The Handwriting is on the Wall

[BDKJMU]

[JohnStOnge]

Enjoy yourselves and take your shots. I think that deep inside you know very well what the math is and know very well that unless Republicans find a way to sway non Whites their time is running out. And I also think you know very well that they took a step backwards in that regard during this election cycle.

[93henfan]

Enjoy yourselves and take your shots. I think that deep inside you know very well what the math is and know very well that unless Republicans find a way to sway non Whites their time is running out. And I also think you know very well that they took a step backwards in that regard during this election cycle.

They kept Hillary Clinton out of the White House forever and have set the Supreme Court on the right path again. Also, nobody cares what you think. You're a sore loser. You ought to at least collect a check from George Soros and go riot in a big city somewhere like the rest of the crybabies.

[CAA Flagship]

[JohnStOnge]

They kept Hillary Clinton out of the White House forever and have set the Supreme Court on the right path again. .

They ensured that a Republican will get to fill Scalia's position. But they have increased the probability that, over time, the Supreme Court will continue to evolve in a more liberal direction. That's because the strategy Trump adopted increased the probability that in a short time by historical standards the Democratic Party will absolutely dominate. Right now they are good with the Senate because each State gets two Senators regardless of population. And they are in good shape in the House because of districting. But more people favor the Democrats than the Republicans already. More people favored the Democratic candidate in this election even though she had all that stuff happen than favored the Republican candidate. The Electoral College is the system so it is what it is. But in terms of who more people favored it was Clinton. At some point the dam will break and the systemic characteristics that keep the Republicans relevant will not be enough. The sheer weight of the majority of people being on the Democrat Party side will prevail.

And you know as well as I do that the evolution of demographics does not look good at all for the Republican Party unless they can get beyond winning by an overwhelming majority of White Evangelical Christians. As I said in the thread on that the rest of the country that is not White Evangelical Christian voted for Clinton by 59% to 35%. Another demographic that is shrinking is people who think of themselves as religious.

No matter how you look at it the groups that favor Democrats are expanding and the groups that favor Republicans are shrinking. The Republicans need to think in terms of convincing people in groups that favor Democrats to change their minds. And they did just the opposite in this election cycle.

I am not just saying that now. I said long ago that a Trump win would be the worst thing that could happen to the Republican Party in the long term. And it's happened.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW Hillary did not do as well among non Whites as Obama did. But Obama was a special case for obvious reasons. She did better among non Whites than Kerry did and about the same as Gore did. Nothing has changed. The overwhelming majority of non Whites, apparently guaranteed to be around 70% or more, don't like the Republican Party. Heck, the majority of Whites who aren't White Evangelical Christians don't like the Republican Party.

It's just a matter of time before the bottom falls out.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Quit supporting the felon, she lost

[YoUDeeMan]

BTW Hillary did not do as well among non Whites as Obama did. But Obama was a special case for obvious reasons. She did better among non Whites than Kerry did and about the same as Gore did. Nothing has changed. The overwhelming majority of non Whites, apparently guaranteed to be around 70% or more, don't like the Republican Party. Heck, the majority of Whites who aren't White Evangelical Christians don't like the Republican Party.

It's just a matter of time before the bottom falls out.

Noe this is where you completely fall apart and you get exposed.

Trump won't change the birth rates of existing Americans, and the declining birth rates of Whites is the central fear of your argument. Your anger and angst against minorities have nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with your racism.

7 out of 8 years you've noticed the changing demographics of this country...and you blame Trump for the collapse of the Republican party.

No, the Republican party has been dying since the religious right racists such as yourself and your wife decided to hijack the party. Your wife saw Cruz, a whack job of immense proportion, lose, and she recognized that a large chunk of American Republicans have decided that you people, and your closed, racist, minds, will not control the party anymore.

It is OK to be upset about that, but like Hillary, you simply won't tell the truth and you resort to playing the fear game and blaming others for your own failure.

Trump can win over the Hispanics if he comes through and creates jobs. 29% of Hispanics voted for him DESPITE the rhetoric and lies about Trump coming from Hillary's divisive, identity-politics team. If Trump creates jobs and brings most of our military home, working class wimmen (white, black, polka dot, etc.) will also vote Republican. And 8% is about the historical Blacks vote for a Republican...and this was in a year where people thought Trump would not get more than 1 or 2 percent of their vote.

