The Republican candidates

[The spartan]

As the article explains, this is because the Democratic base has shrunk from around 39% of the country to just 20%, while 80% of districts now lean Republican.

When you say "base has shrunk", you mean by number of districts, not by number of voters, yeah? And the voting power of those districts has obviously changed.

As the economic heft of tech and finance soared, American manufacturing experienced continued automation and outsourcing. And you see that reflected in the data. The Democrats are, ironically, the party of the elite.

And yet they're the party that keeps getting the popular vote, even when they lose national elections. Curious, huh? You'd think they'd be the ones who win elections on electoral votes and not popular votes; seeing as "bizarre" and "minority" they are. It's also weird that they are the only ones who talk about class issues, despite being "the elites".

[Coughdrop addict]

And yet they're the party that keeps getting the popular vote, even when they lose national elections. Curious, huh? You'd think they'd be the ones who win elections on electoral votes and not popular votes; seeing as "bizarre" and "minority" they are. It's also weird that they are the only ones who talk about class issues, despite being "the elites".

The right attributes all of that to massive organized voter fraud. The only other option is that it is they who have moved far from the center into extremism (for instance, by trying to install Trump as dictator in a coup), something their egos will not allow them to consider.

[alhoon]

As the article explains, this is because the Democratic base has shrunk from around 39% of the country to just 20%, while 80% of districts now lean Republican. T

Democrats get 55% of the vote and they have just 20% of the districts? How much Gerrymandering is happening there?

Never-the-less what you say does not in any way excuse the financial paralyzation of the increasing number of Republican districts, especially compared to the "Urban" districts of the Democrats as you call them.

[JP226]

Democrats get 55% of the vote and they have just 20% of the districts? How much Gerrymandering is happening there?

Never-the-less what you say does not in any way excuse the financial paralyzation of the increasing number of Republican districts, especially compared to the "Urban" districts of the Democrats as you call them.

Dem voting bloc is about 20% to 30% of total adult population. They represent about 40% of registered voters. Pubs represent 30% of registered voters, and the rest are non-affiliated. Both parties are losing registrations, dems at a faster rate. Last projections I saw looks at non-affiliated (NA) making up a third of the vote by 2030, with most new NA voters coming from the dems. By 2040/ 2050 NA could be as high as 40%.

Not sure what you mean by financial paralysis.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Democrats get 55% of the vote and they have just 20% of the districts? How much Gerrymandering is happening there?

For example, New York City has been a Democrat stronghold for decades, and today has a higher population than most states. So you have wealthy elites in a few cities swinging elections even though Democrats only win 20% of total districts.

Never-the-less what you say does not in any way excuse the financial paralyzation of the increasing number of Republican districts, especially compared to the "Urban" districts of the Democrats as you call them.

I don’t know why you referenced the article if you can’t understand it.

[alhoon]

Dem voting bloc is about 20% to 30% of total adult population. They represent about 40% of registered voters. Pubs represent 30% of registered voters, and the rest are non-affiliated. Both parties are losing registrations, dems at a faster rate. Last projections I saw looks at non-affiliated (NA) making up a third of the vote by 2030, with most new NA voters coming from the dems. By 2040/ 2050 NA could be as high as 40%.

Not sure what you mean by financial paralysis.

I was not talking about registered democrats. The article covers what you said too. However, in elections democrats consistently get significantly more votes than Republicans for the past 19 years. And the districts that vote for democrats fare much better financially than the ones that vote for Republicans, as shown by the article.

I don’t know why you referenced the article if you can’t understand it.

I understand the numbers pretty well, LT. And the numbers are clear that Democrat leaning districts improve financially while Republican leaning ones have stagnated.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The article covers what you said too. However, in elections democrats consistently get significantly more votes than Republicans for the past 19 years. And the districts that vote for democrats fare much better financially than the ones that vote for Republicans, as shown by the article.

That’s not what the article says.

Where Republican areas of the country rely on lower-skill, lower-productivity “traditional” industries like manufacturing and resource extraction, Democratic, mostly urban districts contain large concentrations of the nation’s higher-skill, higher-tech professional and digital services.

Yet now comes another wrinkle to the story. Not only are red and blue America experiencing two different economies, but those economies are diverging fast. In fact, radical change is transforming the two parties’ economies in real time.



With their output surging as a result of the big-city tilt of the decade’s “winner-take-most” economy, Democratic districts have seen their median household income soar in a decade—from $54,000 in 2008 to $61,000 in 2018. By contrast, the income level in Republican districts began slightly higher in 2008, but then declined from $55,000 to $53,000.

Looking deeper, it’s clear that big shifts in industry geography and composition are driving the parties’ changes of identity.

A higher concentration of urban voters means wealthier, more numerous voters. It’s no more indicative of political consensus or overall economic progress than the idea that rising wealth inequality means everyone is rich.

[alhoon]

But... what you quoted says EXACTLY what I said.

Again, from your post:
"Where Republican areas of the country rely on lower-skill, lower-productivity “traditional” industries like manufacturing and resource extraction, Democratic, mostly urban districts contain large concentrations of the nation’s higher-skill, higher-tech professional and digital services.
Yet now comes another wrinkle to the story. Not only are red and blue America experiencing two different economies, but those economies are diverging fast. In fact, radical change is transforming the two parties’ economies in real time."

