote Republican. It is a lot less black than Georgia, and its Latinos are prone to defect to Republicans.

[quote] The electoral college just gives slightly more power to smaller states

So, then, what’s the problem?

Also, these aren’t just “smaller states” these are actual populations of people, minority groups, as it were.

Texas is about three points bluer in 2020 than 2016. Historic turnout somewhat helped the state turn more purple, but a lot of the historic turnout was among Republicans. A large percentage of Texas Latinos voted Republican

Either way someone is going to get screwed. The electoral college screws the will of the majority. Getting rid of the electoral college means the minority gets run over.

In everything else in our country the majority rules. Why not in elections? People think we're insane that the person who got 3 million more votes didn't become our president. And we had to wait until the last Saturday to declare the guy who was already 4 million votes ahead the winner.

We are set up so that the minority rules everything and because they control more state legislatures and redistricting it will continue.

Per capita representation, i.e. the erasure of The Electoral College, is mob rule. If the demographics were directly inverse, you would not be suggesting this at all; you would be arguing how The Electoral College is necessary to maintain equal representation of divergent interests, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

[quote]The Electoral College is necessary to maintain equal representation of divergent interests, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

Prejudice, denial of science, of climate change, and a minority population comprised primarily of an ignorant, provincial populace ruling over the majority including over the purse strings to which they contribute nothing, is not merely "divergent interests," it's outright corruption.

I love trolls going on about how the *crazy* idea of the person who gets the most votes wins the election is dangerous.

Maybe you should focus on why Republican candidates for president can't get the most votes.

Mob rule? Thats called democracy, I will take it.

[quote]Beto queening around, flailing his arms ain’t gonna cut it.

Wait, is he shirtless in this scenario?

R54, it's not like we have any evidence of minority rule being dangerous. Not like the minority allows Fascist clowns to ascend to power. Not like a minority allows people to go without safety nets and tries to destroy what few safety nets are left. It's not like minority rule leads to regulations ending so that polluters have free rein or science is turned into the enemy so that learned men who've never expressed a political preference are threatened with beheading from this "minority"

R55, it’s a Republic.

TX already turned blue but because of the cheating......... We'll find out the truth in a few years.

Biden got five million more votes WITH all the Republican voter suppression, gerrymandering and whatever other skulduggery they got up to. GOP have to cheat like hell to stay in power. Unfortunately I’ve seen the doom of the GOP forecast many times and they never seem to diminish.

R57, again, swap out the Mitch McConnells with naturalized asylum seekers from violent war torn countries and put them in Wyoming, put them in the Dakotas, etc. and tell me again why they should not have their minority interests fairly represented. Or flip it, make Democrats and Left Leaning Independents the per capita minority and tell me that you would be fine with never having your interests recognized at a Federal level, because you’ve gotten rid of the Electoral College. You would not be fine with it, you would be demanding it be reinstated. The issue is not the EC, the issue is the specifics of who the GOP, the minority party, represents.

R61, what a ridiculous analogy to excuse the fact that someone like McConnell has far too much power considering what his state contributes - nothing.

You need to understand that it isn't merely population, it is the fact that all of these god damned states do not even contribute financially to this country. They literally only contribute their plentiful ignorance.

[quote] Maybe you should focus on why Republican candidates for president can't get the most votes.

Everyone already knows the answer: California. That one state accounted for all of his Hillary’s margin in 2016 and 5 million of the 5.5 million margin for Biden. The smaller states are not going to turn over the decision of who is president to Californians, whose views don’t match the rest of the country.

R63, peopl are people, California is not some different fucking planet. And why in the hell should CA -being a financial powerhouse- be at the mercy of low IQ leeching idiots in AL or MS or KY? My God, AL just elected an idiot who has no clue what the three branches of govt are - and you think it's dangerous for CA to think for them? REALLY?

Do me a favor? Do not act like millions of people in CA somehow don't count, but a states full of imbeciles are worthy of consideration, particularly when they have no fucking money but all the say.

Nate Cohn: Democrats *do* need to recognize just how much Trump pitch has really undermined the way they usually win elections. This has been true since 2016, but it's been obscured by the focus on Trump's appeals on race/immigration--and that liberals didn't appreciate the 'old' way.

Doing away with winner take all and implementing an EC that would award votes proportionally would seem to be a decent compromise between keeping the EC and scrapping it entirely. The way NE and ME do it is one way, but it’s susceptible to gerrymandering fuckery, so a simple apportionment would be better. E.g. a state with 16 EVS that went 55/45 would be split 9/7.

