Will more black people vote for Republicans this year?

ah, there is a lot for you to learn son. Heres a start for you, look up blackamoors.

 

No, but this thread is about race.

If you have a problem addressing a thread's topic, you should find another thread whose topic you can address.

 

please don't insult me by suggesting a family relationship between us.

and no, the Moors never conquered Britain.

 

negros also conquered spain on more than one occasion kid. read our history.

 

Back to the topic, from 1968 thru 2004 blacks averaged 88% of their vote to the Democrat and 12% to the Republican presidential candidates. In 2008 95% of the black vote went to Obama vs. 5% to McCain. In 2012 93% of the black vote went to Obama vs. 7% for Romney.

So if we just go back to the 1968-2004 average which I expect, the answer is yes. More blacks will vote for the Republicans. Look for the 88-12 split give or take a point in 2016.

It is interesting to note that Eisenhower in 1956 received 39% of the black vote. Nixon in 1960, Dewey in 1944 and Wilkie in 1940 received 32% of the black vote. No other Republican candidate has received more than 15% of the black vote since Nixon in 1960. 15% was done by Nixon in 1968 and Ford in 1976.

 

Because after Nixon '60, LBJ came along and offered the following...........

President LBJ: "I'll have those n*****s voting Democratic for ...
www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2088gl
reddit
Mar 12, 2014 - I'll have them (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s voting Democratic for the next two hundred years". ... As other comments noted, the quote is attributed to LBJ in Ronald

 

Your post used irrelevant race words. Who needs to say "42 white men" when you can just say 42 men? Your random addressing of race is very suspicious.

 

I have no stats earlier than 1936. But one can safely assume blacks voted enmass for Republicans from the civil war until FDR and the depression. Those who could vote that is.

It is interesting to note that between 1936 thru 1944 registration of black was split/averaged 40% Republican, 40% Democrat and 20% independent although they voting habits was 70% for Democrats and 30% for Republican in those years.

Even in 1960 22% of blacks were registered Republican and 32% voted for Nixon. It was in 1964 when the Republicans took the big dive. Blacks registered Republican dropped to 6% and only 8% voted for Goldwater.

Since then blacks registered Republican has been in the single digits until 2004 when 15% of black registered Republican and 11% voted for Bush. In 2012 16% of blacks were registered Republican, but only 6% voted for Romney.

So what does all this mean, with the right candidate in 2016 I think the Republicans can get somewhere between 12-15% of the black vote. Which would be a remarkable improvement from 5 and 7% in 2008 and 2012.

 

Only if they play the left's game of pandering to blacks. Not a good idea.

 

Who needs to specify "42 men"? They were men. They were White.

The simple reality is that this thread inquires whether more Black Americans will vote for Republicans this year, and one factor that could directly impact the answer is there not being a Black American heading the Democratic ticket as in the past two presidential elections - a special incentive for Black Americans because the previous 42 to hold the position had been regarded as White.

You need not be overly sensitive about racial voting patterns. It's just one of numerous, legitimate demographic considerations.

 

It is possible, but unlikely. It is possible because Chris Christie got 20% of the African-American vote in NJ.

 

I do not think pandering is necessary.

 

I think it is very possible without Obama running. Bush the first got 11% of the black vote in 1992, Dole 12% in 1996. After getting only 7% Bush the second in 2000, received 11% in 2004. This 11-12% is what I would call the norm. At least from 1968 thru 2004.

 

Okay. Then how do the GOP get more black votes?

 

In any country the minorities tend to vote left. Why would they vote GOP who would probably slash the welfare state, slash Affirmative Action, and whatever else you Americans call those borderline socialistic policies?

Economic concerns usually trump social concerns. Most blacks probably agree with the GOP on things like opposition to homosexuality. The ones in Africa certainly would. But money has a louder voice than morals.

If they want to actually try it. Put black candidates in any majority black area. Stay silent on economics, claim to preserve the status quo on things the blacks don't want changed. Keep claiming that the welfare state is creating a lazier, unhealthier, more complacent community. Keep claiming the answer to economic woes is more employment and not more welfare. Get black celebrities to support the GOP on television- if any blacks will vote GOP it will be the affluent ones, anyway.

Mostly I think it is a waste of time. The vast majority will just want to keep things the way they are. Leftists have a good deal with minorities- we'll let the majority subsidize you and you'll vote for us. Why would they vote against what many of them seem to perceive as being their own lifeline?

