Recent Posts
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 06, 2024, 04:28:13 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

Filter Options Collapse
        


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10

 1 
 on: Today at 04:25:53 PM 
Started by wnwnwn - Last post by Schiff for Senate
Black population in Western NC is small, so race wasn't very relevant to the election there either way. Being a Southerner and a Protestant helped LBJ along with his economic record and anti-poverty agenda.

This. It's worth noting that before blacks were truly fully enfranchised (i.e. 1968/1972 at the presidential level), areas with higher black populations would be the ones most strongly in support of segregationist candidates like Thurmond, Goldwater, Wallace, etc., because as you said, race was a much bigger issue and racism far more prevalent.

This can be best seen in Georgia, where the mountains of the North had virtually no blacks and were historically more Unionist. They had been traditionally very Republican to the point that not even FDR could sweep the region, yet in 1964 some of these counties swung insanely towards Johnson and supported him in landslides. Further south, in the more ancestrally "Dixie" part of the state, where the black population was greater and race a more salient issue than economics or foreign policy, it was literally the exact opposite and counties had, like, 100 point swings from Kennedy to Goldwater.

Appalachia has a whole had and continues to have a very low African-American population, which goes back to its roots as a region where slavery was far less common due to poor geography (which would also make these areas Unionist strongholds during the Civil War - for example, East Tennessee). So it makes sense that these areas supported Johnson strongly or, at the very least, did not swing nearly as hard toward Goldwater as the more traditionally southern, plantation-based-economy, areas of the Old Confederacy.

 2 
 on: Today at 04:25:08 PM 
Started by wbrocks67 - Last post by Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
It's not like black voters suddenly are going to vote for Trump more, it's just that more black Biden voters relative to black Trump voters will not turn out, reducing the margin. By how much, we don't know, that we will only know by november. Polls centering around specific demographics are unreliable and useless, esp since a lot of those demographic groups aren't homogenic.

2020 Biden Black voters can definitely vote for Trump more. A lot of the gradual weakening of Dem numbers with Black voters is turnover from 98% Dem seniors to 85% Dem youths, and some of it is differential turnout, but there is also persuasion going on. If Trump gains more than a few percent among Black voters, it will be from persuasion.

I can't claim to understand the mechanics of persuasion for every Clinton-Trump or Biden-Trump voter, but they have their reasons. It is extremely Atlas-brained to act like Trump's gains with non-Whites are due to extreme turnout changes and not persuasion. Even when persuasion is acknowledged it's dismissed as solely from incumbency a lot of the time.

A lot of it is reversion to the mean. Blacks should be a heavily Democratic constituency, but they should not be as heavily Democratic as they are. Currently, we have African Americans who agree with Republicans on every major issue and dislike Democrats, but still voting for them. When we are talking about going from 8% to 13%-17% we are still discussing the most conservative sixth of the African American electorate.

The GOP is almost guaranteed to substantially increase its African American support into the mid-teens over the next decade, and fail utterly to expand much beyond it.

I think this poll is fairly accurate. The absolute ceiling for the GOP is probably around 24% of the African American vote. A realistic target for a "good result" would be 16%.

I also think the focus on nonwhite voters is misplaced. It will matter on the margins, but more interesting is whether 2022 represented a high-water mark of high-income white support for Democrats.



Lol the Rs give us nothing

 3 
 on: Today at 04:24:26 PM 
Started by wbrocks67 - Last post by Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
You can't trust MC they had Biden 10 in NC

 4 
 on: Today at 04:24:05 PM 
Started by ηєω ƒяσηтιєя - Last post by ηєω ƒяσηтιєя


Why the f**k would he travel to Russia?

 5 
 on: Today at 04:23:37 PM 
Started by wbrocks67 - Last post by Arizona Iced Tea
Is MC the same sample every week?

 6 
 on: Today at 04:23:01 PM 
Started by GAinDC - Last post by Arizona Iced Tea
He has the audacity to call himself "Republican" after betraying Trump and America?

 7 
 on: Today at 04:22:18 PM 
Started by OSR stands with Israel - Last post by dead0man
the people that believe Israel can't wage war without US aid must be excited that the war will be over soon

 8 
 on: Today at 04:21:58 PM 
Started by Vice President Christian Man - Last post by West_Midlander
I had not planned on a run for this office. I'm honored to be nominated and thankful for the support thus far and I will serve if elected. I am also glad to support my friend Senator Spark for this office for 1st preference to reciprocate the support he has offered me with his vote here.

1. Spark
2. WM
3. WI: Jay
4. Wulfric

 9 
 on: Today at 04:21:43 PM 
Started by OSR stands with Israel - Last post by 2952-0-0
"The government refrains from commenting on ongoing criminal investigations." Obviously it was an ongoing criminal investigation, because they're just now making arrests. The Trudeau government has hardly had trouble during its time in power not telling the press anything, it's not like they have some grand commitment to transparency to where "we have to be open in public on this".

These guys were pretty dumb to stick around in Canada in my opinion.


This isn't a run-of-the-mill scandal like taxpayer's money wasted on an app. I don't think any government in any democratic country can get away with no-commenting reports that a foreign power committed an assassination on its soil. Even Iran cannot cover up all these assassinations in its territory by the Mossad.

In the end, Trudeau emulated Erdogan's approach after Khashoggi's assassination, but had better success in finding support from other nations.

Yes, this makes the Indian intelligence services look like amateurs. The Indian media were bragging about how they had the "new Mossad". They weren't even competent enough to exfiltrate the assassins out of the country.

 10 
 on: Today at 04:21:00 PM 
Started by Yelnoc - Last post by The Mikado
Biden is not dropping out and was never going to drop out. Here's another helpful list of things which will not happen, which I'm sure Atlasians will nonetheless discuss as though they are real possibilities:

A contested convention
A cancelled/virtual convention
Replacing the incumbent VP
A third party candidate winning a state
A House contingent election (This is probably the most likely of the bunch. It still will not happen.)

The last time a VP was replaced for re-election to a second term was in the late 1800s. It is not going to happen. Every time somebody suggests replacing the VP as if it’s a realistic possibility, a puppy dies.

What a cute phrasing of things to remove the 3 times the VP was replaced in this past century.

1976 - Nelson Rockefeller removed and replaced with Bob Dole
1940 - John Nance Garner removed and replaced with Henry Wallace (if you want to say Garner was not removed insofar as he ran for President himself, fine, that still leaves...
1944 - Henry Wallace removed and replaced with Harry Truman

It was also privately discussed in 2004 and possibly replacing Dick Cheney.

It’s not “cute phrasing” to not count Rockefeller. He was the 25th amendment replacement VP to a replacement president. He was never on a ticket in the first place. He was an obvious placeholder pick.

Admittedly FDR is a more reasonable objection, but even then only 1944 counts. Garner clearly had no interest in remaining VP given he ran against Roosevelt, as you point out.

Wallace->Truman is the only VP replacement that really counts, "cute phrasing" aside.


I don’t believe for a second that there was actually a chance of Cheney being removed in 2004. People have allegedly “privately discussed” replacing every VP, but it never actually happens. The last time it was even a serious possibility (excluding the previously mentioned Agnew->Ford->Rockefeller->Dole shuffle 72-76) was Nixon in 56.

The 1976 thing, as I mentioned, gets at the problem that Congress would've never approved Dole or someone similar as Ford's VP in the first place. Rockefeller wasn't the VP Ford wanted and certainly wasn't one the GOP as a whole wanted.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 12 queries.