Author Topic: Demographic Blueshift  (Read 4198 times)

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7344
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Demographic Blueshift
« on: July 06, 2020, 12:11:42 am »
OLD CONTENT contd.

www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/k-8-students-hit-milestone-about-half-are-minorities-n946666

Quote
AUSTIN, Texas — The country’s steadily diversifying student population has hit a milestone: about half of kindergarten through eighth-grade students are racial and ethnic minorities.

The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that 49.9 percent of the K-8 students in 2017 were non-Hispanic white, down from 56.7 percent a decade earlier.

What matters to us, however, is voters. We will have to wait ~15 years for this lot to all enter the voting population and become part of the Blueshift. What we are fighting for is the crucial interval before this happens, because the Reds are trying to use this interval to prevent it from happening altogether:

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/06/trump-immigration-plan-could-keep-whites-in-u-s-majority-for-up-to-five-more-years/

Quote
President Trump's proposal to cut legal immigration rates would delay the date that white Americans become a minority of the population by as few as one or as many as five additional years, according to an analysis by The Washington Post.

The plan, released by the White House last month, would scale back a program that allows people residing in the United States to sponsor family members living abroad for green cards, and would eliminate the “diversity visa program” that benefits immigrants in countries with historically low levels of migration to the United States. Together, the changes would disproportionately affect immigrants from Latin America and Africa.

The Census Bureau projects that minority groups will outnumber non-Hispanic whites in the United States in 2044. The Post's analysis projects that, were Trump's plan to be carried out, the date would be between 2045 and 2049, depending on how parts of it are implemented.

Remember that the voting population lags behind the total population by almost two decades. So the US won't be in the safe zone until 2064 even by the optimistic estimate, whereas I would like the US to reach the safe zone within the 2020s if possible. Because the next GOP candidate could easily be so far-right that we might even prefer having Trump back! (Remember those days when we used to be sure there would never in the rest of history be a worse US president than W. Bush? We'd be fools to think we have hit rock bottom with Trump. Think about it this way: to the average Trump voter, Trump is still too moderate. This means even the average Trump voter is a more evil person than Trump himself. Let that sink in for a moment.)

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

---

Demographic Blueshift is happening. Perhaps not fast enough for our liking, but at least it is happening:

www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/01/17/generation-z-looks-a-lot-like-millennials-on-key-social-and-political-issues/ (please study the whole thing)

Quote
Only about three-in-ten Gen Zers and Millennials (30% and 29%, respectively) approve of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president. This compares with 38% of Gen Xers, 43% of Boomers and 54% of Silents. Similarly, while majorities in Gen Z and the Millennial generation say government should do more to solve problems, rather than that government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals, Gen Xers and Boomers are more evenly divided on this issue. For their part, most Silents would like to see a less activist government.

When it comes to views on race, the two younger generations are more likely than older generations to say that blacks are treated less fairly than whites in the United States today. And they are much more likely than their elders to approve of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem as a sign of protest.

This part is quite funny to me:

Quote
The youngest generation is also the most likely to say forms or online profiles that ask about a person’s gender should include options other than “man” or “woman.” Roughly six-in-ten Gen Zers (59%) hold this view, compared with half of Millennials and four-in-ten or fewer Gen Xers, Boomers and Silents.

How about simply not asking the question about gender at all? This is how gender-obsessed people are: even when trying to get past the traditional gender dichotomy, they think that the solution is to include even more genders instead of ignoring the concept!

Quote
In addition, the youngest Republicans stand apart in their views on the role of government and the causes of climate change. Gen Z Republicans are much more likely than Republicans in older generations to say government should do more to solve problems. And they are less likely than their older counterparts to attribute the earth’s warming temperatures to natural patterns, as opposed to human activity.

Let's be clear here: it is not "human activity" that has caused global warming, it is WESTERN activity. Pre-colonial non-Western human activity could have continued for another thousand years with no danger to climate whatsoever.

---

Slightly older but still relevant research:

www.people-press.org/2017/10/24/political-typology-reveals-deep-fissures-on-the-right-and-left/

Latest research:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/an-early-look-at-the-2020-electorate/

WE WILL REPLACE YOU!

---

More demography-sorted attitude stats!

d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/n2801y1hk9/econTabReport.pdf

Check out Table 2E in particular.

