Sort of OT, but it's interesting to consider that on the net, Prop 187 might have actually been a positive thing for non Americans: better benefits for immigrants will generally lead to further restrictions on immigration, since the cost per immigrant goes up (and people complain about "immigrants stealing American tax dollars").
Sure, having benefits is nice, but most illegal immigrants aren't coming to the US for the benefits, so if their options are "less are allowed, but the ones that are allowed get benefits", and "more are allowed, but no benefits", almost all non-Americans would chose the second (because America even without benefits would be a massive increase in their quality of life [0]).
[0] - Or it wouldn't be a increase in quality of life, in which they wouldn't come either way. I just have a hard time thinking of many people (compared to the size of the "always better" and "always worse" groups) whose quality of life in America without benefits would be worse relative to their home country, but better than their home country if given benefits (those that are normally given to Americans) in America.
59-41 is an 18% swing, and would be considered an overwhelming majority in most political endeavors. Both modern and contemporaneous accounts of that particular election refer to the results as such, but feel free to attach whatever modifier you wish.
Idk. For me, if I had 20 friends, and 12 agreed to do something, I wouldn’t say they “overwhelmingly agree”. I’d just say a majority. But politics is on a much bigger scale.
Your friends are more likely to agree with you (and each other) on things because that's one of the reasons you're friends. I can think of very few things, other than the basics like "murder is bad", that 58% of the general public agrees on.
