I am ready to be corrected, but I believe the bolded is incorrect. Romney did better with white voters than Reagan. Reagan got 54 percent and was a landslide winner. Romney got 59 percent and lost. That is indicative of how the demographics work.

 

Last I heard, Trump was polling worse than what Romney actually got with white voters.

 

Reagan got 66% of the white vote in 1984. I believe Romney got the largest number of white voters in history, but the largest percent of white voters went to Reagan in 1984.

 

Also, here are some numbers that point out the changing demographics in the US. In 1984, 86% of the voters were white and 13% were AA or Hispanic. In 2012, 72% white and 23% were AA or Hispanic, plus add in 3% Asian and 2% other.

I am ready to be corrected, but I believe the bolded is incorrect. Romney did better with white voters than Reagan. Reagan got 54 percent and was a landslide winner. Romney got 59 percent and lost. That is indicative of how the demographics work.

 

Last I heard, Trump was polling worse than what Romney actually got with white voters.

 

I don't know one way or another if VOR' s prospective is correct but even the mere suggestion that it could be is troubling, and sadly demonstrates that a huge chunk of white males in this country are more ate up with ignorance than I had originally thought possible. :eek:

Early voting analysis shows Latinos voting at a higher rate , Asians voting at a higher rate, and blacks voting at a lower rate.

 

The first two ate good for HRC.

I've always thought the democrats, in elections past, did a better job of micro marketing to each segment. Telling each group what they wanted to hear independently. Republicans typically just preached one message to all. I didn't pick up on that as much this year.

 

Agree with this premise as well, but it's kinda' hard not to cater to most groups when you essentially offer free stuff to everyone but the 1%? Tough to dislike Santa Claus, unless you understand real math; but most seem to be more concerned about what's in it for me, than whether or not the country can succeed?

 

Dems also consistently do a better job of sticking together, regardless of the circumstances or allegations against their candidates. No matter how tainted their candidate may be, or how much they disagree; they circle the wagons and show unity to the masses--See Clintons & Obamas, or Clinton and Sanders.

Both parties have their own versions of free stuff. For the Republicans it is tax cuts. They always promise to cut taxes and that is just another version of give me something more.

Both parties have their own versions of free stuff. For the Republicans it is tax cuts. They always promise to cut taxes and that is just another version of give me something more.

Your assessment that a tax cut is a "freebie" is ignorance at best. Money earned does NOT belong to Govt or politicians.

Early voting analysis shows Latinos voting at a higher rate , Asians voting at a higher rate, and blacks voting at a lower rate.

 

The first two ate good for HRC.

 

Darn it. Typing on phone.

 

Are good. Not ate good.

Your assessment that a tax cut is a "freebie" is ignorance at best. Money earned does NOT belong to Govt or politicians.

 

It is an enticement of more money to you for your vote.

It is an enticement of more money to you for your vote.

 

Agreed, but one first must EARN some money to take advantage of a tax cut? EARN being the operative word!!

Agreed, but one first must EARN some money to take advantage of a tax cut? EARN being the operative word!!

 

And I agree with you ... but if we are looking at giving something to voters to try and win their vote, it works the same way.

And I agree with you ... but if we are looking at giving something to voters to try and win their vote, it works the same way.

 

Guess we'll agree to disagree, as I feel there's a big difference between offering a wage earner the ability to keep some of their hard earned dollars vs. letting the government squander it on increased bureaucracy; and giveaways to someone for putting forth no useful effort to aid society? Somehow feel we're on the same page however?

Yes, we are on the same page. Welfare and a tax cut are very different. But, it is money to you for your vote in both situations. Very different but also the same.

 

Is it more irresponsible to offer tax cuts and run up the debt or offer entitlements and run up the debt? In both situations the debt gets blown up.

A couple of weeks ago, I said Hillary was likely to win. Its not looking good for Hillary. Whatever little appeal she has, has been killed. Whoever votes for her on the 8th, will be a depressed voter. A voter not sure if she will be indicted or not.

Both parties have their own versions of free stuff. For the Republicans it is tax cuts. They always promise to cut taxes and that is just another version of give me something more.

Letting people keep more money that they have earned themselves equals "free stuff" paid for by money that other people earned and by money that has yet to be earned by future generations. Got it.

It is an enticement of more money to you for your vote.

It is an enticement for your vote that you pay for yourself. Democrat pitches to their core constituents are paid to those who pay no federal income taxes by federal taxpayers. It's hard to see how those two enticements are the same.