Skip to main content

If people voted...

As long time readers should know, I've long been an opponent of the electoral college. Votes in Wyoming shouldn't count for more than votes in California. It should be one person, one vote. Period. In saying that, however, while I'm a stark opponent of the electoral college, I've gotta say, if Democrats actually went out and voted, we'd be next to impossible to stop. Here's how party affiliation numbers break down state by state:

Alabama (9 electoral votes): 52% Rep (Republican), 35% Dem (Democrat), 17% difference (Rep 9, Dem 0)

Alaska (3 EVs): 39% Rep, 32% Dem, 7% diff (Rep 12, Dem 0)

Arizona (11 EVs): 40% Rep, 39% Dem, 1% diff (Rep 23, Dem 0)

Arkansas (6 EVs): 46% Rep, 38% Dem, 8% diff (Rep 29, Dem 0)

California (55 EVs): Dem 49%, Rep 30%, 19% diff (Dem 55, Rep 29)

Colorado (9 EVs): Dem 42%, Rep 41%, 1% diff (Dem 64, Rep 29)

Connecticut (7 EVs): Dem 50%, Rep 32%, 18% diff (Dem 71, Rep 29)

Delaware (3 EVs): Dem 55%, Rep 29%, 26% diff (Dem 74, Rep 29)

District of Columbia (3 EVs): Dem 73%, Rep 11%, 62% diff (Dem 77, Rep 29)

Florida (29 EVs): Dem 44%, Rep 37%, 7% diff (Dem 106, Rep 29)

Georgia (16 EVs): Dem 41%, Rep 41%, 0% diff (Dem 106, Rep 29)

Hawaii (4 EVs): Dem 51%, Rep 28%, 23% diff (Dem 110, Rep 29)

Idaho (4 EVs): Rep 49%, Dem 32%, 17% diff (Dem 110, Rep 33)

Illinois (20 EVs): Dem 48%, Rep 33%, 15% diff (Dem 130, Rep 33)

Indiana (11 EVs): Rep 42%, Rep 37%, 5% diff (Dem 130, Rep 44)

Iowa (6 EVs): Rep 41%, Rep 40%, 1% diff (Dem 130, Rep 50)

Kansas (6 EVs): Rep 46%, Dem 31%, 15% diff (Dem 130, Rep 56)

Kentucky (8 EVs): Rep 44%, Dem 43%, 1% diff (Dem 130, Rep 64)

Louisiana (8 EVs): Dem 43%, Rep 41%, 2% diff (Dem 138, Rep 64)

Maine (4 EVs): Dem 47%, Rep 36%, 11% diff (Dem 142, Rep 64)

Maryland (10 EVs): Dem 55%, Rep 31%, 24% diff (Dem 152, Rep 64)

Massachusetts (11 EVs): Dem 56%, Rep 27%, 29% diff (Dem 163, Rep 64)

Michigan (16 EVs): Dem 47%, Rep 34%, 13% diff (Dem 179, Rep 64)

Minnesota (10 EVs): Dem 46%, Rep 39%, 7% diff (Dem 189, Rep 64)

Mississippi (6 EVs): Rep 44%, Dem 42%, 2% diff (Dem 189, Rep 70)

Missouri (10 EVs): Dem 42%, Rep 41%, 1% diff (Dem 199, Rep 70)

Montana (3 EVs): Rep 49%, Dem 30%, 19% diff (Dem 199, Rep 73)

Nebraska (5 EVs): Rep 47%, Dem 36%, 11% diff (Dem 199, Rep 78)

Nevada (6 EVs): Dem 46%, Rep 37%, 9% diff (Dem 205, Rep 78)

New Hampshire (4 EVs): Dem 44%, Rep 35%, 9% diff (Dem 209, Rep 78)

New Jersey (14 EVs): Dem 51%, Rep 30%, 21% diff (Dem 223, Rep 78)

New Mexico (5 EVs): Dem 48%, Rep 37%, 11% diff (Dem 228, Rep 78)

New York (29 EVs): Dem 53%, Rep 28%, 25% diff (Dem 257, Rep 78)

North Carolina (15 EVs): Dem 43%, Rep 41%, 2% diff (Dem 272, Rep 78)

North Dakota (3 EVs): Rep 50%, Dem 33%, 17% diff (Dem 272, Rep 81)

Ohio (18 EVs): Rep 42%, Dem 40%, 2% diff (Dem 272, Rep 99)

Oklahoma (7 EVs): Rep 45%, Dem 40%, 5% diff (Dem 272, Rep 106)

Oregon (7 EVs): Dem 47%, Rep 32%, 15% diff (Dem 279, Rep 106)

Pennsylvania (20 EVs): Dem 46%, Rep 39%, 7% diff (Dem 299, Rep 106)

Rhode Island (4 EVs): Dem 48%, Rep 30%, 18% diff (Dem 303, Rep 106)

South Carolina (9 EVs): Rep 43%, Dem 39%, 4% diff (Dem 303, Rep 115)

South Dakota (3 EVs): Rep 53%, Dem 37%, 16% diff (Dem 303, Rep 118)

Tennessee (11 EVs): Rep 48%, Dem 36%, 12% diff (Dem 303, Rep 129)

Texas (38 EVs): Dem 40%, Rep 39%, 1% diff (Dem 341, Rep 129)

Utah (6 EVs): Rep 54%, Dem 30%, 24% diff (Dem 341, Rep 135)

Vermont (3 EVs): Dem 57%, Rep 28%, 29% diff (Dem 344, Rep 135)

Virginia (13 EVs): Rep 43%, Dem 39%, 4% diff (Dem 344, Rep 148)

Washington (12 EVs): Dem 44%, Rep 33%, 11% diff (Dem 356, Rep 148)

West Virginia (5 EVs): Rep 43%, Dem 41%, 2% diff (Dem 356, Rep 153)

Wisconsin (10 EVs): Dem 42%, Rep 42%, 0% diff (Dem 356, Rep 153)

Wyoming (3 EVs): Rep 57%, Dem 25%, 32% diff (Dem 356, Rep 156)

Take a look at those numbers. With 26 electoral votes still yet to be decided (Georgia and Wisconsin), the Democratic candidate holds a 200 electoral-vote lead over the Republican nominee. Not only that, but in the 27 "states" (I'm including D.C.) where Democrats hold an advantage in registered voters, the average margin is about 15 percentage points, whereas in the 22 states where Republicans hold the advantage, the average gap is approximately 10 points. Even if the Democratic nominee were to lose all five states where they hold a 5% advantage or less, as well as the two toss-ups, he/she would still earn 276 electoral votes, enough to become president. On the flip-side, Republicans hold a 5% or less advantage in ten states:

Arizona (11 EVs): 1% gap
Indiana (11 EVs): 5%
Iowa (6 EVs): 1%
Kentucky (8 EVs): 1%
Mississippi (6 EVs): 2%
Ohio (18 EVs): 2%
Oklahoma (7 EVs): 5%
South Carolina (9 EVs): 4%
Virginia (13 EVs): 4%
West Virginia (5 EVs): 2%

These nines states are worth 94 electoral votes. So if the Democratic candidate won these contests, along with the two toss-ups, he/she would earn 476 electoral votes. The bottom line is go vote!

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/party-affiliation/by/state/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"