But there’s also something really weird about Trump’s campaign: he’s raised $126 million since inauguration, but spent $75 million. He seems to be tapping out big donors and spending money on… crap.
Might be the rallies. No president has been doing campaign rallies for reelection as soon/early as Trump has.
Speaking of which, is POTUS (not just Trump, but Bush, Obama, etc.) allowed to use Air Force One for personal reelection campaigning travel purposes, unlimited?
Right, but the OP-linked article wasn’t about how many Trump voters there are in Seattle (there would be over 20%, of course,) but rather that Trumpers are becoming more publicly open about it.
Yeah a silly thesis. Publicly open because they made itemized donations that don’t allow not saying who is donating?
This is a polarized time. Lots donating to Dems running to be president in 2020 (divided up among many) and lots donating to the GOP presidential nominee (divided up among the one).
Nothing there that supports more are more open about it. Reporting a donation is not advertising it.
Yeah. The article is silly on its face. He’s President. That normalizes donating to him. He’s also the only real R to donate to.
The author should be embarrassed.
I don’t know where your 110% claim comes from, but the 100% for any candidate is easily recognized. Thanks to gerrymandering at the precinct level, there are precincts in several places where the supporters of various candidates have been sequestered in single precincts. A race in which multiple precincts all voted 100% for a single candidate handing that candidate the election would be quite suspicious. In an election in which a few scattered precincts voted 100% one way, the only fraud is the probability that the state legislature set it up that way to keep all of their opponents “locked” into a single precinct with negligible results.
When Trump does it, it’s because he is bring the True American Voice to the people, and showing them how to be proud. For Trump is the Only True Leader, and a Great Statesman.
If Obama, BushII, Clinton, BushI, Reagan, Carter or Ford had done this, it would have been an insult to the good people of this country and a reason to impeach.
Simple, really.
Rich guy votes for politician who transferred a big chunk of his tax burden down onto the penny stinkards! Film at 11!
Not at all, Most likely a lot of the money just went straight on into Trump’s pocket. Contrary to your accusation, he’s spent in on Donald Trump himself not on…
Oh wait, never mind you were right the first time.
I live on the Seattle Eastside. There are plenty of bumper stickers, lawn signs, etc that go for Trump. In companies such as Microsoft, there are plenty of overtly almost in your face Trump supporters*. And there are tons of 0.1%, retired congress critters, etc here.
Just anecdotally I call bullshit on the fear factor and hiding beliefs.
[One really cracks me up. Winds up the manager, a never Trumper, by occasionally interjecting a “your President” into the conversation with said manager. ]
It’s not totally unlimited, since the campaign has to pay, but it’s practically unlimited since the reimbursement rate is based off of commercial airfares rather than the cost of using the plane.
Why would precincts be gerrymandered like that on purpose? Who cares how many precincts each party has? Precincts are so small that they don’t need to be gerrymandered to get that kind of result. Segregation means that there are plenty of precinct-sized neighborhoods that are completely demographically homogeneous.
It is not a matter of how many precincts are held by each party.
The claim was that only fraud could result in 100% vote for any candidate but when drawing legislative districts, it is possible (if rare) to draw the lines so that a particular precinct is wholly supportive of a single candidate. At the local level, that can determine control of city councils or county commissions.
I doubt that such gerrymandering would affect legislative districts, but that is not the only goal in mind for TPTB.
Ignoring the fact that humans are humans and will have differing opinions…
Note that when Martin Selig moved to Seattle, and most of his early life (enforced until the 1968) most neighborhoods in Seattle had Racial Restrictive Covenants
Here is a random example of racist restrictions that are still on many peoples deeds up there.
As “racial tension” was largely responsible for Trump’s election it is not surprising to find that same issue in Seattle.
Also note Harold Covington and others were in the area and actual Neo-Nazis and White separatists have been attracted to the PNW for a very long time.
There are also some very small precincts. Dixville Notch hasn’t been unanimous since 1960 (9-0 for Nixon), but there may well be some similarly-small precincts that aren’t as famous (because they don’t return their tallies until the usual time), and maybe one or two of those was unanimous for Obama.
But of course, the onus is on pool to tell us which one he was thinking of.
Tempe Jeff is probably referring to this.
Several Philly precincts went 100% to Obama in 2012. Contrary to conspiracy theories, this is not at all statistically unlikely. Click the link to read all about it.
I left the West Coast before the 2016 election, but what I recall was that despite Washington, Oregon, and California being blue, there were islands of red, and when I mean “red,” I mean, like, Oklahoma red – maybe redder in some cases. The antipathy that conservatives out West have toward liberals is intense. Trump actually won in 2016, which probably validated not only Trump the presidential candidate, but it also validated their own intensely anti-immigrant, anti-diversity, fuck-the-poor worldview. No surprise that the quiet Trump supporters in 2016 are coming out now and doubling down.
Outside of New England (and Hawai’i), every state has large areas that are as Republican as Oklahoma.
It’s also the case that cities in general vote for Democrats even in red states - for instance Tamerlane suggested earlier in this thread that it wouldn’t have been surprising for Hillary Clinton to have gotten a third of the vote in Dallas. Except that it would, because it’s been a Democratic stronghold for a long time! She got 60% of the vote in Dallas County and an even higher proportion of the vote from the city proper (the county contains some more conservative suburbs also). The whole red state/blue state thing really elides the actual political geography of the US, which has a lot more to do with urban/suburban/rural voting patterns.
And it doesn’t take much of a “city” for this to occur. Rural, heavily Republican areas all over the country are peppered with tiny Democratic precincts (or at least pale pink rather than the deep red of the surrounding area) at the core of the local county seat.
There are pockets of red in blue states and pockets of blue in red states. Shall we conclude that a Warren sign in San Antonio is a sign of a 50 state Democratic win? As sweet as that would be, I’m afraid the answer is no.