This would probably juice turnout for both parties because then million of CA Republicans and TX Democrats would now have votes that actually matter.

Thoughts?

[quote]Per capita representation, i.e. the erasure of The Electoral College, is mob rule.

So the vote for a congressional representative is mob rule? For senator? For mayor? Councilman? Dogcatcher?

R63, California per se has nothing to do with it. It's the large numbers of Democratic voters in California as well as other states. Populous, more diverse areas (urban and suburban) tend to go Democratic for various reasons, whereas sparser, more homogeneous areas tend to go Republican.

[quote] California is not some different fucking planet.

It might as well be. It doesn’t fit with Middle America.

R46, urbanization. Even in Texas the cities tend to lean blue.

California is geographically large and very diverse culturally. Like Pennsylvania two large cities dominate. If you divide California into six smaller states like back east you’d have two red states (LA area and Bay Area), two purple states (San Diego and Sacramento) and two red states (Central Valley and far north). The California effect is counterbalanced on the east coast among the now red stronghold of Florida, blue Virginia and the other red and purple states down there.

If you look at the 2016 results Donald Trump got move votes in Los Angeles county than he did in Mississippi.

Newsflash, a lot of Americans live in California.

There is no dumber argument that right wingers make than if you ignore the state has the most Americans, let's see what the American vote looks like.

You trolls always struggle here because coming up with a cogent argument against the idea of winning the most votes means you win the election is impossible. We handle every election like that except the Presidential election.

I meant LA and SF as blue, obviously

I don't want to hear any more of this strawman crap about how "America isn't a democracy, it's a republic." America has been run on democratic procedures since the beginning, and in the early to mid 19th century, culminating with the 13th-15th amendments, then the 19th amendment a half century later, that dynamic got stronger. The "mob rule" troll is getting tiresome.

[quote]It might as well be. It doesn’t fit with Middle America.

True. Why would CA want to have a lower IQ and exceedingly lower GDP

Which section of The US Constitution are you hoping to destroy next, comrades? Most of you sound like you haven’t even read it.

R71, they think states with more tumbleweed, fewer people and no money have more right to a say than a state with an economy that rivals entire countries. This is the logic of enablers who think uneducated bigots in WV are more relevant than CA.

Never say never in American politics.

Ten or fifteen years after Trump, the GOP may look very different and appeal to a different type of voter.

All of this armchair analysis ignores the fact that the next Republican presidential candidate will not be Donald Trump and therefore won't have a legion of cultists voting. Do you really Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz is going to drive people to the polls to vote for the Republican ballot?

With Trump gone, the Republican base will shrink by maybe 10%.

[quote]Which section of The US Constitution are you hoping to destroy next, comrades? Most of you sound like you haven’t even read it.

Oh, the irony of this stupidity considering who the current president is and his views on elections among other things in THAT constitution. Shall we start with how he got so much support in the first place as a candidate from the "keepers" of the constitution? Something about religious bigotry?

R78, it’s not ‘analysis’; it’s ideological thuggery.

The only argument that I use for the EC is that each state should have its defined share of the vote for president. That takes care of the problem of any state (e.g. California) having lopsided results that would skew the national total.

[quote]Donald Trump won Texas by 6 points. It wasn't that close. If he won it by 3 I could maybe see a blue Texas in 2024. But no, 2028 at the earliest.

TEXAS--

2000 - Republican +21 (Gore 38.0% / Bush 59.3%)

2004 - Republican +23 (Kerry 38.2% / Bush 61.1%)

2008 - Republican +12 (Obama 43.7% / McCain 55.5%)

2012 - Republican +16 (Obama 41.4% / Romney 57.2%)

2016 - Republican +9 (Clinton 43.2% / Orange 52.2%)

2020 - Republican +6 (Biden 46.4% / Orange 52.2%)

GEORGIA--

2000 - Republican +12 (Gore 43.0% / Bush 54.7%)

2004 - Republican +17 (Kerry 41.4% / Bush 58.0%)

2008 - Republican +5 (Obama 47.0% / McCain 52.2%)

2012 - Republican +8 (Obama 45.5% / Romney 53.3%)

2016 - Republican +5 (Clinton 45.6% / Orange 50.8%)

2020 - Republican -0 (Biden 49.5% / Orange 49.2%)

R35, if you had scrolled down a little, you would have seen I corrected my inadvertent error in R23.

Skewing a national total is giving a state more or less of a voting share than its actual share of a vote.

With a popular vote every state is equal, every voter is equal. God forbid.

