Short version of the below: If Democrats pack themselves into states that are already majority Democrat, are they helping Republicans to win the Presidency?
Today the Electoral College votes (timeline). Democrats are upset about the system and arguing in favor of a decision based on popular votes instead. I’m wondering if they have a good point. Based on my Facebook research, it seems that committed Democrats can’t tolerate political dissent. They don’t want anyone with doubts about Hillary as a Facebook friend and certainly wouldn’t want to share a street with a deplorable neighbor afflicted with racism, sexism, and sufficient stupidity to be swayed by a demagogue. Certainly they don’t want to share a dormitory with anyone who supports Trump. Hillary-loving academic friends approvingly posted this nytimes story, by an 18-year-old NYU student who doesn’t say why her roommate voted for Trump but that the roommate’s vote means they can’t live together. When I suggested that schools segregate out deplorables into special dorms, push them off campus, and/or expel any student who admits to having voted for Trump, the response was “Because this is my space and you are a guest here, I will exercise my prerogative by asking you to stop posting–not because we disagree, but because you are not capable of respecting others or showing empathy to people who are afraid or in pain.” (All of the Hillary supporters on the thread started from the assumption that anyone who voted for Trump is a racist, sexist, and anti-Muslim.)
The Russians whom I know in the Boston area say that there is narrower range of political expression tolerated in Massachusetts than there was in the former Soviet Union (you could disagree with the party line at social gatherings or at work, whereas if you did the same thing in Massachusetts you’d be an unemployed social outcast). Typical recent expression: “For a lot of Hillary supporters it’s not that we lost. Human decency lost. He’s a dangerous racist and wanna be demagogue.”
A cluster of my rich Google executive friends on Facebook talked about re-sorting American voters:
If 2% of California Hillary voters had been in OH/PA/WI (remained in/moved to/moved back), she would still have won CA by a landslide, and would be president-elect now.
Long term strategy for those with large funds: Establish a Stanford-like research university in Florida, along with a bunch of tech companies. Google, Facebook etc could open offices. Basically create a new tech center.
Strategy 2: Allow the Blue areas to build more housing, so that the population can go up, and in the long term get more electoral votes. Texas has gained more population than California in the last 15 years.
Idea: the tech industry decides to spread itself out. It builds offices in Red states and encourages employees to work from those locations. This decreases pressure on Bay Area Housing and has a ripple effect on national politics.
P, maybe you’re on to something. Why not organize this as a program for ‘unattached’ Californians to get airbnb places in swing states for a few months.
It is pretty interesting. Not sure about every state, but it seems like 30 days residency is the norm before you can register. And the deadline to register is different in different states, but yes, if you;re willing to move for 1 to 2 months, you could register and vote in another state. Not sure if that is the fairest approach, I was thinking more of people permanently moving.
Gives new meaning to the concept of buying an election. Let’s see, $500/month to rent a place and eat while living there (I assume they’ll mostly be renting in rural areas)*say 1M people means you could swing the election for about the current cost of campaigning….
Assuming that these folks don’t use their cash to send loyal Democrats out from San Francisco to the benighted Midwest, it seems that Democrats are increasingly sorting themselves into states with fewer electoral college votes per popular vote. Thus they are fighting against what would otherwise be a tide of sentiment in favor of a Democrat president (next time maybe don’t run a public “servant” who made $2+ billion via public “service”!).
What do readers think? Does the inability of Democrats to talk to, share a Facebook presence with, or live alongside Republicans combined with the Electoral College work against their chances to elect a president?
The idiots at Slate were on this last month http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/09/don_t_move_to_canada_liberals_move_to_a_swing_state.html
You’re reminding me of this Scott Adams post.
Strangely there was none of that for Bush Sr, Jr, not the failed Rep candidates. As if Trump provokes a visceral reaction like noone before.
Seems like democracy and voters are ultimately annoying and inefficient and better replaced by a council of prominent citizens (or the equivalent) intent on the common good.
Looking forward to the Rainbow Revolution.
I like Dave Winer’s post at http://scripting.com/2016/12/16/jerryBrownGotMeThinking.html where he says
“let’s start an association of states with Democratic governors. We’d do cool things like provide health care for our citizens and give them free college. Yeah the taxes might be higher, but who wants to live in a state with a lot of sick uneducated people.
Then I realized the best part of it — it would give people an incentive to elect a Democratic governor so they could get in on all this great stuff.
Why can’t politics be that results-oriented? It’s simple. You do something for me, and I support you. Everyone makes it so complicated. But that’s what it comes down to. I like breathing clean air. I want government to work. I’m tired of super-rich people fucking over everyone else. If you agree, just elect Democratic state government, and we can go from there.”
Yeah, why aren’t we more results oriented?
How exactly do you expect someone to respond to the suggestion “that schools segregate out deplorables into special dorms, push them off campus, and/or expel any student who admits to having voted for Trump”?
Since you brought your friends up, I have to share what a cluster fk reaction happened at our largest internet advertisement company. Not being Trump supporter myself (and neither Hilary supporter) I still was shocked.
“The day after” my org got email from top manager, who shared his feeling and pain, reminded that this is great place to work, and promised support in these difficult times. Already being suprprised, I couldn’t predict what happened next…
It was announced that our weekly company meeting is being replaced with a meeting about election. Then there was a meeting where executives promised support, there was crying on stage, and then a group hug. I was watching a webcast instead of attending in person, but I swear if someone would hug me there, I would lie and whisper in their ear “I voted for Trump” 🙂
Next day I was discussing my surprise with a friend at lunch, but he said that he was impressed how our executives handled the situation – now workforce is more loyal then ever at the cost of one meeting. And I was enlightened.
