Presidents will be Democrats forever more

[ML]

Went to presentation yesterday by Professor of Geography who has studied and written about voting patterns by States and even by Counties going back into the 1800s.

And, surprisingly, he is a right winger which is unusual for professors outside Business, Medicine, Law and Engineering.

But he clearly laid out how republicans virtually have no chance to be elected as president in future due to demographics.

Illegal immigrants coming in and eventually voting for democrats, legal immigrants voting democratic, growth of minority populations faster than whites, increasing growth of large metro areas, etc.

It all made perfect sense to me.

But in another surprising outcome, Republicans stand good chance of controlling House for many years.

The reasoning I don't fully understand, but it  goes something like this in his example:

In New York City, the democratic House of Representative folks there win with 80% plus or so of the vote.  So there is about 29% that is wasted.

In contrast, in upstate New York, the republican HoR folks win with 51-52% of the vote.  So if some of those (excess) left wingers would move from the large cities into the rural areas, the democrats would pick up those HoR seats also.  But that's unlikely because less welfare programs available in the country side.

So in the hugely democrat controlled large cities, a lot of votes are wasted.

Others here may understand this better than I.

[Slumba]

Demographics is destiny.  We let Latin America in, so now we will be another banana republic.

"A new life awaits you ... in the global favela..."

And yes, the Democrats knew this all along.  They always were traitors, since the 60s at least.

[jone]

Went to presentation yesterday by Professor of Geography who has studied and written about voting patterns by States and even by Counties going back into the 1800s.

And, surprisingly, he is a right winger which is unusual for professors outside Business, Medicine, Law and Engineering.

But he clearly laid out how republicans virtually have no chance to be elected as president in future due to demographics.

Illegal immigrants coming in and eventually voting for democrats, legal immigrants voting democratic, growth of minority populations faster than whites, increasing growth of large metro areas, etc.

It all made perfect sense to me.

But in another surprising outcome, Republicans stand good chance of controlling House for many years.

The reasoning I don't fully understand, but it  goes something like this in his example:

In New York City, the democratic House of Representative folks there win with 80% plus or so of the vote.  So there is about 29% that is wasted.

In contrast, in upstate New York, the republican HoR folks win with 51-52% of the vote.

So in the hugely democrat controlled large cities, a lot of votes are wasted.

Others here may understand this better than I.

Look at it at the State level

In NY State, Hillary wins by 35%.  But she only gets the electoral votes for NY.  Trump wins Florida by 200 votes (can anyone say 'year 2000'?)  Ultimately Hillary received many more votes than Trump did but each were awarded their respective electoral college votes. 

With population voting disparity heavy in urban areas, there are many more votes for Democrats that have no impact.  The argument could also be made that in the Presidential races Republicans still will win elections because they have minor voting pluralities in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Nevada.  Trump wins these races by less than 5%.  But he does win them.  (According to his play book.)

Thus we are left with Virginia, Colorado and New Hampshire as the true decision makers in a Presidential race.

What your professor did not adjust for is that as sunbelt states have more people of color, only traditional republicanism will suffer.  There will be a new brand of republicanism that emerges with people of color.  We are seeing that throughout the country.   Those candidates that embrace it will do well.  Those that don't will have a tough time getting elected.

[2tallbill]

So in the hugely democrat controlled large cities, a lot of votes are wasted.

Others here may understand this better than I.

The Dems MUST win a very high percentage of the Black vote to win, yet what
do they do to help black people? They have some free stuff, but they don't give
anything that they really need. The Dems don't want black people to get ahead
much because then they wouldn't need the free stuff.

The Dems treat blacks as second or third class citizens. They demand their votes
and their absolute loyalty on all things, yet they are considered far less important
than illegal immigrants who compete with them for jobs. They are far less significant
than the teachers union who gives money to the DNC and insists that black kids
go to substandard schools.

Blacks need the same things whites do. Jobs, prosperity, education, safety from
terrorists and crime. NONE of those things are even remotely important to the
DNC. They are far more interested in Global Warming, punishing success, and
controlling peoples lives.

Trump has made some efforts at getting the black vote, but if a presidential candidate
really showed how Dems want to keep blacks on the plantation then the Dems couldn't
win for the next couple of decades.

[fathertime]

Demographics is destiny.  We let Latin America in, so now we will be another banana republic.

"A new life awaits you ... in the global favela..."
 

if we actually become a banana republic, it will be people like YOU that make it that way!


Fathertime! 

[ML]

Trying to find out latest on Clinton scandal . . . didn't see any news coverage of it other than on FOX.  And even there didn't seem like anything substantial had been found.

But stumbled onto this interesting Electoral College projection site.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/election-prediction#map_s=2232131113312123222113122231111322213122223131232%7C1%7C2

The have laid out starting point of the 'sure fire' red/blue  states and show the battleground states in black.

Then each individual can use mouse clicker to change the black states into red or blue and watch the Electoral totals.