So go ahead and stand on the pulpit and blame Trump for the demographic changes in this country...you need some focus for your raging racism. But, you, and your wife, aren't fooling anyone. Your hatred and bigotry are no longer needed in the Republican party.

The funny part is, and you realize this, your kind no longer controls the pulpit in American politics. As many of your smarter brethren have realized, on the national scale, you can now only be a smaller part of the national political scene. Instead of leading the train, you can only choose to ally yourself with the Democrats or Republicans and go along for the ride. Bummer for you, win for everyone else.

[JohnStOnge]

Ok guys the table below is busy but I think it really depicts what the situation is:



I had to go with just Black + Hispanic because exit polls didn't start reporting on Asians until 1992 and "Other" until 2004.

I'll go through 1980 to illustrate how it works going from right to left. 88% of voters were white. Reagan won among whites by 20 percentage points. 20 percentage points times 88% of voters gave him a net edge of 18% points from that group. 12% of voters were Black or Hispanic. Carter won among those voters by 61 percentage points. 16 percentage points times 12% of voters gave him a net edge of 7 percentage points from that group.

So in the "racial divide" Reagan had a net benefit of 18 percentage points and Carter had a net benefit of 7 percentage points. The end result was Reagan enjoying a +11 percentage point advantage (far right column).

Look at what happens in that far right column as time has gone on. There are some aberrations. For instance in 1992 and 1996 Perot was in the race and drew White votes away from the Republicans. It's reasonable to think that a Black guy running for President helped the Democrats in 2008 and 2012.

But the overall trend is clear. The Republicans are losing ground. And 2016 was as bad as it's ever been for Republicans even though the Democratic candidate had the FBI investigation, the Russians after her, etc.

Plus that 2016 number in the far right column understates how bad it was for the Republican in the "racial divide" area. That's because, for the sake of consistency over time, I did not include Asians and "Others.". When Gore ran in 2000 only 3 percent of voters were either Asian or "Other." In 2016 it was 7 percent. And Hillary won among that 7 percent by 61% to 32%. So the "racial divide" situation was probably better for the Democrats in 2016 than it was during the rest of the period outside of the unusual circumstances involving Perot and Obama. That in spite of the fact that, at least as of now, the overall popular vote numbers and exit polling results suggest Trump's campaign had some success in suppressing voting among non Whites.

I just don't see how one can objectively note what's going on in the "racial divide" area and think it's going to end well for Republicans unless they find a way to change the dynamic. And they went in the opposite direction this time. The strategy was to inflame working class Whites through demagoguery into voting for them while focusing on negative attacks to suppress the Democrat vote. Those things and courting the support of White Nationalists with a wink and a nod while issuing the mandatory disclaimers to pretend they weren't doing that.

If Republicans can control Trump to keep him from doing some of the things he said he's going to do and chance falls on their side so that the economy does well plus the Democrats can't come up with a good candidate next time he may win again due to the advantage of incumbency and those other factors. But in the long term the approach Trump took is just not going to work and we probably have a bunch of happy nut jobs who supported him out there who now think his way is the way to go.

[CAA Flagship]

[DSUrocks07]

JSO is just going to ignore the fact thay Trump got more support from minorities than any candidate since Reagan. But claim that "only white people supported Trump".

The left plays identity politics to win elections, the right plays morality politics to win elections.

Trump flipped the traditional script on its head by throwing out the morality part of the GOP playbook and finding a way ofconnecting with minorities on issues that matter to them OUTSIDE of their race, because the fact is that there are a lot of issues that affect whites and minorities EQUALLY (despite what Democrats might claim)

"Trump is a racist and wrecked the GOPs future of ever being able to connect to minority voters"

Then explain how he received nearly 30% of the Hispanic vote and almost 10% of the black vote?

Sent using Tapatalk because 89Hen hates this.

[Baldy]

JSO is just going to ignore the fact thay Trump got more support from minorities than any candidate since Reagan. But claim that "only white people supported Trump".

The left plays identity politics to win elections, the right plays morality politics to win elections.

Trump flipped the traditional script on its head by throwing out the morality part of the GOP playbook and finding a way ofconnecting with minorities on issues that matter to them OUTSIDE of their race, because the fact is that there are a lot of issues that affect whites and minorities EQUALLY (despite what Democrats might claim)

"Trump is a racist and wrecked the GOPs future of ever being able to connect to minority voters"

Then explain how he received nearly 30% of the Hispanic vote and almost 10% of the black vote?

Sent using Tapatalk because 89Hen hates this.

[JohnStOnge]

JSO is just going to ignore the fact thay Trump got more support from minorities than any candidate since Reagan.

First of all, that's not true. George W. Bush, the last Republican candidate prior to the Obama phenomenon, lost among non Whites by 48 percentage points in 2004. Trump lost among minorities by 59 percentage points.

Another thing is that the number of races other than Black as a proportion of the non White population has increased over time. In 1980 83% of non White voters were Black. In 2016 it was 40%. Those other non White voters do vote overwhelmingly Democrat but not to the extent that Blacks do. So that has an effect on the numbers. All other things being equal, you would expect the percent non Whites voting Democrat to go down some due to that. But at the same time the overall proportion of non Whites in the population has been rising so the "benefit" the Democrats get in terms of net margin has been generally increasing.

If you just look at Black and Hispanic voting separately to maintain consistency, this is what it looks like for the two groups.

Here are the percentages of the Black vote Republican candidates got by year:

1980 - 14%
1984 - 9%
1988 - 11%
1992 - 10%
1996 - 12%
2000 - 9%
2004 - 11%
2008 - 4%
2012 - 6%
2016 - 8%

So Trump got less support from Blacks as a percentage of their vote than any Republican candidate of the period except for the two that ran against a Black candidate.

To be fair, he did better in historical terms among Hispanics. Here are the percentages of the Hispanic vote Republicans got by year:

1980 - 37%
1984 - 34%
1988 - 30%
1992 - 25%
1996 - 21%
2000 - 35%
2004 - 44%
2008 - 31%
2012 - 27%
2016 - 29%

But, still, the only people to get less support than he did among Hispanics are the two who ran against Clinton when Perot was in the race taking some of the Hispanic vote and one of the two who ran against the ethnic minority Democrat. I should say that while Perot took 14% of the Hispanic vote in 1992 he only took 6% of it in 1996 so Dole would've done more poorly than Trump did without Perot. But Trump still performed below average. There's no indication that he improved the Republican situation with respect to Hispanics.

If you are a Republican and you think Trump made progress in this area or that his approach is the answer to the long term problem you are whistling past the graveyard.

[JohnStOnge]

But claim that "only white people supported Trump".

No, not only White people supported Trump. It's never absolute. But 86% of the people who voted for Trump were White.

Honestly DSU, I'm guessing you're not White. But the way you're reacting is consistent with what I expect. There are going to be a lot of people who interpret what just happened as Trump expanding the Republican base. They're going to think the way he did things is the solution.

And it's not. He won because Clinton screwed up so badly with that private e mail server thing and the Russians came in on Trump's side with Wikileaks. Trump could very well end up with fewer votes as a percentage of US population than Romney got in 2012 and he was running against a very weak candidate. He wasn't running against Obama like Romney had to. He did not expand Republican appeal. He won by the system but he actually LOST the popular vote in spite of Clinton's issues. And he's made the Republican Party the overt and open home of White Nationalists.

BTW the belief is that Clinton's popular vote lead is going to expand because most of the outstanding votes to be counted come from California, New York, and Washington (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ow/507455/). Again, he won in the electoral college and that's the system. But he lost in terms of voter sentiment even given an opponent scarred by FBI investigation and Russian cyber warfare.

[CAA Flagship]

[CID1990]

Still sore? Don't worry. Your butthole will heal. There are people here who can give you some pointers.

Has nothing to do with being sore. It's reality. Republicans really, really screwed up. I have been saying all along that the worse thing that could happen for both the Republican Party and the Country is for Trump to win. I also have been saying that it's possible that he could because Clinton was such a bad candidate.

Now the worst thing has happened. Do I wish it wouldn't have? Of course. But the reality is the reality. The days of the Republican Party being a viable check on Democratic Party power are numbered. And it's a smaller number than it was before the Republicans decided to nominate Trump.

Im not sure how your "GOP being a check on Democrats" theory works when Hillary Clinton appoints 3 SCOTUS justices.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mrklean]

Enjoy yourselves and take your shots. I think that deep inside you know very well what the math is and know very well that unless Republicans find a way to sway non Whites their time is running out. And I also think you know very well that they took a step backwards in that regard during this election cycle.

Why do we start treating people like people and we don't have to worry about things like this. When you treat people as equals, they usually will return the same treatment in kind. Is that so hard?

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I can only speak for me but, as a black man there is no way I would vote for anyone in this election except Donald J Trump.

