(01-09-2019, 11:09 PM)Last42min Wrote: I don't care if you think it's dumb. You are not a critical thinker.

Of the last 7 elections, democrats have won the popular vote 5 times (Bush barely edged out Kerry and Bush Sr. beat Dukakis pretty handily, but that's going back to the Reagan era). So is it a trend or is it luck? Well, I'll give you a hint: if it wasn't a trend, Dems wouldn't be trying to change the electoral college. Urbanization among millennials, coupled with the tendency to adopt culture of an area (if not the parents, then the children), is going to lead to a growing gap between the popular and electoral vote, ultimately marginalizing the voice of conservatives. Sure, something could happen that would fundamentally change the Republican party, but it's far more likely the entire political system shifts left. I agree that the Senate is likely to remain red as a result of this same process, but how long until THAT needs to change, too? Politicians (and the elite) keep slowly trying to federalize the entirety of the US government. 

I am not a Republican. I'm Independent. Also, I don't care if you're a registered Republican. You are not conservative in almost any of your positions, psychologically or ideologically. If your pro-life conviction is so strong that you feel like you need to align yourself with the Republican party, then good on you for believing in something. However, you are not conservative by any other measure.

The popular vote totals up to now are meaningless.
Neither side is trying to win the popular vote.  I grant you that some Democrats who want to go to a national popular vote are doing this because they think it will help the Democratic party, in its current configuration, in the short-term. but those are the people who are not thinking critically. You're not thinking critically either.  

Trump made no effort to turn out votes in California. None. Yet he got more votes in California, in a losing effort, than he got in Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Utah, and Arizona combined. And Hillary made no effort in any of those states. It would be a totally different game with totally different strategies.

Both parties change pretty rapidly. And the state configurations change too. Illinois and Texas used to be swing States. Florida used to be solidly blue. Then it was solidly red, now it's a swing state. The 2016 primary process revealed that both parties had pretty deep internal divisions. they remain together because they had to: each of the 50 states only has one spot on their ballot for them. but if either party had actually split it would upset the whole apple cart of "urban equals Democrat" that you're complaining about.

---