- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Democrats won the House but THIS is the harsh political reality -fox news
Posted on 11/7/18 at 2:46 pm to 756
Posted on 11/7/18 at 2:46 pm to 756
And that also leaves 35 states with likely GOP governors so the ability to gerrymander to keep the House competitive. And some rural districts in those 15 states will be red still.
The left flocking to urban centers kills their ability to consistently maintain political control
The left flocking to urban centers kills their ability to consistently maintain political control
0
Posted on 11/7/18 at 2:50 pm to 756
Good. They will want to break up the nation.
And we will do that, amicably.
And we will do that, amicably.
Posted on 11/7/18 at 2:58 pm to 756
yet florida and texas barely avoided voting in socialists because so many liberal moved there and are now voting liberal so i call total fantasy BS on that story, the facts say otherwise
Posted on 11/7/18 at 3:00 pm to 756
Democrats and owning the House......name a more iconic duo.
Posted on 11/7/18 at 3:17 pm to uway
quote:
Good. They will want to break up the nation.
And we will do that, amicably.
So you would be okay with breaking up the Union?
Posted on 11/7/18 at 3:26 pm to 756
quote:
By 2040, most of the nation’s voters – including most liberals – will live in 15 of our 50 states.
The only source is a tweet that's saying that the population will age and the population will become more rural. Isn't the general consensus however that the population will continue to move into cities? From the election result maps, urban areas tend to vote Democrat, so I'm just questioning this sentence and statement that follows.
Posted on 11/7/18 at 3:34 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
Is he even going to run again? I figured he conceded his chances to retain his seat when he voted against Kavanaugh.
He'll lose 60-40 to any pulse with an R by its name on the ballot.
Posted on 11/7/18 at 3:38 pm to 756
quote:
By 2040, most of the nation’s voters – including most liberals – will live in 15 of our 50 states.
I'm not buying this...
Posted on 11/7/18 at 7:25 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
So you would be okay with breaking up the Union?
I believe our differences are irreconcilable under current conceptions of the role of federal government, so yes, I would be in favor of peacefully breaking up the Union in order to give more Americans what they want out of government and society, unless we reduce the role of federal government.
It’s not good that we agonize over national politics this way. I am glad Trump won, but I’m not glad that so many people were miserable over it.
Posted on 11/7/18 at 7:28 pm to 756
Virginia, Florida, Georgia and Texas are purple, moving blue. They don't need the Hinterland to win POTUS...just Electoral votes. Senate not so much.
Posted on 11/7/18 at 7:30 pm to cas4t
quote:
I'm not buying this...
Um, they already do
Rank State 2018 Population 2018 Growth % of US
1 California 39,776,830 0.61% 12.13%
2 Texas 28,704,330 1.41% 8.75%
3 Florida 21,312,211 1.56% 6.50%
4 New York 19,862,512 0.07% 6.06%
5 Pennsylvania 12,823,989 0.14% 3.91%
6 Illinois 12,768,320 -0.26% 3.89%
7 Ohio 11,694,664 0.31% 3.57%
8 Georgia 10,545,138 1.11% 3.21%
9 North Carolina 10,390,149 1.14% 3.17%
10 Michigan 9,991,177 0.29% 3.05%
11 New Jersey 9,032,872 0.30% 2.75%
12 Virginia 8,525,660 0.66% 2.60%
13 Washington 7,530,552 1.69% 2.30%
14 Arizona 7,123,898 1.53% 2.17%
15 Massachusetts 6,895,917 0.53% 2.10%
Posted on 11/7/18 at 9:23 pm to gthog61
I don’t follow. Is that % of liberals in each of those states?
Posted on 11/7/18 at 9:51 pm to 756
Posted on 11/7/18 at 10:42 pm to 756
quote:Population projections 20+ years in the future are probably quite inaccurate. I mean California’s population projections have continuously fallen over the years and some are expecting a leveling and possible shrinkage altogether. Many of the things (weather, scenery, economy) why people wanted to move their haven’t changed. Yet, whether due to policies and basic economics, it’s not as reasonable if an option as it once was, particular home prices.
