GOP makes gains with White Catholics in 2014
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:20:52 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  GOP makes gains with White Catholics in 2014
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: GOP makes gains with White Catholics in 2014  (Read 1829 times)
Dixie Reborn
BeyondTruthAndIdeals
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 817
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 13, 2014, 08:14:26 PM »

I am a white Catholic who would have voted for the straight Republican ticket if I weren't 16. Btw, this whole trend with white Catholics follows an overall trend of whites in general becoming more heavily Republican each cycle since 1976. I hope that soon the GOP will be winning >80% of the white vote.

No.  The last thing this country needs is more racial polarization.

Why not? The Democrats use racial polarization to their advantage, and win well over 90% of the black vote in every election. Why shouldn't we do the same but with the white vote?
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2014, 08:19:03 PM »

I am a white Catholic who would have voted for the straight Republican ticket if I weren't 16. Btw, this whole trend with white Catholics follows an overall trend of whites in general becoming more heavily Republican each cycle since 1976. I hope that soon the GOP will be winning >80% of the white vote.

No.  The last thing this country needs is more racial polarization.

Why not? The Democrats use racial polarization to their advantage, and win well over 90% of the black vote in every election. Why shouldn't we do the same but with the white vote?

Because look at your own state and how shitty it's become with such a dynamic.
Logged
Dixie Reborn
BeyondTruthAndIdeals
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 817
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2014, 08:48:23 PM »

I am a white Catholic who would have voted for the straight Republican ticket if I weren't 16. Btw, this whole trend with white Catholics follows an overall trend of whites in general becoming more heavily Republican each cycle since 1976. I hope that soon the GOP will be winning >80% of the white vote.

No.  The last thing this country needs is more racial polarization.

Why not? The Democrats use racial polarization to their advantage, and win well over 90% of the black vote in every election. Why shouldn't we do the same but with the white vote?

Because look at your own state and how shitty it's become with such a dynamic.

It doesn't necessarily matter how shitty the state is, what does matter in terms of this conversation is that Republicans dominate at every level. If nationwide the GOP performed as well with the white vote as it does in Arkansas and Alabama, it will be an unstoppable force in American politics even as the percentage of whites decreases. Also, if >80% of whites in your state voted consistently for the Republicans, it wouldn't be even remotely considered competitive.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2014, 09:27:45 PM »

Because look at your own state and how shitty it's become with such a dynamic.

It doesn't necessarily matter how shitty the state is, what does matter in terms of this conversation is that Republicans dominate at every level. If nationwide the GOP performed as well with the white vote as it does in Arkansas and Alabama, it will be an unstoppable force in American politics even as the percentage of whites decreases. Also, if >80% of whites in your state voted consistently for the Republicans, it wouldn't be even remotely considered competitive.

Ultimately what matters is that the rest of the country doesn't wind up looking like Alabama, which is a model for failed fiscal and social policy alike, and relies on more progressive states both for revenue and non-stagnant cultural shifts. No doubt such a scenario as you describe would result in propagating the immensely unequal economic and racial caste system from the South across the entire country, one in which whites can smugly pretend that they're so successful and well-off because of hard work (and sometimes actually have the balls to state that "the South wouldn't be so poor if it weren't for all those blacks"), when in fact the structural dynamics of the economy at-large operate with such generational bias and tilt that a large percentage of their wealth - if based on the productivity of past generations and how it ultimately should flow due to such - is not theirs. The only way the politics that you wish could propagate throughout the entire country would occur is if the economic conditions of the entire nation began to mimic that of the South, which would sadly mean that America would officially be a second-world nation, with per capita GDP ranging somewhere in between Russia and Spain in comparison.

Thankfully, 3/4 of the nation's whites weren't raised and brainwashed to believe in an inherently immoral caste system that bestows upon the undeserving a sense of superiority and a disproportionate share of the wealth - and continues to punish the victims by reinforcing generational disadvantages and labeling them "lazy" due to such burdens - and as such, this entire conversation is moot. Whites will never vote anywhere nearly that Republican as a nation, in part because only one part of the country believes that all whites have something in common because of a perceived "threat" from outside their own broader race.