The Democratic, mostly urban districts concentrate higher-skill, higher-tech and thus higher paid professionals while Republican areas have a larger share of less educated people.
Which is one of the main reasons those areas are republican (Republicans do better in below college voters).

Thus, "More rich people usually reside in Democrat areas" is very indicative of overall economic progress in the districts.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Thus, "More rich people usually reside in Democrat areas" is very indicative of overall economic progress in the districts.

Like I said, if you don’t understand the difference between your takeaway, that Democrat districts become wealthier, and what the article says, that Democratic support increasingly relies on isolated pockets of more affluent constituents, then you shouldn’t have referenced it.

[JP226]

But... what you quoted says EXACTLY what I said.

Again, from your post:
"Where Republican areas of the country rely on lower-skill, lower-productivity “traditional” industries like manufacturing and resource extraction, Democratic, mostly urban districts contain large concentrations of the nation’s higher-skill, higher-tech professional and digital services.
Yet now comes another wrinkle to the story. Not only are red and blue America experiencing two different economies, but those economies are diverging fast. In fact, radical change is transforming the two parties’ economies in real time."

The Democratic, mostly urban districts concentrate higher-skill, higher-tech and thus higher paid professionals while Republican areas have a larger share of less educated people.
Which is one of the main reasons those areas are republican (Republicans do better in below college voters).

Thus, "More rich people usually reside in Democrat areas" is very indicative of overall economic progress in the districts.

Oh, I see what you are asking. Number one there are a limited number of seats. You've also had a combination of registered democrats concentrating in urban areas COMBINED with population loss.

Are urban areas more financially successful? Not necessarily, earnings may be higher but costs are higher too. It's a big impetus for migration patterns to the Southeast and rural regions we are seeing today. Earnings are higher because geography dictates that the closer you are to market access the more likely you'll get an urbanized region in a market economy. It's not a democrat v. Pub policy debate. There are an infinite number of external factors that lead to urbanization.

Now... in a vacuum... pub policies tend to lead to a faster GDP growth at the expense of equality. Dem policies tend to push the opposite effect. Obviously these are modern incarnations of the parties I'm speaking to. That being said, rural communities face an economic deficit and want pub policies. Urban communities face an equality deficit and want dem polices. The political pressures we are facing right now is whether or not the traditional political models can hold in an ever changing world.

You, as a European, if you think things are really as simple as you are portraying... that's sad.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Pence has less charisma than a flat tire. Much less DeSantis.

Right, my point is that DeSantis has no charisma and Pence has even less.

[JP226]

Right, my point is that DeSantis has no charisma and Pence has even less.

DeSantis just had a historical blowout in his Gubernatorial reelection for what is politically a purple state. Not sure what you mean.

[Coughdrop addict]

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-mocke...herent-1813201

Former President Donald Trump was mocked Saturday night after he appeared to refer to Russian President Vladimir Putin as "Vladimor."

While speaking at the Turning Point Action Conference in West Palm Beach, Florida Trump said, "China's not a problem. If you have the right leadership, Russia's not a problem. They would have never done what they did, believe me, they would have never done. And I spoke to Vladimor."

Trump has repeatedly weighed in on how he would handle the ongoing war in Ukraine, saying he could end the war within 24 hours. Trump also previously signaled that he would have "made a deal" for Moscow to claim parts of Ukraine, had he been in power when the Russian invasion took place. On Saturday Trump reiterated the remarks that he could end the conflict in Ukraine in 24-hours.

It's sad that Trump is being paraded around by his handlers in the shallow state when he should clearly be in a home. I hope someone close to his family will convince them to do the right thing and take legal custody of this poor exploited senior citizen.

[alhoon]

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-mocke...herent-1813201



It's sad that Trump is being paraded around by his handlers in the shallow state when he should clearly be in a home. I hope someone close to his family will convince them to do the right thing and take legal custody of this poor exploited senior citizen.

Indeed, he should clearly be in home... under home arrest.
But don't worry for this senior and not exploited citizen. The state is trying their best to take legal custody of him despite what his family thinks. Not that they would mind taking over daddy's billions.

[conon394]

DeSantis just had a historical blowout in his Gubernatorial reelection for what is politically a purple state. Not sure what you mean.

Well to be fair I think running and ex life long republican was a mistake - I know it probaly sounds coud to political strategists detached from reality - he will pull in those undecided moderates and moderate republicans, but umm they never get about to how much of the democratic base they loose. If you go back to 2018 where the dems ran a real democrat the race was a lot closer.

[alhoon]

Scott seems to be gaining momentum as DeSantis deflates.

[conon394]

Scott seems to be gaining momentum as DeSantis deflates.

3.2% is momentum?

[irontaino]

It is funny to see DeSantis faltering. Turns out most Americans don't really care about the "culture war".

[conon394]

It is funny to see DeSantis faltering. Turns out most Americans don't really care about the "culture war".

Problem is the the republican base that drives the primaries does. And in reality Trump is just more charismatic to that base at delivering the message.

[Coughdrop addict]

Desantis main issue, as far as Republicans see it, is he about as business unfriendly as it gets. If you don't tow the party line or agree with him 100% of the time, he will use the power of the state to try to run you out of business. The mega-corps and billionaires that own the party saw what he tried to do with Disney, and realize that it could happen to them.

And that's before we even get into his orders that schools must teach how great slavery was, but most Republicans don't really mind that so much.