By playing with it . . . you can see just how enormous the task for Donald is.

In my messing around . . . he has to get every battleground state except Wisc, Mich, Virginia and Penn to get to 274.

And I don't know why Virginia is even listed as a battleground state.

[Slumba]

Understand this:  none of this - the Latino immigration flood, the Muslim refugees resettled in the USA, but only certain parts of the USA, etc. was an accident.  It was DELIBERATELY PLANNED.

And Wikileaks shows this:

http://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/39309

I have made 3 screenshots from the PowerPoint in this email, which was sent in 2007:



Note Point #3 - Demographics is destiny. 

The last thing Democrats want is an informed populace - this explains why it is so tough for Europeans and Russians to emigrate to the USA, while letting in 10s of millions of desperate Latinos, none of whom come from countries with a long history of well run and reasonably non-corrupt government (and who aren't noted for producing highly literate people).



note "expand the battleground map" this means, deliberately ensuring that new immigrants go to Republican strongholds and make it "purple" instead of "red".



What are the battleground states in this election?  NH, PA, OH, WI, CO, FL, VA .

"Mass immigration is the State electing itself a new populace."

PROGRESSIVE = TRAITOR

Obama implemented all of the above.

Merkel, German chancellor,  has implemented it, with disastrous results for Germany.

Canadian PM Trudeau, literally the son of a whore, will try to implement it as well.

[jone]

Guesses today won't equal guesses tomorrow:

Clinton:  PA, WI, MN, MI

Trump:  ME(2), NH, CO, OH, NV

Too close to call:  North Carolina and Florida

If Clinton wins either North Carolina or Florida, she wins the election.

If Trump wins both North Carolina and Florida, he wins the election.

So, were I to guess today, I would say Clinton.  By 20 electoral votes.  She takes Florida along the I4 Corridor and wins by at least 2%.  She wins the national vote by 1%.

[alex330]

She takes Florida along the I4 Corridor

The I4 is a real conundrum. Orlando is Heavy blue with Puerto Ricans.  Rural areas very red, but the Easternmost areas on the Atlantic have swapped to red with retirees and new white suburbia developments. Tampa is where it will be decided.

[Larry1]

The I4 is a real conundrum. Orlando is Heavy blue with Puerto Ricans.  Rural areas very red, but the Easternmost areas on the Atlantic have swapped to red with retirees and new white suburbia developments. Tampa is where it will be decided.

Trump will also rack up votes in Florida's panhandle and in the state's southwestern region (Collier, Lee, Charlotte, and sarasota counties).

[alex330]

Trump will also rack up votes in Florida's panhandle and in the state's southwestern region (Collier, Lee, Charlotte, and sarasota counties).

You talking bout lower Bama? Trump country for sure.

[Brasscasing]

Neither CNN or The Washington Post can hold the (propaganda) line anymore...

The electoral map is definitely moving in Donald Trump’s direction

..."National polling was the first to tighten — the WaPo-ABC Tracking Poll showed the Democratic presidential candidate up three points on Friday — but swing-state polling has followed suit. CNN, as of Friday morning, even had Clinton below 270 electoral votes for the first time in a long time."...

..."We at The Fix aren't there just yet. But we are making three changes in our electoral-map ratings — all of which favor Trump."...

www.washingtonpost.com

Two things I've noted in the last 24 hours...

MSNBC have practically removed any semblance of pro Trump surrogates/punditry from their broadcasts/news cycles and the CNN pro Trump surrogates/punditry are doing something they haven't done for months...smiling.

I'm starting to think Trump has a real chance with the electoral votes.

Brass

[Gator]

Two things I've noted in the last 24 hours...

MSNBC have practically removed any semblance of pro Trump surrogates/punditry from their broadcasts/news cycles and the CNN pro Trump surrogates/punditry are doing something they haven't done for months...smiling.

Morning Joe as MSNBC was still balanced early this morning.  I don't know what happened later, but at lunch I turned on MSNBC briefly.  I had to turn it off because the few minutes I saw were bitterly anti-Trump, as if their jobs dependent upon his losing.  I stopped watching news or otherwise the wife would think I am ill from her food. 

[Brasscasing]

Morning Joe as MSNBC was still balanced early this morning.  I don't know what happened later, but at lunch I turned on MSNBC briefly.  I had to turn it off because the few minutes I saw were bitterly anti-Trump, as if their jobs dependent upon his losing.  I stopped watching news or otherwise the wife would think I am ill from her food.

 

It's getting downright brutal out there depending on which news network you're channel surfing on.

Brass

[jone]

The more I read, the more it comes down to North Carolina and Florida.  By 8PM Eastern Time on election night, it could be all over with either Clinton or Trump declared the presumptive winner.  And I would be like the pundits on TV who don't know what they're talking about if I dared to say how these two states will come out.  I will say that the early voting in Florida does not bear a resemblance to the early voting for Obama.  The racial makeup is totally wrong for a Clinton victory.  But never trust the early voting.

