Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I Wonder. Will We Ever Have MORE BLUE STATES.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
DEM FAN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 02:07 PM
Original message
I Wonder. Will We Ever Have MORE BLUE STATES.
Every Time I See The US Map And All Those RED STATES I Think
When Will Those Red States Turn To Blue. It's Really Hard To See
So Much Red. :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. Snowbirds may eventually crowd conservative natives in AZ and FL
Puerto Rico may become a blue state.

Really it is not the number of blue states we control but the representative number of votes in the electoral college. Bush can keep his highly valuable states like the Dakotas and Wyoming, its a fair trade for New York, California and hopefully Pennsylvania.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apsuman Donating Member (134 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Trades..
New York and Calfornia are fair trades for Texas and Florida.


I know 2000 was close in lots of states, but really when a dem can not win West Virginia where the governor, both senators, and all of the congressional delegation are dems then the DNC has a REAL problem.

Look, the Republican Party is a unified group of people. I can tell you right now 75% of the GOP presidential nom's platform for the year 2012. The dems are not so. The reason the Dems can not win the south is because the local democrats believe a set of things that local people believe, but the national party believes the exact opposite. Bill Clinton and Al Gore both had far less pro-choice positions when they were local pols. At the national level, the last national Dem to have a pro-life position was Gov. Casey of PA. who was not even allowed to speak at the convention.

Why am I going into all of this? To make this point. The Republicans are slowly working on adopting positions to get more and more traditional democrats to come over to their side. If they get a significant number of hispanics, then forget the southwest (except CA). If they get about 15% more of non-government union support, say good by to PA, WV. If they get 15% more suburban sprawl into Maryland, say good bye to that state. If they take 5% of the Jewish vote away from the Dems in Florida, then they will own that state. If they ever get 12% (from 6%) of the African American vote in Tennessee, then say good bye there as well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tnlefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. I can only HOPE so. I'm sick of being in a red state
2 crappy senators and a crappy rep. More mean spirited people than I can shake a stick at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robroy Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. But we have a good governor
in Tn. Bredesen is positioned to make a major impact for the Dems. He carried Knoxville, and TRUE conservatives admire his "roll up the sleeves and make some tough choices' approach to spending. He's savvy, and may very well be instrumental in delivering TN back to the Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apsuman Donating Member (134 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. population is in flux
Keep in mind that people move.

Generally, densely populated places vote for dems, less dense places vote fore republicans.

But there are other factors as well.

the red states/blue states map (that I have seen anyway) are all presidential election maps. there are some real solid states for each party, Mass, Vermont, Illinois, South Carolina, Wyoming, Idaho, Arizona might very well be set for 2004 right now. But other states, like Nevada and North Carolina have had enough new people move there that they might be in play.

20 years from now Nevada and North Carolina might be solid stats and Illinois might be in play.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Endangered Specie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. All we need is one to turn blue to win the election
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Assuming that the one state = 10 or more electoral votes
Edited on Tue Jan-27-04 02:24 PM by wuushew
WV,NV,LA,CO,NH alone won't cut it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
7. The colored map is misleading
A lot of that "red" is vegetation, critters & rocks..

That's why this system sucks.. Places like Wyoming, Utah,& Idaho are disproportionately represented..

The EC was set up to favor states with large estates, but low population.. (remember the 3/5 issue?)..

If the states were represented more fairly , California & New York & Texas would have more representatives..

Someone last week did the math.. IIRC, Wyo has one congressperson (Barbara Cubin) for the whole state.. population 409,703 (2002 estimate)...
ONE congressperson for 500,000..

California's estimated population is 36,500,000, and we have 53 congresspeople.. That's almost 700,000 per..

Using the same math as Wyoming, we should have 73...not 53 congresspeople..

Wyoming has the same number of senators as California too..

Fair ir Fair.. and what we have now...is NOT..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I guess it depends on how you view the executive branch
The House of Represenatives is setup proportionally and the Senate is not. The POTUS rightfully or wrongly just splits the difference between those two positions. The problem with the electoral college is the all or nothing aspect and the fact that even if you except the unfair over-representation of those small states they consistentiently vote for idiot conservative candidates decade after decade so any advantage is always given to the Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. The proportions are OFF, though
If 500,000 = 1 in Wyoming
36,500,000 (should) = 73 in Calif...not 53..

The "magic" number of 435 is too low.. The total population that it was based on was a lot less than we have now.. That number should actually grow, as well as fluctuate for regional expansion and shrinkage..

Boundaries should not be gerrymandered either.. The whole state should be put on a grid by computer, and the districts set by coomputer.. If a congress person wants to run in a particular dictrict, then let THEM move there...not have a dictrict "carved out " for them//
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. 435 is the number of seats in the House?
We would have to to build a new capital building in order to accommodate the extra bodies. With fifty states I think it is reasonable to round to the nearest person which 500 representatives would do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Not really..
They have 13 appropriations bills every year.. There are committees that do most of the actual work.. Things actually run smoother when they are NOT in session, and they take a lot of time off anyway.. I am sure that some accomodation could be worked out..

We, the people, are NOT getting our fair share of consideration..

Of course if they were not allowed to "see" lobbyists, and actually legislated as their constituents wanted, they would finish their work in no time..

How long would you have your job, if you spent most of your workday, entertaining friends who wanted favors from you??

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
11. well rember after twenty years of roves machinations texas turned red
I read a great article on this a while back while researching rove so we just have to find our own rove
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 03:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC