Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your paper sounds great if you are trying to impress your liberal professor. I think you should keep it for your next semester. Your theories sound great, but you can't account for the changing world. there are MANY older voters who vote democrat, and that is a big reason why Florida is a swing state. Those older white democratic voters are also dying off. Also, as Al Sharpton and others continue their racially charged agenda, most people see right through that. There are many bi-racial and other ethnicities which are independents and won't be swayed by lip service. People want to get ahead in life, and everyone knows that GOP policies are better for wealthy citizens. So, WHY would a dreamer want to vote for policies which are detrimental to their success? If someone wants to move up in the world then they should vote for policies which will help them succeed not stay poor. Don't give me a free handout, I WANT AN OPPORTUNITY!
I didn't make up the data points, pal. I'm an old Democrat, but my vote will be replaced. The Dems aren't dependent on the geriatric vote. The Repugs are. If you can find anything statistically to support your position, or to in any way refute the points I made in my post, other than blind faith, have at it.
With regards to wealth, if you rank the states based upon per capita household income, 15 of the 18 Blue Wall states that have voted for Democrats since 1992 fall within the upper half of states. Six Red states make the top 25 and the remainder of the top 25 are Purple States. Of the bottom half of states in household income, 17 are Republican states, 3 are Blue states and 5 are Purple. Household income is closely related to educational attainment. If you rank the states by the percentage of residents with advanced degrees, 16 of the 18 Blue Wall states are in the upper half. Of the bottom half of states in advanced educational attainment, 18 are Red States, 1 is a Blue State and 6 are Purple.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 01-04-2015 at 04:08 PM..
I didn't make up the data points, pal. I'm an old Democrat, but my vote will be replaced. The Dems aren't dependent on the geriatric vote. The Repugs are. If you can find anything statistically to support your position, or to in any way refute the points I made in my post, other than blind faith, have at it.
With regards to wealth, if you rank the states based upon per capita household income, 15 of the 18 Blue Wall states that have voted for Democrats since 1992 fall within the upper half of states. Six Red states make the top 25 and the remainder of the top 25 are Purple States. Of the bottom half of states in household income, 17 are Republican states, 3 are Blue states and 5 are Purple. Household income is closely related to educational attainment. If you rank the states by the percentage of residents with advanced degrees, 16 of the 18 Blue Wall states are in the upper half. Of the bottom half of states in advanced educational attainment, 18 are Red States, 1 is a Blue State and 6 are Purple.
I'm not disputing your facts or stats. There is a difference between watching a football game and just reading the box scores looking for key stats. there are a lot of intangibles that you are missing out on. Florida is a perfect example. Notice how the dems are always trying to scare senior citizens about medicare and other issues? They wouldn't waste their time if they thought that all old white people voted for repubs. Your previous statement is true... once a trend sets in, most people will vote the same party for life. Do you realize how many old dems WERE keeping the party afloat? What do you think has happened in the south??? There is no way that you can explain the fact that old white dems are not voting for dems in the south. In fact, most white people are not voting for dems. The dems have started a race war, and now whites are moving to the other side!
I'm not disputing your facts or stats. There is a difference between watching a football game and just reading the box scores looking for key stats. there are a lot of intangibles that you are missing out on. Florida is a perfect example. Notice how the dems are always trying to scare senior citizens about medicare and other issues? They wouldn't waste their time if they thought that all old white people voted for repubs. Your previous statement is true... once a trend sets in, most people will vote the same party for life. Do you realize how many old dems WERE keeping the party afloat? What do you think has happened in the south??? There is no way that you can explain the fact that old white dems are not voting for dems in the south. In fact, most white people are not voting for dems. The dems have started a race war, and now whites are moving to the other side!
You're way too focused on the South. The 2016 election won't be decided there, unless the Democrats take Florida and North Carolina. The GOP can't afford to lose them because they have too few other paths to reach 270 electoral votes. If the GOP is unable to flip some of the states that the D's have carried for 6 straight elections and they also lose Florida, it's game, set, match. They've lost. But if the D's sweep the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, the Upper Midwest and the Left Coast, they win, without a single Southern state.
