Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 08 Nov '12 19:58
    The 2012 elections actually weren’t about a demographic explosion with non-white voters. Instead, they were about a large group of white voters not showing up.
    Almost 7 million fewer whites voted in 2012 than in 2008.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106-2.html
  2. 08 Nov '12 20:43
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    The 2012 elections actually weren’t about a demographic explosion with non-white voters. Instead, they were about a large group of white voters not showing up.
    Almost 7 million fewer whites voted in 2012 than in 2008.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106-2.html
    That is interesting, although the nonwhite turnouts were also up.

    Conservatives who didn't trust a moderate? Blue collar workers disenchanted with everybody?

    Did they incopororate geographic distributions?
  3. 08 Nov '12 20:54 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    That is interesting, although the nonwhite turnouts were also up.

    Conservatives who didn't trust a moderate? Blue collar workers disenchanted with everybody?

    Did they incopororate geographic distributions?
    I found it interesting too.
    Go to the link it, They elaborate on it quite a bit. You'll probably like it.

    According to them Blacks were up only 294,000.
    Hispanics up 1,723,296 thats signifigant to me.
    "Other" 467,000


    edit: (The increased share of the minority vote as a percent of the total vote is not the result of a large increase in minorities in the numerator, it is a function of many fewer whites in the denominator.)
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 Nov '12 21:16
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    The 2012 elections actually weren’t about a demographic explosion with non-white voters. Instead, they were about a large group of white voters not showing up.
    Almost 7 million fewer whites voted in 2012 than in 2008.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106-2.html
    The math is poor. First of all, he only uses the totals for Obama and Romney to come up with his base figure of 118 million (actually it's at 118.7 million) but more than 2 million voted for third party candidates. Thus, 121 million have been counted already.

    Second, his "missing" estimates for the out States seems low. California, for example, has counted 69% of its precincts totaling 9.4 million votes. Extrapolating that out, it looks like 4 million more will come in in that State rather than the 3 million he estimates. His estimates for Washington and Oregon are also about a million low based on similar calculations. Assuming he make the same type of arithmetic error for the other States, a more likely "guesstimate" is 10 million votes yet to be counted, meaning turnout will exceed 2008 levels.

    Third, he fails to mention that Hurricane Sandy severely depressed turnout in New York and New Jersey. Absent that disaster (which reduced NY turnout by an estimated 15, it seems that turnout in 2012 would have been significantly higher and so white turnout may well have equalled 2008 raw numbers.
  5. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    09 Nov '12 01:47
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The math is poor. First of all, he only uses the totals for Obama and Romney to come up with his base figure of 118 million (actually it's at 118.7 million) but more than 2 million voted for third party candidates. Thus, 121 million have been counted already.

    Second, his "missing" estimates for the out States seems low. California, for examp ...[text shortened]... ave been significantly higher and so white turnout may well have equalled 2008 raw numbers.
    And here I thought this thread was going to be about Bob Avakian's Revolutionary Communist Party.
  6. 09 Nov '12 20:55
    Originally posted by rwingett
    And here I thought this thread was going to be about Bob Avakian's Revolutionary Communist Party.
    Did you ever see Avakian on the Letterman show? It was hilarious.
  7. 09 Nov '12 21:11
    Originally posted by Kunsoo to rwingett
    Did you ever see Avakian on the Letterman show? It was hilarious.
    As far as I know, Bob Avakian once appeared on a television show presented
    by Tom Snyder, not David Letterman.
  8. 10 Nov '12 00:55
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    As far as I know, Bob Avakian once appeared on a television show presented
    by Tom Snyder, not David Letterman.
    Duchess - If my memory serves right, way back in the 1970s or early 80s he appeared on Letterman who introduced him by saying, "I want to introduce you to the leader of the Vanguard of the Revolution, Mr. Bob Avakian." He asked Avakian what would happen to his show come the Revolution, and Avakian said, "Well sir, you're a running dog so we'll probably have to cancel your show and maybe even chop your head off."

    He was probably joking of course. But Avakian is a bit of a nut, so I can't say for certain.

    Am I confusing Snyder with Letterman? I can't completely discount the possibility as my memory is scant on the event, but I doubt it.
  9. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    10 Nov '12 01:28
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    Did you ever see Avakian on the Letterman show? It was hilarious.
    No, I didn't know he had ever been there.

