The Late Great Democrat Party

[houndawg]

Seeing as almost 30% of Team Brown and almost 10% of Team Black voted red, I think it's obvious JSO is wrong (shocker). However its up to the conks to make further inroads with those demographics...something an improved economy can easily accomplish.

Yup.

Make America Great Again and improve the economy and the Johnson (D) quip, "I'll have those niggers voting Democrat for 200 years" will fall on deaf ears.

Of course, kkklean and that Latina kook on CNN will still be burdened by the racist chains in their own minds while Chicago and Obama's legacy will burn down.

Try to keep up, comrade. We've moved on to the treason in the White House.

[houndawg]

Granted, I'm not a fan, but I would say that Harry Reid was far worse than Pelosi ever was. Reid was actually effective and doing what he was doing to gum up the Senate - Pelosi has never been that effective of a Speaker or Minority Leader to be more than a nuisance.

You gotta wonder about the rest of the Democrats in the House right now. I get it, most of them are from CA, NY, and MA, so they probably do like Pelosi. But from the time she took over in what, 2004 or so, the steady loss of power by the Dems in Congress, and the House especially, is almost without its equal in all of American history. And yet they keep propping her up as the standard bearer. The Washington Generals are her closest equivalence and even the Globetrotters eventually dropped them.

This.

She's hyperpolitical and annoying as hell, but she's a true believer and I can respect that. From what I've gathered she's also a pretty nice person.

Not so Harry Reid- he's a first class scumbag and he deserves whatever bad fortune that comes his way in retirement. He is personally responsible for a significant amount of polarization on the Hill.

He's an upstanding, god-fearing christian.

[YoUDeeMan]

I'll just add that people were writing off the fractured Republican party six months ago. It doesn't take long to recover.

And as demonstrated by Democrat behavior this week, God help us when they return to power. They truly are, as Trump eloquently stated to Mrs. Clinton's face, such nasty people. To have a third of your delegation boycotting a Presidential Inauguration tells you all you need to know about how much they care about our country as a whole.

If that's how you want to spin it....

How does having your treasonous national security advisor resign in disgrace equal "recover"?

Speaking of waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaambulance...what treason?

[kalm]

If that's how you want to spin it....

How does having your treasonous national security advisor resign in disgrace equal "recover"?

Speaking of waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaambulance...what treason?

So commie is cool now?

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!

[YoUDeeMan]

Speaking of waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaambulance...what treason?

So commie is cool now?

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!

I see that the prevailing westerly winds have blown some smoke your way. Hope that stuff isn't addictive.

[kalm]

So commie is cool now?

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!

I see that the prevailing westerly winds have blown some smoke your way. Hope that stuff isn't addictive.

Why the hate? We're comrades now!!!

[JohnStOnge]

Seeing as almost 30% of Team Brown and almost 10% of Team Black voted red, I think it's obvious JSO is wrong (shocker). However its up to the conks to make further inroads with those demographics...something an improved economy can easily accomplish.

I just noticed this. I went through that issue in detail immediately after the election. I'll provide a refresher on a table I posted at the time. What you're seeing in the table is the fact that the non white percentage of the vote has increased over time. The Democrat margin among non White voters has been generally decreasing. But that's mainly because back in 1980 just about all non White voters were Black. Blacks typically vote somewhere around 90% Democrat while other non Whites typically vote somewhere around 70% Democrat. As time goes on there are more non Whites who are not Black so the margin decreases.

But the percentage of the overall electorate increases so the "net edge" the Democrats gain from the non White vote increases. And Hillary Clinton got the highest net edge from non White voters during the period represented by the table outside of Obama. Obama was a minority candidate so I think that's understandable.

Trump got a lower percentage of the vote among Blacks for the period than any Republican candidate outside of the two that ran against Obama. Same kind of thing with Hispanics. Trump had a below average performance among Hispanics for the period.

If you think there was some kind of indication in the voting this time to suggest that Trump had done something to stem the inevitable tide with respect to what's happening with demographics in this country and what that means for the Repubican Party in the future you are kidding yourself.

JSO is not wrong.

[houndawg]

If that's how you want to spin it....

