• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Land vs the Clinton Archipelago

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Nice map but at first glance it reminds me of piece of moldy swiss cheese that has been broiled.


It really shows the concentration of leftist support in coastal regions. And to think Clinton won the popular vote. Thank goodness for the electoral college for without it leftists would win every presidential election.
 
It really shows the concentration of leftist support in coastal regions. And to think Clinton won the popular vote. Thank goodness for the electoral college for without it leftists would win every presidential election.

Except for the 6 out of 13 they would have lost the last 50 years. For all of the grumbling over the electoral college it really doesn't make all that much difference. The 3% this year between the popular vote margin and the tipping point state of Pennsylvania is easily the biggest split in modern presidential elections. Most of them have been less than 1%.
 
This graphic presentation illustrates the Dems' limited reach. This is a problem they need to solve.


TrumpLand and Clinton Archipelago - Vivid Maps

Home / ArcGIS / Politics / Slider / USA / Vivid maps / TrumpLand and Clinton Archipelago
[h=1]TrumpLand and Clinton Archipelago[/h] Alex E 4:47 AM ArcGIS , Politics , Slider , USA , Vivid maps



Maps were created using IDW (Inverse distance weighted) technique in ArcGIS.

A map without labels


A map without labels


Via www.vividmaps.com





I keep seeing these maps brought out by conservatives like it is some big virtue that Trump won more land area. Honestly I don't see any virtue out of winning more land, than the fact that I generally agree with the people there. Or at least I did until they voted for Trump.

But ultimately this doesn't tell us anything more than that Trump won rural areas and Clinton won cities, each in a bit sharper fashion than past years, but continuing the same trend. But I don't really see the value of winning one more than the other, aside from the ideologies behind them.
 
I keep seeing these maps brought out by conservatives like it is some big virtue that Trump won more land area. Honestly I don't see any virtue out of winning more land, than the fact that I generally agree with the people there. Or at least I did until they voted for Trump.

But ultimately this doesn't tell us anything more than that Trump won rural areas and Clinton won cities, each in a bit sharper fashion than past years, but continuing the same trend. But I don't really see the value of winning one more than the other, aside from the ideologies behind them.

That's true enough, but I don't think it's the most important lesson to be drawn. Repubs expanded their territory: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania. Dems saw theirs shrink.
 
That's true enough, but I don't think it's the most important lesson to be drawn. Repubs expanded their territory: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania. Dems saw theirs shrink.

That's true, although they only marginally expanded their territory. Their major gains were winning the rural areas by more than elections past. The important part is that they won more voters in those areas though, rather than more land in those areas. And that's the opposite point than these maps are likely drawn to make.
 
That's true, although they only marginally expanded their territory. Their major gains were winning the rural areas by more than elections past. The important part is that they won more voters in those areas though, rather than more land in those areas. And that's the opposite point than these maps are likely drawn to make.

Please note the colors as well as the outlines. Dem areas are relatively close calls while Repub areas are deeply so. Repubs gained not only extent but also depth.
 
Please note the colors as well as the outlines. Dem areas are relatively close calls while Repub areas are deeply so. Repubs gained not only extent but also depth.

I think that's of little importance as well. Dem area is mostly close calls. But area means nothing. The Democratic area, weighted by population was more Democratic than Republican area. The fact that the Democratic area is more green as a whole doesn't matter because the vast majority of people live in the area that is red or white for them. Yes Trump won rural areas by more than past Republicans. And yes, Clinton won urban areas by more than past Democrats. But that really doesn't mean much besides that. It has ramifications for the future like Democrats figuring out why they lost some marginal rural areas, and perhaps Republicans figuring out why they did worse in some populated suburbs.

But I don't like the focusing on area itself. That's meaningless, and that's what these maps focus on.
 
I think that's of little importance as well. Dem area is mostly close calls. But area means nothing. The Democratic area, weighted by population was more Democratic than Republican area. The fact that the Democratic area is more green as a whole doesn't matter because the vast majority of people live in the area that is red or white for them. Yes Trump won rural areas by more than past Republicans. And yes, Clinton won urban areas by more than past Democrats. But that really doesn't mean much besides that. It has ramifications for the future like Democrats figuring out why they lost some marginal rural areas, and perhaps Republicans figuring out why they did worse in some populated suburbs.

But I don't like the focusing on area itself. That's meaningless, and that's what these maps focus on.