[HoundDaddyLee]

The more I read, the more it comes down to North Carolina and Florida.  By 8PM Eastern Time on election night, it could be all over with either Clinton or Trump declared the presumptive winner.  And I would be like the pundits on TV who don't know what they're talking about if I dared to say how these two states will come out.  I will say that the early voting in Florida does not bear a resemblance to the early voting for Obama.  The racial makeup is totally wrong for a Clinton victory.  But never trust the early voting.

I believe that a winner cannot be declared until all the polls have closed. This rule was put in after Reagan's huge win in 1984. I think this rule is still in place, but I could be wrong.


HDL

[jone]

Old Russian Proverb:

Even your grandmother doesn't know if it will rain or snow....

In other words, no one knows who is gonna win this election.

[Gator]

Old Russian Proverb:

Even your grandmother doesn't know if it will rain or snow....

In other words, no one knows who is gonna win this election.

And keep in mind polls are lagging indicators.

[2tallbill]

I believe that a winner cannot be declared until all the polls have closed. This rule was put in after Reagan's huge win in 1984. I think this rule is still in place, but I could be wrong.


HDL

There is no rule, it's more of a tradition. Jimmy Clueless Carter conceded before the
polls were even closed in the Pacific time zone and was criticized because there were
still a bunch of down the ballot candidates that lost. Al Ulman was the chairman of the
Ways and means committee out of Oregon and he lost. Would he have won if Carter
waited? Who knows?

However, the media would cover any Presidential candidate conceding regardless
of what polls are open or closed.

[treadmilldude]

HAHA.

[ML]

Just reviewing my first post in this thread.

I should clarify that the professor didn't say that a Republican (Trump) couldn't win this 2016 election, but rather there couldn't be any further wins . . . due to the demographics that would become even more pronounced in the future.

But anyway, I myself had bought into the polls and had pretty much given up hope that The Donald could win.

Just now 12:45 AM Wednesday morning looking over projections and almost all are showing The Donald as our next president.

New York Times is predicting his winning at 95%.

538 is predicting him winning at 77%.

He had to win almost all the battle ground states which seemed impossible . . . but he is doing what was even more impossible . . . shattering Hillary's blue wall in upper midwest.

[msmob]

ML


You were wise to 'review' the Professors estimations ;; I was ready to 'pounce' on you / him this morning


I hope we'll read less of conspiracy theories and the voting system being 'unfair', now that Trump has vote more EC votes ..


When America catches a cold, the rest of the world catches the 'flu - used to be and oft heard idiom ...I have put on thermal undies and an extra layer of clothes this morning ...

[Bee Farmer]

Illegal immigrants coming in and eventually voting for democrats, legal immigrants voting democratic, growth of minority populations faster than whites, increasing growth of large metro areas, etc.

In a world that is unchecked and in which people go along with whatever their leaders tell them, the professor is correct.  However, we live in the real world, so events like Trump's election blindside college educated idiots.

How many illegal immigrants are going to be scrambling for the exits?  How many illegals are going to be deported?  (If they eliminate citizenship rights for illegal immigrant anchor babies, how many more would get deported?)

If Trump does away with welfare, or severely curtails welfare programs (How else will he balance the budget when he won't cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security or the military?  Welfare has to get cut.) how many legal and illegal immigrants will bail out like rats on a sinking ship?

If welfare gets cut, how many minorities are going to either head to Canada or learn to be productive citizens?  When people are faced with either working or starving, they start working in a hurry, and don't have time to get in trouble with drugs and crime.  And kids of former welfare families will start to learn a work ethic, so after Trump is out of office, they will still have a work ethic and not revert to welfare if it becomes available in the future.

How will the demographics in America change if Trump's presidency makes it clear to minorities, illegal immigrants, etc. that America was intended to be a white, Christian country?

[BillyB]

I should clarify that the professor didn't say that a Republican (Trump) couldn't win this 2016 election, but rather there couldn't be any further wins . . . due to the demographics that would become even more pronounced in the future.

Minorities are capable of voting Republican. It's clear less minorities voted for Hillary than they did Obama. Truth is if it were any other Republican, that had no baggage or a big mouth that ran against Hillary, they would have CRUSHED Hillary in the election. Trump won some swing states by a percent or two. This election could have easily gone the other way. There's no reason for a corrupt person like Hillary to even be close to getting the presidency unless one runs up against a guy like Trump.

Also many of the Democrats today will turn Republican. People tend to get more conservative as we get older. I don't think the professor has much to worry about in the future after seeing the results of this election.

[Anotherkiwi]

I hope we'll read less of conspiracy theories and the voting system being 'unfair', now that Trump has vote more EC votes ..

And yet more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.  Maybe she should jump on Trump's bandwagon and scream that the result was rigged and that she's changed her mind and won't accept it.