
Hillary only needed to switch 53,650 voters to win - fhoffa
https://medium.com/p/hillary-only-needed-to-switch-53-650-voters-to-win-94940ff263b7
======
carsongross
There is no non-tyrannical way to actively govern such a divided country
except for some sort of radical federalism, which isn't happening.

We will continue flipping back and forth between two warring and, to the
opposition, insane governments until the demographic death of the GOP.

I'm not optimistic about what happens at that point.

~~~
relics443
I'd actually say neither the GOP nor the Democrats are heading towards a
demographic death.

GOP isn't going anywhere because of the birth rate of religious groups, and
the fact that religious immigrants tend to skew right the longer they've been
in the country.

The Democrats aren't going anywhere because of the rate of attrition from
religious groups. They have lower birth rates than the Republicans, which
balances things out.

Balance of power is going to depend on:

1\. The ratio of birth rates 2\. The level of religious attrition in future
generations

Look at that. It's all about the children :-)

I left fringe groups out of both sides.

~~~
basch
they have gotten 60-61 million votes in the last three elections. it seems
stable but not growing.

------
scrollaway
This is one of the Dictator's Handbook's earliest lessons (a book I cannot
recommend enough, extremely insightful especially in the context of this
election - [https://smile.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-
Almost-...](https://smile.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-
Politics/dp/1610391845)): Even though the path to victory in a democracy with
a large electorate seems like it's about swaying millions of voters, the
numbers are far, far smaller than they look especially in the US system.

~~~
thrill
Not so sure it's that "easy". The millions of voters have to already be swayed
in order for a few thousand in just-the-right-places to make the _final_
difference.

Thanks for the book link - it looks interesting!

~~~
scrollaway
True, although it's not that high. In a 2 party system, a lot of people will
just vote around the party lines.

In fact, we talk a lot about how Trump was crossing the party lines, getting
democrats to vote for him and republicans to vote against him, etc... but at
the end of the day, red states voted red, blue states voted blue, and swing
states were won/lost on very few votes.

------
gremlinsinc
Wow that's about as many as signed up for Revolt Against Plutocracy by May..
(a group promoting #BernieOrBust).. Interesting coincidence? -- there've been
a number of polls and articles online stating that 40% of Bernie supporters
would not vote for her. If he had 10 million voters, that's 4 million people.

That's a lot of votes that you're leaving on the table. It really wouldn't
have taken Bernie much more votes to win had he been the candidate. All of his
supporters, and Jill Stein's would've voted for him, and a large swath of the
Independents (which make up 40% of the electorate)..

Here's a good article that explains how two ideologies are on the rise
(Egalitarianism/Nationalism) and that neoliberalism is on it's way out - which
isn't to say corporations aren't going to fight tooth and nail to keep it in
place which is exactly what we saw this election.

[https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/10/why-bernie-
sanders...](https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/10/why-bernie-sanders-is-
more-electable-than-people-think/)