R75 will be heart broken to learn we have "destroyed" the constitution many times. Literally written in the document is a way to change what it says because they knew that was necessary.

Wait til you hear what it originally said about black people and how they didn't think Americans should be able to vote for their senators.

Today’s GOP is not a normal minority. They may be few, but they hold more power outside of government than any other group on the planet. You don’t destroy the blue print for a nation because one group of bad actors is mis-using the system. And if you’re unwilling or incapable of seeing beyond this moment in time or your own biases, then, you really have no business discussing political science matters, at all.

For all the differences between Texas & Georgia, it’s worth pointing out that in Georgia the Dems flipped a 5% point loss in 2016. Texas was lost to the Dems this year by 6% points, so a flip in 4 years - predicted, in fact, by longtime GOP pol Stuart Stevens - is not so inconceivable.

Texas is a heavily latino state and latino voters do not vote as Democratic as black voters do r87. Thats a major demographic difference.

R86, I'll think about that as the GOP tells us to keep them "at their word" when it comes to the Supreme Court and then shows their word is dog shit and that this no longer merely a moment in time but an opportunity for these bad actors to destroy the nation over the next generation.

It may cause Republicans to nominate Texans, to keep it in the fold. Plus Biden is a centrist candidate. If Democrats nominate another McGovern in the future, expect the vote to swing to the GOP

[quote] You don’t destroy the blue print for a nation...

Stop. This is nonsense. Following the rules to change the Constitution is not "destroying the blue print for a nation." It is following the blue print laid out in the Constitution.

Grow up.

If it were up to R86, we'd still be drawing blood with leeches.

It’s true that the foundation of the Constitution is that the country is a federation of states with a national government that has limited powers.

What's your point, r93?

I would love to be proven wrong, but I just do not believe that Latino voters are the saviors that the Democratic Party thinks they will be.

To be honest, I believe that black people (I'm generalizing) are more conservative than the majority of the democratic party, but they have embraced the party and accepted that the democrats are willing to work with them to solve issues that are important to the community. And just overlook the stuff they don't agree with.

Latino voters (again, I'm generalizing) are having a hard time with Democrats on abortion and other religious issues. I just think that once republicans get it together they are going to see Latinos as the way to save their party. Sort of like when they brought in the evangelicals in the 80s.

The real problem with the electoral college is that it makes it impossible to trust our elections. A few hundred votes either way in a certain state can tip it. That's why Republicans are freaking out: because well focused voter fraud COULD swing the election. If we didn't have an electoral college, there would be no controversy about Biden winning the Presidency.

Frankly, our population is too large to support the electoral college. We have a population of over 333,000,000, and we're terrified of a handful of tiny states that have the power to flip everything.

[quote]The problem is going to be that the Democrats may gain Texas but will lose Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and, ultimately, Minnesota. They are barely hanging on even now. The Electoral College is the stupidest idea ever but the majority of the states will never agree to do away with it.

Tradeoff.

Ohio and Iowa were 2016 Republican pickups for Donald Trump which did not become 2020 Democratic pickups for Joe Biden.

Add to the those two Florida.

I think Arizona and Georgia are going to realign to the Democrats.

But, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—the Rust Belt trio which are the only states carried in the last four cycles (2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020); with three cycles won by the Democrats—are likely the best bellwether states. What this means is that they don’t just vote with the winners; their numbers closely reflect national outcomes.

Minnesota is poised to become a Republican pickup with the next cycle in which the presidency switches from the Democratic to the Republican column. It likely won’t be in 2024. So, it would probably happen in 2028 (unless Democrats can pull off a third consecutive cycle that year; in such case, a delay until 2032).

Maine [statewide] can also happen for the Republicans.

Basically, the Republicans are in the 2020s where the Democrats were in the 1980s.

R46 asks,

[quote]Can somebody tell me how texas will turn blue?

The Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington area.

The four counties of Dallas (Dallas), Tarrant (Fort Worth), Denton (Denton), and Collin (McKinney). They are trending Democratic. Dallas was won over in 2008 and has since further solidified its levels of blue. Tarrant was the best bellwether county to the state and, in 2018, flipped blue (D+0.69) for Beto O‘Rourke despite re-election (R+2.56) to the U.S. Senate for Ted Cruz. Last I looked, Joe Biden narrowly flipped Tarrant County (D+0.05) despite the state (R+5.77) holding in the Republican column for unseated Donald Trump.

What is happening in Denton and Collin is that their previous levels of red-vs.-the-state are diminishing.

