How do you propose that a high school offer tryouts for the football team in such a way that a fast, healthy, athletic, agile, strong student, and a slow, unhealthy, fat, weak student, both have an “equal opportunity” to make the team?
If you consider 48%-41% neck in neck - I wouldn’t personally. He’s much closer, but 7% is still a moderate lead.
It’s “neck and neck.” As in horses racing.
In an election, I reckon any clear margin >2% is too much for the idiom.
This is actually an interesting angle. I know about the issue of the former confederate states in the south having their white democratic base switch to republicans. This is most plainly seen in the civil rights vote of 1964. Paid misrepresenters of reality like Dinesh seek to paint the Democratic party with the racist historical brush, but the vote totals show clearly that aversion to anti segregationist policies was not about republican vs democrat, it was old confederacy vs non confederate states.
It was southern voters, republican and democrat, that were hostile to civil rights.
In the modern context, it makes me wonder… What is the breakdown of white support for republicans/democrats by state? based off the southern example, it could be that republican support is more evenly split among the white population between republican and democrats until you get to the south, where it would be more universal republican support. Is that how it breaks down or is the trend more universal by region and state with a few oddball states?
Correction: they think they benefit disproportionately. Some undoubtedly do, but many don’t.
By then it is too late. A community would have to start much earlier, making sure every student has equal access to coaching and proper nutrition.
It tends to be the same reasons that women lean towards the Democratic party. The Republican party, as said upthread, operates as if everything is equal when, as women and minorities know well, they are not.
Mmmm…
Maybe that giant is waking up faster than I thought.
Yep, still unlikely, but I do think that the Republicans are making us open an eye at least.
I’ll point out that it is foolish and simplistic to believe that a policy of affirmative action can be usefully evaluated as though it occurs in a vacuum (which is what “within the context of the action alone” means).
Side point.
Asians are more hurt by affirmative action compared to white people when it comes to admissions in college where it’s still applied, likely still get annoyed by it, and yet still won’t touch republicans with a ten foot pole.
Whatever purchase the affirmative action issue once had as a wedge issue is greatly diminished in modern times based off what I hear people get riled up about.
Funny thing is, up until the 90s, Asians did vote Republican. So the nativist bent in the GOP has definitely hurt them with all non-white demographic groups. Latinos used to be more split as well. While 55-45 is still a Democratic win in that demographic, it’s a close enough split that you couldn’t say that the GOP was pretty much an all white party: millions of Latino Republicans matter. Now there’s maybe 1 or 2 million who vote Republican.
Interestingly enough, conservatism is not the problem here. LP candidate Gary Johnson is actually polling better among Latinos than among whites:
I wish people would tow the line on that expression!
Because, as we all know, Asians are really good at math and science?
I’d ask the OP how he is defining “demographic”. Are “men” a demographic? Are rural, white Texan and white NYC-ites in the same demographic? And I’d ask the OP if he is only considering the presidential election. Perhaps we set up these demographic distinctions to fit the political landscape.
They don’t provide information for Hispanics who don’t speak Spanish 
. There’s quite a few of those around, but I guess they’re lumping English-dominant and English-only together.
Yawn, that’s just somebody making up the numbers that they like. Wake me up whenever there’s an actual study showing the same thing.
There’s no Latino vs. white gap in voting behavior. Rather, there’s an immigrant vs. native gap and a poor vs. middle class gap. Latinos also vote a lot more Republican as they gain in income.
By the time demographics supposedly make Democrats dominant, most Latino voters will effectively be white voters. By then, the dominant immigrant group will be not Latinos, but Asians. Latino immigration has slowed while Asian immigration is skyrocketing.
Latinos also vote a lot less Republican the more Trump-like Republican candidates (and the party itself) become. So it’s just as likely that, by then, even higher income Latinos may be solid Democrats if the Republican party becomes more and more Trumpian.
That can certainly happen but it’s interesting how many English dominant Latinos support Trump now. In a future where almost all Latinos are English dominant, any Republican would be thrilled to finish 48-41 among Latino voters. Actually, in a future like that, it’s the GOP that’s dominant, not the Democrats. Which might be why Democrats really, really want to get the immigration flow from the south going again.
I think you’re probably right with this, but I’ll quibble with how you’ve phrased it.
When I was a child, I complained once that there was a Mother’s Day and a Father’s Day, but no Children’s Day. My dad laughed and said, “That’s because every day is Children’s Day.”
I think liberals oppose White Heritage Month because there’s no need for it – every month is White Heritage Month. During the heritage months for other racial groups, attention is paid to the achievements of people in those groups, but the achievements of white people routinely get attention.
First, “within the context of college admissions alone” is the same thing as “without context.” Context doesn’t mean excluding relevant factors, it means including them.
Second, if your explanation of why conservatives oppose affirmative action were correct, conservatives would equally oppose legacy admissions for any school that was racially segregated within an unbroken history of legacy admissions. That is, if the school was racially segregated in 1940, and has offered legacy admissions ever since 1940, white students will be admitted in greater numbers than black students due to racial segregation. Similarly, conservatives would absolutely oppose cronyism in hiring and promotion decisions in any environment where there’s social segregation. Both phenomena lead to different treatment on account of race.
What’s super interesting, however, is that conservatives regularly condemn unequal treatment when it benefits minorities, and are regularly silent about unequal treatment when it benefits white people. I suspect that your explanation–conservatives just oppose unequal treatment–doesn’t account for what we see.
They do? 
I mean Trump claims he will help the blue collar middle class get back their jobs. Trump’s record has been consistently one of treating his employees like shit and outsourcing as much as possible to China, etc. The GOP’s record of being helpful to the blue collar middle class is dismal.
Why do they think both Trump and the GOP will change their spots?
The only ones who benefit disproportionately by Republican policies are millionaire CEOs, especially those in the Military-Industrial hegemony.