I don't wanna hear you guys complain when some of us are stuck in the middle of the goddamn CSA.

Edit: I ain't stuck forever but still.

In Ohio I guess rural means solid Trumpland. In northern California (north of SF) and western OR there are Trumpkins for sure, but it's not overwhelming.

I like the people/cultures in SoCal generally. I would just like more nature, less concrete and traffic.

The Bay Area was on my shortlist but it was too damn expensive.

Unsurprisingly The Daily Caller is running a tax evasion scheme, but it probably won't be called on it by the IRS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d52f1350789c

Rural gets pretty Trumpy here in New England too. The idealized non-Trumpy small town is a pretty rare thing ime, and is usually dominated by people who moved there from somewhere else.

Most people moving to small towns these days are doing so for....reasons. Reasons that are not great.

microbet, you might find this interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_Back_Vermont

I lived in Berkeley/Oakland for about ten years. It's pretty great.

In Oregon there were bumper stickers and such that said something like "Californians, keep Oregon green. Leave your money and go home."

If I show up in rural Vermont I'll be more of a tramp than a yuppie. They can thank me for driving down the real estate prices.

Anyway, nowhere is perfect and even though I don't have an endless time left on this earth I won't even think of my next location necessarily as the end of the line.

Can confirm that the Midwest gets weird as **** sometimes.

In the west there are rural areas that aren't all white. I don't really even know what difference that makes, but probably some.

What's really gutting about that (for me, anyway, having gone to college near there in SLO) - that's not, like, Trumpkin territory in the Central Valley, that's much closer to the coast, in a slightly rural area of a blue county (looking at precinct-level maps, seems like Nipomo was fairly close in the election).

A couple WaPo articles on the emerging legal marijuana industry and the role of minorities within them. The first one has a very strong redlining feel to it: Battling the racial roadblocks to joining the legalized marijuana trade

So basically, "congrats black people, we won't lock you up for having marijuana anymore, but we're also going to make sure all the profits from selling it go to white people now".

Fortunately, there's good news from some places that are making an effort to make sure everyone can be involved in the industry: Some cities, states help minorities enter marijuana industry

Oh yeah, I mean I won't say a part of me isn't deeply proud of that. I'm 36 and I remember how it used to be. It's weird whenever I talk to people ten or more years younger than me who have no idea. It's like they're untainted in some way, just the notion that "Well he's gay" even could be meaningful is foreign to them. Whereas to me it's a serious proposition that had to be rejected because it was stupid and hateful. But it had to be rejected precisely because it was seriously proposed. They only know that through the lens of ridicule; they didn't have teachers giving them little lectures about how disgusting gay people were. I did. They didn't joke about how stupid those teachers were while smoking behind the bikeshed and feel rebellious doing so. I did.

The world will be a better place when there's nobody like me around, Which is a weird way to feel. Nevertheless: Leo Varadkar remains a ****ing ****, and I feel proud to have agitated for his right to be considered a ****ing **** entirely separately from the fact of his sexuality. I can be proud of our gay Taoiseach at the same time that I'm annoyed at our absolute ****ing **** of a Taoiseach.

1) Have we heard from rjoe in a while?

2) Would a thread examining the merits and downsides of a temporary ban (~10 years) on whites voting be interesting?

1) Not that I've seen.

2) I don't know if Alex Jones or whoever could even make up something that liberals talk about more likely to hand Trump the 2020 election.

Political geography is a thing and ldo goes beyond red state/blue state or North and South. There are surely some rare exceptions but ~15 miles outside of any American city with > 500k people is pretty Trumpy everywhere.

Once you cross the threshold past the ~50th largest cities in the country, you can even find some Trumpy cities, particularly in the Rust Belt like Fort Wayne and Erie and Wheeling along with more predictable places like Amarillo and Birmingham AL. But it was the former (the Rust Belt cities with populations between 50k - 200k) that saw decent flips from Obama --> Trump which were ultimately the difference between winning and losing. It was one of the stories the media sort of got right in the lead-up to the election was to do those "fly a reporter into Youngstown or Montgomery County Ohio and talk to aggrieved whites" since the GOP has always done well with exurban and rural voters in America's hinterland but it was the medium size rust belt towns are where Trump actually flipped people or animated turnout the GOP wasn't formerly getting. That was basically Ground Zero for Trump, the places that are literally 'Trumpy' instead of simply perpetually on lockdown for the GOP.

I think I mentioned Corvallis and looking it up Clinton won by 28 points in Benton County Oregon. Population of the whole county is 86k. It's a farming area. There's a hippie element, but it's a real farming area, not like Mendicino or something where there are a lot of 2nd homes and retired people from SF.

...so the difference really was the economically anxious rust belters? That + low Dem turnout I suppose.

Does anyone know the most granular House election results available? Everyone always talks about gerrymandering, but the one thing I've never seen is someone create a purely algorithmic redistributing and apply the actual D vs R results to estimate the effects of gerrymandering vs just natural clustering from liberals moving to big cities versus conservatives being spread around. I'm just wondering if that's because the data doesn't exist or if no one has thought to do it, or if my googling has failed me and is floating around out there. I think the ideal level would be results for every census tract, I believe that's the minimum level redistributing takes place at

Dood, that's a dense paragraph.

I've seen stuff about computer-generated house districts before, and looking for it I found this article that appears to be precisely what you're looking for: https://priceonomics.com/algorithm-t...errymandering/

Unfortunately, it appears computers are not our savior here:

It's not about representing the popular vote to 100% accuracy. It's about creating an objective system that gets it close and can't be gamed to create imbalances. If your objective system flops a little to one side or another every now and then, that's ok as long as it's not inherently biased.

Which means republicans get ****ed compared to their current massive gaming, so it's gonna be a hard sell.

Interesting, that's precisely what I was looking for. Would like to see a larger sample size though, and updated to reflect the results of the 2010 redistricting. North Carolina right now, for example, has a 10-3 R/D split while taking by my count ~56% of the vote. So obviously the current districts do a terrible job of reflecting the state wide popular vote. Would definitely be interested to see what would happen if you could do it for the entire country, if the data was there. And obviously overall the Republicans are significantly over represented in total too