The Real 2016 Political Map Is Shockingly Different from CNN's

We already know that, and that was not the point of the article.

So very sad. That much I can tell you.

SSG Jessica Bautista - I recognize that colors on a map do not an overwhelming consensus make. We (Americans) are engaged in a intramural struggle to define the United States. We live in a clearly divided nation. Neither major party put forward a charismatic or visionary candidate who could generate an overwhelming consensus. I am not so dull as to think an overwhelming electoral college consensus represent an overwhelming consensus of the governed. If I should have gleaned something else from your article please enlighten me.

I am very likely to be dismissive of your posts, because I have come to view you as profoundly discontented with the results of the election and presenting click bait pieces that either lack substance or intellectual honesty. Is that fair? Probably not.

I too am profoundly disappointed in the election, but I suspect for an entirely different set of reasons. I will strive to pry my mind open and give your posts more thought, but I cannot and will not give credit to the emotional appeal to which the authors (not you) resort when there is no offer of substantiation.

Well said Major and especially the division piece and the election. I realize SSG Baptista often posts things against the mainstream mix here on RP but am glad that you are flexible enough to read and reason without ridicule. I'm sure you led your share of Marines with more of an idealist twist on things same as I did, but I eventually learned to listen to increase my awareness and acceptance of all viewpoints. Her posts don't bother me because of that and because I'm mostly centrist in position with a lean toward fiscal conservatism and semi-liberalism toward social issues. Meaning being to allow personal choice in peoples lives and control spending. I have to admit she does make us think whether we totally agree with her or not. Some might not like that but it helps keep me from blindly accepting the status quo. Best wishes.

We already knew that.

SSG Jessica Bautista I haven't done the counting myself, but here's one of the many out there with these numbers (it's not a reliable source, but the information is cited) http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/15/donald-trump-won-7-5-million-popular-vote-landslide-mainstream-america/

The numbers come from Politico if you want to count them: http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president

SPC(P) (Join to see) - I appreciate that. However, the way the information is presented is misleading. Yes, Trump won popular vote in certain regions, namely the ones with high manufacturing employment (Read: lower income, less skilled, less educated. Not an insult, just an observation). Clinton won popular vote in regions with a higher population density and counties with higher GDP per capita (Read: more educated, more skilled workers, produced more. Again, not an insult to the other counties). So essentially, you're right, but land mass doesn't vote, the people do.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/22/donald-trump-lost-most-of-the-american-economy-in-this-election/?utm_term=.c842200d3a72

Not to pick an argument or anything, but your argument is misleading as well. First off, he won the rust belt, because what the media is calling "uneducated white voters" are voters with 2 year degrees - also known as trade schools - which means he won the blue-collar workers that everyone claims to be all for. They make up less of the economy because their jobs have been outsourced for the last 30 years. That being said, land mass does vote, that is the whole purpose of the sovereignty of the states and the electoral college. If popular vote were the only consideration, 3 states could control the presidency. Which is funny, because from where I sit, that's exactly what led to Trump's victory. Much like what happens here in Minnesota year after year after year, rural conservatives are outvoted by 3 counties in the state. Metropolitan solutions to Metropolitan problems get passed on to rural communities because "govern from the top" seems to be the go-to strategy and despite 81-84 of Minnesota's 87 counties voting conservative, we go Democrat every year. Why? Because without an electoral college rural voters may as well stay home and keep getting screwed year after year because they cannot outnumber the crackheads in metropolitan areas much less the entire population in those cities. Which in essence says that only people living in the cities should have representation in government. No candidate who is favored in less than 2% of the United States should win because the population in that 2% is equal to that of the other 98% IMO, I don't care who it is.

SPC,
I am black educated and from one of the rust belt states and we need jobs. Why would any regular person think that the way they vote on the west cost is good for the rest of America. Every state has a different challenge we do not have a bunch of none working Hollywood elites. Do for one minute think that being college educated equates to being smart, because it does not. The smartest person I ever met never went to college. Also it really doesn't matter if you have college or not if there are no jobs you will flip burgers just like the people who do not have a degree.