I think we're talking past each other. The reason this is a problem for Dems is that areas they won look competitive for Repubs (green) while areas they lost look out of Dems' reach (brown).
 
Pictures are Fun :lamo
 
I think we're talking past each other. The reason this is a problem for Dems is that areas they won look competitive for Repubs (green) while areas they lost look out of Dems' reach (brown).

We are talking past each other a bit, but I think you're still a little off.

Most of what the Democrats was is red and brown, just more densely populated. Looking at it in a map that focuses on area distorts this. Yes a lot of the Republican area is brown and out of their reach, but this is almost exactly the same area that Republicans won in 2012 and 2008. They just won it by more. The fact that Clinton didn't win it isn't determinative. She just lost it by a little more than Obama did.

You're focusing on the fact that Democrats won a lot of green area, but that doesn't really matter. It's all either sparsley populated area in the Northeast or Black Belt or suburbs which worst case they would barely lose.
 
We are talking past each other a bit, but I think you're still a little off.

Most of what the Democrats was is red and brown, just more densely populated. Looking at it in a map that focuses on area distorts this. Yes a lot of the Republican area is brown and out of their reach, but this is almost exactly the same area that Republicans won in 2012 and 2008. They just won it by more. The fact that Clinton didn't win it isn't determinative. She just lost it by a little more than Obama did.

You're focusing on the fact that Democrats won a lot of green area, but that doesn't really matter. It's all either sparsley populated area in the Northeast or Black Belt or suburbs which worst case they would barely lose.

We'll have to agree to disagree.
 
I think we're talking past each other. The reason this is a problem for Dems is that areas they won look competitive for Repubs (green) while areas they lost look out of Dems' reach (brown).

This wasn't exactly Democrats vs Republicans though. Trump promised to bring all of their jobs back from overseas, slap high tariffs on imports, and end free trade deals. It may be short lived. I think time will tell if Republicans can hold these new areas.
 
This wasn't exactly Democrats vs Republicans though. Trump promised to bring all of their jobs back from overseas, slap high tariffs on imports, and end free trade deals. It may be short lived. I think time will tell if Republicans can hold these new areas.

That's very reasonable.
 
This graphic presentation illustrates the Dems' limited reach. This is a problem they need to solve.


TrumpLand and Clinton Archipelago - Vivid Maps

Home / ArcGIS / Politics / Slider / USA / Vivid maps / TrumpLand and Clinton Archipelago
[h=1]TrumpLand and Clinton Archipelago[/h] Alex E 4:47 AM ArcGIS , Politics , Slider , USA , Vivid maps



Maps were created using IDW (Inverse distance weighted) technique in ArcGIS.

A map without labels


A map without labels


Via www.vividmaps.com





Clinton's Archipelago is also what produces most of the GDP in this country as well as pays most of the taxes. Look at Texas for example. Clinton won Dallas, Austin, and Houston. Where do you think most of the economic growth and biggest tax base in that state is? It's Dallas, Houston, and Austin. What Clinton won are the areas that pay our nation's bills,and are responsible for the majority of our nation's innovation and growth.
 
Last edited:
Clinton's Archipelago is also what produces most of the GDP in this country as well as pays most of the taxes. Look at Texas for example. Clinton won Dallas, Austin, and Houston. Where do you think most of the economic growth and biggest tax base in that state is? It's Dallas, Houston, and Austin. What Clinton won are the areas that pay our nation's bills,and are responsible for the majority of our nation's innovation and growth.

Interesting but politically irrelevant.
 
Clinton's Archipelago is also what produces most of the GDP in this country as well as pays most of the taxes. Look at Texas for example. Clinton won Dallas, Austin, and Houston. Where do you think most of the economic growth and biggest tax base in that state is? It's Dallas, Houston, and Austin. What Clinton won are the areas that pay our nation's bills,and are responsible for the majority of our nation's innovation and growth.

If you had a source for this, I would be interested in reading it. Corporations have HQ in big cities but is their economic activity actually take place there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Interesting but politically irrelevant.

As is your map. Trump won with a lower percentage of the vote that Romney won in 2012. Trump won because Clinton was a particularly terrible candidate.
 