[CID1990]

Enjoy yourselves and take your shots. I think that deep inside you know very well what the math is and know very well that unless Republicans find a way to sway non Whites their time is running out. And I also think you know very well that they took a step backwards in that regard during this election cycle.

Why do we start treating people like people and we don't have to worry about things like this. When you treat people as equals, they usually will return the same treatment in kind. Is that so hard?

klean - you just nailed it

im not sure you realize you nailed it, but you nailed it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Realized I could come pretty close on the overall White voters things while slightly over estimating how well Democrats did before "Asian" and/or "Other" were specifically reported by just assuming that if they weren't specifically reported they went 100% to 0% for Democrats. Doesn't inflate the Democrat edge too much because it was usually 1% or 2% of the electorate. I think one time it was 3%. So here's how it looks when you do all non White voters using that approach:



The dark blue shading means I assumed both "Asian" and "Other" voted 100% to 0% for the Democrat. The light blue means I assumed "Other" voted 100% to 0% like that. With that slight adjustment we can now see that Clinton did better than any Democrats other than Bill Clinton and Obama. If you look to the left you can see that the reason Bill Clinton's net (White Edge - Non White Edge) edge was large is that he came closer to the Republicans he ran against among Whites. He lost each time by 2 percentage point while no other Democrat came closer than 9 percentage points. It wasn't because he did unusually well with the Non White Net Edge. In that area he did about as well as Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis did.

And of course Obama was a unique phenomenon. However, Hillary Clinton did almost as well as that unique phenomenon did in the minority net edge. 16 percentage points vs. 17 and 18 percentage points. No other Democrat of the period did better than 11 percentage points.

As an aside, as I said in another post yesterday, when you look at how Democrats did in the "Democrat Margin" column you have to remember that the non White population is becoming less Black over time. Blacks typically vote around 90% Democrat while other non Whites typically vote around 60 to 70% Democrat. In comparing Al Gore having a 54 percentage point margin to HIllary having a 52% margin, for example, you have to remember that 53% of non Whites were Black in 2000 while 40% of them were Black in 2016. So if Blacks and other non Whites continue to apportion their votes consistently, you'd expect the overall Democrat edge to decline in percentage terms. The problem is that the population of non Whites is getting bigger so the net percentage point edge that voting group provides Democrats is generally growing. It was 17 percent of the electorate when Gore ran and it grew to 30 percent of the electorate when Hillary ran. The net impact is that Hillary got a 16 percentage point net edge vs. Gore's 10 percentage points even though she won among that group by a slightly lower margin (52 percentage points vs. 54 percentage points).

The Republicans publicly recognized the long term threat posed by this trend about four years ago and said they would do something to combat it. But because of Trump they did not. They went in the opposite direction. At the very least they lost time. And I think they also branded their Party in a way that's going to be hard to overcome.

[JohnStOnge]

Here's another emerging bit of bad news for Republicans on the Demographic evolution front:



Not a big impact now because it's only four percent of the electorate. But note that, since Exit polling people started tracking Asians in 1992, they have trended more and more towards voting for the Democrat over time and they have quadrupled as a percentage of all voters.

Note that Hillary had the second best performance among Asians of the period. She actually out performed Obama's first run and wasn't that far off the mark he set on his second run.

I suspect...and really I know...that one reason Republicans don't like to see Mexican immigrants is because they know they and their descendants will end up voting by somewhere around 2:1 for Democrats. And I've heard people talk about moving more to skills based immigration. Can you guess which ethnic group might benefit from moving to more skills based immigration? Hmmmm....let me see....



I don't like what just happened. And Democrats don't like it. But the future is a lot brighter for the Democrats than it is for the Republicans. That used to bother me. Now it doesn't. After doing what they just did the Republicans deserve what is going to happen to them.

[Ivytalk]

So tell me, John, how did the Cajun coon-ass vote break down?

[93henfan]

I'll need more statistics to see your point.

[CAA Flagship]

The problem JSO has is that he, like so many people, wants put a label on each person so that they automatically fit into a certain group. Instead of determining who voted which candidate, JSO needs to think about WHY they voted for each candidate.

Root Cause analysis, John. It will free you from the little green monkeys that haunt you.

[DSUrocks07]

The problem JSO has is that he, like so many people, wants put a label on each person so that they automatically fit into a certain group.

But wouldn't that make him a liberal.

Sent using Tapatalk because 89Hen hates this.