U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-31-2016, 03:42 PM
 
1,363 posts, read 1,724,504 times
Reputation: 976

Advertisements

I haven't seen this discussed much in the media but almost no one discusses how Black Americans have actually kept with the broader population growth rate in America while White Americans have not. In 1960, non-Hispanic White Americans made up 88.6% of the population while Black Americans made up 10.5% of the population. In 2015, non-Hispanic White Americans make up 62% of the population while Black Americans make up 13% of the population. The ratio of White Americans to Black Americans in 1960 was 8.4 White persons for every 1 Black person in America. It is now approximately 4.7 White person for every 1 Black person in America.

This generally explains why movements like Black Lives Matter today are far more powerful than movements like the Black Panthers were in the 60s and also why Black political concerns are given more coverage than they were back in the 60s. Republicans are eventually going to have to relent and expel the racism and white identity politics that is permeating the entire party. They simply don't have the numbers to keep this going.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-31-2016, 03:47 PM
 
2,136 posts, read 1,149,266 times
Reputation: 4370
Republicans are going to double down on stupid until the older end of their voting base dies off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2016, 04:05 PM
 
44,564 posts, read 43,091,728 times
Reputation: 14375
Quote:
Originally Posted by aridon View Post
Republicans are going to double down on stupid until the older end of their voting base dies off.
Depends on who. John Kasich did better with Blacks than most Republicans did. The question is this. What would be the rationale behind doubling down? What is the basis of your opinion? I don't ask to invalidate your opinion. I just want to get your insight on this. It might help me learn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2016, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Florida
2,233 posts, read 1,382,106 times
Reputation: 1855
Our nation always has changing demographics. Black percentage declined from 1790 to 1930 and has risen since (a large part due to immigration). Who knows what next century will bring.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2016, 04:11 PM
 
2,016 posts, read 2,885,254 times
Reputation: 1550
Black lives matters is powerful because of social networking sites like twitter, facebook & instagram.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2016, 04:22 PM
 
2,136 posts, read 1,149,266 times
Reputation: 4370
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
Depends on who. John Kasich did better with Blacks than most Republicans did. The question is this. What would be the rationale behind doubling down? What is the basis of your opinion? I don't ask to invalidate your opinion. I just want to get your insight on this. It might help me learn.
I would vote for Kaich from what I know if him. I'm a life long republican actually that is just tired of the direction of the party.

The issue with Republicans is that they have a very hard primary for non crazy folks to get through unscathed.

Most likely I see Trump losing, probably pretty big despite the latest attempt to throw the news cycle in disarray before the election. Liberal media right! LOL. Almost certainly a Republican Senate ploy in response to what happened to Bush many years ago. They will lose regardless but they are trying to save the down ballot ticket now. They do this by firing up the base with some hate towards Clinton because it is pretty hard to be excited for Trump.

Republicans will look at the reason they lost:

1. Borish / misogynist behavior
2. Lake of a mouth filter, he has said some pretty stupid things over the election
3. Policy has been all over the place, they rebooted the campaign, what? 3 times. If you search his actual thoughts on topics you'll see in the past he was actually quite left leaning and now right. Pretty similar to Romeny actually minus the woman problems. Romney like Trump had to move himself pretty far right to win over the primary voters. It is hard to come out of that and into general successfully.

Trump being Trump.

So what are they do to? Most likely I see them looking at Trump being the reason they lost to Clinton. Someone they really should beat. So they are going to double down and put / support people through the primary that are the opposite of Trump. Traditional, Christian, value focused etc.

They are going to continue to repeat the message they've been repeating and ignoring.

1. Spending cuts, never really talking about exactly what
2. Tax cuts, because they don't have much else
3. They will continue to try and scare the white people with immigrants and terrorism.

That is how they rammed through the Patriot act and are now talking about stop and frisk type policies. Small government my rear end. They don't really have any other policies. I mean they will talk about "strong military" and "free market" when in actually our military is already incredibly strong and in many cases our markets are anything buy free. They have become a party of sound bytes and little substance. They have no real policy anymore to speak of, at least not anything that resembles fixing actual problems. They simply are obstructing because there is nothing left for them.

So this person, who i think will be more like Cruz than Kasich will run against Hillary in 4 years. They will likely lose short of Hillary shooting herself in the foot. Here is why. Trump is being supported by a number of moderate anti SJW that are simply honey mooning with the GOP right now. When they put forward their "values" candidate it will alienate that group big time as well as most moderates.