If you had a source for this, I would be interested in reading it. Corporations have HQ in big cities but is their economic activity actually take place there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are tons of stats on this:

https://stateimpact.npr.org/new-ham...-rural-ones-and-new-englands-a-case-in-point/

And its not just true here, its true everywhere:

https://www.oecd.org/swac/events/49008457.pdf

Think about it, why do people move to urban areas? Its for the money and opportunities. I grew up in rural Arkansas, I moved to the KC area 17 years ago because of the jobs and income opportunities. Of the people that i grew up with, the ones that are doing well economically are almost all the ones that moved to a city, the ones that are hardly getting by didn't.

A full 84% of GDP in the United States is generated in our urban centers.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...uJGUVyHfwNJyt4UVw&sig2=7jBlYwzzZQjjOYCh4UyDwQ
 
I think that's of little importance as well. Dem area is mostly close calls. But area means nothing. The Democratic area, weighted by population was more Democratic than Republican area. The fact that the Democratic area is more green as a whole doesn't matter because the vast majority of people live in the area that is red or white for them. Yes Trump won rural areas by more than past Republicans. And yes, Clinton won urban areas by more than past Democrats. But that really doesn't mean much besides that. It has ramifications for the future like Democrats figuring out why they lost some marginal rural areas, and perhaps Republicans figuring out why they did worse in some populated suburbs.

But I don't like the focusing on area itself. That's meaningless, and that's what these maps focus on.

No it is not meaningless to look at area. Look if it were not for the Electoral College the mass of rural lands and fly over country that are not as heavily populated might as well stay home on election day because the inner cities and the liberal elite on the East and West coasts would take away their voice if it were by popular vote only.

If you look at the maps above you can see every sanctuary city where Clinton did well. You can see the areas that divide us on a moral perspective. You can see the areas that went for Clinton are states that rely on federal government help due to their leftist ideology promising crap they can't pay for, where their states are so far in the hole without federal aid they can't make it and it is putting a burden on those in these states that are working and carrying the load. They are also areas that are not business friendly and companies have been in an Exodus for years leaving them and taking their jobs with them heading for more business friendly states.

You look at all major cities that are predominantly Democrat whose citizens overwhelmingly rely on government welfare, and they went for Clinton. What the Democrats have done in the last several decades is addict people to entitlements instead of offering a better way. Now we have several in our society who think they are owed something with no effort on their part.
They are born into poverty usually because they are born to a single mother. 70% of Blacks today are born to single moms and no dads around.% Hispanics are at 55% and Whites are right behind them with 35% being born to single moms. Single mothers are the number one reason for poverty in our country. The left deals with it by providing multiple entitlements to these "families" so much so that now a married middle class family raising two kids both working makes less that what a single mother can collect in entitlements.

You want to know why Trump won? Everyday people out there keeping their nose clean both wife and husband with kids working and getting the shaft for trying to do things the right way. They have been watching their healthcare go through the roof and have been giving up vacations and other needs to make their bills because they do not qualify for government goodies. Yet, illegals, single moms, refugees get all these special goodies.

While the average Joe tries to figure out how to pay for his child's education, illegals, single moms, and refugees get special favors. ENOUGH is what the voters said. And that is just for starters.





.
 
As is your map. Trump won with a lower percentage of the vote that Romney won in 2012. Trump won because Clinton was a particularly terrible candidate.

I did not vote for Trump and I have no interest in hyping his success, but I think you're missing the important thing. He is refashioning the Repubs in a way that threatens to tear off chunks of the Dems' coalition.
 
No it is not meaningless to look at area. Look if it were not for the Electoral College the mass of rural lands and fly over country that are not as heavily populated might as well stay home on election day because the inner cities and the liberal elite on the East and West coasts would take away their voice if it were by popular vote only.

No they wouldn't. Republicans have won half the popular votes the last 50 years, despite the way our system works. And anybody that abandoned the third of the people that are rural completely, would almost certainly lose the elections. The people on the coasts would get more time than the people in the middle, but only roughly corresponding to how many people there are now.

Who gets no influence in our elections now? Almost everybody. Over the last 3 months, Trump and Clinton only visited 15 states. Alaska, Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia, Indiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Vermont, Massachusetts, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Those are the places that are completely, 100% ignored by the current system.

I'm not going to advocate abolishing the electoral college, but your argument for keeping it is the one that I see the most. And I don't think it's a very persuasive argument.

If you look at the maps above you can see every sanctuary city where Clinton did well. You can see the areas that divide us on a moral perspective. You can see the areas that went for Clinton are states that rely on federal government help due to their leftist ideology promising crap they can't pay for, where their states are so far in the hole without federal aid they can't make it and it is putting a burden on those in these states that are working and carrying the load. They are also areas that are not business friendly and companies have been in an Exodus for years leaving them and taking their jobs with them heading for more business friendly states.