The South is distinctively different from the rest of the country. It's the one area in the country where the white vote is as racially polarized as the minority vote. In 2012, Obama's share of the non-college white vote dropped from 40% in 2008 to an all time low of 36%, but if you look at the regional breakdown of the vote there were significant differences. In the South, Obama received an abysmal 24% of the white non-college vote. He received 37% in the West, 43% in the Northeast and 44% in the Midwest. I think I remember that Obama actually carried the white vote in 13 states, because he performed better with college-educated whites. To get an idea of how the total and the white electorate has changed and continues to change, in 1988 non-college white voters represented 54% of all voters and 64% of all white voters. By 2020, it is estimated that white non-college voters will only represent 30% of the total vote and 44% of the white vote. I think I read where non-college whites represent about 39% of the total vote now, but I can't find it at the moment.
As far as old Dems keeping the Dems afloat, the Grim Reaper comes for us all. But when you consider that the Dems are racially balanced whereas nearly 90% of the R votes come from whites and the white population is much older than the minority population, it's a much bigger problem for the Republicans.
As far as a race war being declared by the Democrats, i guess I missed reading the Declaration. You can probably find a few on this site on the extreme Right that might agree with you, but you'll probably get more support on the forums on American Renaissance or Storm Front.
With the white vote continuing to fall, the GOP is either going to have to improve their performance with non-whites, or hope that the white vote nationally becomes so racially polarized that whites in Michigan and Minnesota start voting like folks in Mississippi.
In fact, most white people are not voting for dems. The dems have started a race war, and now whites are moving to the other side!
^ this is a proven fact. Mitt Romney won 70% of the White vote. Studies have proven that 60% of Whites will always vote for the GOP candidate, Romney exceeded that by 10%.
^ this is a proven fact. Mitt Romney won 70% of the White vote. Studies have proven that 60% of Whites will always vote for the GOP candidate, Romney exceeded that by 10%.
You're way too focused on the South. The 2016 election won't be decided there, unless the Democrats take Florida and North Carolina. The GOP can't afford to lose them because they have too few other paths to reach 270 electoral votes. If the GOP is unable to flip some of the states that the D's have carried for 6 straight elections and they also lose Florida, it's game, set, match. They've lost. But if the D's sweep the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, the Upper Midwest and the Left Coast, they win, without a single Southern state.
The South is distinctively different from the rest of the country. It's the one area in the country where the white vote is as racially polarized as the minority vote. In 2012, Obama's share of the non-college white vote dropped from 40% in 2008 to an all time low of 36%, but if you look at the regional breakdown of the vote there were significant differences. In the South, Obama received an abysmal 24% of the white non-college vote. He received 37% in the West, 43% in the Northeast and 44% in the Midwest. I think I remember that Obama actually carried the white vote in 13 states, because he performed better with college-educated whites. To get an idea of how the total and the white electorate has changed and continues to change, in 1988 non-college white voters represented 54% of all voters and 64% of all white voters. By 2020, it is estimated that white non-college voters will only represent 30% of the total vote and 44% of the white vote. I think I read where non-college whites represent about 39% of the total vote now, but I can't find it at the moment.
As far as old Dems keeping the Dems afloat, the Grim Reaper comes for us all. But when you consider that the Dems are racially balanced whereas nearly 90% of the R votes come from whites and the white population is much older than the minority population, it's a much bigger problem for the Republicans.
As far as a race war being declared by the Democrats, i guess I missed reading the Declaration. You can probably find a few on this site on the extreme Right that might agree with you, but you'll probably get more support on the forums on American Renaissance or Storm Front.
With the white vote continuing to fall, the GOP is either going to have to improve their performance with non-whites, or hope that the white vote nationally becomes so racially polarized that whites in Michigan and Minnesota start voting like folks in Mississippi.
