Voting map by demographic breakdown
- Thread starter Jen
- Start date
BobbyT
Governor
People of color = non white. There are many non white groups who aren't black. Do you ever go outside? P.S. Donald is losing with people of color. And women. You support disenfranchisement of women and people of color so your chosen xenophobic misogynist gets in office? Luckily the U.S. comprises more than white men.This is interesting.
I am not certain exactly who was included in the "people of color" category, but I am guessing that they couldn't think of any less offensive way to say "black".
Obviously you don't get it. First there are no "white" people. Europeans are considered "white" though. So are people of color, in this case, everyone but Europeans? Spanish are white and many Mexicans are of Spanish descent. So which are they? People of color or white?
The disclaimer at the bottom indicates that not just blacks were in the "people of color" designation, but the whole thing is just a little murky unless they explain what they think constitutes white and what they think constitutes people of color.
You, being a Leftist, went immediately to the "racist" answer. What I was speaking to wasn't racist but that the people creating the chart weren't exactly clear. Not surprising though. Leftist ALWAYS go to a way to call someone racist. ALWAYS.
BobbyT
Governor
If there are no 'white' people, why are your maps full of them?
Many people from Mexico and South and Central America are people of color. So are people from the Middle East, Asia, the Pacific Islands, and Native Americans, among others. There's a whole world out there besides Europeans and Spanish-origin Mexicans.
I didn't mention racist, project much?
There's a reason white men are voting for Donald. Care to guess? Hint, it isn't for reasons females in your family would be happy living under.
Boca
Governor
The chartist said,
So racist commentary is unnecessary if one wants to actually learn something from the chart..
Most striking to me is the women's vote. The pundits insist that Trump is 20% down with women. Okay, assuming that's correct, now look at only the "white women" chart versus all women.
What do you take away from that?
I didn't break down the POC vote into various groups by gender, ethnicity or eduction level is that no matter how I broke it down, it was always 100% blue.
So racist commentary is unnecessary if one wants to actually learn something from the chart..
Most striking to me is the women's vote. The pundits insist that Trump is 20% down with women. Okay, assuming that's correct, now look at only the "white women" chart versus all women.
What do you take away from that?
Drumcollie
* See DC's list of Kook posters*
So what you are saying is that if Democrats could have a problem with the Bernie vote which was about half of the Democrats....How interesting.This is interesting.
I am not certain exactly who was included in the "people of color" category, but I am guessing that they couldn't think of any less offensive way to say "black".
Drumcollie
* See DC's list of Kook posters*
That white women make up a larger voting block...meaning they do not support a candidate(Hillary) who covers up her husbands rapes.
Drumcollie
* See DC's list of Kook posters*
Bill is a rapist and Hillary covered His rapes up. If someone raped my wife I'd expect that criminal to pay for his crime...Hillary wants the criminal rewarded.
Arkady
President
"People of Color" typically includes everyone other than non-Hispanic whites. So, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans, at least. Anyway, I'm proud to be in one of the only states which would remain blue in every one of those scenarios. And that's certainly consistent with my personal experience -- even the wealthy, middle-aged white guys I know in Massachusetts oppose Trump. They're happy to vote for relatively reasonable Republicans, like Charlie Baker, Bill Weld, Paul Celucci, or even, in their state-campaign-era guises, Romney or Scott Brown. But the national GOP has taken a turn for the insane, and left Massachusetts Republicans behind.This is interesting.
I am not certain exactly who was included in the "people of color" category, but I am guessing that they couldn't think of any less offensive way to say "black".
It's interesting what an outlier white male Christians have become in this country. For example, look at 2008 or 2012. Pretty much every other demographic group preferred Obama to both McCain and Romney: blacks, Hispanics, East Asians, South Asians, Arabs, Native Americans, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, and women. But white male Christians lined up behind one of their own, just as they have in every single presidential election in American history. That unwillingness to vote for anyone other than a member of their own tribe is really telling. All those other groups have shown the ability to support people who aren't members of their group, but white male Christians only ever vote for white male Christians to be president.
as seen on tv
Senator
people of color means "anyone not white". whites are now a minority almost everywhere, unless you live someplace like Kansas or South Dakota.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvMZKsMWIAAVd8M.jpg:large
so pbs.twimg.com
I got it from someone's post on Facebook.
Okay, but that still doesn't explain who, exactly is considered "white" now. Under some circumstances, Zimmerman is white, under others he's not. Mexicans are "white" unless they are not. Are Asians white now? Or are they not?people of color means "anyone not white". whites are now a minority almost everywhere, unless you live someplace like Kansas or South Dakota.
When I was growing up, we were taught there was Caucasian, Mongoloid (Asian), and Negroid (black). Three races of people. I guess if the races mixed a person was the predominant. Caucasian was anything other than Asian and Black. I think that that has changed a bit under current definitions, but I'm not sure how.
This definition is probably what he used. But I do have to ask............ why are whites basically Europeans, but Spain is not counted as "European". Is it because the Moor influx in 700AD made them "non-white"?
I agree. One can discuss racial breakdown and how it was done without being racist. Some people get bogged down in that far to easily.
I noticed that woman thing you mentioned. So that would indicate that Trump is down not among all women but among non-white women. That explains a lot because most of the white women I know, educated or not, favor Trump, and most of the non-white women I know do not favor Trump.
Sorry you don't understand what is being said, Craig. Not my problem.
I understand. The maps are obvious. What I don't understand is the absurdity you approach this with.
Are there, or are there not maps in your thread that say "White People"?
As we all can see, the answer is yes. However, you say...
First there are no "white" people.
Your maps say White People. 5 of the 9. So...since I believe those maps that say white people mean white people...but you say there are no white people...
So, what are those maps representing?
Sorry I led with that statement since it confused you. Nobody is typing paper white just as few people are actually "black". My statement was meant to convey that all of us are some sort of mix. Again, not my problem that you couldn't follow what I was saying.
Arkady
President
Spain is counted as European, but it gets a bit murkier when it comes to the term "Hispanic." I don't think it has anything to do with Moors, since you could make at least as strong a case for Sicilians, then, being non-white, since Sicily was also conquered by the Moors. Rather, I think it comes down to the fact that Spanish-speaking people in the US make up more of a sub-culture, because of the large waves of recent immigration from Latin America. People with ancestors from Spain just get wrapped up in that, not for any reason other than having ancestors speaking the same language. It gets all the weirder when you factor in Portuguese and Brazilians, or non-Spanish-speaking Filipinos:
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/05/28/whos-hispanic/
Whenever you dig into racial/ethnic definitions too closely, you see how arbitrary they ultimately are. For example, an Aboriginal Australian, Arab, or Sri Lankan could very much be seen as "black" without being at all African, while plenty of people actually born in Africa, including some with heritage going back there thousands of years, don't look black.
Latest posts
-
Biden claims uncle was eaten by Cannibals…
- Latest: Jack4freedom
-