---

While we have spoken of the importance of concentrating on demographically flipping Texas (as well as other states with significant numbers of electoral votes), another approach that some leftists have been working on is to cut out the Electoral College, an approach which certainly has rightists worried:

thehill.com/homenews/campaign/432014-ex-maine-gop-governor-says-white-people-wont-get-anything-to-say-if

Quote
Former Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) said Tuesday that eliminating the Electoral College and electing a president based on the national popular vote would thwart the voice of white people.

"Actually, what would happen if they do what they say they’re going to, white people will not have anything to say," LePage, who served as governor from 2011 to 2019, said on the Maine radio station WVOM. "It’s only going to be the minorities that would elect. It would be California, Texas, Florida."

The former Republican governor made the comments as he discussed a bill currently being considered in the Maine legislature that would let Maine join other states seeking to bypass the Electoral college and award its electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote nationwide.

The state's Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on the national popular vote bill, which was sponsored by state Sen. Troy Jackson (D), on Friday, according to the Maine Beacon.
...
The comments from LePage came the same week Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) said he would sign a measure to let his state bypass the Electoral College in favor of the national popular vote.

Colorado is set to become the 12th state, in addition to Washington, D.C., to join a National Popular Vote interstate compact that wants to award its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote.

The compact cannot go into effect until the coalition includes states that accumulate at least 270 electoral votes. States included in the coalition would award their electoral votes en masse to the candidate who wins the national popular vote if it were to go into effect.

I should emphasize that these two approaches are not mutually obstructional, therefore both should be pursued simultaneously.

Further information:

www.nationalpopularvote.com/

As for LePage, he has spoken before about other issues which trouble him:

www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/maine-governor-drug-dealers-often-impregnate-young-white-girl-n492501

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyXWAhUrm7U

---

On the topic of Texas: I recently reconnected with a friend who lives over there. Voting came up, and he told me that Texas would of became a Blue state a long time ago if it weren't for gerrymandering and the few people who show up to vote, as Texas has one of the lowest voter turnouts in the country with most of those voters being Republicans, harassing non-GOP looking voters outside of the voting booths.

---

There's a bill coming to Congress: HR 1 : the For The People Act of 2019, that's supposed to fight gerrymandering and lower the voting age to 16 among other things. That blue shift could be coming a little faster.

---

Yes:

www.huffpost.com/entry/ayanna-pressley-lower-voting-age_n_5c8014b0e4b020b54d8194fd

I am liking Pressley more and more.

"That blue shift could be coming a little faster."

OK, so now 2062 instead of 2064. That is still too slow. More must be done.

Some people seem to think Puerto Rican statehood would help us, but others think the opposite. Any input here? Would Puerto Rico be a Blue state if given statehood?

www.tcpalm.com/story/news/local/florida-voices/2018/08/16/could-new-arrivals-puerto-rico-make-florida-blue-state/911228002/

---

A small step:

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/8/house-votes-favor-illegal-immigrant-voting/

Unfortunately in its current form this only applies to local elections. This needs to be expanded to federal elections.

---

http://www.unz.com/anepigone/teenage-white-males-id-as-gop-by-21-margin/

Quote
On that account it is worth noting that in the survey, white males under the age of 18 are significantly more Republican than white males aged 18-29 are (67% to 53% in a two-way split, respectively).

And it is even worse than it looks, because the trend is rightward drift with increasing age. So these teens will be even Redder as time goes by.

---

Support for sidelining the Electoral College spreads steadily:

www.npr.org/2019/05/22/725616541/nevada-poised-to-become-15th-state-to-ditch-electoral-college

Quote
With a state Senate vote Tuesday, Nevada is close to becoming the latest state to drop the traditional practice of awarding all its electors to the presidential candidate who won the state. Instead, Nevada would award its six electors to whomever receives the most votes across the entire country.

According to the National Popular Vote organization, which oversees efforts to persuade states to join the compact, 14 states and the District of Columbia have agreed to pledge their 189 electors to the winner of the national popular vote — regardless of which candidate won the state. Nevada's electoral votes would bring the total to 195. Once 270 electors are pledged, the compact would kick in.
...
Nevada's Senate voted 12-8 to join the agreement, entirely along party lines. Every Republican voted against the proposal. Gov. Steve Sisolak, a Democrat, has not indicated whether he will sign the measure into law.

As NPR has reported, the popular vote movement seems to be gathering steam. In February, 11 states were on board. Since then, Colorado, Delaware and New Mexico have signed on.

Could it be in place before the 2020 election?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]