(02-19-2020 01:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 12:04 PM)mrbig Wrote:  FIFY (in the attachment)

I tried to keep borders as reasonable as possible. Some of your blue areas are blue but a desolate barely populated slice of blue surrounded and deeply outnumbered by red. It would be like trying to carve out the wealthy northern suburbs of Los Angeles as red. Your map may fit preferences better but that's irrelevant if it's impossible or wildly impractical to be enforceable. The borders on the Pacific are either already established or easily helped by geography via the Cascades etc.

(02-19-2020 01:40 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 01:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 12:04 PM)mrbig Wrote:  FIFY (in the attachment)

I tried to keep borders as reasonable as possible. Some of your blue areas are blue but a desolate barely populated slice of blue surrounded and deeply outnumbered by red. It would be like trying to carve out the wealthy northern suburbs of Los Angeles as red. Your map may fit preferences better but that's irrelevant if it's impossible or wildly impractical to be enforceable. The borders on the Pacific are either already established or easily helped by geography via the Cascades etc.

lol i thought he just drew a smiley on it

(02-19-2020 01:40 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 01:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 12:04 PM)mrbig Wrote:  FIFY (in the attachment)

I tried to keep borders as reasonable as possible. Some of your blue areas are blue but a desolate barely populated slice of blue surrounded and deeply outnumbered by red. It would be like trying to carve out the wealthy northern suburbs of Los Angeles as red. Your map may fit preferences better but that's irrelevant if it's impossible or wildly impractical to be enforceable. The borders on the Pacific are either already established or easily helped by geography via the Cascades etc.

lol i thought he just drew a smiley on it

(02-19-2020 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 01:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 12:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In Texas, all of the major cities are blue - Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, etc. (just look at the map GeorgiaTech posted), yet we have all Republicans in statewide positions and Republicans control the state legislature.
Sure, a singular rural county doesn't hold power, but I wouldn't start to describe Texas as being controlled by its large, urban areas.

But they don't seem to be as blue as the red areas are red. Montgomery County went roughly 75% for Trump in 2016 and 75% for Cruz in 2018. I don't think Harris, Travis, Dallas, or Bexar Counties are that lopsidedly blue. Maybe Travis and Bexar more than the others, and in the 2018 cycle Dallas was surprisingly blue. But the Texas cities tend to be light blue, and the rural counties dark red. In the cities you have a mix of people who vote blue and people who moved in from rural Texas and still vote red. In the rural areas, you have that second group, only they haven't moved yet.

Man, I leave Texas for two months, and apparently Austin, Houston, and San Antonio are now running the show and calling all the shots.

(02-19-2020 01:45 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 01:40 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 01:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 12:04 PM)mrbig Wrote:  FIFY (in the attachment)

I tried to keep borders as reasonable as possible. Some of your blue areas are blue but a desolate barely populated slice of blue surrounded and deeply outnumbered by red. It would be like trying to carve out the wealthy northern suburbs of Los Angeles as red. Your map may fit preferences better but that's irrelevant if it's impossible or wildly impractical to be enforceable. The borders on the Pacific are either already established or easily helped by geography via the Cascades etc.

lol i thought he just drew a smiley on it

He did more than that. :)

(02-19-2020 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 12:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 12:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 12:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 11:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If you think large populations centers already have power and control, I would like to introduce you to the state of Texas.

Apparently you think Brewster County is the Power.

But go ahead and make your case that rural countries crack the whip over the big cities.

In Texas, all of the major cities are blue - Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, etc. (just look at the map GeorgiaTech posted), yet we have all Republicans in statewide positions and Republicans control the state legislature.

Sure, a singular rural county doesn't hold power, but I wouldn't start to describe Texas as being controlled by its large, urban areas.

A lot of Republicans in the legislature come from urban districts.

But overall, big city politicians have more clout than those from small rural areas. If nothing else, there are more of them.

So, if the big city politicians don't run texas, who does?

This is a very silly argument we're having. You win - big cities control everything!