4 ms·

> funny thing is, Trump supporters are now deleting Lyft in favor of uber. Then it would appear there are far fewer Trump supporters than people who oppose Tru

> funny thing is, Trump supporters are now deleting Lyft in favor of uber. Then it would appear there are far fewer Trump supporters than people who oppose Trump.

ntumlin 10y ago
To be fair, many Trump supporters are in areas where ride sharing services aren't nearly as popular as the generally left-leaning cities.
- skyrw 10y ago
  Or they can afford private drivers
  - prodigal_erik 10y ago
    If you're rich, you probably benefited from free trade and mass immigration. Trump's base are the people who suffered the most from these trends.
zhemao 10y ago
Or there are fewer Trump supporters in the urban areas where ridesharing apps tend to operate.
KirinDave 10y ago
What matters is who lives in what swing state counties now. That's basically what the US voting system has been designed to measure. Quite surprising when you start to do the math.
- kkhire 10y ago
  Yea. Whoever runs for the dem nomination and wants to beat trump or pence (if he gets impeached) shouldn't even bother visiting blue states. Spend the entire campaign talking to voters in the rust belt.
- StevePerkins 10y ago
  What matters is TURNOUT. Always has. Trump received almost the exact same number of popular votes as Romney in '12, and McCain in '08. The difference is that 10 million Obama voters stayed home for Hillary: http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg Whether due to disappointment that Bernie Sanders wasn't nominated, or belief that voting wasn't important since Trump wasn't projected to win, or "OMG Russian hacker!!" conspiracy theories, etc. The bottom line is that Democratic turnout has dropped 15% over the past couple of cycles. Like the shore in low tide, "swing" locations shift and move out when this happens. I hear advice that future nominees should just ignore blue states and focus entirely on swing locations. That's exactly what the Clinton campaign did! It's a recipe for failure in the modern day. Because once again, turnout is what matters. The rising tide pushed back the "swing" coastline. This new era of U.S. politics scares me... because I've grown accustomed to Democrats having the luxury of sounding reasonable and centrist, while the Republicans have been forced to pander to extremists in their base. But I think the old conventional wisdom of "run to the edge in the primaries and then pivot back to the center for the general" is breaking down. In the new rules, candidates have to LIVE out on the edge in order to keep their bases energized and draw turnout. I think we're going to see extreme left candidates facing extreme right candidates (or whatever Trump is), with a goal of get-out-the-vote operations rather than winning over swing moderates. As a swing moderate myself, this sounds disastrous no matter who wins.
  - jaynos 10y ago
    >Trump received almost the exact same number of popular votes as Romney in '12, and McCain in '08. The difference is that 10 million Obama voters stayed home for Hillary: http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg Your data is from very soon after the election. Once all the votes were counted, Clinton had the same vote total as Obama '12 [1]. Perhaps an argument can be made that due to population growth she'd need 1% more (or some number) to truly match Obama '12. That said, I agree with your general message about turnout. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    Campaign finance reform, gerrymandering reform, compulsory voting...these are all good things to have in a democratic republic, but they're difficult to sex up for mass appeal. Instead we get stuck in the mud with tangible topics that affect regular lives like universal health care and free public higher education. Good things, sure, but not the solution to our deeper problems.
jonny_eh 10y ago
Or that Uber had more to lose, and Lyft more to gain.

> funny thing is, Trump supporters are now deleting Lyft in favor of uber. Then it would appear there are far fewer Trump supporters than people who oppose Trump.

ntumlin 10y ago

To be fair, many Trump supporters are in areas where ride sharing services aren't nearly as popular as the generally left-leaning cities.

skyrw 10y ago
Or they can afford private drivers
- prodigal_erik 10y ago
  If you're rich, you probably benefited from free trade and mass immigration. Trump's base are the people who suffered the most from these trends.

zhemao 10y ago

Or there are fewer Trump supporters in the urban areas where ridesharing apps tend to operate.

KirinDave 10y ago

What matters is who lives in what swing state counties now. That's basically what the US voting system has been designed to measure. Quite surprising when you start to do the math.

kkhire 10y ago
Yea. Whoever runs for the dem nomination and wants to beat trump or pence (if he gets impeached) shouldn't even bother visiting blue states. Spend the entire campaign talking to voters in the rust belt.
StevePerkins 10y ago
What matters is TURNOUT. Always has. Trump received almost the exact same number of popular votes as Romney in '12, and McCain in '08. The difference is that 10 million Obama voters stayed home for Hillary: http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg Whether due to disappointment that Bernie Sanders wasn't nominated, or belief that voting wasn't important since Trump wasn't projected to win, or "OMG Russian hacker!!" conspiracy theories, etc. The bottom line is that Democratic turnout has dropped 15% over the past couple of cycles. Like the shore in low tide, "swing" locations shift and move out when this happens. I hear advice that future nominees should just ignore blue states and focus entirely on swing locations. That's exactly what the Clinton campaign did! It's a recipe for failure in the modern day. Because once again, turnout is what matters. The rising tide pushed back the "swing" coastline. This new era of U.S. politics scares me... because I've grown accustomed to Democrats having the luxury of sounding reasonable and centrist, while the Republicans have been forced to pander to extremists in their base. But I think the old conventional wisdom of "run to the edge in the primaries and then pivot back to the center for the general" is breaking down. In the new rules, candidates have to LIVE out on the edge in order to keep their bases energized and draw turnout. I think we're going to see extreme left candidates facing extreme right candidates (or whatever Trump is), with a goal of get-out-the-vote operations rather than winning over swing moderates. As a swing moderate myself, this sounds disastrous no matter who wins.
- jaynos 10y ago
  >Trump received almost the exact same number of popular votes as Romney in '12, and McCain in '08. The difference is that 10 million Obama voters stayed home for Hillary: http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg Your data is from very soon after the election. Once all the votes were counted, Clinton had the same vote total as Obama '12 [1]. Perhaps an argument can be made that due to population growth she'd need 1% more (or some number) to truly match Obama '12. That said, I agree with your general message about turnout. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Campaign finance reform, gerrymandering reform, compulsory voting...these are all good things to have in a democratic republic, but they're difficult to sex up for mass appeal. Instead we get stuck in the mud with tangible topics that affect regular lives like universal health care and free public higher education. Good things, sure, but not the solution to our deeper problems.

jonny_eh 10y ago

Or that Uber had more to lose, and Lyft more to gain.