Only one party became more white.
-
Good old statistics. I am not sure that the increase in black voters proves any type of trend or not. If the chart below is correct, the black vote for Republic president candidate has gone up and down between 6 - 15% for the past 60 years.
-
Wasn't the Republicans...
https://thefederalist.com/2021/05/11/majority-of-trumps-2020-voters-were-women-and-minorities/
@jolly said in Only one party became more white.:
Wasn't the Republicans...
https://thefederalist.com/2021/05/11/majority-of-trumps-2020-voters-were-women-and-minorities/
I read the headline "New Data Finds Majority Of Trump’s 2020 Voters Were Women and Minorities" and figure that's rather ... expected.
Take a random population, already you expect roughly half of them are women. You needly only to exceed "half" by a little bit to claim "majority." So once you get "half" from counting the women, you add also the minorities, and very easily and very expectedly, you get a "majority" with "women" and "minorities." And we're supposed to be impressed by any of this?
Oh, even if the Democratic Party becomes "more white," is that a problem? Why do you think that is? Are you about policies or are you about identity politics?
-
What do you think? Have an opinion? Or just another egghead soliloquy?
-
Apparently, you do. You're in this thread, aren't you?
-
@jolly said in Only one party became more white.:
Apparently, you do. You're in this thread, aren't you?
You thread title says 'only one party became more white' without specking which. I was curious to see what you have to say. Then I saw the very weak claim in your link and I commented on it.
Having an interest in seeing what you have to say does not equate to caring about whether the Democratic Party has become more white. Neither does commenting on the very weak claim headlined in the article you linked to.
Now perhaps you can consider addressing my questions:
[E]ven if the Democratic Party becomes "more white," is that a problem? Why do you think that is? Are you about policies or are you about identity politics? -
@jolly said in Only one party became more white.:
Apparently, you do. You're in this thread, aren't you?
You thread title says 'only one party became more white' without specking which. I was curious to see what you have to say. Then I saw the very weak claim in your link and I commented on it.
Having an interest in seeing what you have to say does not equate to caring about whether the Democratic Party has become more white. Neither does commenting on the very weak claim headlined in the article you linked to.
Now perhaps you can consider addressing my questions:
[E]ven if the Democratic Party becomes "more white," is that a problem? Why do you think that is? Are you about policies or are you about identity politics?@axtremus said in Only one party became more white.:
@jolly said in Only one party became more white.:
Apparently, you do. You're in this thread, aren't you?
You thread title says 'only one party became more white' without specking which. I was curious to see what you have to say. Then I saw the very weak claim in your link and I commented on it.
Having an interest in seeing what you have to say does not equate to caring about whether the Democratic Party has become more white. Neither does commenting on the very weak claim headlined in the article you linked to.
Now perhaps you can consider addressing my questions:
[E]ven if the Democratic Party becomes "more white," is that a problem? Why do you think that is? Are you about policies or are you about identity politics?Trust me when I say I very seldom have any interest in many of your overly nerdy attempts at conversation. It occasionally becomes tiring listening to someone entranced by their own brilliance.
However, if you wonder why the Dems becoming more white is interesting, it is because the Dems style themselves as the Big Tent party, the party of minorities. When the Republicans cut into those voters, it belies the narrative and can eventually erode and reallocate power.
Maybe you don't understand, but policies are useless without the power to enact them.
-
@jolly said in Only one party became more white.:
Maybe you don't understand, but policies are useless without the power to enact them.
Without good policies, having the power to enact stuff will simply lead to evil and disastrous outcomes.
And don’t worry about the Democrats’ tent. Worry about the GOP’s instead where, increasingly it looks it’s too small to let Sen. Romney and Rep. Cheney stay, yet continue to be filled with the likes of Rep. Greene (QAnon follower) and Rep. Gaetz (being investing for sex-trafficking).
-
@horace said in Only one party became more white.:
Progressivism/wokeness has always been the ideology of high status white people, who are more divorced from reality than the average person. They hated trickle down economics, but they love trickle down cultural ideology.
I'd always been of the opinion that change is good. Progress is good. Trying to better things without relying on tradition for its own sake is good. So sure, liberal programs, sounds great to me. Let's try to move things forward.
But looking at not only how modern liberals have so thoroughly screwed things up, but also conservatives who've dabbled in restructuring, I'm now of the opinion that the law of unintended consequences is exponential, and proportional to the number of people affected by the change.
So I'm still for trying shit out and pushing boundaries, but on an individual basis. If the new thing sticks and helps others, great, but pushing for huge, sweeping change on only the social level without having any bearing on or care for the fallout is basically the M.O. of Bond villains.
@aqua-letifer said in Only one party became more white.:
I'm now of the opinion that the law of unintended consequences is exponential, and proportional to the number of people affected by the change.
Wow. How true.
