Why do people keep saying this as if it means anything? The Republican Party of 1860=/=The Republican Party of 2000 and the Democratic Party of 1860=/=The Democratic Party of 2000 in voter makeup or platforms. The parties aren’t static entities.
Yup.
I never understood why people care about the opinions celebrities hold. Their job, for the most part, has nothing to do with making informed opinions on the topic of the day. Their opinion might as well be as informed as the one held by the server at some random restaurant.
I’m ok with those points (although most will never use algebra)but I also feel that every person should have the opportunity to get a college degree, learn a skill or trade without huge amounts of debt in order to be a productive member of society.
I believe that understanding algebra is an important way to showcase that you understand how abstraction works. It’s not for the practical aspect of using algebra in your daily life, but rather the fact that you understand that level of abstraction.
It’s a personal epiphany I had regarding math. It’s less important to memorize and recite the quadratic formula or the trig. functions by heart and more important to showcase that you actually understand them.
In other words… I think you’re more likely to be a better thinker if you’ve developed your mind to the point that you, at least, understand algebra 2.
I don’t think I understand what having a college degree or a professional skill/trade has to do with having an educated society. When people write “educated society” I typically understood it to mean that a person has a high school/college education, so I find it interesting that you included “skill or trade” there.
I don’t think most people think of a professional electrician when they think “educated society”, for example.
? I never said anything about whether I consider a professional electrician educated or not.
My comment was meant to focus on how people these days seem to be fixated on a college degree as a symbol of education at the expense of professional trade skills.
I fully agree- professional trade skills require a lot of education.
Maybe you don’t know many skilled tradesmen. It takes an education and it really never stops because things change. Some of the smartest people I know started as skilled tradesmen, started a business in that trade and have done very well.
I don’t recall saying that vote buying didn’t happen with other colors of people. Being the party of free stuff for the entire 20th century was damned effective. The Democrats had control of Congress/White House and States far more often than Republicans in the 20th century. That’s why the Republican establishment became the party of free stuff too.
Now as to how affective the redistribution is at changing the party affiliation of a group… that would take a sociologist and an economist working together to write a book. My guess would be it was more effective because black people were poorer and the black nuclear family disintegrated faster. If you need cash from uncle Sam just to feed your kid, you’ll vote for anyone who promises to keep it flowing.
Below we can see that '64 and '65 was the year when black people went from favoring democrats to becoming a uniparty lock for the Democrats (source:blackdemographics.com). This despite all the Democrats filibustering the CRA and straight up refusing to integrate.
True. When did black voters become a guaranteed democratic lock? See above.
True. But you have to realize democrats oppressing black folks didn’t stop in 1865. The second picture below is Obama, Biden and Clinton paying RESPECT at senator Byrd’s funeral. What do you think the reaction would be if Trump attended David Duke’s funeral?
The supreme irony here is that some Democrats call any black person who leans right (Condi Rice, Collin Powell, Clarence Thomas) an “Uncle Tom” or “Race Traitor”.
Ok, well, the problem is the vast majority of Blacks vote Democratic and the reason you explain is that they’re being bought off. But, White people don’t vote monolithically for Democrats, despite Democrats being happy to buy their votes with largesse (hey, votes are votes). Yet majorities of Whites have been able to resist the charms of the Democratic vote buying. Why?
Did Blacks suddenly get poorer and have their nuclear families disintegrate that year?
Look, the problem with all this is standard libertarian/Republican boilerplate on this is that is rife with error. Yes, a number of social programs have exacerbated certain social ills, but this cartoonish paradigm of “Blacks flocked to the Democrats because they became the party of free stuff” is nonsense.
Blacks have been the victims of racism, some overt, some subtle. Blacks have always wanted some form of anti-discrimination in law - which isn’t the same as free stuff. When the GOP went full anti-government in the name of the “free market” and rejected overtures to do more to prevent racism in commerce - sometimes because of principled (but wrong-headed) reasons, and sometimes veiled racism - Blacks naturally gravitated to a party that said they’d do more to prevent discrimination.
It’s far less about free stuff than a willingness on the part of Democrats to remedy some social ills by government action.
How do we know? Friendly reminder that most Blacks aren’t living on government handouts, yet they still overwhelmingly vote Democratic. You make it as though the vast majority of Blacks are wards of the state subsisting on government cheese. Ain’t so.