You look at all major cities that are predominantly Democrat whose citizens overwhelmingly rely on government welfare, and they went for Clinton. What the Democrats have done in the last several decades is addict people to entitlements instead of offering a better way. Now we have several in our society who think they are owed something with no effort on their part.
They are born into poverty usually because they are born to a single mother. 70% of Blacks today are born to single moms and no dads around.% Hispanics are at 55% and Whites are right behind them with 35% being born to single moms. Single mothers are the number one reason for poverty in our country. The left deals with it by providing multiple entitlements to these "families" so much so that now a married middle class family raising two kids both working makes less that what a single mother can collect in entitlements.

You want to know why Trump won? Everyday people out there keeping their nose clean both wife and husband with kids working and getting the shaft for trying to do things the right way. They have been watching their healthcare go through the roof and have been giving up vacations and other needs to make their bills because they do not qualify for government goodies. Yet, illegals, single moms, refugees get all these special goodies.

While the average Joe tries to figure out how to pay for his child's education, illegals, single moms, and refugees get special favors. ENOUGH is what the voters said. And that is just for starters.

These are all somewhat true facts, but miss the point I was trying to make. These maps showing how much greater area Trump won than Clinton are trying to make a point about how big Trump's win was. But Trump winning more square miles is meaningless.

If you want to argue that Trump won better people, that's fine, but I don't think that's what these maps making a big deal out of the square footage that Trump won are trying to do.
 
This wasn't exactly Democrats vs Republicans though. Trump promised to bring all of their jobs back from overseas, slap high tariffs on imports, and end free trade deals. It may be short lived. I think time will tell if Republicans can hold these new areas.

High tariffs--that reminds me of the 1888 POTUS election lost in the EC by Grover Cleveland, even though he won the popular vote.

Cleveland was for lowering tariffs and there were two significant 3rd parties .
 
No it is not meaningless to look at area. Look if it were not for the Electoral College the mass of rural lands and fly over country that are not as heavily populated might as well stay home on election day because the inner cities and the liberal elite on the East and West coasts would take away their voice if it were by popular vote only.

If you look at the maps above you can see every sanctuary city where Clinton did well. You can see the areas that divide us on a moral perspective. You can see the areas that went for Clinton are states that rely on federal government help due to their leftist ideology promising crap they can't pay for, where their states are so far in the hole without federal aid they can't make it and it is putting a burden on those in these states that are working and carrying the load. They are also areas that are not business friendly and companies have been in an Exodus for years leaving them and taking their jobs with them heading for more business friendly states.

You look at all major cities that are predominantly Democrat whose citizens overwhelmingly rely on government welfare, and they went for Clinton. What the Democrats have done in the last several decades is addict people to entitlements instead of offering a better way. Now we have several in our society who think they are owed something with no effort on their part.
They are born into poverty usually because they are born to a single mother. 70% of Blacks today are born to single moms and no dads around.% Hispanics are at 55% and Whites are right behind them with 35% being born to single moms. Single mothers are the number one reason for poverty in our country. The left deals with it by providing multiple entitlements to these "families" so much so that now a married middle class family raising two kids both working makes less that what a single mother can collect in entitlements.

You want to know why Trump won? Everyday people out there keeping their nose clean both wife and husband with kids working and getting the shaft for trying to do things the right way. They have been watching their healthcare go through the roof and have been giving up vacations and other needs to make their bills because they do not qualify for government goodies. Yet, illegals, single moms, refugees get all these special goodies.

While the average Joe tries to figure out how to pay for his child's education, illegals, single moms, and refugees get special favors. ENOUGH is what the voters said. And that is just for starters.





.

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

The thing that interests me the most is why we are seeing so many people today that expect "entitlements," for lack of a better word. I don't think that people in general are more lazy today than they were years ago - as a matter of fact during the Depression years most families were very reluctant to even admit they were struggling to put food on the table, and would simply state they were doing okay. It wasn't pride, but perhaps embarrassment, at least in the beginning, to admit that times were rough at their house? What caused the change in thinking that we see today? Good paying jobs leaving America, while at the same time so many are entering illegally to try and make a better life for their families than what they left? Something I have not thought of? I wonder what Trump has in mind... :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom