Support NeoGAF

[kirblar]

Earlier today I got linked to this chain on Twitter, and I think it's onto something vitally important for understanding what's happening now (and why we may have serious structural issues with our elections in the US going forward.)

The fundamental thing underlying all of this - we've switched to a service-based economy where the most important thing about where you live is how connected you are to other people. Being able to be within range of other people, clients, business, etc- it has exponential benefits in today's world. Cities are growing. Rural areas are declining. And this presents serious challenges to the United States and other western countries

https://twitter.com/jimtankersley/status/801079245091049472

1. Let's talk about economics, the election and polarization in a little bit of a different way than we have been.
2. There was a divide exposed in this election that dwarfs the pop vote / Electoral College split. That divide is economic.
3. In really crude terms, it's high-output America vs. low-output America.
4. Hillary Clinton won < 400 counties nationwide, out of more than 3,000. Those HRC counties make up nearly *TWO-THIRDS* of the U.S. economy
5. That's per calculations by @MarkMuro1 & co. Al Gore, in 2000, won 54% of GDP, by counties.
6. This appears to be an unprecedented share for a losing candidate in modern presidential politics. It matters. Because...
7. Donald Trump won by promising his counties - 1/3 of the economy - a return to their industrial heyday.
8. This visualization of HRC counties vs. DT counties, by GDP, is stunning. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ost-of-the-american-economy-in-this-election/ &#8230;
9. Now, read @ishaantharoor on how "the agenda of cities can get sidelined by right-wing populism."
10. So here's the rub: Western politics right now seems to be pitting the urban engines of growth against everyone else.
11. I have long written abt how the non-urban areas need revival, new growth engines, and how that's in everyone's interest, urban or not
12. It looks especially clear now. Economies that consolidate to tightly packed superstar metros risk a huge political backlash.

Here's the map from WaPo article on this economic disparity- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-american-economy-in-this-election/?tid=sm_fb

And here's part of the piece on the battle between right-wing rural populism and the progressive Urban areas - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-against-the-tide-of-right-wing-nationalism/

What cities represent
But &#8220;their&#8221; world &#8212; that of multiculturalism and the metropolis &#8212; isn&#8217;t quite crumbling. In the United States, a host of mayors from major cities have signaled their willingness to push back against the proposed policies of the president-elect, including Trump's stated intent to round up and deport millions of undocumented migrants.

In New York City, one of the so-called sanctuary cities, an estimated 500,000 undocumented people exist on a municipal database after they enrolled in a scheme that allowed them and other New Yorkers to obtain a city-specific identity card. Bill de Blasio, the city's mayor, has insisted that municipal authorities will refuse to cooperate should a federal government under Trump seek to obtain information on undocumented people listed on the database.

&#8220;We are not going to sacrifice a half million people who live among us,&#8221; De Blasio said. &#8220;We&#8217;re not going to tear families apart. We will do everything we know how to do to resist that.&#8221;

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel made similar noises: &#8220;For all those who are, after Tuesday&#8217;s election, very nervous, filled with anxiety as we&#8217;ve spoken to, you are safe in Chicago, you are secure in Chicago and you are supported in Chicago. Administrations may change, but our values and principles as it relates to inclusion does not.&#8221; (And so did Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti.)

It's not just on issues of deportations where cities and the Trump administration may clash. If a conservative Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade, cities can defend the abortion rights of their residents. And already, in the face of policy paralysis on a national level, cities are pushing through larger progressive reforms: Seattle recently approved an ordinance for a $15-an-hour minimum wage, which is more than double the federally mandated figure; other local politicians, including former New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg, are leading the political fight on climate change even as controversial climate skeptics enter the White House.

No matter the ascension of a certain brand of nationalist politics, the reality in much of the West is of countries that are becoming both more urban and more diverse. Cities aren't just bastions of jet-setting Davos men: They are home to the fullest range of a nation's diversity. The politicians at the helms of cities such as New York or London have to act on a set of concerns &#8212; be it addressing income inequity, reckoning with housing shortages or defending inclusive societies &#8212; that echo across borders.

&#8220;Increasingly, nation-states look parochial and backward, and cities are actually cosmopolitan and much more broad in their understanding,&#8221; Benjamin Barber, one of the premier theorists of the global city and author of &#8220;If Mayors Ruled the World,&#8221; told WorldViews.

