How Should The Democratic Party Win Back Less Educated Whites?

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by Natty Bumpo, Apr 12, 2018.

  1. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,703
    Likes Received:
    21,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How Should The Democratic Party Win Back Less Educated Whites?

    Heres a few suggestions:

    Stop advocating to ban guns whilst claiming 'no one is trying to take your guns.' It makes you sound crazy.

    Statements like 'white people don't know what its like to be poor' warrant ridicule, not cheers.

    White people didn't invent slavery. Stastically speaking, brown people most likely did. And then EVERYONE participated in it, and then WHITE people ENDED it. Try to remember that when talking about slavery.

    Being 'uneducated' isn't a bad thing. Some people prefer manual labor, and the vast majority of what folks consider 'education' just distracts from growing food and getting houses, roads and sewers built. Don't look down on folks who aren't concerned about making the world better with you. Someone has to keep it running in the meantime.

    Theres more, but I think you'll go a looong way with just those. GL!
     
  2. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    16,902
    Likes Received:
    5,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was looking at Roper, their exit polls. Although Roper didn't break it down by race, in 2012 Obama won those with less than a HS. degree over Romney 64-35 and HS school degree, no college 51-48.

    https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/

    CNN exit polls show that Trump won HS or less over Clinton 51-46.

    https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

    Without race being involved, perhaps one needs to ask what was the difference between Obama and Clinton, between Trump and Romney. Charisma leaps out. Obama had it, Romney didn't, Trump had it, Hillary didn't.

    Now whites went for Romney 59-39 and whites when for Trump 57-37, the same 20 point margin. You can go further if you like, blacks went to Obama 93-6 and to Hillary 89-8. Hispanics to Obama 71-27 and to Hillary 69-28, Asian to Obama 73-26 and to Hillary 65-27. Hillary was down 4-4-8 points from Obama in the minority groups. Charisma again, maybe? Trump did a point or two better among minorities than Romney, but it was the third party vote that really gain where even quite a few minorities refused to choose between Trump and Clinton.

    Obama won HS or less 53-45 in 2008, although Bush won this group 51-48 in 2004 and 50-46 in 2000. Now Bill Clinton won HS or less in 1996 51-35 and again in 1992 43-36 with Perot getting most of the rest. Obama certainly was more charismatic than McCain, I would give Bush an edge over both Kerry and Gore, the statue and there was no doubt Bill Clinton was the charismatic one over Dole and Bush the elder.

    I think this has more to do with candidates. Charismatic candidate, the winner. Hillary was ho hum, didn't excite, Trump did and he won this group. Romney and McCain failed to excite, Obama did. He won.
     
  3. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps we should require a certain level of education prowess prior to giving someone the right to vote. That is what the founders of Democracy intended.

    Having a bunch of uneducated rabble with the right to vote defeats the purpose. There is no such thing as functional democracy when the ignorant rabble are allowed to vote.

    Keep in mind that I am including you in this bunch. No offence but, in order to vote one needs to - at minimum - understand the 2 main principles on which this nation was founded.

    Perhaps 1 in 1000 have this understanding.
     
  4. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,327
    Likes Received:
    38,997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Better question is how are the Democrats going to keep the millennials?

    Exclusive: Democrats lose ground with millennials - Reuters/Ipsos poll
    MANCHESTER, N.H. (Reuters) - Enthusiasm for the Democratic Party is waning among millennials as its candidates head into the crucial midterm congressional elections, according to the Reuters/Ipsos national opinion poll.....

    The shift away from Democrats was more pronounced among white millennials - who accounted for two-thirds of all votes cast in that age group in 2016.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-millennials-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1I10YH
     
    Pycckia likes this.
  5. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,327
    Likes Received:
    38,997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well since we had almost four times the economic activity and more than double the capital gains tax revenues why would you want them at the Democrat rates.

    Peak performance
    Clinton 1996 rate 29%
    Realizations - $261B
    Revenue - $66B

    Gingrich/Kasich 2000 rate 21%
    Realizations - $644B
    Revenue - $127B

    Bush43 2007 15%
    Realizations - $924B
    Revenue - $137B

    Oh that's right it's that envy and jealousy thing.
     
  6. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cherry picking again? Why do you always compare periods of different realizations?

    Here's what happened with the tax cuts with equivalent realizations -- revenues tanked with lower taxes despite the same realizations:

    Year - Realized C/G - Tax rev.
    1996 $260.696B $66.396B [Cap gains tax rate 28%]
    2002 $268.615B $49.122B [Cap gains tax rate 20%]
    2009 $263.460B $36.686B [Cap gains tax rate 15%]
    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

    And of course, youhave never even tried to prove that cap gains taxes caused economic growth or stock market booms as you implicitly claims, despite me asking you several times.

    Why is that?

    Oh that's right it's that greed and avarice thing.

    For some, more is never enough.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2018
  7. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,327
    Likes Received:
    38,997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No I gave you the best years of each, want to compare the worst or something?

