Democrats are surprisingly NOT dependent on minority votes to win
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:29:20 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Democrats are surprisingly NOT dependent on minority votes to win
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Democrats are surprisingly NOT dependent on minority votes to win  (Read 3082 times)
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 22, 2016, 05:40:24 PM »

Angrie NEVER claimed Democrats can win with ZERO minroity votes.

Republicans are already close to maxed out on white support from 2012 levels

While Republicans have certainly maxed out the White vote in the South, they definitely haven't in the Midwest and in PA. I agree that Trump has serious problems with White women and minorities that he needs to overcome, though.

Don't try to argue with Badger or convince him of anything. He is the worst kind of Dem hack there is: Hillbot concealed behind a blue avatar.

First off, yesterday this "Dem hack Hillbot" and his Republican wife together knocked on dozens of doors in the rain AND made almost 300 phone calls for the GOP, plus turned out a couple volunteers we recruited earlier this week to do likewise, all while taking care of the house landscaping, a bit of work for my job, and taking care of our two young boys. How many doors or phones have you reached this week? This month?

In this past year I've served on my county GOP's Executive and Central Committee's, donated a few hundred dollars either in contributons or sponsering/attending several party funraisers, and my wife is under serious consideration to be hired as a full time field organizer. What have you offered the Party beyond your impressive keyboard-fu warrior skills?

Compare our respective levels of involvement and commitment (or lack thereof) to the Republican Party, and you STILL want to call me a "Dem hack Hillbot"? Just because like most Republicans I've correctly pointed out how we've chosen the weakest possible nominee because Trump's patently unsuitable temperment is obvious to most swing voters, as well as both the folly and uglliness of Trump's "white power" electoral strategy??

Yeah, I didn't think so.

I'm now going to respond to TN Volunteer's post myself, only cogently. Though if you ever need me to pimp slap you with another dose of reality like this again, just say the word.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 22, 2016, 05:46:09 PM »

Angrie NEVER claimed Democrats can win with ZERO minroity votes.

Republicans are already close to maxed out on white support from 2012 levels

While Republicans have certainly maxed out the White vote in the South, they definitely haven't in the Midwest and in PA. I agree that Trump has serious problems with White women and minorities that he needs to overcome, though.

On what basis do you say Republicans aren't near maxed out on white support in the Midwest? Trade issues? Huh
Logged
Ljube
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,987
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 22, 2016, 05:52:46 PM »

Angrie NEVER claimed Democrats can win with ZERO minroity votes.

Republicans are already close to maxed out on white support from 2012 levels

While Republicans have certainly maxed out the White vote in the South, they definitely haven't in the Midwest and in PA. I agree that Trump has serious problems with White women and minorities that he needs to overcome, though.

Don't try to argue with Badger or convince him of anything. He is the worst kind of Dem hack there is: Hillbot concealed behind a blue avatar.

First off, yesterday this "Dem hack Hillbot" and his Republican wife together knocked on dozens of doors in the rain AND made almost 300 phone calls for the GOP, plus turned out a couple volunteers we recruited earlier this week to do likewise, all while taking care of the house landscaping, a bit of work for my job, and taking care of our two young boys. How many doors or phones have you reached this week? This month?

In this past year I've served on my county GOP's Executive and Central Committee's, donated a few hundred dollars either in contributons or sponsering/attending several party funraisers, and my wife is under serious consideration to be hired as a full time field organizer. What have you offered the Party beyond your impressive keyboard-fu warrior skills?

Compare our respective levels of involvement and commitment (or lack thereof) to the Republican Party, and you STILL want to call me a "Dem hack Hillbot"? Just because like most Republicans I've correctly pointed out how we've chosen the weakest possible nominee because Trump's patently unsuitable temperment is obvious to most swing voters, as well as both the folly and uglliness of Trump's "white power" electoral strategy??

Yeah, I didn't think so.

I'm now going to respond to TN Volunteer's post myself, only cogently. Though if you ever need me to pimp slap you with another dose of reality like this again, just say the word.

