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.
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.
Lol, but nowhere near a majority of Asians are Republicans. 65% voted for Clinton, while only 29% voted for Trump. Obama got 73% of their vote. Just face the facts, the GOP is the party of mostly white men and white women who are married to Republican white men.
Lol, but nowhere near a majority of Asians are Republicans. 65% voted for Clinton, while only 29% voted for Trump. Obama got 73% of their vote. Just face the facts, the GOP is the party of mostly white men and white women who are married to Republican white men.
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.
The growth in the sunbelt is great deal of retirees seeking better weather and young professionals starting a family in states where its easier to buy a house and a better business climate, alot of corporate relocation as well.
Blue states pretty much across the board have terrible out-migration numbers and low fertility rates especially in white metro blue areas , red states are where people are moving to.
The white college vote has been solidly trump and romney and republican and has been for a long time, by a large margin all over the country for college educated white men and even with college educated white women
White men went 63 percent for Trump versus 31 percent for Clinton, and white women went 53-43 percent. Among college-educated whites, only 39 percent of men and 51 percent of women voted for Clinton
Trump won Wisconsin with less votes than Romney lost it with, that shows that at least in that state, it was more about Democrats staying home and voting 3rd Party than it was voting for Republicans
You could argue the same in Michigan and Pennsylvania, although there is a case to be made for flipped votes there, but they are votes that can easily be won back.
Minnesota is the same as Wisconsin, as close as it was, Trump didnt gain votes, Clinton lost them to Stein and Johnson. Trump had 2,000 more votes than Romney.
As for Virginia and Nevada, You seem to have it backwards, both states have turned from red to blue, they are getting bluer, not redder.
Nevada in a year where it was split for Democrats in the primary , somehow elected 3 Democrats to the House and replaced one in the senate and won the swing state senate district to give Dems control of the State Senate.
Same is true in Virginia has voted more Democratic than the nation for the last couple of cycles and even in a down year comparatively, Democrats were able to flip a congressional seat there.
Trumps presidency(or rather a second term) is conditional of Democrats staying home or voting 3rd party.
If the 2020 candidate can keep Colorado, Virginia, and Nevada, and simply get the people who voted 3rd party to come back home, then he has to play defense in other states.
Alot of those Johnson independents are probably republican voters , perot did that and hurt bush but I dont see the Democrat party gaining much from independent voters with its poor leadership
I really think Virginia turning purple had alot to do with immigration into northern virginia, places like fairfax county where half the kids in fairfax schools speak a language other than english at home, and alot of Democrat leaning government workers in Virginia that could change very quickly with a republican dominated government.
Virginia is a red state in my opinion in the future
It feels they should focus on the whites who voted for 3rd party candidates, Jill Stein obviously. Move to the left, they say to appeal to the Sanders/Stein crew and all will be well. Essentially, abandon the Rust Belt in favor of the West and Rockies.
This has been going on for years. Leftists long ago realized that Americans would never support them so they focused on importing voters who would. This is the path the NY Times should be taken.
What doesn't seem to don on them is that the Sanders/Stein wing of the party lost. Even though the DNC did actively work against Sanders, Hillary, the more centrist Democrat candidate of the two, won the primaries against Sanders fair and square, and by every measure. More individual votes, more delegates, and more states. Sanders was soundly rejected BY DEMOCRATS..... The answer isn't to tac even further in that direction.
The NYT piece also makes the mistake of assuming that all those whites who voted for 3rd party candidates would have voted for the Democrat.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 02-23-2017 at 01:55 AM..
When Trump is off the scene, everything will go back the way it was before he won.
Maybe, maybe not.
What's clear, is that if you are white, the Democrat Party has zero use for you unless you are one of these guilt ridden, self loathing, ashamed-of-your-own-skin whites.
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.
