President Trump

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Liar Loan said:
Irvinecommuter said:
Liar Loan said:
Irvinecommuter said:
Liar Loan said:
During Hillary's blame tour in India this week, she slipped not once, but twice trying to exit a historic palace.

Seperately, she was treated for a "sprained wrist" at an Indian hospital for an injury that occurred at her hotel.

This is on top of breaking her toe in London during an earlier leg of the blame tour.  She was seen wearing a surgical boot after that incident.
Click to expand...

Is there a reason why we should still care about Hillary?  I mean Ford was a walking disaster and Reagan had probably had Alzheimer's in his second term.
Click to expand...

Lot's of Democrats still haven't gotten over losing the election, so I thought I would balance out our coverage a little bit.
Click to expand...

Nope...Dems have.  It's the GOP/conservatives who are still in 2016 because "look over here!"
Click to expand...

Says the guy that wishes old whites would just die already.
Click to expand...

I don't wish that they would die.  I have just decided that they are not changing their mind so no need to waste time to convince them.  Just need to get non-white people to vote.
 
That's good because I heard on NPR the number of old white people will soon be 20% of the population.  There will be more people over the age of 65 than there are kids in this country.  In a few decades, seniors will be 25% of the population.  That means more Fox-addled conservative voters coming soon.
 
Irvinecommuter said:
Liar Loan said:
That's good because I heard on NPR the number of old white people will soon be 20% of the population.  There will be more people over the age of 65 than there are kids in this country.  In a few decades, seniors will be 25% of the population.  That means more Fox-addled conservative voters coming soon.
Click to expand...

Yes.  Not all old people are white.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...ties-will-be-the-majority-by-2020-census-says
Click to expand...

I wonder if this list takes into account 1.8 million "dreamers" that will be deported because democrats don't care about them anymore?
 
I doubt many dreamers will be deported unless the economy suddenly tanks. They will just go back to working under the table or stealing dead people's social security numbers, working jobs they're overqualified for, not paying taxes, contributing way less to the economy than they could be doing if the editor-in-chief didn't abruptly sign an executive order ending DACA before there was any kind of solution.
 
Loco_local said:
I doubt many dreamers will be deported unless the economy suddenly tanks. They will just go back to working under the table or stealing dead people's social security numbers, working jobs they're overqualified for, not paying taxes, contributing way less to the economy than they could be doing if the editor-in-chief didn't abruptly sign an executive order ending DACA before there was any kind of solution.
Click to expand...

Trump is probably thinking now he should have taken Schumer?s deal from months ago .

For all the nonsensical comments about Democrats wanting to deport the dreamers , does anyone really  believe than anyone other than repubs will get the blame for dreamers plight if this deportation really happens ?
 
fortune11 said:
Loco_local said:
I doubt many dreamers will be deported unless the economy suddenly tanks. They will just go back to working under the table or stealing dead people's social security numbers, working jobs they're overqualified for, not paying taxes, contributing way less to the economy than they could be doing if the editor-in-chief didn't abruptly sign an executive order ending DACA before there was any kind of solution.
Click to expand...

Trump is probably thinking now he should have taken Schumer?s deal from months ago .

For all the nonsensical comments about Democrats wanting to deport the dreamers , does anyone really  believe than anyone other than repubs will get the blame for dreamers plight if this deportation really happens ?
Click to expand...

Mass deportation won't actually happen.  ICE raids will continue to round up illegal aliens with criminal records and that will be enough to eventually scare democrats into caving for making a deal to fund the wall.  Most of the ICE deportations have been small time, but once a high ranking political official or celebrity has their criminal cousin's cousin get picked up by ICE and it makes national news then a deal will be made.
 
Irvinecommuter said:
Liar Loan said:
That's good because I heard on NPR the number of old white people will soon be 20% of the population.  There will be more people over the age of 65 than there are kids in this country.  In a few decades, seniors will be 25% of the population.  That means more Fox-addled conservative voters coming soon.
Click to expand...

Yes.  Not all old people are white.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...ties-will-be-the-majority-by-2020-census-says
Click to expand...

No, of course not.  Just the vast majority are and will continue to be according to the census data cited in your article.

In 2060, 74.3% of US population will be white, and that will skew heavily towards older age groups, which are the people that tend to vote the most often and skew the most conservative.

The "demographics are destiny" meme that you are clinging to is not supported by the numbers.
 
Liar Loan said:
Irvinecommuter said:
Liar Loan said:
That's good because I heard on NPR the number of old white people will soon be 20% of the population.  There will be more people over the age of 65 than there are kids in this country.  In a few decades, seniors will be 25% of the population.  That means more Fox-addled conservative voters coming soon.
Click to expand...

Yes.  Not all old people are white.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...ties-will-be-the-majority-by-2020-census-says
Click to expand...

No, of course not.  Just the vast majority are and will continue to be according to the census data cited in your article.

In 2060, 74.3% of US population will be white, and that will skew heavily towards older age groups, which are the people that tend to vote the most often and skew the most conservative.

The "demographics are destiny" meme that you are clinging to is not supported by the numbers.
Click to expand...

I have no idea where you are pulling stats from. 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/census-whites-no-longer-a-majority-in-us-by-2043/
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...the-us-is-becoming-a-minority-majority-nation
 
racehispanic_graph.jpg

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/img/racehispanic_graph.jpg
 
More numbers!

