The Supreme Court has addressed the issue quite a bit, though, and by and large these laws are constitutional. But if the Democratic party sees these issues as vital, the solution is simple, win over the state legislatures and make the necessary changes. I'm not sure why the Democratic party has tried to govern entirely at the national level since 2008, but the results have been disastrous. Local government was neutered by the 17th amendment, but it still commands significant authority over your day to day life.

I 100% agree with you that Dems need to focus more at the state level. The problem is that gerrymanders are hard to beat. Take a look at Wisconsin for instance where Democrats can win statewide but they can't get enough votes in the legislature due to state level districts being gerrymandered. I'm not sure what can be done about that outside of ballot measures to establish independent voting commissions. Not every state has that though so you can't really do anything about that.

The GOP will always have a slight advantage just due to Democrats naturally wanting to pack but it's perfectly ethical for the GOP to retain that kind of advantage.

You're forgetting that the US-born children of illegal immigrants will become part of the electorate too. And a GOP pitch of "vote for us, you'll pay less taxes... oh, and we're gonna deport your parents and older siblings" will obviously not appeal to them, so they should be an overwhelmingly Dem-leaning block of voters.

Also, even if naturalized citizens are less Dem-leaning than voters aged 18-29 (are they though?), they will still be Dem-leaning by virtue of their ethnicity, jobs (IT, healthcare, union-adjacent service jobs) and the states in which they primarily settle. Say if young voters are a 65-35 Dem constituency and naturalized immigrants break 60-40, then it's still quite bad for the GOP if this latter group grows every year. Multiplied with the ~60ish percent turnout rate, one million naturalized immigrants per year then still translate into Dems gaining 120k votes for the national popular vote year by year from this factor alone. And they have children too...




To gauge the impact, just look at the 1988 and the 2012 presidential elections. In both of them, the GOP candidate won whites and lost blacks by a similar margin; the black share of the electorate did not grow signficantly between the two election. In 1988, this was enough for the Republican to win a landslide victory. In 2012, he was defeated handily.

Fun fact: if we go down to precinct data, it shows that in 2016, a majority of Americans lived in precincts (not counties or congressional districts!) that were won by Donald Trump although Hillary won the popular vote by 2.1%.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/upshot/america-political-divide-urban-rural.html


This really puts the "natural self-packing" of Democrats into perspective.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 27 2021 04:00pm

Those people are part of the 7 million semi-annual new voters though. If you take the number of total immigrants having children and compare it to the number of natural born citizens having children, it's really really small. The birthrate among immigrants would have to be INSANE over DECADES for this to really matter. By the 2nd generation, they will have lost their immigrant identity too and you wouldn't really be able to tell them from other Americans in terms of attitude.

I dunno, this just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Maybe you're more sensitive to the issue because you don't have two oceans to protect you from a bunch of ragheads like we do. There's a really easy way around this though that will allow the GOP to capture a larger share of the Hispanic vote...be less racist. It really isn't that hard.

You're missing a crucial point: almost all immigrants are young while the resident population is geriatric. If you have two groups with identical birth rates, but 60% of group A are of child-bearing age while only 40% of group B are, then the share of group A among the population will still grow relative to group B over time.



Not only that, you are getting far less problematic migrants than we do. Most latinos are humble, hard-working, based fellows. And culturally, they're not thaaaat different. Integrating or even assimilating them should not be too much of a problem as long as there are not too many of them coming at once.

Here in Europe, we're dealing with muslims which are much harder to integrate, and with the dregs of Africa. By contrast, when Africans migrate to the US, they tend to be from the educated middle classes. It goes so far that immigrants from Africa tend to be more successful in the U.S. than U.S.-born African Americans, lol.

Another huge factor is that you have much less of a social safety net, so that jobless, underemployed or underqualified migrants are less of a net drain on the taxpayer.



... but then they would receive less support from racist white voters. It's a game of whack-a-mole for the GOP.

On top of that, what you just said isn't getting the whole picture. Since the U.S. tend to be so far to the right in terms of economic and welfare policy, pretty much every immigrant from pretty much everywhere will be to the left of the GOP on economic policy. Trump in 2016 doing about as badly with latino voters as Romney did in 2012, in spite of a campaign centered around blatantly shitting on them, really tells you all there is to know about how toxic Romney/Ryan-style fiscal conservatism is to latinos.

Additionally, neither latinos nor asians are big fans of the whole Christian/Protestant conservatism thing which is a cornerstone of the modern GOP. Racial attitudes are not the only thing standing between immigrant voters and the GOP.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 27 2021 04:28pm

none of what any of you are talking about means chit. if the polls can just lock their doors and "count" in secret.

Who gave the order for vote counting to stop on Nov 3, 2020? 11.03.21
https://www.bitchute.com/video/jo70PgHrUjUY/

I don't think that's true across the board. Most of my family is overwhelmingly right. Most people I know that come from Eastern Europe are strong right. Like I know a fair amount of people from Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Romania, Croatia, Serbia, etc and they are overwhelmingly right.

I think part of it is, some of the ethnicities that come from ex-communist states really enjoy and appreciate individualism and being able to get ahead. Also, democrats really don't have that strong of a stranglehold on Latinos either imo. With time, many of these Latinos will become affluent and they will push on policies that look to redistribute their hard work.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jul 27 2021 04:55pm

I wouldn't characterize the American voting population as "geriatric" given that Millennials/Gen Z are the largest voting bloc but I understand your point. Still, I'm not convinced that the math is going to work out where children of immigrants are going to overwhelm the US electorate. That's some Tucker Carlson level of fear-mongering. What IS concerning is how unpopular Republicans are with the younger generation. Can we guarantee that the young liberal -> old conservative paradigm will hold from a party point of view?

If racist white voters are critical to your coalition...then I don't know what to tell you lol. I think Romney/Ryan fiscal conservatism only appeals to highly educated fiscal hawks which is an incredibly small portion of the population. Hawley is correct that GOP voters only support that stuff IF you can deliver on the social issues such as abortion. Economic populism is the way to go from a coalition building standpoint but the GOP doesn't have the right people for that. They really need to clean house at the state and national level.

meanwhile the other people scream in the streets
WE THE PEOPLE!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/JRYULLhU5odG/