Everywhere, cities are the engines of the economy &#8212; worldwide, they contribute some 80 percent of global GDP. More than 80 percent of the American population lives in urban areas. And the populations in medium to large cities overwhelmingly tend to vote against the platforms of right-wing populists. Yet because of the nature of federal elections &#8212; including the weighted system of the U.S. electoral college &#8212; the agenda of cities can get sidelined by right-wing populism.

&#8220;There&#8217;s a fundamental asymmetry between what cities represent and what they are able to accomplish politically,&#8221; said Barber.

One other thing that seems related to this- it appears counties ravaged by Heroin in Ohio and Pennsylvania swung to Trump hard this cycle: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/22/13698476/trump-opioid-heroin-epidemic

A new analysis by historian Kathleen Frydl looks at the strong correlation between the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic &#8212; which led to a record number of overall drug overdose deaths in 2014 &#8212; and the counties in Ohio and Pennsylvania that swung from President Barack Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016. Both of these states were crucial to Trump&#8217;s victory on Election Day.

In Ohio, 26 counties reported around 20 or more drug overdoses per 100,000 people in 2015. In all but two of these counties, Frydl said there was at least a 10 percent surge in voters who went to Trump compared with Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012, a 10 percent or more drop in voters who went to Hillary Clinton compared with Obama, or both of these trends. In five counties, the shift was big enough for the county to flip from Democrat in 2012 to Republican in 2016.

And in Pennsylvania, all but four of 33 high-overdose counties followed a similar trend. In three counties, the shift was enough for a complete Democrat-to-Republican flip.

In total, eight of 13 Ohio and Pennsylvania counties that flipped from Obama to Trump had around 20 or more drug overdoses.

Unlike past drug epidemics, the opioid epidemic has largely hit white and rural areas. The two states suffering the most from the epidemic, based on 2014 numbers, have been West Virginia and New Hampshire, both of which are very rural and very white. And a 2014 study found that nearly 90 percent of treatment-seeking patients who began using heroin in the previous decade were white &#8212; a big shift from equal racial representation prior to the 1980s. So Trump&#8217;s Rust Belt support appears to reflect, at least partly, the unique levels of suffering in these communities.

 

[Kyzer]

Well if their gdp was higher they wouldn't have fallen for trump!

 

[Deleted member 231381]

11. I have long written abt how the non-urban areas need revival, new growth engines, and how that's in everyone's interest, urban or not.

But apparently, pointing this out is racist apologism.

 

[kirblar]

But apparently, pointing this out is racist apologism.

There's one party proposing those policies and not blaming everything on minorities.

And one doing everything they can to stop those policies while blaming everything on minorities.

When voters go with option B, it makes it very hard for people to think that economics (or reality) was the important marginal issue here.

 

[Lois_Lane]

But apparently, pointing this out is racist apologism.

It is when the person they vote for will do fuck-all to help those people out. Hillary had plans, Trump doesn't. Who is our current President-Elect?

 

[Ecotic]

If I was rewriting the Constitution, the House would remain the same but the Senate would be based upon GDP. I believe such a Congress could rapidly institute progress in this country.

edit: The House should remain based on population, I mean. I don't agree with gerrymandering. I'd even prefer a straight proportional, parliamentary style vote.

 

[whyamihere]

One other thing that seems related to this- it appears counties ravaged by Heroin in Ohio and Pennsylvania swung to Trump hard this cycle: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/22/13698476/trump-opioid-heroin-epidemic

Which is tragic because of how comprehensive Clinton's opioid plan was.

 

[Boney]

What's California as a whole compared to the states.

And the implication to delegitimize "one person, one vote" became they don't live in a metropolis is a bit revolting.

 

[tuxfool]

Those GDP values aren't per capita though. How much of the population lives in those larger counties?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

There's one party proposing those policies and not blaming everything on minorities.

And one doing everything they can to stop those policies while blaming everything on minorities.

When voters go with option B, it makes it very hard for people to think that economics (or reality) was the important marginal issue here.

That doesn't respond to what I said.

 

[Lois_Lane]

That doesn't respond to what I said.

How doesn't it?

If they are economically desperate then they would have compared each candidates plans and gone with the one that seemed most likely to help them. But they didn't. Why?

 

[kirblar]

What's California as a whole compared to the states.

And the implication to delegitimize "one person, one vote" became they don't live in a metropolis is a bit revolting.

IIRC, California would be the 6th largest GDP in the world if the US didn't exist.

 

[Kyzer]

But apparently, pointing this out is racist apologism.

And you think those very same people won't call out your post and try to rationalize how all politics can logically be boiled down to racist vs non racist?