For 2016 Trump, he carried Denton by +20.00, making it +11.02 points more Republican than the state. In 2020, Denton came in for Trump at +8.12, just +2.35 points redder than the state.

For 2016 Trump, he carried Collin by +16.57, making it +7.59 points more Republican than the state. In 2020, Collin came in for Trump at +5.60, which made it 0.17 points bluer than the state.

In between 2016 and 2020, a 2018 re-elected Ted Cruz carried Denton and Collin by +5.59 and +3.56 points above statewide margin.

So, there is a trend.

In 2016, 2018, and 2020, Denton County went from +11.02 to +5.59 to +2.35 points more Republican than the state of Texas.

In 2016, 2018, and 2020, Collin County went from +7.59 to +3.56 to –0.17 points more or less Republican than the state of Texas.

Had Texas become a 2020 Democratic pickup, for Joe Biden, I would say he would have won the U.S. Popular Vote not by +3 or +4 but by more like +7. And in Texas, Dallas would have been a Democratic hold; Tarrant a Democratic pickup; with Collin his third (and second as a pickup) to end up in his column. Fourth would have been Denton. And, depending on the statewide margin, three of four at a minimum; but all four would have been possible.

My feeling, for when Texas finally turns blue, is that this is the most pivotal area of the state.

Biden’s strength is that he is a progressive in centrists’s clothing. His platform is the most progressive platform since FDR

His platform, R99, will largely be irrelevant unless the Georgia Senate seats are flipped.

can’t nominate a Northeast candidate for president anymore. California is iffy, but definitely not Northeastern. Midwestern and Southern candidates like Roy Cooper are Strongly preferred

That doesn't make sense r101. Biden is from the northeast and he just won. In the future if there was a good candidate from PA that would be great.

Delaware Is perceived as Mid Atlantic, and Biden purposely portrays himself as a Scranton boy. Scranton is viewed as Midwest blue collar, not northeast elite

Yes I think a Democratic candidate from blue-collar Pennsylvania can win because it would counter the idea that they are Northeast liberal elite

Biden could’ve won North Carolina if he had a southern accent. yes it matters

I remember how Obama would ramp up his southern accent in 2008. Hillary tried but it came off as inauthentic

R105, why does it matter? Trump's NY accent sure as hell made me do the opposite

"my point was that the Electoral College is another check and balance against mob rule. If the masses had been given a direct vote on gay marriage, there would be no nationwide gay marriage in the US. Etc. The Supreme Court, in this particular instance and in design, exists as another check and balance against the masses trampling on the freedoms of the few."

Huh? How is giving a disproportionate amount of power to rural, Republican states helping gay rights?

On what planet is Scranton part of the midwest r103? It is on the eastern side of PA and is very much part of the Northeast, not even a little bit Midwestern.

R109, have you not been paying attention to the campaign and punditry??

Also Mid-Alantic is just a subdivision of the Northeast.

The Northeast is made up of Mid-Atlantic + New England.

r15, however in many counties Biden failed to even reach half as high as H.Clinton did with the Mexican border.

Lots of Mexican-Americans work in the oil industry and were bought into the rhetoric that Biden would ban fracking.

Virginia is MidAtlantic and not Northeast

Texas was an improvement, but Democrats really need to examine what went wrong in that state

Okay, if you don't like mob rule, that is why we have the Senate. By original design, the Senate was supposed be the adults in the room where all states were equal. There is nothing wrong with having a popularly elected president, as long as you keep the Senate as is.

A popularly elected president.

A Senate where all states are equal

A House based on proportion.

Can someone explain to me what happens if the popular vote is 45 dems, 42 republican and then 13% all those other parties

Is it a democratic win or because no one has over 50% it goes to the House to decide?

If it's under 50% that wins then a candidate with less that the majority of the popular vote wins. 55% of country did not want. Do we want that?

Virginia is Mid-Atlantic? Scranton is in the midwest?

Virginia is in the South, it was the damn capital of the confederacy. How could it not be part of the South.

"If it's under 50% that wins then a candidate with less that the majority of the popular vote wins."

Trump lost the popular vote in 2016. But he was elected because he won the electoral college. Bush "won" the presidency while getting fewer votes than Gore.

[quote] Virginia is in the South, it was the damn capital of the confederacy. How could it not be part of the South.

Southern Virginia is very much southern but Northern Virginia is more mid-atlantic now. The DC suburbs are huge and NOVA is so drastically different from the southern part of the state.