After this happens the GOP will realize they will be forced to abandon the extreme portions of the right and woo immigrants and people of color. Woman. Pull their policies out of the 1980's and put forth some ideas for shoring up social security and not being constipated by fear of spending some money on something other than tax cuts or war.

Until the GOP develops an actual platform besides the few sound bytes they have taught their audience to chirp they are destined to lose every national election.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2016, 04:27 PM
 
20,611 posts, read 12,278,864 times
Reputation: 5895
Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak View Post
I haven't seen this discussed much in the media but almost no one discusses how Black Americans have actually kept with the broader population growth rate in America while White Americans have not. In 1960, non-Hispanic White Americans made up 88.6% of the population while Black Americans made up 10.5% of the population. In 2015, non-Hispanic White Americans make up 62% of the population while Black Americans make up 13% of the population. The ratio of White Americans to Black Americans in 1960 was 8.4 White persons for every 1 Black person in America. It is now approximately 4.7 White person for every 1 Black person in America.

This generally explains why movements like Black Lives Matter today are far more powerful than movements like the Black Panthers were in the 60s and also why Black political concerns are given more coverage than they were back in the 60s. Republicans are eventually going to have to relent and expel the racism and white identity politics that is permeating the entire party. They simply don't have the numbers to keep this going.
To be fair: "Hispanic" is a fake label since 50 years ago; MOST were counted as "white" and, a LOT of Latinos ARE "white", if talking race.

If we're gonna go there: this Bull Connor level white supremacist of 50 years ago would be a "Hispanic" in 2016 even tho he was of full Spanish family.

Leander Perez: Boss of the Delta

Too: more and more mixed "Black" people; especially those with white skin, no longer claim being Black. That's also hurting the "Black" population count.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2016, 04:58 PM
 
1,363 posts, read 1,724,504 times
Reputation: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan View Post
To be fair: "Hispanic" is a fake label since 50 years ago; MOST were counted as "white" and, a LOT of Latinos ARE "white", if talking race.

If we're gonna go there: this Bull Connor level white supremacist of 50 years ago would be a "Hispanic" in 2016 even tho he was of full Spanish family.

Leander Perez: Boss of the Delta

Too: more and more mixed "Black" people; especially those with white skin, no longer claim being Black. That's also hurting the "Black" population count.
You know damn well that the Hispanic label is just another way of saying "Mestizo" without using that archaic and offensive term. Almost no one is thinking of White Americans who are of Iberian heritage when the term Hispanic is used.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2016, 05:03 PM
 
44,564 posts, read 43,091,728 times
Reputation: 14375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan View Post
To be fair: "Hispanic" is a fake label since 50 years ago; MOST were counted as "white" and, a LOT of Latinos ARE "white", if talking race.

If we're gonna go there: this Bull Connor level white supremacist of 50 years ago would be a "Hispanic" in 2016 even tho he was of full Spanish family.

Leander Perez: Boss of the Delta

Too: more and more mixed "Black" people; especially those with white skin, no longer claim being Black. That's also hurting the "Black" population count.
No one thought anything of Desi Arnaz being married to Lucille Ball. He would be counted as Hispanic today. Howe very, no such term was used in the 1950s.

Many Dominicans don't count themselves as Black despite looking Black. Sammy Sosa went as far as to straighten his hair and lighten his skin.

I know about Leander Perez. He has Canary Islander ancestry. He is basically White. You couldn't tell him from any other White southerner other than his last name.

Another example. The late Ted Williams of the Boston Red Sox. He had family from Mexico of Spanish and Basque descent on his mother's side of the family. He could technically claim Hispanic. However, that term didn't exist back then. If his mother's unnamed was his last nme, he would have suffered for it in Depression Era San Diego,CA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2016, 05:12 PM
 
1,800 posts, read 730,142 times
Reputation: 1413
Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak View Post
In 1960, non-Hispanic White Americans made up 88.6% of the population while Black Americans made up 10.5% of the population. In 2015, non-Hispanic White Americans make up 62% of the population while Black Americans make up 13% of the population. The ratio of White Americans to Black Americans in 1960 was 8.4 White persons for every 1 Black person in America. It is now approximately 4.7 White person for every 1 Black person in America.
Part of the decline in the white population is the introduction of the bogus "hispanic" concept. Its really an illusion.

In 1960, there was no such thing as a "hispanic". In the 70s-80s, they invented a new minority group out of thin air by arbitrarily grouping all persons of spanish-speaking origin into one statistical demographic.

Before then, most spanish speaking or spanish origin people were white.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top