P.S. But recently executive team managed to screw morale in the most trivial situation, so I guess enlightenment was temporary 🙂
@Neal: Perhaps to recognize the NYU student’s overreaction for what it was. Substitute any other personal choice, e.g. vegan or NRA member and see how the story reads. Tolerance for other viewpoints? No thank you.
@FL: come to CT, we’re already there. 100% of state government (governor, both houses) is in the hands of the democrats as it has been for better part of a decade. We see tax increases, but have yet to have health care provided or free higher education. Actually college has become significantly more expensive during the same period. Good news is we’re losing one-percenters as corporations move headquarters out of state (e.g. GE to Boston, we’re losing to Taxacheusetts!).
Neal: How do I expect them to respond to the question about the best way to separate virtuous Hillary-supporters from deplorables on campus? I don’t know! I wasn’t the one who celebrated the idea of separation. I was just trying to be helpful by presenting the practical alternatives.
Nobody is more sensitive than I to the need for young people to be sheltered from harsh reality. None of them would buy a house if they could live inside the distracted Home Depot-shopping, plumber-nagging mind of a homeowner. Perhaps none of them would have kids and the human race would go extinct if they were able to experience the social life of a parent.
@philg
>I wasn’t the one who celebrated
>the idea of separation.
In the original post you claim to have said “I suggested that schools segregate out deplorables into special dorms, push them off campus, and/or expel any student who admits to having voted for Trump”. It may not be celebrating separation, but it is directly advocating for the idea of separation enforced at an institutional level. Perhaps you can take hope from the observation that this terrible idea was met with a polite GTFO. Maybe they aren’t as over the edge as you think.
>I was just trying to be helpful by
>presenting the practical alternatives.
How is it “helpful” to propose an much worse idea on top of a bad idea?
It seems to me this is another straw man argument. You are substituting a more extreme idea (institutional separation of Trump supporters) for the actual idea (it is appropriate for a Hillary supporter to not want a Trump supporter as a roommate). These are different ideas so It is a logical fallacy even if both ideas are on the same side of wrong. There are plenty of ways to directly refute the idea that a Hillary supporter should reject a Trump supporter as a roommate, so use them!
@fl “vote for [Democrats] and we’ll all get free stuff” isn’t really a new idea. Also, does capital D Democratic leadership provide a straight-line to well-run government programs? https://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/republican-mayors-are-rare.jpg
Yes, Neal, but I was just taking their praise of this NYT author who self-segregated as evidence that they thought segregation was a good idea. It hadn’t occurred to me to segregate college students by political affiliation.
Calexit solves the whole problem. I’m very much in favor. The crazy leftoids throughout the rest of the country would emigrate there. The most vocal nutters at the moment are all Californians.
How can people look at the tone of politics right now and not come to some sort of realization that “This isn’t working.” It’s time for a friendly and peaceful divorce.
“Calexit solves the whole problem.”
Except how to divvy up the $100 trillion or so in federal debt and unfunded liabilities. That’s going to take a bit of negotiation.
Plus, do you really want Jerry Brown to have nukes?
We should build the wall to keep the Mexicans out. But what if all the wall does is keep the Americans in?
> do you really want Jerry Brown to have nukes?
Jerry Brown will have to build his own nukes. And we’re keeping the naval facilities at San Diego, obviously.
Maybe I’m thinking less friendly Calexit and more “Let’s forceably expel California from the union on our terms.”
What percentage of the world’s Nobel laureates live in California? I doubt getting nukes would take long.
I kind of like the collective nouns: a pride of lions, a murder of crows, a tek of capercaillzies, starlings, sheep, it’s all good. And I want to propose a new one: a cuddle of Democrats. Dems do really really like each others’ company. They all go live in the same place, and then they wonder why the other localities elect Reeps.
Because I’m afraid and in pain (supposedly), I get to do whatever I want and you just have to accept it.
Perhaps it would be sufficient to mark locations as “This is a non-Democrat dorm/campus/block/city/county/state” and things would work themselves out naturally?
California was solidly Republican when I was a grad student, so it seems a bit short sighted to just abandon it.
Dave Weiner’s idea of varying services per state might be nice, except “for unknown reasons” everything is rammed through at the Federal level these days. But perhaps some grand bargain could be struck to curtail the Federal Government, e.g., at the constitutional level?
“I like breathing clean air. I want government to work. I’m tired of super-rich people fucking over everyone else. If you agree, just elect Democratic state government, and we can go from there.”
Yet Democrat cities are famously dysfunctional (except New York), and the super-rich are nearly all Democrats (vide who they sponsored in the election). So Dave might be disappointed should he get his wish.
Also, while blacks are being cleansed from New York and California and so might not be first in mind anymore, it might still be worth reminding Jerry Brown and Dave Weiner in the throes of satellite mania about the needful in society.
A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face and arms began to swell.
(and Whitey’s on the moon)
I can’t pay no doctor bill.
(but Whitey’s on the moon)
Ten years from now I’ll be payin’ still.
(while Whitey’s on the moon)
…
http://www.metrolyrics.com/whitey-on-the-moon-lyrics-gil-scottheron.html
Why not sell Florida back to the Spanish!
FL – “I want government to work. I’m tired of super-rich people fucking over everyone else.”
Where does this happen under Democratic leadership?
I’m afraid this thread has become untied. Pretty good analogy for the USA.
Sam: There is a Wikipedia page to answer your question! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient shows that the parts of the U.S. with the widest gap between rich and poor are D.C., New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Louisiana. The most egalitarian states are Utah, Alaska, Wyoming, and New Hampshire.