You mean like stopping redlining and forcing banks to write sub prime?
In all colors of people I may add. Not just the urban poor, but the rural (white) poor as well.
I think you mistook my point about poverty and the decline of the nuclear family. Black people started from a more disadvantaged position, they were poorer and less educated than poor whites before the New Deal and Great Society programs came along. So the social ills you mention hit them harder and faster than whites. Being concentrated in urban centers didn’t help either.
This is the crux of it. If you have a misanthropic view of politicians as I do. You know that what politicians say they care about and what they actually do vary greatly. The Democrats have done very little to actually improve the quality of life and opportunities for the black community. In fact by telling every black kid that “you can’t make it in this country because it’s racist and unfair.” It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
Not the vast majority, just more on a percentage basis than any other racial group.
“The black population: At 41.6 percent, blacks were more likely to participate in government assistance programs in an average month.”
Well, assuming Duke remains an unrepentant racist, never apologizes for his previous racist views, and does nothing to advance the lives of AA citizens, it would be understandably and justifiably scandalous if Trump attended his funeral. But it is a stretch (to say the least) to suggest the ‘Byrd’ and ‘Duke’ scenarios are equivalent. And I can’t even begin to fathom the inference you’re going for in pointing out that Biden and Obama attended Byrd’s funeral. Surely you can’t be serious with the implication that this was part-and-parcel of “democrats oppressing black folk”?
When I look at the data, I see two inflection points, not one. That is, the data seem to cluster in three groups: 1936-1944 (then jumps up to) 1948-1960 (then jumps up to) 1964 on. As percent changes, the jumps are roughly equivalent at about 25% of previous. The historical events (Great Society programs) you consider causal can plausibly account for the 1960–>64 jump, but obviously not the 1944–>48 jump. How does your theory account for the first abrupt change in black party affiliation?
And lots of poor white folk are on government handouts, and yet they don’t overwhelmingly vote Democratic.
Ok, that’s a fair debate to have, but that doesn’t change the fact that Democrats actively talk about and try various policies to ameliorate the kinds of problems Blacks complain about. If they try and fail, fine - that’s fair criticism. But when one party tries and the other doesn’t - that’s the reason Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, not “free stuff”.
Good, you’re making my point for me - 60% of Blacks don’t get free stuff from Democrats, yet they vote for them anyway. That’s because there’s a different reason.
No. Merely pointing out the insane double standard. I don’t believe the Klan is an organization you can be a social member of (no ‘just the tip’). You either buy the superiority of the white race and agree with lynchings and violence, or you don’t. Those beliefs are deeply held and not passing fancy. No: “I joined the Klan because they had cookies at the meetings.”
I don’t believe Byrd renounced the Klan for any other reason than political expedience. He should have been forced out of political life ESPECIALLY by the party that claims to take up the mantle of minorities against the oppressive racist culture. Instead he served for decades and was memorialized by two presidents.
About 13.2% according to the 2015 census report linked. It would stand to reason the magnatude of any effect of safety net programs on party preference would be less for whites on a percentage basis.
Well FDR served from 33->45 and implemented the new deal and led the US through WW2. Then Truman presided over the recovery of the economy after WW2. From depression, to world war, to prosperity not seen since the 20’s. That’s the right time frame.
The new deal payments were enough to get by in the late 30’s and actually increased quality of life after the war.
If you’re correct about it being handout driven, wouldn’t you expect to see a large % of that 13.2% voting Dem?
If someone told you they had a theory that probably explained 40% of why something happens and all they had to do was accept numerous assumptions beforehand, would you buy it?
No, but you can’t ignore the biggest, most obvious reason just because it’s ideologically inconvenient not to.
Well, I’m certainly glad to see Republicans not stand for any demagoguery designed to whip up irrational fears of other people. Wouldn’t that principled approach have been useful in 2016?
Well obviously not. If the second most odious person to ever run for office can use irrational fear to win. Why not? This is not a nice game. And two can play it.
A “fair” amount of white people do lean Dem. I don’t know how many poor whites on assistance lean Dem. Just off the top of my head I’d guess the % is lower than minorities on assistance (thinking of places like Kansas, West Virginia and Alaska).
Oh, ok, I get it. Principles are conveniently and dismissively scuttled in the never-ending quest for power. You know, just like the Founders intended.
