7 ms·

Don't assume that. Everyone still has to vote to make it happen.

meddlepal 6y ago
> Everyone still has to vote to make it happen. More like just Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Wisconsin will decide everything. This system sucks.
- nightski 6y ago
  That's a bunch of baloney though. The only reason it comes down to those states is because the other states have already decided. WI does not matter more than CA, that is for sure. If a Republican ever won CA it would be a FAR bigger deal than any little swing state.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    Republicans consistently won California before 1992. But it's never been a swing state.
    - TMWNN 6y ago
      California was a Republican-leaning swing state before 1992. It has a long, long history of being such, such as unexpectedly going to Wilson and giving him reelection in 1916.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > California was a Republican-leaning swing state before 1992. California was, in Presidential politics, a Republican stronghold, not a swing state, prior to 1992. (Between Truman in 1948 and 1992, the only Democrat to win in California was Johnson in 1964; precious little swinging going on for a “swing” state.) State and Congressional/Senate politics were less one-sided, though.
        TMWNN 6y ago
        >California was, in Presidential politics, a Republican stronghold, not a swing state, prior to 1992. (Between Truman in 1948 and 1992, the only Democrat to win in California was Johnson in 1964; precious little swinging going on for a “swing” state.) Look at the margins of those wins during those years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...). The state consistenly voted very close to how the nation voted. Some years it voted slightly more Republican (Nixon in 1960 and Ford in 1976), other years less (Eisenhower won fewer Californian votes in 1956 than in 1952, contrary to the national trend), but it was always close when the national race was close. That Michigan, Pennsyvania, and Wisconsin hadn't voted Republican in 30 years didn't not make them swing states in 2016.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > That Michigan, Pennsyvania, and Wisconsin hadn't voted Republican in 30 years didn't not make them swing states in 2016. If they actually hadn't for 24 years, and had only done it once then, and hadn't done previously for another 20 years, so that in 10 presidential elections preceding they had each gone Republican exactly once—as was the case in California leading in to 1992, but with reversed partisan polarity—it would have made it silly to call them swing states.
- refurb 6y ago
  Maybe you don’t understand the system very well? Those states matter because they could go either way. It’s not like the other states don’t have a say (often bigger than the states you listed) it’s just that they are firmly in one camp or the other. Just because you don’t understand the system, doesn’t mean it sucks.

> Everyone still has to vote to make it happen. More like just Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Wisconsin will decide everything. This system sucks.

nightski 6y ago
That's a bunch of baloney though. The only reason it comes down to those states is because the other states have already decided. WI does not matter more than CA, that is for sure. If a Republican ever won CA it would be a FAR bigger deal than any little swing state.
- jedberg 6y ago
  Republicans consistently won California before 1992. But it's never been a swing state.
  - TMWNN 6y ago
    California was a Republican-leaning swing state before 1992. It has a long, long history of being such, such as unexpectedly going to Wilson and giving him reelection in 1916.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > California was a Republican-leaning swing state before 1992. California was, in Presidential politics, a Republican stronghold, not a swing state, prior to 1992. (Between Truman in 1948 and 1992, the only Democrat to win in California was Johnson in 1964; precious little swinging going on for a “swing” state.) State and Congressional/Senate politics were less one-sided, though.
      - TMWNN 6y ago
        >California was, in Presidential politics, a Republican stronghold, not a swing state, prior to 1992. (Between Truman in 1948 and 1992, the only Democrat to win in California was Johnson in 1964; precious little swinging going on for a “swing” state.) Look at the margins of those wins during those years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...). The state consistenly voted very close to how the nation voted. Some years it voted slightly more Republican (Nixon in 1960 and Ford in 1976), other years less (Eisenhower won fewer Californian votes in 1956 than in 1952, contrary to the national trend), but it was always close when the national race was close. That Michigan, Pennsyvania, and Wisconsin hadn't voted Republican in 30 years didn't not make them swing states in 2016.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > That Michigan, Pennsyvania, and Wisconsin hadn't voted Republican in 30 years didn't not make them swing states in 2016. If they actually hadn't for 24 years, and had only done it once then, and hadn't done previously for another 20 years, so that in 10 presidential elections preceding they had each gone Republican exactly once—as was the case in California leading in to 1992, but with reversed partisan polarity—it would have made it silly to call them swing states.
refurb 6y ago
Maybe you don’t understand the system very well? Those states matter because they could go either way. It’s not like the other states don’t have a say (often bigger than the states you listed) it’s just that they are firmly in one camp or the other. Just because you don’t understand the system, doesn’t mean it sucks.