You make some good points. But, you assume that the dems will SWEEP a lot of states where they just lost badly in the mid-terms. Now, I know that presidential elections are different, but it's a whole new ballgame in 2016. The dems won't have a new all-star to rally behind. If everyone loved Hillary so much then she would have won the dem primary in 2008. Don't you think that Obama had so much hype that many people voted for him just because he was new, hip, cool, black, etc.? Do you think that the GOP winning elections in Maryland, NC, and Florida was telling. Those were supposed to be shoe-ins for the dems. Also, look at who the GOP actually voted in. White women, black women, etc. So, Hillary can try to play the war on women, but voters in those states know better. The degree of difficulty for the dems to turn things around is very high. You can put on a happy face, but I don't think dems are as optimistic.
And that national figure is distorted by the massive Republican vote in the South. In 2012 there were 23 states in which Romney reached or exceeded 59%, meaning there were more states below the national average than above it. Included in the 23 was every former Confederate state, led by Mississippi, where 89% of whites voted for Romney, followed by 84% in both Alabama and Louisiana, followed by Georgia (76%), South Carolina (73%), Texas (73%) and Oklahoma (71%) and 16 more states ranging from 59% to 69%. All of these states were carried by Romney with the exceptions of Florida and Virginia where Romney received 61% of the white vote but lost to Obama.
You make some good points. But, you assume that the dems will SWEEP a lot of states where they just lost badly in the mid-terms. Now, I know that presidential elections are different, but it's a whole new ballgame in 2016. The dems won't have a new all-star to rally behind. If everyone loved Hillary so much then she would have won the dem primary in 2008. Don't you think that Obama had so much hype that many people voted for him just because he was new, hip, cool, black, etc.? Do you think that the GOP winning elections in Maryland, NC, and Florida was telling. Those were supposed to be shoe-ins for the dems. Also, look at who the GOP actually voted in. White women, black women, etc. So, Hillary can try to play the war on women, but voters in those states know better. The degree of difficulty for the dems to turn things around is very high. You can put on a happy face, but I don't think dems are as optimistic.
We can agree to disagree. I never said that a Dem victory in 2016 was a sure thing, only that until we have evidence that we are entering a new era of Presidential politics, I expect that we'll see a result within the parameters we have come to expect since 1992; meaning a result ranging from a nail biter Republican win of less than 300 EV to a Democratic win of 360 or less. I think the GOP sweep in 2014 actually makes an R win in 2016 less likely than it would be otherwise because of the possibility of total control of the Federal Government by one party. I think that a Republican could win in 2016, but I have faith in the Republican Primary voters to either pick a nominee too far to the right to win in enough Purple states, or at least to cause the nominee to paint himself so far to the right to get the nomination, he can't regain the middle in the general election like that "severe conservative" Mitt Romney did. It should be fun to watch anyway.
It will also be interesting to see if we'll continue to have two trends moving in different directions that we have now which is for Republicans to have the most success at the state legislative and House levels than they have had since Herbert Hoover and at the same time struggle to win Presidential elections. In his Alamanac of American Politics, Michael Barone credits both events to the tendency of Democrats to cluster themselves in densely populated districts, which make it difficult to win a majority at the House level and at the same time, helps them win key states repeatedly in Presidential races. Only time will tell.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 01-05-2015 at 09:33 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your theories sound great, but you can't account for the changing world. there are MANY older voters who vote democrat, and that is a big reason why Florida is a swing state. Those older white democratic voters are also dying off. 
Also, as Al Sharpton and others continue their racially charged agenda, most people see right through that. There are many bi-racial and other ethnicities which are independents and won't be swayed by lip service. People want to get ahead in life, and everyone knows that GOP policies are better for wealthy citizens. So, WHY would a dreamer want to vote for policies which are detrimental to their success? If someone wants to move up in the world then they should vote for policies which will help them succeed not stay poor. Don't give me a free handout, I WANT AN OPPORTUNITY! 
Don't you think that Obama had so much hype that many people voted for him just because he was new, hip, cool, black, etc.? Do you think that the GOP winning elections in Maryland, NC, and Florida was telling. Those were supposed to be shoe-ins for the dems. Also, look at who the GOP actually voted in. White women, black women, etc. So, Hillary can try to play the war on women, but voters in those states know better. The degree of difficulty for the dems to turn things around is very high. You can put on a happy face, but I don't think dems are as optimistic.
