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.
Wrong. The percentage non-white barely moved 2012-2016. The realty is BO vastly spiked black voter turnout-which was an aberration. The Rust Belt Reagan Dems came home, and that belt has not diversified in demographics to the extent CaliMexico has. Nor will it diversify. Acela Belt plus West Coast <270 and after the next census, 10 less than 2016.
Your party must nominate someone who can credibly demonstrate being against NAFTA, TPP, and other one-sided deals credibly, which means losing Wall St as a big donor. The Rust Belt will no doubt stay livid at those dismissive of Blue Collar, non college grad populations. Rust Belt plus Red Wall, as you saw this year, has 3 dozen ECs to spare, close to 4 dozen post census EC shift.
Try Trumping that.
That's total bull**** Bob. The percentage of white vote continued to fall in 2016 to 71%. Trump was able to reduce the falloff from 2012, but not reverse it, because nothing can. It's the Grim Reaper at work. You can count on that percentage dropping to somewhere between 67-70% in 2020 with all of the decline in white non-college. As far as the growth of electoral votes of Red States is concerned, that might help the GOP in the short run, but virtually all of that growth is in minority voters. Look at the kids in grade school in the Sunbelt. Those are your future voters.
As far as NAFTA, TPP or tariffs are concerned, the overall effect of building trade barriers is far more likely to negatively affect more voters than it helps. What percentage of voters might trade barriers help? 10%, 20%?
Only a relatively few voters would benefit from those policies. Everybody else, as consumers, would be hurt by higher prices for goods and services, and they vote too.
The poster I was responding to made the comment that with Trump's victory the GOP could rule for the next 50 years. I was merely pointing out that you can't depend on an unprecedented period of dominance by counting on dominating the one demographic (white non-college) that is dropping like clockwork. The GOP has to expand their base to have sustained success. If the Dems can maintain between 35-39% of the white non-Hispanic vote, which they can do by breaking even with white college, and maintain their current edges with minority groups, they should remain competitive at the national level, even if they don't win back white non-college. This isn't the Reagan Era, and the impact of those blue collar non-college voters is going to continue to fall as their percentage of total registrations falls.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 02-22-2017 at 07:12 PM..
That's total bull**** Bob. The percentage of white vote continued to fall in 2016 to 71%. Trump was able to reduce the falloff from 2012, but not reverse it, because nothing can. It's the Grim Reaper at work. You can count on that percentage dropping to somewhere between 67-70% in 2020. As far as the growth of electoral votes of Red States is concerned, that might help the GOP in the short run, but virtually all of that growth is in minority voters. Look at the kids in grade school in the Sunbelt. Those are your future voters.
.
No it's not, as IMO we witnessed the first of more frequent EC wins w/o the popular vote. The white fallout is much smaller in the Rust Belt and the Red Wall Southeast margins are huge. That makes the latter resistant to white voter %s falling, and as for the Rust Belt, all GOP needs is 1 of Pa, Michigan, or Wisconsin. Easily doable, as given 2016, NAFTA, TPP, etc will stay front and center.
While I like your stats, Conway said it best. We have 51 individual elections, and we both know the Rust Belt demographics will not change as the coasts do.
Plus the census Red State change is an annuity. We pick up many seats every 10 years. Folks leave the Acela Belt to take advantage of lower COL, better climate, easier way of life.
No it's not, as IMO we witnessed the first of more frequent EC wins w/o the popular vote. The white fallout is much smaller in the Rust Belt and the Red Wall Southeast margins are huge. That makes the latter resistant to white voter %s falling, and as for the Rust Belt, all GOP needs is 1 of Pa, Michigan, or Wisconsin. Easily doable, as given 2016, NAFTA, TPP, etc will stay front and center.
While I like your stats, Conway said it best. We have 51 individual elections, and we both know the Rust Belt demographics will not change as the coasts do.
Plus the census Red State change is an annuity. We pick up many seats every 10 years. Folks leave the Acela Belt to take advantage of lower COL, better climate, easier way of life.
But once again, the poster I was responding to was talking about a possible 50 year period of dominance for the GOP, which is a ridiculous claim for either party. In the short term, the GOP could try to continue to ride white non-college resentment to victory, but as a long term strategy it has its limitations. Eventually the GOP will have to expand their share of white college and minorities because non-college whites will continue to fall, even in the Rust Belt, and the protectionism argument isn't likely to be a long term winning policy with a majority of voters as that blue collar voter bloc continues to fade. Even in the Rust Belt, check out the difference in the white college and white non-college vote. Also, in the long term, and the poster in question was talking about success in the very long term, the population changes in the Sun Belt are likely to gradually change the voting patterns in those states.
I do agree with you about the probability of more POTUS elections where the winner in the EC loses the popular vote. As long as Cali and NY are going D by 60+% and it's not being counterbalanced by similarly lopsided wins in populous states like Texas (which is probable because most of the growth in the Sunbelt is minority), it might be tough to win the pop vote, but easier to prevail in the EC.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 02-22-2017 at 08:23 PM..