You should be ashamed that your brain even ticks in such a fashion, and wash it out with soap immediately. You already can witness fully what such a dynamic would produce for the entire country, as it is fully deployed in an area of the country that is and would be objectively the worst part of the country in which to live for 95% of the human race. What a privileged life you must have lived thus far.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,222
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 14, 2014, 12:29:45 AM »


It still does fund abortion to whatever extent money is fungible: plans covering abortion must set up two separate accounts one paying for abortions and one for everything else with the stipulation that federal money cannot be put into the abortion account except in case of rape or incest. So instead the federal money can be put into the other account and private funds shifted to the abortion account as needed (unless the abortion account was more than the private funds, but that would never happen anyway). The net result being that while the federal funds are prohibited from going directly into the abortion account, the fungibility of money means that they are effectively still subsidizing abortion coverage. The federal government can recite whatever talking points it wants, the fact that the government is subsidizing abortion through the account for the other services in the plans remains.

The Stupak Amendment would have closed this loophole by requiring plans covering abortion to charge a rider fee to pay specifically for the abortion coverage. As Ben Kenobi notes, it failed.

You're correct, but that's how all insurance works. By this logic, unless you get your health insurance from a company that never, ever pays for an abortion for any reason whatsoever, you are paying for a fraction of every abortion the insurance company covers.

That's also why all these separate contraception accounts for "religious objectors" (AKA cheap Baptists who think they're sending Obama a message) make no sense. The objectors' money is still going into a single big pot, out of which birth control pills are paid for.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 14, 2014, 12:45:58 AM »

You're correct, but that's how all insurance works. By this logic, unless you get your health insurance from a company that never, ever pays for an abortion for any reason whatsoever, you are paying for a fraction of every abortion the insurance company covers.

That's also why all these separate contraception accounts for "religious objectors" (AKA cheap Baptists who think they're sending Obama a message) make no sense. The objectors' money is still going into a single big pot, out of which birth control pills are paid for.

No, that's not quite how it works. The difference is that if you could have an insurance policy that does not cover abortion, even if the insurance company has other plans that do, you are actually stipulating that money cannot be used for an abortion. The policy the money pays for doesn't allow it. You can of course argue that the money still goes into a pot that allows abortion as money is fungible, but this case differs from the former in that the money you're adding cannot be used to displace private funds that are then used to cover abortion instead. The funds coming from policies that do not cover abortion cannot be used to cover abortion. In this case there would be a direct requirement that abortion is not in the plan at all, not just not paid for from a particular source.

There was a simple way to fix this problem (the Stupak Amendment) and the original House Bill contained it until the Senate removed that provision.

As for the contraception point, the same applies as with abortion: having a separate account means little as long as you can't purchase a plan that doesn't cover it. There is one small difference though in the moral culpability of the insurance buyer: one funds the contraceptives directly and the other indirectly. That distinction, though of no practical value whatsoever, does make a moral difference.

If I were in Congress at the time (lol) I would have voted for the original House Bill and against the final bill, ala Joseph Cao.
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 14, 2014, 02:39:05 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is the fine. People can choose not to pay car insurance by not owning a car. Assessing a fine for failure to pay for health insurance is especially galling given that the coverage is required to include abortion funding.

This is why the solution is an opt-out clause so that those who do not want Obamacare do not have to purchase it. If Obamacare is truly valued as an insurance vehicle,  it will obtain sufficient buy-in. If it does not, then it deserves to crash and burn. It really is just that simple.

I don't have issues with government health care insurance. Making it a mandate is a whole different ball of wax. Stupak amendment would have kept the whole superstructure of the great behemoth while stripping out just abortion funding. A clever bet would have been to pass it and much of the issue would have been mitigated.

As it is, the blowback has been enormous.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 14, 2014, 02:50:33 AM »

The problem is the fine. People can choose not to pay car insurance by not owning a car.

You can choose not to pay health insurance and/or associated healthcare costs by not owning a body.
Logged
RR1997
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,997
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 14, 2014, 08:17:35 AM »

There's no such thing as making gains in a record low 36% turnout election. They simply made fewer losses with White Catholics than the Democrats did.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 14, 2014, 09:08:36 AM »

This is why the solution is an opt-out clause so that those who do not want Obamacare do not have to purchase it. If Obamacare is truly valued as an insurance vehicle,  it will obtain sufficient buy-in. If it does not, then it deserves to crash and burn. It really is just that simple.

Again, emergency rooms and hospitals are under obligation to treat customers who show up needing care, and have been since Reagan signed that obligation into law. No one has the option to "opt out" of this treatment; if John Galt gets in a car accident that knocks him unconscious, he'll wake up in a hospital, even if his preference is to die bleeding and free on the side of the road. How do you square that with letting people "opt out" of insurance? 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


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 0.047 seconds with 12 queries.