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.
Midterm elections were very revealing. It showed that about 91 percent of Blacks voted for Democrats. Sounds like "Black people are warming to Trump" is a fallacy at this point.
Midterm elections were very revealing. It showed that about 91 percent of Blacks voted for Democrats. Sounds like "Black people are warming to Trump" is a fallacy at this point.
um... no one can vote for trump if he's not running.
Midterm elections were very revealing. It showed that about 91 percent of Blacks voted for Democrats. Sounds like "Black people are warming to Trump" is a fallacy at this point.
I bet 91 percent of Lutherans voted blue as well. It's not the color of one's skin, it's their ideas.
I'm Catholic but I know a lot of Lutherans in Minnesota, many of them business owners. You would think they would vote conservative but no, always Democrat.
I bet 91 percent of Lutherans voted blue as well. It's not the color of one's skin, it's their ideas.
I'm Catholic but I know a lot of Lutherans in Minnesota, many of them business owners. You would think they would vote conservative but no, always Democrat.
There are a considerable number of Catholics who vote Democrat as well. And while there are many Lutherans in Minnesota voting Democrat, Minnesota has two Republican states to its west, the Dakotas. Those two states have large Lutheran populations.
Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts have very large Catholic populations and are very liberal states. New Mexico has a big Catholic population. Alot of Democrats in that state.
And then Georgia, where I live, is a bastion of Baptists. Baptists are known for voting Republican in the South, with one exception. While most White Baptists vote Republican, most Black Baptists vote Democrat.
There are a considerable number of Catholics who vote Democrat as well. And while there are many Lutherans in Minnesota voting Democrat, Minnesota has two Republican states to its west, the Dakotas. Those two states have large Lutheran populations.
Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts have very large Catholic populations and are very liberal states. New Mexico has a big Catholic population. Alot of Democrats in that state.
And then Georgia, where I live, is a bastion of Baptists. Baptists are known for voting Republican in the South, with one exception. While most White Baptists vote Republican, most Black Baptists vote Democrat.
And of course, you do know why the Southern Baptist Convention even exists--and why only fairly recently have black southern Baptists been part of it.
But for the benefit of others:
From the time the first Baptist congregation in the US was established by Roger Williams (who was also the first American Abolitionist), Baptists in America had been anti-slavery. In fact, Baptists didn't even hire domestic servants.
As slaveowners in the south converted to Baptists (most slaveowning families had originally been Anglican), the church pressured them to give up their slaves. They were also restricted in various ways, such as not being permitted to be Baptist missionaries.
The slaveholding baptists in the south created the separate Southern Baptist Convention specifically so that they could be Baptists and keep their slaves.
And of course, you do know why the Southern Baptist Convention even exists--and why only fairly recently have black southern Baptists been part of it.
But for the benefit of others:
From the time the first Baptist congregation in the US was established by Roger Williams (who was also the first American Abolitionist), Baptists in America had been anti-slavery. In fact, Baptists didn't even hire domestic servants.
As slaveowners in the south converted to Baptists (most slaveowning families had originally been Anglican), the church pressured them to give up their slaves. They were also restricted in various ways, such as not being permitted to be Baptist missionaries.
The slaveholding baptists in the south created the separate Southern Baptist Convention specifically so that they could be Baptists and keep their slaves.
Doesn't surprise me at all. I think about the South's distinction as "the Bible Belt". And then I think about what you just said. Some group founded their own group so that they could continue what they wanted to do. And with Baptists there are different kinds. Black Baptist churches were founded under difference circumstances. The term "Baptist" refers to any kind of Baptist church. As for the history of the Southern Baptist Convention, it doesn't surprise me about wanting to keep slavery. The SBC itself has acknowledged that its foundation came from racist roots and wanting to keep slavery. They have since apologized for it. Its history does paint a picture of social stratification in the South.
Last edited by green_mariner; 11-17-2018 at 11:32 AM..
I recently posted on a thread regarding Trump calling for nationwide stop and frisk. Considering the racial profiling and violation of the 4th Amendment, I do not see an uptick of Black people supporting Trump anytime soon. I certainly will not support Trump.
90% blacks voted Dem in the midterms. Guess we know now that this thread was "fake news."
If anything they voted less Democrat than usual, though, which is particularly surprising given that the nation as a whole swung from R+1 to D+7 (8 points leftward). Consider that the Democrats won the House in 2018 by about the same margin they won the Presidency in 2008, and according to exit polls blacks voted significantly more Democrat in 2008 for President than they did in 2018 for House. So I think there is real movement toward Trump going on in the black electorate (at least relative to other races), likely for the reasons being cited by Trump supporters, but obviously they overhyped it to an extreme extent. Expecting the black vote to double for the Republicans in 2 years was never very realistic, and it was particularly unrealistic to expect such a thing at a time the nation as a whole was trending Democrat.
That said, I'm sure the Republicans could do substantially better among black voters if they built up infrastructure and presence in their communities and reached out to the blacks who are socially and economically conservative but vote Democrat for racial* or traditional reasons. This is hardly the majority of the black community (unlike what some conservatives fantasize) but their numbers are surely greater than the 5-10% that vote Republican, perhaps up to around 25%.
Personally I'm of the view that the immigrant groups (Hispanics and Asians) are much better targets long-term, considering that there are more of them than there are blacks, they're growing faster**, they're not as stubborn in voting habits, and they've demonstrated much more willingness to vote Republican in the past. Trump, for instance, got 3 times as much Hispanic support as black support, and Republicans actually won the Asian vote until relatively recently. Also Canadian conservatives demonstrate that winning the immigrant vote is feasible with the right strategy, while they still struggle mightily with blacks (though Rob Ford (incredibly) probably won the black vote in Toronto in 2010, so it's not impossible).
*Not that blacks are uniquely guilty of this. Deep South whites vote 90% Republican, and even in Mississippi and Alabama I doubt 90% of whites are actually more conservative than liberal. Notice that there's larger representation of less-conservative Republicans (by local standards anyway) there than in some other state parties in areas with more divided white votes.
**In particular, Republicans can lose every black vote for the next 50 years without serious trouble, but losing every Hispanic and Asian vote will become far more threatening to their prospects by mid-century. Even if national whites vote like Deep South whites by then their position will still be in peril without at least maintaining their current position among Hispanics and Asians. When whites are 50% of the electorate, even if the Republicans get the same 30% of non-whites they do now then they can still win if they get 70% of the white vote. By contrast if their non-white share drops to 10% they'll need 90% of whites to win, and if the electorate ever becomes mostly non-white then they'll be finished because they'll have already maxed out the white vote. Winning 30% of the non-white vote, by contrast, allows them to win even in a 60% non-white electorate if they also get 80% of the white vote. Not that the electorate is going to be 60% non-white anytime soon (I wouldn't be surprised if it never gets that high), but it does illustrate the principle.
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.