...
As a side-note, I recognize that picture in your avatar as a network in Cisco Packet Tracer.

 

The part I emboldened isn't even remotely true. You are letting a stereotype guide your analysis of African-Americans and their voting habits.

Firstly, the vast majority of African-Americans are gainfully employed, especially voting African-Americans. These are people who pay taxes at all levels and contribute to American society at every level. While it is true the African-American community has a higher poverty rate than the average, the vast majority of African-Americans don't live in poverty and are not dependent on the government.



The fact of the matter is the fastest growing cohort in poverty is Americans of European decent and you don't see Democrats gaining any share of that voting block. Cutting "subsidies" for poor people would hurt conservative areas in middle America and the rural areas much more than liberal, urban, areas. Republicans may talk a big game about cutting subsidies but they never will, it's just rhetoric.

What you believe simply is not true. The reason why minority groups tend to vote liberal is because liberals stand for minority rights and protections.

 

I have a strong feeling you are a liberal to have those sentiments anyway. Of course you will defend the status quo.

I'm not even making a sweeping generalization for your "African-Americans". I'm going to include let's say, 90%, of every single minority with the exception of Asians. The reason for that group's exclusion is because they are a self-reliant people- that same self-reliance barely shared by anyone who isn't Asian or European, and so will defend GOP-style capitalism as they simply benefit from it the most. Therefore if they vote D it is based on their secondary social concerns and feel as though D doesn't impact their finances enough to override their social concerns.

Cutting subsidies in parts of America that have the least subsidies, and then claiming that they will hurt the people there the most, is just absurd. Those that would be most hurt by subsidy slashes would obviously have the most subsidies and not the least... Meanwhile, your D cities like Detroit and Atlanta- conveniently ignored by Democrats who prefer to shift the blame to R states- would be destroyed in a matter of days if the welfare state was gone. Riots and murders everywhere on the first day, few would even bother arguing that.

Nobody gives a damn about minority rights when faced with their own finances decaying. Virtually any individual will vote for a party that keeps the money flowing and ignores them over a party that expects them to get their own money but caters to their other interests. The Dems play the upsides of both parts. Furthermore, any party other than the Dems is a threat to the welfare state (even if you believe it is empty rhetoric, the voters don't) and the more reliant one is on the welfare state, the stronger that belief.

And they do vote. Otherwise why would there be the complaining about "voter identity" proposals? The complainers are the very lowest class of society, virtually all unemployed and incredibly resentful when people point that out. They are absolutely frightened stiff about being rendered unable to vote, and their worst nightmare is the country being removed from the hands of the unproductive and back into the hands of the self-reliant. Because when that happens, their lifeline is completely removed. Voting is their idea of self-preservation, and ousting D from St. Louis (D Mayor since 1949), Chicago (since 1931), Detroit (since 1962), Atlanta (1942) and countless other D mini-one party states- all of them cesspools- would be no different to Israelis voting in NZDAP. It's useless to deny that those cities are both minority dominated, absurdly poor/reliant on leftist economic policy, and as a result, a mixture of politically apathetic and fervently leftist, and existing proof of minorities and their economic reliance.

I have very little reason to believe in an "infographic" that has categories like "Unknown". If they can't work out the race of individuals they are trying to graph, there is no reason why the whole thing isn't plagued with similar errors. 40% is just an outrageous claim- why then, are large numbers of Whites not in jail for crimes based on "socioeconomic" reasons if they are so poor in comparison to blacks? "Socioeconomic", the same lame excuse used to stick up for blacks when they are the highest rate of incarcerated- yet shouldn't Whites be committing more of those crimes as they are apparently economically worse off?

 

I don't know where you're from but it's obvious you don't get out much and rely on stereotypes to justify your bigotry. You'll say Detroit is cesspool of unproductive people but what about Owlsey Kentucky, a place 99% white, 95% Republican and the highest rate of people dependent on government assistance in the country.You talk about Atlanta being such a terrible place but what about rural, Wheeler County, Georgia that has a higher rate of unemployment?

The main problem with the argument you're making is it doesn't reflect reality. You think people who vote Republican are self-reliant and people who vote Democrat are not, which isn't true, there's a healthy mix of both in both parties.