No quotation marks are needed, R118. The rules of the game are to get to 270 EVs, not to win the most votes. Campaigns aren’t engineered to do the latter,

Today, most consider Virginia part of the Mid Atlantic today

Yes, and a growing number of people consider North Carolina part of the Mid Atlantic

Map

Yeah, the point is that the person who gets the most vote can still lose

R121, that map is a bit ridiculous. Chicago is NOT mid-atlantic.

This is the Mid-Atlantic and nothing is going to convince me otherwise.

Saying that North Carolina and Virginia aren't part of the South is absurd IMO.

R121, that is the stupidest, most out-of-touch map I have ever seen.

A map that puts Wisconsin and Louisiana in the same region is going to mislead.

Virginia is the south. It being blue doesn’t change that. NOVA and the suburbs of Atlanta, Charlotte, RDU are damn near indistinguishable from each other on the ground. Maryland, though technically the south, too, is where things start to feel different.

Virginia is Mid-Atlantic, according to USGS and almost any definition that exists outside of Datalounge. This predates political realignments and it is not just a matter of opinion or r129’s feelings.

Exactly. It’s undisputed that VA is Mid-Atlantic among modern people. A lot of DLers are stuck in the 1960s, but it’s not a debate today. Also, a state can be in the South and Mid-Atlantic at the same time. If PA can. Both in the North and Mid-Atlantic, VA and Nc can be in dual regions too.

So are we determining geography by politics?

Lol seriously r132. Since Georgia voted blue I guess it is now no longer in the South and it must too be Mid-Atlantic now.

How about Jersey? I think the mid-Atlantic straddles Northeast and Southeast. PA, MD, DE, NJ, VA, DC would be why I’d call the mid-Atlantic. Maybe split NJ in two with South Jersey remaining and North Jersey being Northeastern.

No dummie. NC and VA are roughly the geographic mid point of the US Atlantic seaboard. Duh 🙄

If we’re being literal the Mid-Atlantic would be a point halfway between the East Coast and Europe.

Texas will definitely go blue this decade. Every election it gets closer and closer and this year's election put quite the scare on the GOP. As more young Latinos turn 18 , Democrats will catch up. The EC will probably fall within the next 2 decades.

The Mid-Atlantic is defined as being the region between New England and the South. New Jersey is like the epitome of Mid-Atlantic.

Again the Mid-Atlantic is part of the Northeast. They aren't separate things. The Northeast just also includes New England.

[Quote]The Mid-Atlantic, comprising the Middle Atlantic states or the Mid-Atlantic states, is a region of the United States generally located between New England and the South Atlantic

That was for r134 btw.

Wiki: Defining the Mid-Atlantic Edit

There are differing interpretations as to the composition of the Mid-Atlantic, with sources including in the region a number of states from New York to South Carolina.[7] A United States Geological Survey publication describes the Mid-Atlantic Region as all of Maryland, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, along with the parts of New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina that drain into the Delaware and Chesapeake Bays and the Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds.[8] Sometimes, the nucleus is considered to be the area centered on the Washington metropolitan area, including Maryland, Virginia, Delaware and West Virginia.[9]

US Government: Virginia is Mid-Atlantic

College or not - more people vote for democrats. So if they abolish it. It is over as well.

The government considers Virginia to be in the Northeast, so that shows how little they know.

What government? Trump?

This is getting as bad as any discussion on UVA.

Nope it does not. See above and Below, ignoramus

EPA

It looks like the government can’t agree with itself. Labor and HUD indicate Virginia is part of the Northeast region.

The question as to whom the elimination of the Electoral College would benefit longterm would depend on how many people in safe red or blue states don't vote because they think it doesn't matter. If it's more Democrats, it will favor the Democrats long term. If it's more Repugs, it will favor the Repugs.

So, are there more red voters in California who don't vote because it's so blue or are there more blue voters in Texas who don't vote because it's so red? Same with other strongly blue/red states? New York? Illinois?

I think, in the South, a lot more black Dems might vote if they thought it could matter. Mississippi, Lousiana, Alabama, etc., are filled with black people who don't vote because they're going to go red anyway.

I live in a very red state and my vote has never counted for president but that doesn't mean I don't vote. I vote in every election.

I'm in NY and I want to be referred to as Top-Atlantic.

[quote] I live in a very red state and my vote has never counted for president but that doesn't mean I don't vote.

Your vote counted in the state election for electors, just as it counted for election of governor and other state elections.

Most Republicans would flunk out of Electrical College.

Facts

Interesting

Republican Cubans are such shits.