You're viewing a single thread.
So wait, the poor and the hopeless, looking for some kind of help, voted unanimously for TRUMP, and those happy with their current conditions and wanting no change voted for Harris.
You think a rich nepo baby wants to help working class Americans instead of himself and his rich friends? LOL
I don't, but a large chunk of america does. I think that speaks a lot to the democrats messaging.
The world's richest man is helping a billionaire get elected and that's not one of your main points to voters? No but Harris can't attack billionaires because that'll anger all the ones on her side.
maybe youre just completely unfamiliar with the word "conservative". those red states dont want change. they want to conserve their regressive stance.
I think it's pretty clear that the current Republican party is fundamentally different than the one of 15 years ago. Whether they consider themselves conservative or not, they are the party that is promising change from the status quo.
The parties have clearly changed roles with respect to manual laborers. The blue wall doesn't exist anymore because of this. What it all means, I have no idea, but we need to update our mental model of the two parties. Their demographic have fundamentally changed.
I like how you put "trump" in all-caps bold to help us better recognize that you are on TEAM RAPIST.
Also, the state that always votes blue is happy with their situation, and the state that always votes red is begging for change. You really can't figure out how each state got into their respective positions?
Perhaps the state that wants change should try voting for someone other than a Republican every single election.
Just because the person you are replying to has a different opinion about how people vote, doesn't mean they are a trump supporter.
I don't think this person is your enemy.
They never said they voted for him. They pointed out that the living conditions in the red state are worse, and the chose to vote for Trump. Presumably under some kind of belief that he will ameliorate those conditions.
Before you tell me he won't, I know that he won't. They don't know that though. And they have gigantic right wing echo chambers telling them all about how he will.
The maps were identical in 2020 (following a republican administration):
And 2008 (following a republican administration):
Once you get back to pre-social media era internet, you begin to see Oklahoma have shades of blue.
Perhaps we could collaborate on this.
Now that I have pulled Oklahoma’s electoral results going back to 1988, now you can pull Oklahoma’s education results going back over the same period of time and we can see if there is, in fact, a correlation between the quality of education (overall education rankings) and how the state votes in presidential elections.
I suspect that it was not purely the quality of education which influenced the “red shift”. I would bet that the lower-quality of education made the influence of social media more effective for those targeting the less educated to adopt a conservative political position.
Just share your findings here and we can work together.
Well done. I'll leave my response up, but I'll admit that the Massachusetts/Oklahoma example is a bad one to make the case that Trump was the populist in this election and Harris was a vote for the conservative "no change" position.
Ah yes, of course, Kamala was the more conservative option in the last election. Donald Trump is also an actual populist that cares about you. You are very smart. /s
Yes, I believe that was actually true. Look at him, slashing and burning his way through cabinet appointments.
She was definitely the more conservative choice. It's ok that I'm not smart.
Oklahoma has voted for Republican presidential candidates all but once since 1952 (in 1964), with the Democratic candidate having failed to pick up a single county in the state in all elections since 2004
History. What you obviously weren't taught.
You must be from Oklahoma.
Conservative =/= Status quo
Conservative = Regressive
One state has consistently voted for democrats and one consistently votes for leopards. It isn't really surprising that the state consistently putting leopards in power is unhappy with their current situation.
I see the ones under republican state leadership, clamoring for change, yet in reality voting for the same assholes that govern them into the ground? Not sure how you’re not seeing that, though I imagine it’s willful
theres a reason education goes out the windows in red states.. otherwise they might understand theyre voting against their own best interests.
its a priority to keep them stupid to stay red
it is. racism and hate go a long ways.
You know, folks are giving you a lot of unnecessary shit for this comment. And I get that when viewed with sufficient context and cultural awareness of American politics, the meme clearly implies at least a correlation between voting blue and an improved quality of life. (edit: which mind you I do believe exists, at least in so far as it compares to voting red)
But I also saw it and thought, "this meme could easily be interpreted by MAGA cultists to justify their vote for Trump". They would of course be wrong, but with the isolated set of data provided by the meme, it really doesn't only imply what it thinks it implies.
It's necessary.
If their comment wasn't smartass idiotic, maybe not.
I dunno, I have a hard time being mad at Inigo Montoya.
He was at least handsome and with a purpose in life.
this might just be the dumbest thing i've ever read
The states that consistently vote Republican are also consistently amongst the worst states for quality of life. There's a correlation there.
They also consistently take more money from the federal government than they provide.
I think we are interpreting this correlation in two different ways.
The demon buer sees it as:
bad living standards → vote republican
(because in this election the selling point of the republicans was the economy(/+immigration (because they also partly blame immigrants for the economic problems)), while for the democrats it was the the "protection of democracy" (which isn't really the biggest concern of someone struggling to pay their bills (or also not desired if that democracy got them to where they are now)))
others are seeing it as
vote republican → bad living standards
(because if republicans are no good, and if a state has been consistently voting republican in the last years of the state's local elections, then the state also won't be no good)
(the arrow means "causes")
(not directly directed at anyone, besides everyone who reads this post: ) Just because there's a correlation, we can't say in which direction the causation goes, if there is one.
Way to tell on yourself about your lack of education.