Also, you like to talk about cities under democrat control but why not talk about states and the federal government as being entitlements and "subsidies" don't come from city and local governments. The reason why you bring up this non-germane talking point is people in democrat states are more wealthy, educated and healthy while people in Republican states are poorer, less educated, and less healthy.

Your talking points might make you seem like you got it all figured out among the tea party types but in truth they are just stereotypes to deflect from the facts that are counter to the core of your argument. the last thing you want is a fact based argument, you're afraid of the truth. That's why you dismissed the graphic I provided you, even though it is based on the US Census - the most accurate information available.

 

Republicans talk a lot about personal responsibility, helping yourself, and personal achievement.

Democrats talk a lot about preserving social entitlements and even expanding them.

there's your answer.

 

Assuming you are correct about the Republican Party, what will happen to the majority of white voters?

 

You use a county of a mere 5000 people to try an counter an argument pushing forth cities including Detroit (as of 2009, with over 200,000 leaving the city by 2013), Atlanta (540,000 in 2009, 447,000 by 2013), Chicago (2.7m, over 100,000 leaving in the past 4 years) and St. Louis (population has halved since 1970). I will add to that, Pittsburgh (D since 1934, with gradual population decline from 369,000 in 1990 to 305,000 in 2013), New Orleans (D since 1936, 495,000 in 1990, 378,000 in 2013), Baltimore (D since 1967, 906,000 in 1970, 622,000 in 2013).

What's to say that this county you use as an example is simply too far away from job opportunities and the environment unsuitable for self-sufficiency/agrarianism? Meanwhile you have full blown cities in which people should be able to drive to work, and the land should be good for self-sufficiency in the first place- all cities were founded on suitable land, usually not far from water supplies and thereby irrigation. Why is the population of those cities all in the decline? People clearly have no desire to live in the D cities and get out as soon as they have a chance. Why is it only the cities with D Mayors suffering that decline?

To where they most likely move to R areas, vote D, and the process repeats itself. People in R areas are complaining about Democrat supporters moving into their areas, complaining about a lack of job opportunities and declining living standards, and then have the cheek to migrate into areas built up by the opposition party and its supporters, without having the sense to switch their allegiance.

When you use examples of successful D states you will probably mention California or New York. Yes, they would be success stories by the standards of the left. They aren't success stories as far as I'm concerned, full of blatant ethnic conflict, failed "integration"/multiculturalism. New York, where women like Tawana Brawley falsely accuse six men of raping them, and people actually believe them. How about California where Sheryl Lynn Massip killed her own kid, ran it over with her car and then made up a story that it was abducted. And people listened to that, too. These states are gutless and are akin to minority dictatorships, California, where La Raza can casually operate as a Hispanic pride organization, and yet we all know what would happen to White pride movements if they bothered to try operating in that dump in such an open manner.

These might be the D idea of a perfect society. They certainly aren't mine, and wouldn't be of any sane people, even those in the minority. Even D supporters don't want to live in the society that they and their party created as evidenced by the negative population trend through presumably a mixture of migration with murders thrown in here and there.

 

That's not true in California. California is deep blue. One third of all Americans receiving some form of public assistance live in California, but only twelve percent of Americans live in California.

The Census Bureau tells us that a full 25% of Californians are poor. Less than 50% are middle class. The number of poor is increasing and the number of middle class is decreasing. That's not a healthy society. Ultimately, California will have a population that is either rich or poor.

California once had the best public school system in the country. Today, California ranks almost last.

 

So when was the last time a republicans cut a subsidy or entitlement? You guys forget people like Paul Ryan argued for expanding and extending entitlements when republicans had the White House. Now that a democrat is in office its a different story.

 

Yes but there are 100s and 1000s of small counties and municipalities in the same boat as Owlsey, Kentucky. They are scattered all over the south, through the Appalachians, through the midwest, the rust belt, into the southwest and northwest. You disregarded what I said earlier, when I stated the fastest growing cohort of people in poverty is white people. White people are not voting democrat. A lot of people are ignoring the plight of rural America because they see it as "fly-over country" and not as glamorous as the big cities. And, while these places are not exciting and not the subject of cable news round tables, they are losing ground quickly under republican leadership.

You made the argument that they are far away from ob opportunities but that is counter to your core argument that they are self-reliant. Also, you ignore the industrial decline in the large cities, especially Detroit. Why do rural people get a pass when there arent job opportunities but city people do not? It's a double standard.

 

I would like to see where you're getting these statistics from.