HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #421  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2020, 7:17 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 3,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
Yes, I agree with this. Also, from a natural resource perspective, the Central and Southern parts of the state require water from the far north and Sierras in the eastern parts of the state.

Overall, I do agree that it would be better for the US if CA was split up into two states. It is crazy that we have the same number of senators as states like Maine and Wyoming.
Right the "obvious" place to split the state is the nearly straight line formed by the northern edges of San Bernardino/Kern/San Luis Obispo County, but then that would leave LADWP land in Inyo/Mono Counties as part of the wrong state.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #422  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2020, 1:43 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 22,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
Where are you getting the 40k stat?
Biden's 3 narrowest state wins were:

AZ: 10,547 votes
GA: 11,779 votes
WI: 20,682 votes

if those three states, and their 37 EVs, had gone the other way, biden and trump would've been tied at 269, and what a fucking nightmare that scenario would've been.
__________________
If a Pizza is baked in a forest, and no one is around to eat it, is it still delicious?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #423  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2020, 2:43 PM
themaguffin themaguffin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,174
Quote:
But how could they lose Pittsburgh? That metro is full of eds and meds.
Pittsburgh and Allegheny country are solidly blue, but the outer counties are not and they are very white. Most of the population in the outer counties are not suburban, but are fragmented old industrial towns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #424  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2020, 3:42 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 49,535
To avoid a tie perhaps there should be an odd number of EC votes to divide up.

But in this case of the 7 million+ vote lead only like 0.6% of that number counts to put Biden over the top.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #425  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2020, 3:53 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 4,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
Biden's 3 narrowest state wins were:

AZ: 10,547 votes
GA: 11,779 votes
WI: 20,682 votes

if those three states, and their 37 EVs, had gone the other way, biden and trump would've been tied at 269, and what a fucking nightmare that scenario would've been.
Trump would've been re-elected under that scenario, but it would be the end of the Electoral College.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #426  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2020, 5:14 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
Biden's 3 narrowest state wins were:

AZ: 10,547 votes
GA: 11,779 votes
WI: 20,682 votes

if those three states, and their 37 EVs, had gone the other way, biden and trump would've been tied at 269, and what a fucking nightmare that scenario would've been.

The fact that such a scenario (very decisive popular vote victory with a tie/loss in electoral college) is not only a mathematical possibility, but something we relatively narrowly missed this election frankly scares the f%c$ out of me for what such a plausible outcome would mean for our democracy. It's not great when a candidate wins the popular vote by a couple pct pts but loses the electoral college. It might be another thing entirely when a candidate wins the popular vote (with an overall majority) by ~5 pct pts or more but loses the electoral college. Actually - fun fact - of the 5 presidential elections in US history in which the winner did not carry the popular vote, only one (1876 election of Hayes) did the popular vote winner get a majority of the vote (Tilden won 50.9% of the vote, ~3 pct pts more than Hayes.....so that election I suppose was most similar in terms of the numerical outcome we thankfully dodged here).
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.

Last edited by SamInTheLoop; Dec 9, 2020 at 5:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #427  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2020, 5:22 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade View Post
Yes. Truman had signed an executive order racially integrating the U.S. armed forces, while also asking Congress to support his civil rights agenda in February of that year. His agenda called for a federal banning on lynching (something FDR initially ran on during his FIRST campaign), better protection for the right to vote and a permanent Fair Employment Practices Commission. It was dead on arrival, which forced Truman to sign his EO desegregating the armed forces. In response to this, Southern Democrats walked out on the party. This was the first shift of their abandoning the Democratic Party. The second shift would come when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

Thanks for the filling in the actual policy details that prompted this jaw-dropping shift in the MS vote over one cycle. One of those historic facts that the brain still has trouble believing even with repeated documentation and explanation.

Even without the details, one just knew it was widespread racism in the electorate behind it in one shape or form.

Perhaps this was also an early precursor and unfortunate long-term electoral strategy 'instructive' for Rs for the eventual rolling out of their Southern Strategy....
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #428  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2020, 11:59 PM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is offline
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 8,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
The fact that such a scenario (very decisive popular vote victory with a tie/loss in electoral college) is not only a mathematical possibility, but something we relatively narrowly missed this election frankly scares the f%c$ out of me for what such a plausible outcome would mean for our democracy. It's not great when a candidate wins the popular vote by a couple pct pts but loses the electoral college. It might be another thing entirely when a candidate wins the popular vote (with an overall majority) by ~5 pct pts or more but loses the electoral college. Actually - fun fact - of the 5 presidential elections in US history in which the winner did not carry the popular vote, only one (1876 election of Hayes) did the popular vote winner get a majority of the vote (Tilden won 50.9% of the vote, ~3 pct pts more than Hayes.....so that election I suppose was most similar in terms of the numerical outcome we thankfully dodged here).
2004 was similar, even without counting Ohio. Bush won reelection with a majority of the popular vote (51-48) and yes, had he lost Ohio, he would have lost reelection despite that majority, but Kerry lost Ohio by 119,000 votes, so, it wasn't too close (more similar to Michigan this go around). Had he won Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico, however, he would have tied the Electoral College at 269 with Bush. He lost those three states by a combined 37,547 votes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #429  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2020, 12:50 AM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is offline
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 8,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
Thanks for the filling in the actual policy details that prompted this jaw-dropping shift in the MS vote over one cycle. One of those historic facts that the brain still has trouble believing even with repeated documentation and explanation.