How does having your treasonous national security advisor resign in disgrace equal "recover"?

Speaking of waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaambulance...what treason?

Undercutting the President's foreign policy before taking office. Putin told Trump to straighten that shit out tout suite and Trump sent Flynn to apologize to Putin and ask him to be patient.

[CID1990]

Seeing as almost 30% of Team Brown and almost 10% of Team Black voted red, I think it's obvious JSO is wrong (shocker). However its up to the conks to make further inroads with those demographics...something an improved economy can easily accomplish.

I just noticed this. I went through that issue in detail immediately after the election. I'll provide a refresher on a table I posted at the time

How the hell would anybody know what you wrote on it? Nobody has time to read pages and pages of your literary diarrhea

Jesus


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

How the hell would anybody know what you wrote on it? Nobody has time to read pages and pages of your literary diarrhea

Well the table below is simple. Since people don't like explanations I'll just say focus on the "Combined" set of columns. Bottom line is that there is no suggestion in those numbers at all that the picture that's been in place since the beginning of exit polling reported at https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/u ... ups-voted/ changed with 2016. In fact the "Black" numbers show a "significant" downward trend over time for Republicans. There is no "significant" trend in the Hispanic data.

What HAS changed in the basic picture is growth in the combined Black+Hispanic vote. It was 10% of the vote in 1976 and grew to 23% by 2016. It grew from 17% to 23% since 2000. No table on another thing but another thing is that the margin in Texas is shrinking over time. That State is rapidly becoming less White and the electoral margins are getting smaller. Unless something changes in the dynamic Texas flipping to reliably Democrat in Presidential elections is inevitable and when that happens it's over.

[Ibanez]

How the hell would anybody know what you wrote on it? Nobody has time to read pages and pages of your literary diarrhea

Well the table below is simple. Since people don't like explanations I'll just say focus on the "Combined" set of columns. Bottom line is that there is no suggestion in those numbers at all that the picture that's been in place since the beginning of exit polling reported at https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/u ... ups-voted/ changed with 2016. In fact the "Black" numbers show a "significant" downward trend over time for Republicans. There is no "significant" trend in the Hispanic data.

What HAS changed in the basic picture is growth in the combined Black+Hispanic vote. It was 10% of the vote in 1976 and grew to 23% by 2016. It grew from 17% to 23% since 2000. No table on another thing but another thing is that the margin in Texas is shrinking over time. That State is rapidly becoming less White and the electoral margins are getting smaller. Unless something changes in the dynamic Texas flipping to reliably Democrat in Presidential elections is inevitable and when that happens it's over.

You don't explain, you bloviate to the nth degree.

[GannonFan]

How the hell would anybody know what you wrote on it? Nobody has time to read pages and pages of your literary diarrhea

Well the table below is simple. Since people don't like explanations I'll just say focus on the "Combined" set of columns. Bottom line is that there is no suggestion in those numbers at all that the picture that's been in place since the beginning of exit polling reported at https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/u ... ups-voted/ changed with 2016. In fact the "Black" numbers show a "significant" downward trend over time for Republicans. There is no "significant" trend in the Hispanic data.

What HAS changed in the basic picture is growth in the combined Black+Hispanic vote. It was 10% of the vote in 1976 and grew to 23% by 2016. It grew from 17% to 23% since 2000. No table on another thing but another thing is that the margin in Texas is shrinking over time. That State is rapidly becoming less White and the electoral margins are getting smaller. Unless something changes in the dynamic Texas flipping to reliably Democrat in Presidential elections is inevitable and when that happens it's over.

Again, you need to think more than just one neuron every hour or so. You're implying that due to race, we will only have one viable political party going forward somewhere in the next decade or so. That's just flat out crazy. We've had a duopoly since the inception of this country, and we're going to have a duopoly long after we're all pushing up daisies. Exactly what that duopoly will be is always changing from Federalists and Democratic-Republicans to Democrats and Whigs and to the Democrats and Republicans we have today. No party has continued unchanged for very long, and both will continue to morph and change. In your limited cranial capacity, I'm sure that doesn't register, but let the multiple neuron folks clue you in - there will still be two parties in America for quite a long time.