By 2040, most of the nation’s voters – including most liberals – will live in 15 of our 50 states. That means Democrats will solidly control only 30 Senate seats, even if they dominate in the House.
And just like California now, the places people are rapidly moving to now, will likely result in directly consequences (supply and demand), not to mention any unexpected changes (like a major industry being replaced), that will result in a change in the pattern of migration.
So predicting that pattern is problematic enough, but predicting the political implications of that pattern and the fluid ideological beliefs on top of that, is just nonsense. I mean any Obama supporter voting for Trump would seem unthinkable, even up until 7:00 or 8:00 PM on 11/08/16. Yet just a few hours later, the unthinkable became a clear reality.
Posted on 11/7/18 at 11:30 pm to gthog61
quote:This is true. And in 1960, the first census with 59 states, over 2/3rds lived in 15 states, and over half were in the 9 states. In 1900 of the total population, including the territories that are now states, half of the population was in 10 states.
Um, they already do
So the article stating that 15 states will have a majority share of the population in 2040 is a odd to point out as meaningful and specific basis for the thesis when this phenomenon dates back to at least 1900.
Posted on 11/7/18 at 11:40 pm to 756
Ain’t gonna happen.
Soros buying us all 2nd homes in red states. Blue state snowbirds if you will. Only gonna vote in the red.
You can’t stop him!!!
Soros buying us all 2nd homes in red states. Blue state snowbirds if you will. Only gonna vote in the red.
You can’t stop him!!!
Posted on 11/7/18 at 11:46 pm to 756
Maine is such a weird State. If a person does not get 50% of the vote the losing candidates get to decide who gets their votes.
(R) Poliquin 46.2%
(D) Golden 45.7%
2 independent’s one with around 6% and the other around 2%
Poliquin has the most votes and still losses Maine 2nd congressional seat
(R) Poliquin 46.2%
(D) Golden 45.7%
2 independent’s one with around 6% and the other around 2%
Poliquin has the most votes and still losses Maine 2nd congressional seat
Posted on 11/7/18 at 11:57 pm to MizzouBS
Dems are not giving up on the Red states. Tester got reelected in Montana. Kansas elected two very liberal Dems to House seats as well as electing a Dem governor.
Look at the initiatives that passed. Arkansas and Missouri increased their minimum wages. Medicaid expansion voted up in Utah. New Dem House member in Utah. All of those and more are liberal Democratic positions.
The numbers of moderate-to-liberals living in many Red States is INCREASING not decreasing.
That article is off.
Look at the initiatives that passed. Arkansas and Missouri increased their minimum wages. Medicaid expansion voted up in Utah. New Dem House member in Utah. All of those and more are liberal Democratic positions.
The numbers of moderate-to-liberals living in many Red States is INCREASING not decreasing.
That article is off.
This post was edited on 11/7/18 at 11:58 pm
Posted on 11/8/18 at 12:26 am to MizzouBS
quote:This is incorrect. When they remove a candidate (the candidate with the fewest first place votes), that candidate is essentially removed from the ranking, so on the ballots that had him as the first choice, the candidate listed 2nd becomes the first choice.
If a person does not get 50% of the vote the losing candidates get to decide who gets their votes.
Here is an example:
Jim picks—3 Ballots
1. Jim
2. Bob
3. Ted
Bob picks—3 ballots
1. Bob
2. Jim
3. Ted
Ted picks—2 ballots
1. Ted
2. Jim
3. Bob
So out of 8 ballots, Bob and Jim both have 3 of the votes, while Ted has 2. Since nobody obtained the 5 votes to have a majority, Ted with the lowest total is removed and the ballots are recalculated like this:
Jim picks—3 Ballots
1. Jim
2. Bob
Bob picks—3 ballots
1. Bob
2. Jim
Ted picks with Ted removed—2 ballots
1. Jim
2. Bob
So Jim becomes the first pick on the 2 ballots that originally picked Ted. Those are added to his original 2 votes, giving him the 5 needed to have a majority and Jim is now the winner.
Posted on 11/8/18 at 12:33 am to lsu480
quote:
And birth rates by race and income
The good thing is a lot of liberals are too busy sky screaming and being physically gross to ever mate.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News