    Peak performance
    Clinton 1996 rate 29%
    Realizations - $261B
    Revenue - $66B

    Gingrich/Kasich 2000 rate 21%
    Realizations - $644B
    Revenue - $127B

    Bush43 2007 15%
    Realizations - $924B
    Revenue - $137B

    Note how the lower rates beat the higher rates in realizations AND revenue meaning more economic activity, profitable economic activity and more actual revenues.

    There weren't equivalent realizations, the lower reats BEAT the higher rates for realizations. That's what happens when you have a great economy.

    And don't try to misrepresent the data as you try to do by comparing the performance of the higher rate during a strong growth period with the performance or the lower rates during a slowdown or recession you know that would be a dishonest use of the data.
     
  8. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A lot to answer but the obvious mistake is your claim that the government cannot spend and stimulate the economy. It is called defecit spending which the current administration is doing in spades. It is what Regan did, and Bush did and now Trump is doing which is cutting taxes, increasing government spending and raising the debt to temporarlily prop up the economy.
     
  9. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes you cherry picked the very best time of the stock market, totally ignoring the effect of the tax cuts when the markets were lower at equivalent realizations:

    Year - Realized C/G - Tax rev.
    1996 $260.696B $66.396B [Cap gains tax rate 28%]
    2002 $268.615B $49.122B [Cap gains tax rate 20%]
    2009 $263.460B $36.686B [Cap gains tax rate 15%]
    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

    And of course we see the effect of the tax cuts, causing scores of billions more debt.

    Huh? Tax receipts were half of what they were, and the debt went up accordingly.

    Sure, a booming stock market increases cap gains.

    But, you have never even tried to prove that cap gains taxes caused economic growth or stock market booms as you implicitly claims, despite me asking you several times.

    Why is that?

    Are you going to dodge the question again, like you do every time?

    You're tying to claim the cap gains cuts caused the economy to grow faster. You're just making **** up again and have never given one shred of proof this is so.

    Are you trying to claim the cap gains cuts caused the stock market to bubble but didn't cause it to crash?

    Unlike you, I provided a source for my data that shows realizations during periods of equivalent realizations.
     
  10. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,327
    Likes Received:
    38,997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes which rate produces the best results. The lower rates do on both realizations and resulting tax revenues prove otherwise.

    Only if you falsely compare the best performance at the high rates, during a strong growth period, with the worst perfomance at the lower rates, during a slowdown or recession. How disengenious on your part. But then when the facts aren't on your side.

    Especially one based in a strong economy and with lower capital gains rate both realizations and revenues soar through the roof.


    The numbers speak for themselves prove otherwise

    How did cap gains cause it to crash?

    I gave you the source the Tax Foundation which proved how much better the economy performed with 4 times the amount of realizations subject to taxation and double the tax revenues at the lower rates.

    Peak performance
    Clinton 1996 rate 29%
    Realizations - $261B
    Revenue - $66B

    Gingrich/Kasich 2000 rate 21%
    Realizations - $644B
    Revenue - $127B

    Bush43 2007 15%
    Realizations - $924B
    Revenue - $137B

    Explain why it is better to have less profits and lower realizations less economic activity resulting in lower tax revenues.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2018
  11. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lower tax rates = lower revenues. Only best if your goal is to run up more debt.


    I didn't falsely compare anything. I sourced my figures. You're cherry picking the best stock market bubbles and ignoring the rest. How disengenious on your part. But then when the facts aren't on your side.

    Sure, a great economy and booming stock market is what makes revenues grown. Not lower tax rates.

    Duh.

    The numbers only prove the stock market was booming.

    Where's your proof the cap gains caused economic growth or stock market booms.

    Why did you dodge my question again? Where did I claim the cap gains caused it to crash?

    What does that have to do with cap gains revenues?

    Cherry picking again. Of course cap gains realizations are better with a strong stock market? And of course when you have higher cap gain you have higher cap gains taxes.

    So what?

    But when we compare equivalent periods, we see the real effect:

    Year - Realized C/G - Tax rev.
    1996 $260.696B $66.396B [Cap gains tax rate 28%]
    2002 $268.615B $49.122B [Cap gains tax rate 20%]
    2009 $263.460B $36.686B [Cap gains tax rate 15%]
    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

    Revenues falling to about half what they were before. And the debt going up accordingly.

    Thanks Republicans.

    When did I ever say it was better to have less profits and lower realizations? Jeez.

    Explain why you keep beating your kids.
     
  12. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,327
    Likes Received:
    38,997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Higher realizations, more economic activity, more revenues. The numbers speak for themselves.

    Why are you claiming it is better to have lower economic activity and lower realizations but a higher rate?




    The source is the question it's your falsely comparing the higher rate during the recovery period to the lower rates during slowdown/recession periods.
    About as disingenuous as you can get.

    And lower rates, more economic activity and higher realizations. Why do you claim it better to have higher rates and lower realizations?

    They reflect the economic activity that produce the more than double tax revenues.

    Capital gains are a result of economic growth.

    I asked you are you making that claim else your question was moot.

    More economic activity, more realizations, more revenue.

    Nope a fair comparsion peak performance to peak performance instead a your disengenous comparing the high rates during a growth period to the low rates during recessions and slowdowns.