Not only are white evangelical voters incredibly loyal to the Republican Party, but increasingly so. In the 1996 and 2000 elections, white evangelicals broke for Republicans 65 percent and 68 percent, respectively. From 2004-2012, that figure was in the mid-to-high 70 percent range. In 2016, an overwhelming 80 percent of white evangelicals voted for the Republican Trump.

But at the same time that Republicans are having a very challenging time courting minority voters, it appears they are also struggling with the rest of white America ? the non-evangelical whites ? which is clearly much larger in size. In the 2016 election, non-evangelical whites comprised 63 percent of the total white vote and 45 percent of the overall vote? and it turns out they broke for the Democrat Clinton by a healthy 6 percent margin.

White evangelicals have done a tremendous and even historic job of propping up the Republican Party in the face of substantial demographic and ideological shifts in the nation. But implicit in all this data is that Republicans may have finally exhausted the segment that?s been most reliably carrying them in recent elections.

Given that the percent of the population that identifies as white evangelical is shrinking, while at the same time the portion that is showing up in the voting booth is increasing, there may not be many more white evangelicals for the Republican Party to lure to the voting booth. Of the estimated 41 million who are voter eligible, an estimated 35 million voted in 2016, for an astonishing 85 percent turnout rate.
Click to expand...
https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/11/data-shows-a-downward-demographic-spiral-for-republicans/
 
I'm simply quoting the census bureau stats in the original article that you linked to:

Race alone or in combination (2060) - White = 74.3%

This scramble by you to disprove basic facts is quite telling.
 
This is classic LL...take one portion of a stat and generate a conclusion that is without basis

In 2060, 74.3% of US population will be white, and that will skew heavily towards older age groups, which are the people that tend to vote the most often and skew the most conservative.
Click to expand...

74.3 %"White" includes 31% Hispanic and 6% mixed races...with only 43% remaining to be non-Hispanic whites.

Trump won white voters by a margin almost identical to that of Mitt Romney, who lost the popular vote to Barack Obama in 2012. (Trump appears likely to lose the popular vote, which would make him only the fifth elected president to do so and still win office.) White non-Hispanic voters preferred Trump over Clinton by 21 percentage points (58% to 37%), according to the exit poll conducted by Edison Research for the National Election Pool. Romney won whites by 20 percentage points in 2012 (59% to 39%).

However, although Trump fared little better among blacks and Hispanics than Romney did four years ago, Hillary Clinton did not run as strongly among these core Democratic groups as Obama did in 2012. Clinton held an 80-point advantage among blacks (88% to 8%) compared with Obama?s 87-point edge four years ago (93% to 6%). In 2008, Obama had a 91-point advantage among black.
Click to expand...
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-co...5639/FT_16.11.09_exitPolls_race_ethnicity.png

FT_16.11.09_exitPolls_race_ethnicity.png
 
Irvinecommuter said:
More numbers!

Not only are white evangelical voters incredibly loyal to the Republican Party, but increasingly so. In the 1996 and 2000 elections, white evangelicals broke for Republicans 65 percent and 68 percent, respectively. From 2004-2012, that figure was in the mid-to-high 70 percent range. In 2016, an overwhelming 80 percent of white evangelicals voted for the Republican Trump.

But at the same time that Republicans are having a very challenging time courting minority voters, it appears they are also struggling with the rest of white America ? the non-evangelical whites ? which is clearly much larger in size. In the 2016 election, non-evangelical whites comprised 63 percent of the total white vote and 45 percent of the overall vote? and it turns out they broke for the Democrat Clinton by a healthy 6 percent margin.

White evangelicals have done a tremendous and even historic job of propping up the Republican Party in the face of substantial demographic and ideological shifts in the nation. But implicit in all this data is that Republicans may have finally exhausted the segment that?s been most reliably carrying them in recent elections.

Given that the percent of the population that identifies as white evangelical is shrinking, while at the same time the portion that is showing up in the voting booth is increasing, there may not be many more white evangelicals for the Republican Party to lure to the voting booth. Of the estimated 41 million who are voter eligible, an estimated 35 million voted in 2016, for an astonishing 85 percent turnout rate.
Click to expand...
https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/11/data-shows-a-downward-demographic-spiral-for-republicans/
Click to expand...

This article highlights the basic fallacy of your argument.

The party went from receiving 65% of white evangelicals to 80% most recently.  It illustrates how the party has changed in composition over time, but for some reason assumes the party won't continue to change in composition as America itself changes.

White evangelicals are only one source of votes that can be targeted.  There are other groups that will rise to prominence whose values align with Republican politics in future years.  Non-white evangelicals, conservative Hispanics, financially successful people of all stripes that don't want to give their hard-earned money to the government, as examples.

The basic flaw in your thinking is that there is a cap on the number of people that will join the party, while assuming the remaining (R) voters will dwindle in number.  The party will adapt to whatever conditions exist at any given moment (sometimes through painful losses) and they will emerge stronger as a result.

Trump already showed the potential to do this by bringing in white working class voters that have mostly voted (D) their entire life, or just stopped voting altogether.  He won the election because he brought new people into the party.

Lastly, I know you will cite California as an example of what could happen, but what it ignores is that starting in the 90's many California Republicans began moving out of state.  It was a grand exodus to Nevada, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, and Texas.  It made California a much more Democratic and extremist state, but what you fail to acknowledge is that many (not all) of these other states became much stronger Republican states as a result.

In a way, it is a zero sum game.  As one state becomes more Democrat, another becomes more Republican.  The key to winning is to bring in people that normally don't vote with a message that will energize voters enough to want to participate in the process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top