But once again, the poster I was responding to was talking about a possible 50 year period of dominance for the GOP, which is a ridiculous claim for either party. In the short term, the GOP could try to ride white non-college resentment to victory, but as a long term strategy it has its limitations. Eventually the GOP will have to expand their share of white college and minorities because non-college whites will continue to fall, even in the Rust Belt, and the protectionism argument isn't likely to be a long term winning policy with a majority of voters as that blue collar voter bloc continues to fade. Also, in the long term, the population changes in the Sun Belt are likely to gradually change the voting patterns in those states.
50 is absurd for either party. But 2016 showed a winning, new template. Rust Belt I warned you 8 months ago was DJT's path, and should scare the Dems who forgot the working class. They have become elitist snobs. I see no one on the horizon reasonably young, and willing to take on that fact. Until they do, they will lose some of Rust Belt every 4 years, and they have no margin for error.
Do not think this arrogance dismissing Rust Belt working class did not increase DJT's standing with the college educated like myself. I am a firm believer in education, but not in favor of touchdown dances on folks livelihoods, such as HRC's "We're gonna kill lots of coal-mining jobs". I am certain deep down Joe Biden abhors the attitude of his own party's elitist snobs. So does America, even the educated.
50 is absurd for either party. But 2016 showed a winning, new template. Rust Belt I warned you 8 months ago was DJT's path, and should scare the Dems who forgot the working class. They have become elitist snobs. I see no one on the horizon reasonably young, and willing to take on that fact. Until they do, they will lose some of Rust Belt every 4 years, and they have no margin for error.
Do not think this arrogance dismissing Rust Belt working class did not increase DJT's standing with the college educated like myself. I am a firm believer in education, but not in favor of touchdown dances on folks livelihoods, such as HRC's "We're gonna kill lots of coal-mining jobs". I am certain deep down Joe Biden abhors the attitude of his own party's elitist snobs. So does America, even the educated.
I don't see the arrogance in supporting free trade over protectionism. IMO,Trump promised things he can't possibly deliver. If he raises tariffs to protect or create some jobs in the Rust Belt, he's likely to do it on the backs of everybody else in the form of higher prices for goods and services, which is likely to inhibit demand rather than increase it. He told people what they wanted to hear and gave them someone to blame for their troubles. Time will tell if he can deliver.
For better or worse, Donald Trump has transformed the GOP. I agree with David Brooks and Chris Ladd on that. Whether over the long term that's a positive or a negative politically remains to be seen.
Reality: Regulations sharply decreased coal-mining jobs, faster than new energy sources added them. Dems love the regs, cause they hate coal miners, and look down on those w/o extra-ordinary levels of education.
Free Trade has simply become stock big boxes with cheap stuff. It has cost tens of millions of jobs. We import stuff costing 1/5th what we export and still manage trade deficits. Outside of cheap retail junk, there is no USA gain. Time to reset terms on the deals to insure we gain something, or else get out of them. (Even if we end up buying fewer items we don't need)
Last edited by BobNJ1960; 02-22-2017 at 09:03 PM..
We'll just have to wait to determine the long term political impact that gutting EPA regulations to help coal mine operators and raising barriers to trade to help some people in the Rust Belt have on the electorate at large. The people directly helped by such policies are likely to be dwarfed by those adversely affected.
Getting back to numbers again. If you want one number that's likely to be decisive in determining whether a state is red or blue, check the variance between the white college and white non-college vote. If the variance is negligible, the state is likely to be safely red. The larger the variance the more probable that the state is blue.
We'll just have to wait to determine the long term political impact that gutting EPA regulations to help coal mine operators and raising barriers to trade to help some people in the Rust Belt have on the electorate at large. The people directly helped by such policies are likely to be dwarfed by those adversely affected.
I challenge you to address the Dems biggest problem. Touchdown dances turn off other voters, too. The Dems love to do them, as they live for the Upper West Side elites, and it cost them Middle America, coast to coast.
Neither of the 2 biggest snobs politically in my life, Al Gore or Hillary Rotten Clinton, won anything nationally with their name at the top of the ticket. Deservedly. I enjoy the fact each had their ultimate wish squashed..as they deserved to.
White working people aren't the only problem the Democrats have. The Democrat Party already has a problem with anyone who works for a living, not just white people. That is going to get worse; demographics are not working in favor of Democrats. As minority communities become more upwardly mobile, they too are seeing the light and rejecting identity politics. A large number of Asians already have. If (and I believe WHEN) Trump improves the economic situation of Hispanics and African Americans, the Democrat Party is done for at least a decade. I'm assuming the Democrats continue their endless temper tantrum and continue their trek to the far left. There is no evidence that Party is interested in moderation or reasonableness.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,558 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6042
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveToRow
White working people aren't the only problem the Democrats have. The Democrat Party already has a problem with anyone who works for a living, not just white people. That is going to get worse; demographics are not working in favor of Democrats. As minority communities become more upwardly mobile, they too are seeing the light and rejecting identity politics. A large number of Asians already have. If (and I believe WHEN) Trump improves the economic situation of Hispanics and African Americans, the Democrat Party is done for at least a decade.
You realize white working class is an identity right ???????
You are using and promoting the very same language you hate Democrats for doing, but i guess because it is focused on white people, it is ok.
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.