[GannonFan]

JSO is not wrong.

For someone so quick to assault the mental health of others, the beginning of referring to yourself in the third person should be alarming. You need help, please seek it out.

[Ibanez]

Well the table below is simple. Since people don't like explanations I'll just say focus on the "Combined" set of columns. Bottom line is that there is no suggestion in those numbers at all that the picture that's been in place since the beginning of exit polling reported at https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/u ... ups-voted/ changed with 2016. In fact the "Black" numbers show a "significant" downward trend over time for Republicans. There is no "significant" trend in the Hispanic data.

What HAS changed in the basic picture is growth in the combined Black+Hispanic vote. It was 10% of the vote in 1976 and grew to 23% by 2016. It grew from 17% to 23% since 2000. No table on another thing but another thing is that the margin in Texas is shrinking over time. That State is rapidly becoming less White and the electoral margins are getting smaller. Unless something changes in the dynamic Texas flipping to reliably Democrat in Presidential elections is inevitable and when that happens it's over.

Again, you need to think more than just one neuron every hour or so. You're implying that due to race, we will only have one viable political party going forward somewhere in the next decade or so. That's just flat out crazy. We've had a duopoly since the inception of this country, and we're going to have a duopoly long after we're all pushing up daisies. Exactly what that duopoly will be is always changing from Federalists and Southern mother fucking Democratic-Republicans to Democrats and Whigs and to the Democrats and Republicans we have today. No party has continued unchanged for very long, and both will continue to morph and change. In your limited cranial capacity, I'm sure that doesn't register, but let the multiple neuron folks clue you in - there will still be two parties in America for quite a long time.

FIFY

[kalm]

JSO is not wrong.

For someone so quick to assault the mental health of others, the beginning of referring to yourself in the third person should be alarming. You need help, please seek it out.

Kalm agrees.

[GannonFan]

Again, you need to think more than just one neuron every hour or so. You're implying that due to race, we will only have one viable political party going forward somewhere in the next decade or so. That's just flat out crazy. We've had a duopoly since the inception of this country, and we're going to have a duopoly long after we're all pushing up daisies. Exactly what that duopoly will be is always changing from Federalists and Southern mother **** Democratic-Republicans to Democrats and Whigs and to the Democrats and Republicans we have today. No party has continued unchanged for very long, and both will continue to morph and change. In your limited cranial capacity, I'm sure that doesn't register, but let the multiple neuron folks clue you in - there will still be two parties in America for quite a long time.

FIFY

That's actually my favorite song in the whole soundtrack. Disciplined dissidents indeed.

[Ibanez]

FIFY

That's actually my favorite song in the whole soundtrack. Disciplined dissidents indeed.

i'm supposed to go see it sometime in the next two months. We're getting "free" tickets

[GannonFan]

That's actually my favorite song in the whole soundtrack. Disciplined dissidents indeed.

i'm supposed to go see it sometime in the next two months. We're getting "free" tickets

I'm taking the family in November - bought tickets as a Christmas present this past holiday. Not great seats, but "in the room where it happens" at least. Still playing the lottery - it's easier now, they doubled the number of lottery seats available and they close the lottery and notify winners at 1PM now, which does make it easier to drive up to New York in time for the show. But alas, I still haven't been able to replicate the lottery success I had last March. I had only entered the lottery about 3 times when I won, but have entered it at least more than 100 times since with no such luck again.

[YoUDeeMan]

JSO is not wrong.

For someone so quick to assault the mental health of others, the beginning of referring to yourself in the third person should be alarming. You need help, please seek it out.

Does the J stand for Jimmy?

phpBB [video]

[JohnStOnge]

Again, you need to think more than just one neuron every hour or so. You're implying that due to race, we will only have one viable political party going forward somewhere in the next decade or so. That's just flat out crazy. We've had a duopoly since the inception of this country, and we're going to have a duopoly long after we're all pushing up daisies. Exactly what that duopoly will be is always changing from Federalists and Democratic-Republicans to Democrats and Whigs and to the Democrats and Republicans we have today. No party has continued unchanged for very long, and both will continue to morph and change. In your limited cranial capacity, I'm sure that doesn't register, but let the multiple neuron folks clue you in - there will still be two parties in America for quite a long time.