Thanks for your reply!
Sorry about my previous posts/provocations.

Just try to point out the strengths of our nominee and not only his weaknesses. Everybody has weaknesses.

Objectively speaking, any Republican candidate would be the underdog in 2016. Trump has the best chance because he can appeal to the working class Dems. If only he can unite the party behind him, no matter if the party really loves him, he will be victorious.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 22, 2016, 06:40:26 PM »

Angrie NEVER claimed Democrats can win with ZERO minroity votes.

Republicans are already close to maxed out on white support from 2012 levels

While Republicans have certainly maxed out the White vote in the South, they definitely haven't in the Midwest and in PA. I agree that Trump has serious problems with White women and minorities that he needs to overcome, though.

Don't try to argue with Badger or convince him of anything. He is the worst kind of Dem hack there is: Hillbot concealed behind a blue avatar.

First off, yesterday this "Dem hack Hillbot" and his Republican wife together knocked on dozens of doors in the rain AND made almost 300 phone calls for the GOP, plus turned out a couple volunteers we recruited earlier this week to do likewise, all while taking care of the house landscaping, a bit of work for my job, and taking care of our two young boys. How many doors or phones have you reached this week? This month?

In this past year I've served on my county GOP's Executive and Central Committee's, donated a few hundred dollars either in contributons or sponsering/attending several party funraisers, and my wife is under serious consideration to be hired as a full time field organizer. What have you offered the Party beyond your impressive keyboard-fu warrior skills?

Compare our respective levels of involvement and commitment (or lack thereof) to the Republican Party, and you STILL want to call me a "Dem hack Hillbot"? Just because like most Republicans I've correctly pointed out how we've chosen the weakest possible nominee because Trump's patently unsuitable temperment is obvious to most swing voters, as well as both the folly and uglliness of Trump's "white power" electoral strategy??

Yeah, I didn't think so.

I'm now going to respond to TN Volunteer's post myself, only cogently. Though if you ever need me to pimp slap you with another dose of reality like this again, just say the word.

Thanks for your reply!
Sorry about my previous posts/provocations.

Just try to point out the strengths of our nominee and not only his weaknesses. Everybody has weaknesses.

Objectively speaking, any Republican candidate would be the underdog in 2016. Trump has the best chance because he can appeal to the working class Dems. If only he can unite the party behind him, no matter if the party really loves him, he will be victorious.

No worries. If we weren't still tired, grouchy, and even a little wet from yesterday I wouldn't have snapped quite so uch. Wink

Now, explain to me the whole "working class white" appeal Trump supposedly has compared to other Republican candidates. Huh Do we really think that Trump  has any more to gain on immigration issues than Romney pushing self-deportation had? not to mention what little Trump may gain around the edges than he'll lose from younger whites (especially women) from his caustic Xenophobia? Besides, what leads one to believe those arguments are more appealing to working class voters than affluent GOP-leaning suburbanites?

Maybe trade? The one thing I've started wondering would be if he ran as Perot 2.0, only if Perot won the GOP nomination in 92. There's some real parallels there: A highly temperamental gaffe prone billionaire with basically conservative/right of center economic views except highly critical of free trades agreements, and who downplays positions on social issues (other than Trump's views on immigration and monitoring Muslims, of course). And of course running against a Clinton who waas vulnerable on trust/integrity issues.

Any number crunchers out there have a theory what would've happened in 92 if Perot was the GOP nom, but with 2016 electoral demographics?

I suspect there would've been some voting shift between Bush voters who would take Clinton over giving Perot access to nukes (and even some Perot voters willing to send a protest vote, but who would've balked at his actually being president) on the one hand, and Clinton and Bush voters who liked Perot best but didn't want to support a spoiler.I'm guessing they would've probably cancelled each other out.
Logged
Ljube
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,987
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 22, 2016, 06:49:24 PM »

Yes, trade is the issue and to a lesser extent, immigration, but linked with trade and with jobs.