    Out of curiosity, I went to one meeting of the RCP in the mid-80s. I was not impressed to see that they still had Stalin in their canon of heroes. I never went back to a second meeting. Avakian always struck me as a sort of a third rate Enver Hoxha. Vanguardism at its worst.
  10. 10 Nov '12 09:38
    Originally posted by rwingett
    No, I didn't know he had ever been there.

    Out of curiosity, I went to one meeting of the RCP in the mid-80s. I was not impressed to see that they still had Stalin in their canon of heroes. I never went back to a second meeting. Avakian always struck me as a sort of a third rate Enver Hoxha. Vanguardism at its worst.
    Stalin? They're Maoists.
  11. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    10 Nov '12 12:32
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    Stalin? They're Maoists.
    Lenin->Stalin->Mao

    Yes, they're Maoists, but they still proudly display Stalin on the family escutcheon.
  12. 10 Nov '12 20:22
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    Duchess - If my memory serves right, way back in the 1970s or early 80s he appeared on Letterman who introduced him by saying, "I want to introduce you to the leader of the Vanguard of the Revolution, Mr. Bob Avakian." He asked Avakian what would happen to his show come the Revolution, and Avakian said, "Well sir, you're a running dog so we'll probably have ...[text shortened]... completely discount the possibility as my memory is scant on the event, but I doubt it.
    "Am I confusing (Tom) Snyder with (David) Letterman? I can't completely
    discount the possibility as my memory is scant on the event, but I doubt it."
    --Kunsoo

    Both Tom Snyder and David Letterman presented late night television chat shows.
    It's simple to find (I used Google) evidence confirming that Bob Avakian appeared
    on Tom Snyder's show, but I can find no evidence that he ever appeared on David
    Letterman's show. Now I suspect that the chances of someone as far out of the
    American political mainstream as Bob Avakian being invited to both Tom Snyder's
    and David Letterman's shows is extremely low. And if Bob Avakian had appeared
    on David Letterman's show, why does Google seem to have found no record of it,
    in contrast to his appearance on Tom Snyder's show?

    So it seems most likely that your memory's fallible about an television show
    appearance that presumably happened more than thirty years ago.
  13. 11 Nov '12 06:05
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "Am I confusing (Tom) Snyder with (David) Letterman? I can't completely
    discount the possibility as my memory is scant on the event, but I doubt it."
    --Kunsoo

    Both Tom Snyder and David Letterman presented late night television chat shows.
    It's simple to find (I used Google) evidence confirming that Bob Avakian appeared
    on Tom Snyder's show, but I ...[text shortened]... t an television show
    appearance that presumably happened more than thirty years ago.
    As I said, it's possible.

    Letterman used to be cutting edge however. He invited people he would never invite today. Like Harvey Pekar for instance.
  14. 11 Nov '12 06:17
    On the thread topic, white evangelicals upped their numbers.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/08/1159031/-Ralph-Reed-White-evangelical-turnout-better-than-2004
  15. 11 Nov '12 13:36 / 4 edits
    The GOP has become the party of "a little less of that please". Their debt reduction plans were not all that impressive to me and there were no major differences between Obama and Romney. Sure, Romney said he wanted to repeal Obamacare but no entitlements ever get repealed and he would simply have replaced it with something very similar. In short, the GOP has nothing to offer me any longer, so I voted libertarian. From here on out my votes become protest votes as I watch America go down the tubes. All that can be done is await the next great entitlement, or economic collapse, which ever comes first.

    America has chosen a path, like it or not. Illegals will soon be made legal and they continue to come across the border. This means that to win future elections both parties must focus on pandering to them. To this point the democrats have done a better job, although I hear Boehner making noise about legalizing them all. In fact, Texas is projected to be a blue state in less than 10 years, which means that the GOP must move to where the democrats are today in order to survive. This election cycle democrats were said to have gotten about 70% of the vote, but I'm thinking it was probably higher. Although many are "religious", looking at Catholics who vote for democrats in large numbers in the US already I don't see this being an issue for democrats. After all, Catholics remain Catholic while using contraceptives and having abortions and think nothing of it. In addiiton, those from Mexico are only familiar with centralized government so anything else would be foreign to them.