Election Day at last in America…

Status
Not open for further replies.
Murrmurr said:
Reason is probably because liberal-minded people tend to live in big cities and suburbs, and most of those are coastal. Inland areas is where you find lots of smaller towns and farmland, which conservative-minded and salt-of-the-earth types prefer.
Click to expand...
Yes, it seems that the coastal counties tend to have more multicultural communities and mixes of people. They tend to be more liberal in the sense that they just learn to coexist (Live and let live). In addition, they are more exposed to different ways of thinking and different views.

The more inland counties and states tend to be a bit more homogenous, and don't necessary welcome liberal ideas. They don't like change so much, and may even view it as contamination.

I'm not sure this is an honest assessment, but it seems fairly logical.
 

David777 said:
The political orientation of California tends to be misunderstood by Eastern outsiders due to media dominance by the populous coastal counties. However it usually shows a larger area of red than blue due to more conservative larger inland counties. Unfortunately the state entered the union at too large a practical size much like Texas. Efforts to split the state have always been opposed by politicians in the more populous south coastal counties and national political entities.

With only 60% of votes yet tabulated, that clearly shows again in this 11am EST map.

View attachment 378827
Click to expand...
The same is true for Washington and Oregon. In fact there is a move to create a new state of Jefferson from Eastern WA and Eastern Oregon. It has gone nowhere so far. Another movement that has gone nowhere is for eastern Oregon to leave Oregon and join Idaho.
 
bobcat said:
Yes, it seems that the coastal counties tend to have more multicultural communities and mixes of people. They tend to be more liberal in the sense that they just learn to coexist (Live and let live). In addition, they are more exposed to different ways of thinking and different views.

The more inland counties and states tend to be a bit more homogenous, and don't necessary welcome liberal ideas. They don't like change so much, and may even view it as contamination.

I'm not sure this is an honest assessment, but it seems fairly logical.
Click to expand...

You’ve got something there ...
this old-fashioned person cringes when I see something like this:


iu
 

Huh.

Then why do we have the biggest Muslim population in the country? Or whole towns nearly 100% Hispanic today?

Why was my high school 60% European (mostly German, Dutch, Polish, and Irish), 20% Black, and 20% Hispanic, along with some kids of backgrounds from India and East Asia?

Why are my neighbors across the street and around the corner from India, the family behind me and two up the street Black, and at the other corner a Vietnamese family? Why is there a Hindu temple a mile from me, three different churches and a mosque even closer than that? A Native American cultural center on Township property and five monuments to local Native Americans scattered around the Township?

I think people have an odd perspective on what the country really looks like.
 
bobcat said:
Yes, it seems that the coastal counties tend to have more multicultural communities and mixes of people. They tend to be more liberal in the sense that they just learn to coexist (Live and let live). In addition, they are more exposed to different ways of thinking and different views.

The more inland counties and states tend to be a bit more homogenous, and don't necessary welcome liberal ideas. They don't like change so much, and may even view it as contamination.

I'm not sure this is an honest assessment, but it seems fairly logical.
Click to expand...
I agree with a lot of that but you've over-simplified it a bit.

Farmers are particularly vulnerable to changes in US policy, which influences global policy, because they feed many countries and they depend on federal subsidies to meet costs and have access to the most modern machinery and methods. Their lives and livelihood is greatly (and immediately) effected by policies on global trade, shipping costs, general commerce, the US economy, environmental issues, and even military conflict.
 
There are
dilettante said:
Huh.

Then why do we have the biggest Muslim population in the country? Or whole towns nearly 100% Hispanic today?

Why was my high school 60% European (mostly German, Dutch, Polish, and Irish), 20% Black, and 20% Hispanic, along with some kids of backgrounds from India and East Asia?

Why are my neighbors across the street and around the corner from India, the family behind me and two up the street Black, and at the other corner a Vietnamese family? Why is there a Hindu temple a mile from me, three different churches and a mosque even closer than that? A Native American cultural center on Township property and five monuments to local Native Americans scattered around the Township?

I think people have an odd perspective on what the country really looks like.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
Are we not humans FIRST and political beliefs way after that? 🤔
Besides, we have privacy in voting supposedly. That's why I rarely disclose my beliefs in that. Human interaction is much more important than many other things.
Yes we are different and yes we are the same.
I strive for kindness.
Thank you all for sharing your lives and thoughts.
🙂
 
Murrmurr said:
I agree with a lot of that but you've over-simplified it a bit.

Farmers are particularly vulnerable to changes in US policy, which influences global policy, because they feed many countries and they depend on federal subsidies to meet costs and have access to the most modern machinery and methods. Their lives and livelihood is greatly (and immediately) effected by policies on global trade, shipping costs, general commerce, the US economy, environmental issues, and even military conflict.
Click to expand...
Probably true, but I suspect that a very small percentage of the population are actually agricultural jobs. I suspect there is more to the story.
 
Olivia said:
The answer is obvious. Americas will never vote for a woman presidency. It's shameful and ignorant.
Click to expand...
I think that perhaps we will have a lady to be president, even possible in 2028. I think it could be Tulsi Gabbard or even Nicole Shanahan, who would also be the first Asian president. If not president then, quite likely VP, and then president in 2032.
 
bobcat said:
I don't think that's true. So far, 66 million have in this election, and in 2016 Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million. If it hadn't been for the Electoral College, she would have become president.
Click to expand...
Both Hillary and Trump were competing for the Electoral College votes. Make no mistake about that. There was no contest for the popular vote. So to say somebody won or lost the popular vote is meaningless. Strategy and tactics would be far different if competing for the popular vote. And, face it, had Hillary won the Electoral College and received fewer total votes than Trump, she would have become President. I doubt if she would have rejected the office because she “lost” the popular vote.

This time Mr. Trump won the Electoral College vote. And he did get more total votes.
 
It's over!

This an observation. Not a political ad.

Sadly I'm starting to see a lot of people on all sides put their hopes and dreams on one person and not themselves or representatives. This idea or concept that one person is the answer is the same thinking that plants the seeds for a real dictator and not the 2nd grade name calling ones.

Father Time and Mother Nature will keep the world moving along regardless of an electoral outcome. They rule, no one else.
 
Brookswood said:
Both Hillary and Trump were competing for the Electoral College votes. Make no mistake about that. There was no contest for the popular vote. So to say somebody won or lost the popular vote is meaningless. Strategy and tactics would be far different if competing for the popular vote. And, face it, had Hillary won the Electoral College and received fewer total votes than Trump, she would have become President. I doubt if she would have rejected the office because she “lost” the popular vote.

This time Mr. Trump won the Electoral College vote. And he did get more total votes.
Click to expand...
It's only meaningless unless you are replying to a post that says: "Americans will never vote for a woman presidency". I was simply correcting that statement.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top