    Those are not equivalent periods

    With the numbers you are posting and claiming the higher rates and lower realizations are better. Jeez
     
  13. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course higher realizations and more economic activity produce more revenues. I've never claimed otherwise. So what?

    Why are you making up what I claim?

    Oh yeah, your standard M.O.

    I'm comparing periods of equivalent realizations to get an accurate comparison.

    You're cherry picking the best periods where realizations are completely different. False comparison.

    About as disingenuous as you can get.

    You're just making stuff up again. Prove it.

    Why are you making up what I claim?

    Oh yeah, your standard M.O.

    Stock market growth is probably the bigger determinant. So what?

    Not at all. You are making the entirely baseless and unproven claim that cap gains cuts caused the stock market to boom.

    I'm say if that were the case, then you'd have to accept they also caused the bubble and the stock market crash.

    Which makes my CG tax revenue chart all the more accurate.

    In your normal cherry picking way, you are trying to give all the credit for the stock market growth to the Republican CG tax cut, without accepting any of the consequences of that bubble that followed shortly after.

    Sure. What does that have to do with capital gains tax cuts?

    How exactly is showing the comparison of equivalent realizations not fair?

    Sure they are. Why aren't they?

    What? You're claiming the numbers I post "say it was better to have less profits and lower realizations"?

    More proof you're just making stuff up again.
     
  14. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    48,452
    Likes Received:
    32,206
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump loves "the poorly educated".

    Maybe the Dems will never win back the White "Double-Digit IQ" Crowd?
     
  15. MMC

    MMC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    41,793
    Likes Received:
    14,697
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So instead they go after all those poorly educated minorities, Right? Where many can't speak English. Or can't read at grade school level.

    Where the drop out rates in inner cities schools helps validate who is looking for the dumb and dumber crowd, huh?
     
  16. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,491
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    One way would be by taking a look at a more Theistic Version of Evolutionary Theory that does not dogmatically rule out near death experience accounts...... especially those of dogs and cats being in heaven / paradise!

    Dr. Chaim Tejman deserves Origin of Life Prize.
    .....


    Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy?


    If the Democratic Party will take a step toward the light.......
    the rewards could be considerable......... the poor love their dogs!

    https://www.near-death.com/experiences/with-pets/jan-price.html

     
  17. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The obvious flaw in your argument is that Obama and Bush spent far more in deficit spending than any presidents in history and still had horrible economies. It's not the deficit spending that drives the economy, it's the relative weight of taxes and regulations. Lower the taxes and regulations, the economy prospers; raise them and the economy suffers. This happens no matter how much the government is spending or not spending. Why? Because the government doesn't make money, it spends other people's money, whether that money comes from taxation or borrowing, which it must pay back later with taxation.
     
  18. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Deficit spending works, but only in the context of what kinda economic model one has. If the model is not one that can respond well to such spending, then of course the results will be poor. And how can our own respond when that spending does not stay in america, but goes to buy what our offshored manufacturing base makes in china, mexico and other slave labor areas?

    Before the offshoring happened, you could stimulate our economy because money in the hands of consumers ended up buying what americans were making in our factories, in small consumer goods, refrigerators, toaster ovens, washing machines, dryers, and all other kinds of consumer goods, made here in america. But when you no longer make these things...the only business that gets stimulated is retail who sells these slave labor goods made offshore are places like walmart who has used welfare in order to profit with their business model based upon taxpayers subsidizing their wages. And this is not much of an economic stimulus, except for the owners of walmart. Deficit spending only works in our pre-offshoring economy. Not rocket science.
     
  19. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How Should The Democratic Party Win Back Less Educated Whites?
    You could stop calling them stupid. It's a start.
     
    TheGreatSatan likes this.
  20. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nothing has changed as far as offshoring our manufacturing or Walmart using welfare with Trump as president, so what's different between Bush/Obama and Trump? You've shot your own theory in the heart there. Now you have two theories that don't explain the economy, deficit spending and offshore manufacturing, care to try for a third?
     
  21. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let try this instead...and open your ears up, and eyes, for I never said a damned thing has changed. Not involving bush, obama, trump. And if nothing has changed, then you are just talking to yourself. And that conversation is irrelevant to anything that I have said.

    I did not shoot my thinking in the heart, you have just blown off both of your feet, and you may as well have blown off your head given the lack of attention you have displayed that created an irrelevant post on your part.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2018
  22. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    34,260
    Likes Received:
    8,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you look at high school and college drop out rates, you would notice that blacks and latinos top those lists, and you seem to be able to keep them in line. Maybe progs shouldn't be so racist towards whites, that might help...
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2018
    Ndividual likes this.
  23. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Their problem is less indoctrinated NOT less educated.
    Even the entertainment industry has had to become more overt in their attempts to indoctrinate.
     
  24. jmblt2000

    jmblt2000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Quit stealing from them, abandon identity politics, quit bad mouthing the white middle class.
     
  25. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That might help reduce some of the division, but it would take much more than that to attract their vote.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2018

Share This Page