How doesn't it?

If they are economically desperate then they would have compared each candidates plans and gone with the one that seemed most likely to help them. But they didn't. Why?

Umm unless you are asking why his supporters don't see him as a filthy liar, it's because they actually did think Trump was the right candidate for them. He made a lot of promises to the abandoned working class, they bought it.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

If I was rewriting the Constitution, the House would remain the same but the Senate would be based upon GDP. I believe such a Congress could rapidly institute progress in this country.

In other words, this won't happen in the next century.

 

[dramatis]

IIRC, California would be the 6th largest GDP in the world if the US didn't exist.

I thought they moved up to sixth after the UK pound went wild

 

[teiresias]

But apparently, pointing this out is racist apologism.

Aside from the earlier reply to this these people in these areas don't want new engines of growth they want the factory or the coal mine or whatever closed down 30 years ago to reopen so they don't have to retrain for anything. The cities are growing and the cities are are flourishing because they are engines of innovation and not simply wanting back what was there decades ago

 

[Infinite]

But apparently, pointing this out is racist apologism.

When you vote for a party that goes out of their way to fuck you over I mean...

 

[Cosmo Clock 21]

If I was rewriting the Constitution, the House would remain the same but the Senate would be based upon GDP. I believe such a Congress could rapidly institute progress in this country.

edit: The House should remain based on population, I mean. I don't agree with gerrymandering. I'd even prefer a straight proportional, parliamentary style vote.

Good thing you're not rewriting the constitution.

 

[Lois_Lane]

Umm unless you are asking why his supporters don't see him as a filthy liar, it's because they actually did think Trump was the right candidate for them. He made a lot of promises to the abandoned working class, they bought it.

This is what I was asking. He has flipped flopped so many fucking times and his plans have been called out by thousands, yet they still voted for him. Why?

 

[Window]

It would be interesting to look at the GDP share split of these two groups of counties over time to see what the Trump winning counties 'heydays' were like.

 

[Skellig Gra]

If I was rewriting the Constitution, the House would remain the same but the Senate would be based upon GDP. I believe such a Congress could rapidly institute progress in this country.

edit: The House should remain based on population, I mean. I don't agree with gerrymandering. I'd even prefer a straight proportional, parliamentary style vote.

What in the world are you talking about?? This isn't even a consensus between economists on whether the current GDP calculation is accurate.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

How doesn't it?

If they are economically desperate then they would have compared each candidates plans and gone with the one that seemed most likely to help them. But they didn't. Why?

Nobody compares plans. That's not how voters work, or ever have worked. If you actually went to a candidate's website and read their blurb, you're in the top 5% most politically active Americans. Mostly, people consume their political information passively. They take in campaign ads that make television channels they watch, they read about the candidates in the local newspapers, and maybe they just about watch one or two of the debates. If you watched Clinton's campaign ads, all you saw her do was attack Trump and talk about her experience - never about her ideas or ethos. The local newspapers weren't reporting anything about Clinton because she didn't do any rallies in the key states - Wisconsin was untouched. In the debates, Clinton talked about the Rust Belt a grand total of once (ten minutes into the first debate) for a total of about a minute and a half. If that's your exposure to Clinton, which it is for most Americans, all you can think is: she's not even bothering to speak to people like me. She doesn't care.

Trump? Trump talked to these people. If you watched his campaign ads, he mentioned how your jobs were gone. He turned up in your local newspaper because he did campaign rallies in your state. In the debates, he hammered home again and again how trade and immigrants took your jobs and how the Mexicans were bringing the drugs. To a lot of people in these places: he seemed like he was listening. He was talking to them. And so when he started saying: the problem is immigrants, we need to build the wall, they believed him. The other candidate wasn't talking about their problems; they're following the only solution they've been given.

 

[Chezzymann]

didnt realize harris county was #3 damn

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

gerrymandering at it's absolute finest and most powerful hour was 11/8/16

 

[Jmanunknown]

But apparently, pointing this out is racist apologism.

Its not pointing it out that is racist apologism. Its the very act of voting for someone who's entire platform was about instituting racist policies. It goes back to if you vote for someone no matter the reason you vote for them you have to accept the fact that you are voting to support their entire platform not just the parts you like.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Its not pointing it out that is racist apologism. Its the very act of voting for someone who's entire platform was about instituting racist policies. It goes back to if you vote for someone no matter the reason you vote for them you have to accept the fact that you are voting to support their entire platform not just the parts you like.

