Democrats Take Back House

[LittleRaven]

Well, Obama won. Doesn't that mean something?

Obama has a Charisma score of 25 and an Int stat that isn't much lower. Yes, Obama won. But Obama is not a normal politician - he took down Hillary when it should have been impossible, and fended off two very strong Republican contenders. Hoping for lighting to strike twice is foolish.

And believe me, if we find ourselves with another Obama....we'll know. Politicians like that stick out.

And don't give me this bullshit "it's too early for a woman candidate." If there was no electoral college, she'd have won.

But there is an electoral college. And there will be an electoral college. So it's something we have to plan for.

I want it all or nothing. A female President.

No offense, but you don't vote, so nobody cares what you want. Why would they?

[LittleRaven]

If all we are left with is the heartland, won't we have a lot fewer blue states? Hmmm...

No. Climates change, people move. People move, states change.

But let's hope it doesn't come to that.

[TGLS]

If all we are left with is the heartland, won't we have a lot fewer blue states? Hmmm...

If the the blue states are completely washed out to sea, the best case scenario is that the all the red states turn shades of purple or blue, the worst case scenario is what remains of the country turns red with blood as migrations cause strife and fear. Or maybe the heartland will turn into a desert first and the few fools who head into the middle of the continent die of dehydration.

[Darth Wedgius]

We'd build a dike, and we'd make Atlantis pay for it!

The fewer blue states comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and I assume the Kansas beachfront property comment was. From what I can tell, Kansas wouldn't end up beach-front property. Even if the entire icecaps melted, we'd still have California (but central valley would be the central sea) and much of the east coast.

I don't know what would happen with the heartland and rainfall. With the central valley gone, there'd already be a loss of cropland. But I think it would take a bit longer than 50 years for both icecaps to go. By the time we're at that point, I'm pretty sure I won't be worrying about it.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

so, here's some POSITIVE things about this election!

Sharice Davids and Deb Haaland are the first Native American women in congress! Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, the first Muslim women in congress! Jared Polis became the first gay governor!

[Karha of Honor]

Nice to see you finally admitting the Republican party is racist.

I'm not worried about what the Republican party thinks. Republicans won't be voting for the Democratic nominee no matter what happens.

I'm worried about what Democrats and independents in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio think. And in case you haven't noticed, there's more than a tinge of racism there. Sexism too.

It sucks, but you go to war with the electorate you have, not the electorate you want.

Yes they would if you guys would drop all this puritanical racial and gender identity stuff.

No offense, but you don't vote, so nobody cares what you want. Why would they?

Non voters matter very much, sorry.

[LittleRaven]

Non voters matter very much, sorry.

Not when it comes to electoral calculus, they don't.

You win elections by winning states. You win states by winning voters. No sense wasting time on people who don't vote.

[Karha of Honor]

Non voters matter very much, sorry.

Not when it comes to electoral calculus, they don't.

You win elections by winning states. You win states by winning voters. No sense wasting time on people who don't vote.

Yes there is. To make sure they are content, don't vote against you, don't move out of your district you ending up with less taxes collected etc...

[Admiral X]

My state appears to have gotten redder.

[LittleRaven]

Yes there is. To make sure they are content, don't vote against you, don't move out of your district you ending up with less taxes collected etc...

By definition, non-voters do not vote against you.

Now it's true that it's theoretically possible that if you're terrible enough, non-voters will become voters. But that remains theoretical, at least in the US. We have decades worth of data on the subject, and it's pretty clear - once a person establishes themselves as a voter or a non-voter, they almost never respond to any particular election, although they DO tend to move into the 'voter' category as they get older. This is why candidates who base their campaign on motivating a new block of voters almost inevitably lose, no matter how good the polling data looks.

As for your more amorphous 'but your constituents might move away!' thing....tell me, which politicians in your experience have been particularly far-sighted? It's not their fault, really...unless a politician is exceptionally safe, the system does not give them that luxury. What matters is always the same - the next election.