• buttnugget@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Sorry about that. I was being cheeky but serious. Here it is in English:

    They’re talking about Republicans/right wingers who complain when a mostly red looking map (Republican won counties) doesn’t result in a Republican victory. It’s the whole “people live in cities” joke.

    So what happens is, these folks look at a map of the US that’s divided into counties and they see these enormous swaths of red, but a Democrat has won, and they—100% in earnest—say that it’s evidence that the election is stolen. That’s why we respond with “land doesn’t vote” and “people live in cities”.

    Does that make more sense?

    • Krauerking@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Yup yup!

      The maps are as misleading as a Verizon coverage map. And Kornacki at the board saying it really only matters for the counties that have millions of votes vs all the tiny counties that come in immediately cause they have 10,000 people living there.

      I think the problem is that we have accept these counties do matter though. A state being 3 blue and the rest red even if it’s where everyone lives is blue means that the land is voting. Very heavily too. And stuff like electoral votes being so many for this less populated land means we have to take it into account. So losing 1,000 battles but losing the war sounds like losing to me.