Did you vote to support the drone bombing of Afghanistani women and children walking back from their schools?

 

[Xe4]

How doesn't it?

If they are economically desperate then they would have compared each candidates plans and gone with the one that seemed most likely to help them. But they didn't. Why?

Scapegoating is real, and has been used for hundreds of years in America, and elsewhere. People don't want solutions, just someone to blame thst isn't themselves or something out of their controll.

Democrats don't have something to blame thst on. Maybe the rich, but not without hurting their electoral chances.

 

[Eidan]

Did you vote to support the drone bombing of Afghanistani women and children walking back from their schools?

Did Obama campaign on bombing Afghan women and children? I don't remember those ads.

 

[G.ZZZ]

Water is wet to me. But many people still fail to see this and think it's about some magical white gene that make them vote against their interests. Poor people have consistently voted for totalarianism, and said regimes almost always came into power as an answer to crysis and poverty. And you can't say "but my program was better! they should vote for their interests!" . Voters by and large don't go and read proposed programs, they vote on feeling. They always did, fuck this "post-truth" shit, it's always been like this and always will be. It's been this way for as long as i can remember and even much further back. I'd guess there could have been a roman senator arguing the same things as i am.

 

[RumblingRosco]

IIRC, California would be the 6th largest GDP in the world if the US didn't exist.

Interesting side note, Vermont has the lowest GDP of any state and it would still have a greater GDP as an independent country than ~100 other countries.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Did Obama campaign on bombing Afghan women and children? I don't remember those ads.

I'm assuming you voted for him in 2012, when it was patently obvious from the last 4 years that this was going to be the main approach of the Obama administration. Would it have been okay if Trump had only said really racist things after he was elected instead of before?

 

[guek]

There's one party proposing those policies and not blaming everything on minorities.

And one doing everything they can to stop those policies while blaming everything on minorities.

When voters go with option B, it makes it very hard for people to think that economics (or reality) was the important marginal issue here.

Not everyone is an enlightened liberal Democrat

 

[Lois_Lane]

Nobody compares plans. That's not how voters work, or ever have worked. If you actually went to a candidate's website and read their blurb, you're in the top 5% most politically active Americans. Mostly, people consume their political information passively. They take in campaign ads that make television channels they watch, they read about the candidates in the local newspapers, and maybe they just about watch one or two of the debates. If you watched Clinton's campaign ads, all you saw her do was attack Trump and talk about her experience - never about her ideas or ethos. The local newspapers weren't reporting anything about Clinton because she didn't do any rallies in the key states - Wisconsin was untouched. In the debates, Clinton talked about the Rust Belt a grand total of once (ten minutes into the first debate) for a total of about a minute and a half. If that's your exposure to Clinton, which it is for most Americans, all you can think is: she's not even bothering to speak to people like me. She doesn't care.

Trump? Trump talked to these people. If you watched his campaign ads, he mentioned how your jobs were gone. He turned up in your local newspaper because he did campaign rallies in your state. In the debates, he hammered home again and again how trade and immigrants took your jobs and how the Mexicans were bringing the drugs. To a lot of people in these places: he seemed like he was listening. He was talking to them. And so when he started saying: the problem is immigrants, we need to build the wall, they believed him. The other candidate wasn't talking about their problems; they're following the only solution they've been given.

Okay, I can understand what you're saying in part to Clinton not reaching out to the Rust Belt and I understand most people are uneducated But I don't see your point about people calling this racial apologism.

People aren't scared about reaching out to WWC, they're scared that people will only reach out to WWC. Hillary Clinton's platform should stay the same and just add another plank.

Did you vote to support the drone bombing of Afghanistani women and children walking back from their schools?

Yes. I might not support it but I was willing to overlook his position on this for what mattered to me. No one disputes that Trump supporters did the same. What we dispute is their refusal to take responsibility for their actions.

 

[turtle553]

gerrymandering at it's absolute finest and most powerful hour was 11/8/16

What does gerrymandering have to do with this election? Unless you are talking about congress. State lines aren't getting redrawn every ten years.

 

[Laiza]

I have to point out that, after a certain level of development, GDP will cease to work as a measure of economic prosperity as productivity will eventually become decoupled from the usual levers of supply and demand (thanks to skyrocketing productivity through automation). Once enough people lose their jobs (and thus, their income), the economy will grind to a halt unless some sort of progressive policy (like negative income tax or universal basic income) is in place.

So when we talk about GDP as a measure of economic power, we also have to understand that we're including the richest 0.01% in that total, who wield a disproportionate amount of power relative to everyone below them, and whose power will either consolidate through automation or cease to exist through technological democratization. Which road we take depends on a lot of complex factors that I, for one, am not really well-equipped to untangle. But it would be nice if we could acknowledge that we're ultimately talking about a power struggle between those who have and those who (perceptibly, right or wrong) do not.

 

[Cymbal Head]

There may not be 2 Americas, but there are 2 American economies, and Trump won by mobilizing the shitty one.

By shitty I assume you mean weaker?

Er, yes. Sorry.

What does gerrymandering have to do with this election? Unless you are talking about congress. State lines aren't getting redrawn every ten years.

I think this is an electoral college slam?

 

[LegendofJoe]

This is what I was asking. He has flipped flopped so many fucking times and his plans have been called out by thousands, yet they still voted for him. Why?

The more capable people leave rural areas as soon as an opportunity presents itself. The only people left are those who either aren't able to leave or never had an opportunity to do so. A lot of them are really resentful of people that don't live in rural areas. Spite is a major reason why they vote the way they do. To stick it to snooty liberals who are causing the destruction of their way of life via immigration, rejection of god, and made up conspiracies like climate change.

More to the point of the thread there is a ton of truth to the idea that parochial governance structures are hurting us. City-states, as they were in the past, are ascendant and dominant. While nation states are dying.

 

[SkeptiMism]

When you vote for a party that goes out of their way to fuck you over I mean...

Its not pointing it out that is racist apologism. Its the very act of voting for someone who's entire platform was about instituting racist policies. It goes back to if you vote for someone no matter the reason you vote for them you have to accept the fact that you are voting to support their entire platform not just the parts you like.

What does any of this have to do with this...

11. I have long written abt how the non-urban areas need revival, new growth engines, and how that's in everyone's interest, urban or not.

..And then Crab commenting on that apparently pointing this out is racist apologism.

Like, yeah, a lot of the voters were racists, but what does it have to do with Crab's quote and comment? Crab wasn't (originally in that post) commenting on whether they were racist or not. He wasn't even commenting on those voters.

But maybe there's a language barrier here or I'm failing to understand otherwise. Feel free to correct me (that goes for Crab too obviously).

 

[Eidan]

I'm assuming you voted for him in 2012, when it was patently obvious from the last 4 years that this was going to be the main approach of the Obama administration. Would it have been okay if Trump had only said really racist things after he was elected instead of before?

Racism was the central unwavering tenant of Trump's campaign. Unflinching racism is what separated Trump from the pack during the Republican primaries, and it was a constant during his general election campaign. Bombing kids was not central to the 2012 Obama campaign. I admire your continued efforts to relieve Trump voters of any culpability for the racism they've helped empower though.

 

[guek]

There may not be 2 Americas, but there are 2 American economies, and Trump won by mobilizing the shitty one.

By shitty I assume you mean weaker?

 

[TyrantII]

There's one party proposing those policies and not blaming everything on minorities.

And one doing everything they can to stop those policies while blaming everything on minorities.

When voters go with option B, it makes it very hard for people to think that economics (or reality) was the important marginal issue here.

Bingo.

It's also worth pointing out that those high GDP counties are sending massive amounts of tax revenues to fund the smaller, less GDP counties. Roads, water systems, economic programs, healthcare, ect are only possible due to the transfer of wealth.

The rural areas need the cities more than the other way around, yet they continually cut their nose to spite their face.

There has to be a reason. Fear, Tribalism and Identity politics is a very, very strong reason; one that isn't going to be cut through if "those pussy Democrats" would just focus on rural economies.

It ain't that simple, or rational.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Okay, I can understand what you're saying in part to Clinton not reaching out to the Rust Belt and I understand most people are uneducated But I don't see your point about people calling this racial apologism.

People aren't scared about reaching out to WWC, they're scared that people will only reach out to WWC. Hillary Clinton's platform should stay the same and just add another plank.

So, a lot of commentators have said basically just your last paragraph - that the Democratic Party needs to expand its tent with a much stronger campaign and message for the white working class, something you and I seem to agree on. However, there's also a fair amount of people, including a number on NeoGAF, who call this racial apologism and do not want to campaign for the WWC vote. They probably know who they are, which is why my original post was obliquely calling them out.

 

[Crosseyes]

We really are headed towards a dire moment here in American history.

If Trump reigns in his most fascist tendencies and goes through with a generic republican economic plan that makes the class divide worse then the left could come in with a much more populist economic plan that can actually directly help those struggling in this new globally connected world.

If Trump's fascist strong-arming really does start to make quality of life for white rural communities improve at the expense of cities and minority communities while at the same time implementing more voter suppression policies that disproportionately effects their enemies...

Well history shows that only bloodshed gets that kind of ruler out of power.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Racism was the central unwavering tenant of Trump's campaign. Unflinching racism is what separated Trump from the pack during the Republican primaries, and it was a constant during his general election campaign. Bombing kids was not central to the 2012 Obama campaign. I admire your continued efforts to relieve Trump voters of any culpability for the racism they've helped empower though.

Oh, no - Trump voters are fully responsible for empowering racism. Completely and totally. However, they also don't give a fuck. If they did, they wouldn't have done it. And if the Democrats don't change their platform, well, Trump voters will vote Trump again. Doesn't matter how much you call them racist. And then everyone loses. So Democrats clearly need to find a way to win over some Trump voters if they want to take back office. That's just the truth of the matter. And there is a reasonable group of Trump voters who voted for Trump because he talked to them, and he was going to bring back the jobs. So the Democrats have to talk to these people too, and they need a plan for jobs.

That's not racist apologism. I make absolutely no excuse for anyone who voted Trump - they enabled racism. But it is pragmatics. We still need some of them to vote for us.

 

[LegendofLex]

But apparently, pointing this out is racist apologism.

"new growth engines" was very deliberately phrased.

Trump has never promised this.

 

[TyrantII]

However, there's also a fair amount of people, including a number on NeoGAF, who call this racial apologism and do not want to campaign for the WWC vote.

It really depends on who you're talking about.

If you're talking about the 25% of the electorate that voted for Trump, forget about it. That's a syphian effort that is futile. Those folks are not voting Democrat minus the entire system collapsing into a pile of shit.

If you're talking about the WWC in the 48% that didn't vote, then sure. That's possible. They're waiting for something that better reflect them, and they might be convinced that it's in their interest to join the coalition.

There's been a lot of talk of appeasing the Trump crowd. Which is really just the Teaparty rebranded. It's stupid and futile.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

Well it's about time someone noticed.

But apparently, pointing this out is racist apologism.

I don't know what that refers to specifically (all Trump voters are racist fallacy, I presume), but it's a rather silly point regardless, since the infrastructure for that is all in the cities, not rural areas, and would be insanely expensive to create for a few people living in the -excuse the term- boonies. If anything, the US should pursue a policy where people get reasonable chances to pack up their shit and move away from hopeless areas where no revival is coming. Be realistic, not idealistic. The only revival that is possible for those areas is something like kudzu farms to combat climate change, or just the good old weed farm, but nothing else is coming. Well, except for a mega-desert over the entire mid-west, so people are going to have to move anyway.

It's weird enough that the EU has a better ID system than the US has, when the greater distances in space, income, and opportunity should really lead (or have lead) to a singular national ID in the US, not that... amateur shit you guys have now. What I mean is that it's bizarre when it's far easier for a EU citizen to move around actual different nation-states with severe cultural differences and histories, then it is for a citizen of a singular nation-state to from one relatively similar state to another relatively similar state. That makes no sense.
(which is also yet another reason to trash the EC system, since some states have to ensure they don't 'bleed dry', but that's my perspective)

 

[Cymbal Head]

This nonsense about "voting against their economic interest" is an article of faith for liberals, but if you care to actually look at how the average rural county has changed over the last 8 years under a Democratic president, you wouldn't see a place that is better off economically or socially. You'd see a place where young men are dropping out of the work force at a historic rate, where heroin abuse has become an epidemic, where live expectancy has declined for God's sake. Meanwhile, Wall Street and Silicon Valley are sucking up every ounce of the gains we've seen since the recession.

Tell me: what reason do rural voters have to believe that the Democratic party is the one that acts in their economic interests, exactly?

 

[Guevara]

The implications are kind of funny, maybe we should go back to a poll tax or just letting property owners vote.

I mean, they're paying for it all anyway. Only fair.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It really depends on who you're talking about.

If you're talking about the 25% of the electorate that voted for Trump, forget about it. That's a syphian effort that is futile. Those folks are not voting Democrat minus the entire system collapsing into a pile of shit.

Some of them voted Obama in '12.

If you're talking about the WWC in the 48% that didn't vote, then sure. That's possible. They're waiting for something that better reflect them, and they might be pursued that it's in their interest to join the coalition.

Non-voters don't vote.