Romney was despised by the working class as the vulture capitalist (jobs destroyer).
Trump is liked as the real estate developer (jobs creator).

Yes, Trump is Perot 2.0 as a Republican nominee. That's why I think he has a chance where the others wouldn't have.

The women he alienated, he can win back. There is plenty of time for that in the next five months.
.
Logged
Ljube
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,987
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2016, 07:05:17 PM »

One more thing. Remember Romney's 47%? That effectively buried Romney.

Trump won't have a gaffe like that and even if he did, he would explain it away, since he is already gaffe prone.


Come to think of it, i remember that that 47% video was secretly recorder. Who knows what kind of riches Trump might be hiding, waiting for Hillary to become the nominee before unveiling them. A secret video of one of her Goldman Sachs speeches? That would bury her with the working class.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 27, 2016, 08:59:56 PM »

One more thing. Remember Romney's 47%? That effectively buried Romney.

Trump won't have a gaffe like that and even if he did, he would explain it away, since he is already gaffe prone.


Come to think of it, i remember that that 47% video was secretly recorder. Who knows what kind of riches Trump might be hiding, waiting for Hillary to become the nominee before unveiling them. A secret video of one of her Goldman Sachs speeches? That would bury her with the working class.


Well, I agree that Trump's gaffes cause less harm than a typical candidate's because the public is inured--even numbed--to him. But what you're describing is Trump's Achilles Heel: Other than running as a protectionist and rumors he secretly supports single payer (which he sure is hell isn't running on), his economic policies, both macro and micro, are essentially identical to Romney's. What are the chances Trump will make one or more "47%" equivalent gaffes before November, especially when goaded in debates and by Hillary-friendly members of the media? Pretty good I'd say, and then his anti-free trade bloviating won't be enough to save his image as "the (white) working man's friend".
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 21, 2017, 02:57:32 PM »

Are african Americans not minorities? Romney won the white vote in almost every state outside of Washington Oregon Iowa and New England. And maybe Delaware. Democrats are absolutely dependent on minority voters to push them over the top.

Yes. Obviously Democrats do need some votes from minorities to win, in particular from African Americans.

The point is that many fewer votes from minorities are needed than one would probably presume. So much so that with drastically reduced minority turnout (including ZERO Hispanic turnout and ZERO Asian turnout), Hillary could lose the popular vote by several points and still win the electoral college. That's the central point. It seems surprising to me, but that's what the demographics and the numbers are.

Back when the electoral college was a good thing!
Logged
Angrie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 21, 2017, 07:46:52 PM »

Are african Americans not minorities? Romney won the white vote in almost every state outside of Washington Oregon Iowa and New England. And maybe Delaware. Democrats are absolutely dependent on minority voters to push them over the top.

Yes. Obviously Democrats do need some votes from minorities to win, in particular from African Americans.

The point is that many fewer votes from minorities are needed than one would probably presume. So much so that with drastically reduced minority turnout (including ZERO Hispanic turnout and ZERO Asian turnout), Hillary could lose the popular vote by several points and still win the electoral college. That's the central point. It seems surprising to me, but that's what the demographics and the numbers are.

Back when the electoral college was a good thing!

I have never thought the electoral college is a good thing, and I don't think I said that anywhere earlier in this thread.
Logged
Angrie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 21, 2017, 08:03:11 PM »

Hmm, TN Volunteer/MT Treasurer PMed me about this and I sent a response there before I realized this thread was resurrected, but it got eaten in my outbox or something somehow.

So I will just say here this actually seems to be borne out by the 2016 results. Clinton did not in fact lose the Electoral College because of a drop in support/turnout from minority voters. Trump won because he made significant gains among whites - so the case seems to be strengthened that Dems were not reliant on minority voter support to win the electoral college. Instead, it is clear that what Democrats such as Obama were reliant upon was a basic level of support from white voters. That is what fell through the floor on 2016 (particularly in the North and Midwest) - and that is why Trump was able to win.
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 13 queries.