Even without the details, one just knew it was widespread racism in the electorate behind it in one shape or form.

Perhaps this was also an early precursor and unfortunate long-term electoral strategy 'instructive' for Rs for the eventual rolling out of their Southern Strategy....
Absolutely a precursor. Those Southern Democrats were conservative on most issues and tolerated FDR because he advanced a level of infrastructure programs that helped bring the rural South into the 20th Century. The thing is, a great amount of them also opposed other New Deal legislation but Roosevelt pacified them by not pushing stronger on civil rights issues.

Which is funny because FDR was a Yankee Liberal. But it was actually the semi-Southern Truman, who was a member of the KKK when he was a young man, who didn't seem to care two shits about what southern politicians thought of him. FDR was a consensus builder, Truman was the exact opposite.

The split was only temporary.

Strom Thurmond, who had run as a Dixiecrat in 1948, rejoined the Democratic Party when he decided to run for Senate in South Carolina. At the 1952 convention, the Southern Democrats were seated and John Sparkman of Alabama was selected as the party's vice presidential nominee, which helped sooth over any lasting anger from the 1948 election.

Against Eisenhower, Adlai Stevenson II (who was pressured to accept the nomination by Truman) of Illinois, won back the South against Eisenhower.

But the margins were nowhere near what they had been prior to Truman.

Stevenson won Mississippi with 60% of the vote. To show how much had changed post-1948, even Al Smith, the Catholic Democrat from New York, who lost in a landslide to Hoover in 1928, won Mississippi with 82% of the vote.

Stevenson won most the South but, as I said, it wasn't by the same margins as prior to 1948. Tennessee went to Eisenhower, as did Virginia. In 1956, with Stevenson again running, Kentucky went Republican and has remained Republican for the most part.

In 1960, Kennedy did about as poorly as Truman in the South, despite LBJ being on the ticket, as Mississippi and Alabama gave their electors to Virginia Senator Harry Byrd, while Kennedy was able to carry Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, he lost Florida.

That was the last election, until Carter in 1976, the Democrats won a majority of the Southern states.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #430  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2020, 2:38 AM
Manitopiaaa Manitopiaaa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 50
Hi everyone,

For the record, I wanted to update my totals for *certified* totals. So here's the updated page using the New York Times final count of 81,283,098 Biden, 74,222,958 Trump nationally. Remember, these are two-party vote share (since our electoral system is first-past-the-post, not proportional, and third party access is hodgepodge across the nation, looking at two-party and margins is, to me, the most even way to gauge a metro area's politics). Third party does provide a good look into the protest vote, however, so that's definitely another angle not covered here.

NEW 12/19/2020 UPDATE *FINAL CERTIFIED FIGURES*:


OLD 11/13/2020 TABLE:


If you want to spot differences, the best way is to download both pics and use next/back on your photo viewer.

But here are the notable changes I picked up on:
  • No metro areas flipped with final numbers. I was particularly worried Biden's 470-vote margin in Louisville MSA would evaporate, but Biden wound up winning the MSA by 505 votes ultimately.
  • Baltimore's margin expanded from Biden +25 to Biden +27
  • Boston's margin expanded from Biden + 36 to Biden +37
  • Buffalo's margin expanded from Biden +1 to Biden +11(!). This was a stunner, since it bucked the red trend in other Rust Belt metros. I was thinking this would flip with final numbers, since Biden +1 seemed rosy. But Upstate New York State snapped back to Dems this year.
  • Detroit's margin expanded from Biden +13 to Biden +14
  • New York's margin expanded from Biden +22 to Biden +28 once NYC dropped its final counts
  • Portland's margin contracted from Biden +32 to Biden +31, due to minor rounding (+31.52% > 31.48%%)
  • Riverside's margin contracted from Biden +10 to Biden +9, due to the last batch being slightly more Rep-leaning (-0.16% margin) + rounding
  • Sacramento's margin contracted from Biden +18 to Biden +17, as Placer County was disproportionately out.
  • Washington margin expanded from Biden +47 to Biden +48, as Montgomery County was disprortionately out.

