And if … (fill in the blank)
The purpose is for workers to fund their retirement. That’s the key to the programs’ political viability. So as FDR said, “No damn politician can take away my Social Security.”
Guess that’s about to be over and done with.
That’s “method”. The purpose is what you said right above before recanting for some reason.
That’s the key to not upsetting Wall Street. You know *which *“damn politicians” he was referring to, don’t you?
Only if *you *succeed in getting vouchers or the stock market involved, as *you *have tried and failed to do in the not-so-distant past.
If my mother had four wheels, bucket seats and a turbocharger, she’d be a bitchin’ Camero.
I don’t understand how you come to these bizarre conclusions (even if they are couched as “what if’s”) that young people aren’t trending Democratic or liberal despite ample evidence that they are, and instead they are ready to pull the lever for wingnuts like Rand Paul.
Dude, it just isn’t true.
This is more of that deluded echo chamber nonsense, like that Rand Paul increased his appeal to African American voters because he went to make a speech at Howard University. (Never mind the fact that the speech was a total flop… but I guess Republicans have embraced the Woody Allen rule that 80% of success is simply showing up, eh?)
Depends what sort of point you want to make. While it might not be especially prudent, in terms of garnering more support for his future campaigns, i don’t really have any principled objection to him pointing out that his opponent ran a campaign of dirty tricks.
Also, people often win and lose primary elections with very small numbers of voters. Alienating the people who voted for his opponent in the primary might not hurt him much at all in the election, and could even help him if other people agree with his criticisms.
The deluded nonsense is that demographics will guarantee Democrats electoral wins as far as the eye can see without the need to actually persuade anyone. THe libertarians know they are a tiny minority, that’s why they are trying to win over new voters. Showing up is not 80% of success, but it can be if the other side doesn’t bother. And with African-Americans especially, Democrats have stopped bothering. They just assume that demographic is in the bag, or maybe they just don’t care, since like whites, African-Americans are also a declining demographic.
Says the guy who’s confident of a solid Republican win in 2016 because of some historical cycle Hannity dreamed up.
Been trying for generations, haven’t they?
AHHH! WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
Please fact check your statements Mr. Wrong-adaher-wrong-false-wrongness! Just check before you post, for the love of Jeebus!
Dreamed up? Anyway, I explained under what circumstances Democrats could buck the cycle and it had to do with candidate quality. Sure, if the GOP nominates a poor candidate, Democrats will win a third straight election even though Obama is deeply unpopular. But history says it’s not likely.
What history also says is that demographics have never turned us into a one-party state. No party has ever dominated in the way Democrats fantasize, unless they actually are trying to turn us into a banana republic.
Recent history says it’s pretty damn likely that the GOP will nominate a poor candidate.
:dubious:
Those projections assume current birth rates among African-Americans and the continued social fetish of calling those half-black “black”. As interracial marriage continues to increase, and African-Americans continue to grow wealthier, this is going to be less and less likely.
Those aren’t projections, dude. Those are historical numbers. Black people were a larger percentage of the population in 2010 than 2000. It’s just false to say, right now, that black people are a declining demographic… and especially to compare tham to whites, who are truly declining significantly relative to total population.
Well, see, their numbers are declining among Republicans, who are destined to become the majority, so …
Oh, I see what you’re saying. Okay. However, African-Americans even in the last 10 years have seen their numbers grow by only .3% of the population, while Asians and Hispanics have seen tremendous growth. While they may not technically be in decline(yet), they are becoming less and less important to the Democratic coalition, which is probably why Democrats are so willing to sell them out on immigration reform.
Where do you come up with this utterly insane bullshit?
Who do you think is harmed most by a huge influx of low wage workers?
This is also false – in the last two presidential elections, black turnout was higher than ever (and higher than white turnout! in 2012). It’s not realistic at all to say that black voters are becoming less important to the Democratic coalition – arguably, they’re becoming more important.
And if you think most black voters oppose the President on immigration reform, let’s see a cite.
**
For as much as immigration reform is talked about as an unqualified good for Democrats (who need to protect their standing with Latinos) and Republicans (who need to improve it), it’s not nearly that simple. The GOP relies on high support from working-class whites to win elections. These are the same people who view increased immigration with trepidation—after all, a large influx of low-wage workers means new competitors for jobs, housing, and education. Given the wage stagnation of the last 20 years, there is real fear of increased immigration and its implication for their livelihoods.
On the other side are African Americans, who are disproportionately working-class, and more likely to view Latino immigrants as economic competitors. Economic interest suggests strong support for a more restrictionist immigration regime from this group of blacks. And given the role “linked fate” plays in shaping African American public opinion—in short, perceptions of racial group interests serve as heuristics for individual interests, and vice versa—this support should cut across class barriers and come from all sides of the black community, thus presenting a problem for reform-minded Democrats.
It turns out, however, that immigration is one issue where self-interest might matter more than group interest for African Americans. While linked fate can reliably predict black opinion on a whole range of issues—from high support for the Democratic Party to high support for President Obama’s health care law—Tatishe Nteta, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, finds that it’s less reliable when the question comes to immigration. There, views differ by class: Working-class blacks, like working-class whites, show substantially more support for restrictive immigration policies:
**
Bwahahahahahaha! Has anyone on this message board ever been so consistently wrong with basic facts? Here’s a little table of African Americans, as a percentage of the US population. See if you can identify the historical trend.
1930 9.7
1940 9.8
1950 10.0
1960 10.6
1970 11.1
1980 11.7
1990 12.1
2000 12.3
2010 12.6
2013 13.2
Sources:
1930-1990 (PDF)
2000-2010 (PDF)
2013
These are, as iiandyiiii has already noted, not “projections.” Do you understand what the word “projection” means, in statistics? Here’s a hint: it does NOT mean “counting the numbers that we already have.”
Not only are African Americans increasing as a percentage of the population, but the census notes that, for the first time, blacks voted in the 2012 elections at a higher rate than whites.
While you don’t seem to understand the meaning of statistical projection, you do seem to be very good at a sort of psychological projection, where you take the circumstances that you wish were true, and pretend that they actually are true.