I don't think the Republican Party will be totally powerless in the near future because of our system. The Senate "fudges" power because each State gets two regardless of population. Also, Republicans have had a lot of time to draw Congressional districts. But this thread is about the idea that the Democratic Party is the Party that needs to worry about the future. And it's not.

The question about whether or not we're always going to have a "duopoly" is a separate one. What we're talking about here is whether it's the Democrat Party that has more to worry about in becoming the "Late Great." And it's not. The underlying demographic trends suggest that if there is going to be any "Late Great" among the two major Parties of the current time it's not going to be the Democratic Party. It's going to be the Republican Party.

Look, the Republican Party itself recognized this problem after the 2012 election. They got a reprieve in the Presidential election this time due to the electoral college system. But they've lost the popular vote in 6 of the past 7 Presidential elections. And they didn't really make any progress in that regard with Trump. Trump got 46 percent of the vote. McCain got 46 percent of the vote and Romney got 47 percent of the vote.

They got a gift in the form of a Democrat candidate that was under FBI investigation and had the Russians after her. But the handwriting is clearly on the wall for them with respect to Presidential elections. It's way more on the wall for them than it is for the Democrats.

[JohnStOnge]

And BTW what we're continuing to see is the Trump administration destroying the credibility of the Republican Party. And the Republicans in Congress, etc., produce a "feedback effect" because some of them for some reason feel like they have to try to defend this clown act.

[houndawg]

Well the table below is simple. Since people don't like explanations I'll just say focus on the "Combined" set of columns. Bottom line is that there is no suggestion in those numbers at all that the picture that's been in place since the beginning of exit polling reported at https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/u ... ups-voted/ changed with 2016. In fact the "Black" numbers show a "significant" downward trend over time for Republicans. There is no "significant" trend in the Hispanic data.

What HAS changed in the basic picture is growth in the combined Black+Hispanic vote. It was 10% of the vote in 1976 and grew to 23% by 2016. It grew from 17% to 23% since 2000. No table on another thing but another thing is that the margin in Texas is shrinking over time. That State is rapidly becoming less White and the electoral margins are getting smaller. Unless something changes in the dynamic Texas flipping to reliably Democrat in Presidential elections is inevitable and when that happens it's over.

Again, you need to think more than just one neuron every hour or so. You're implying that due to race, we will only have one viable political party going forward somewhere in the next decade or so. That's just flat out crazy. We've had a duopoly since the inception of this country, and we're going to have a duopoly long after we're all pushing up daisies. Exactly what that duopoly will be is always changing from Federalists and Democratic-Republicans to Democrats and Whigs and to the Democrats and Republicans we have today. No party has continued unchanged for very long, and both will continue to morph and change. In your limited cranial capacity, I'm sure that doesn't register, but let the multiple neuron folks clue you in - there will still be two parties in America for quite a long time.

One of them will have about 150 members.

[JohnStOnge]

I honestly don't get why people would even think to argue that the problem for the Republican Party in terms of where things appear to be going with respect to the evolution of the US population isn't obvious. Why anybody would think that it's the Democrat Party that has to worry about its long term viability is a complete mystery.

What on Earth do these people think it's going to be like for the Republican Party when Whites are less than 50% of the population? That day is coming. You think the Republican Party is going to be viable nationally if something like 70% of non Whites are voting Democrat when less than 50% of the population is White? Really?

[CID1990]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

I honestly don't get why people would even think to argue that the problem for the Republican Party in terms of where things appear to be going with respect to the evolution of the US population isn't obvious. Why anybody would think that it's the Democrat Party that has to worry about its long term viability is a complete mystery.

What on Earth do these people think it's going to be like for the Republican Party when Whites are less than 50% of the population? That day is coming. You think the Republican Party is going to be viable nationally if something like 70% of non Whites are voting Democrat when less than 50% of the population is White? Really?

Oh the Donks have big problems ahead for their Party. The DNC hurt them very badly in the primary and all those folks who stayed home in the election haven't forgotten the DNC's tactics or their strategy of "they have to come back to us for the general election and vote for Hillary because of the alternative".