Just like I added Clinton, the long-term plan is to add 2000-2012 presidential numbers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #431  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2020, 3:12 AM
Manitopiaaa Manitopiaaa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 50
And here's a look into Top 50 margins as a collective:



Some points:
  • 62.52% of Biden's votes came from these Top 50 MSAs. 45.83% of Trump's votes did.
  • In these Top 50 MSAs, Biden garnered a whopping +16,798,507 net margin. In the Rest of the U.S.A., Biden lost by 9,738,367. In total, Biden's nationwide margin was +7,060,140.
  • In the Top 50 MSAs, Biden won 59.9% of the two-party vote. Trump won 40.1%. So Biden +20. In the Rest of the U.S.A., Biden won 43.1% of the two-party vote, while Trump won 56.9%, or Trump +14.
  • Biden's vote margin over Trump exceeded 1,000,000 in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Washington. He barely missed Philadelphia (+997,306), and Boston was slightly further behind (+940,369)
  • Trump won 7 of these Top 50 MSAs but, of those wins, 5 of them were by margins of <100,000 votes. Cincinnati was Trump's biggest MSA margin win at +160,449. Jacksonville was the only other one to exceed 100k, with Trump +111,341.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #432  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2020, 3:26 AM
Manitopiaaa Manitopiaaa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 50
And lastly, here are the Top 50 (excl. San Juan) ranked by Biden two-party margin. I've also added in Clinton's margin for comparison. As you can see, Biden actually did way better at the lower end of the list, relative to Clinton, and did worse at the top (there was noticeable shrinking in the margins for San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, and Chicago, for example).

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #433  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2020, 5:47 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 22,976
^ first of all, thanks once again for all of the number crunching. I truly appreciate it!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa View Post
[*]Buffalo's margin expanded from Biden +1 to Biden +11(!). This was a stunner, since it bucked the red trend in other Rust Belt metros. I was thinking this would flip with final numbers, since Biden +1 seemed rosy. But Upstate New York State snapped back to Dems this year.
Wow, now THAT'S a significant difference from the earlier preliminary numbers.

I'm not that surprised though, because the +11 for biden brings Buffalo much more closely inline with its great lakes cousins: Cleveland (+15), Detroit (+14), and Milwaukee (+10).
__________________
If a Pizza is baked in a forest, and no one is around to eat it, is it still delicious?

Last edited by Steely Dan; Dec 20, 2020 at 7:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #434  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2020, 8:03 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 22,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa View Post
.[*]Biden's vote margin over Trump exceeded 1,000,000 in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Washington. He barely missed Philadelphia (+997,306), and Boston was slightly further behind (+940,369)
Not surprisingly, those seven MSAs that delivered the 7 biggest numerical vote margins for biden are also the "big urban 7" metros. They have the most urban cores, the most intact & functional high urbanism and streetcar urbanism, the highest weighted densities, the most comprehensive inner city and commuter rail systems, etc.

Now, the bigger the metro, the bigger the potential for higher vote margins, of course, but remember that the dallas, houston, and phoenix MSAs are all in that same top 10 strata in terms of size, but all three of them delivered relatively paltry numerical vote margins for biden.

So it's not so much that really big = really blue as much as it is really urban = really blue.


And the #8 city in terms of numerical biden vote margin? Seattle, and by a very decent margin as well over #9 miami.

Most urban observers here seem to think that out of the tier of metros just below the "big urban 7", seattle is making the biggest moves and is most committed to making the leap. This is yet more evidence of that. The populace itself is already there.
__________________
If a Pizza is baked in a forest, and no one is around to eat it, is it still delicious?

Last edited by Steely Dan; Dec 20, 2020 at 9:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #435  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2021, 5:42 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 49,535
Why Democratic gains in the suburbs will outlast Trump

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...-outlast-trump

Quote:
.....

- Much of Democrats’ recent strength in the suburbs is thanks to gains with college-educated white voters. While this group historically leaned Republican, it has shifted pretty decisively towards Democrats over the past four years. But college-educated whites are not the only reason why Democrats have improved in the suburbs. Two other important trends have also been at play: increasing racial diversity and population growth. --- It’s also important to note that recent voting trends were already happening before Trump descended the golden escalator in 2015. In particular, the movement of white voters with a college degree towards Democrats has been happening since the 1980s.

- Another important factor is that Trump will likely continue to be a major force in Republican politics. Although he lost his bid for re-election, he remains very popular with Republican voters. As long as that remains true, Republican politicians will try to gain his favor, adopt his positions, and court his supporters. --- If Trumpism continues to be a dominant force in Republican politics, newly Democratic suburban voters who may have voted for Republicans in the McCain/Romney era may be reminded of why they left the party in the first place. And that would probably help keep them in the Democratic column for the foreseeable future.

.....
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:12 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.