Looking at that scares me. We can't sustain that growth for another 30 years I don't think without water supply problems, completely redoing infrastructure in major cities, etc. It already takes 4 hours to drive 60 miles in parts of southern California.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,881
Biden
are we talking citizens only or does this also include legal noncitizens and the undocumented
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Without doing a bunch of research, this is instructive. I'm not saying that it proves or disproves your analysis because it's hard to know when an immigrant dies and how many take their place. But the numbers are pretty large. Add to that, the number of children per family has been stable since the 80's (a bit less than 2). https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
We may get 2008 level turnout among young voters. That’s bad for Trump.
The poll finds that among likely voters in that 18-to-29 demographic, Biden is leading President Trump by 60 percent to 27 percent among likely voters. That’s significantly better than the 49 percent that Hillary Clinton got in this poll in 2016.
But that’s not all. The poll also finds that an astonishing 63 percent of respondents say they will “definitely be voting,” compared to 47 percent in the 2016 version of this poll.
That matches 2008 levels. The 2008 version of this poll found that among a somewhat smaller segment of young voters, approximately the same percentage said they’d definitely be voting.
I've seen some encouraging signs of this with my 18-20 year old kids. We know some kids whose parents are fairly rabid GOP yet cannot wait to vote for Biden. Probably more of an anti-tRUmp vote but I'll take it.
I added two Biden voters to the mix in my house...but we are in Indiana so it likely won't matter.
I wonder - with the pandemic and more college kids at home...if they are registered to vote at their home location, this likely means they are more likely to vote. If they were registered in the college location (different state, but had established residency) I wonder if they vote?
Seems to me kids being home from college means more college kids will vote.
Factor this data with the fact that Biden is doing much better with older folks than Clinton and it's not hard to see why he's been steadily sitting at 50% for over five months now.
Without doing a bunch of research, this is instructive. I'm not saying that it proves or disproves your analysis because it's hard to know when an immigrant dies and how many take their place. But the numbers are pretty large. Add to that, the number of children per family has been stable since the 80's (a bit less than 2). https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time
I've always seen the number of kids as a bit higher than 2. The bit smaller than 2 usually refers to number of children under 18 living at home per family, which is around 1.9 I think. But that would mean a family with a 19, 17, and 15 year old at home would only count for 2. Last I saw the number of total children was still something like 2.2
If the number of total kids is less than 2, then that would mean 100% of the population increase is due to immigration, wouldn't it? Even more if the number is actually less than 2.
Without doing a bunch of research, this is instructive. I'm not saying that it proves or disproves your analysis because it's hard to know when an immigrant dies and how many take their place. But the numbers are pretty large. Add to that, the number of children per family has been stable since the 80's (a bit less than 2). https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time
I've always seen the number of kids as a bit higher than 2. The bit smaller than 2 usually refers to number of children under 18 living at home per family, which is around 1.9 I think. But that would mean a family with a 19, 17, and 15 year old at home would only count for 2. Last I saw the number of total children was still something like 2.2
Going back to the 60's, you can see the reduction in the 80s and then stable. I think knowing "at home" or not only matters for the specific year in question. When monitoring the trend, it doesn't matter because kids grow up and move out. According to this, it hasn't been over 2 since 77. And of course those kids are in their 40's now. https://www.statista.com/statistics/718084/average-number-of-own-children-per-family/
Without doing a bunch of research, this is instructive. I'm not saying that it proves or disproves your analysis because it's hard to know when an immigrant dies and how many take their place. But the numbers are pretty large. Add to that, the number of children per family has been stable since the 80's (a bit less than 2). https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time
I've always seen the number of kids as a bit higher than 2. The bit smaller than 2 usually refers to number of children under 18 living at home per family, which is around 1.9 I think. But that would mean a family with a 19, 17, and 15 year old at home would only count for 2. Last I saw the number of total children was still something like 2.2
Going back to the 60's, you can see the reduction in the 80s and then stable. I think knowing "at home" or not only matters for the specific year in question. When monitoring the trend, it doesn't matter because kids grow up and move out. According to this, it hasn't been over 2 since 77. And of course those kids are in their 40's now. https://www.statista.com/statistics/718084/average-number-of-own-children-per-family/
I actually googled the same thing like 10 minutes ago. That's where I think the living at home matters. If what you're saying is correct, then that means the US born population has decreased, and that there are 80 million more immigrants here today than in 1990 to make up for the population increase. That's 1/4 the total population. Not counting children of immigrants, because they would be part of that statistic. But just 80 million moved here, 1/4 the country. That doesn't seem correct to me.
i saw yesterday that there are more millennials of voting age than there are boomers. this could be very, very bad for trump if they get motivated enough to turn out to vote.
Yeah and RBG might be a spark
Yes, Trump sees this as a lifeline, but it might create more of a wave.
It’s virtually a done deal. Dems are on TV with similar to these comments and please, we know the Rs laugh at us for thinking like this. It’s not a criticism, it’s a fact. They are pushing the norms and stealing Obama’s seat, then doing the opposite to benefit trumps ability to pick a judge,and laughing hysterically at us. If Dems aren’t ready to push the envelope in the senate if they win it, we will have 50 years of a conservative court.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,759
i saw yesterday that there are more millennials of voting age than there are boomers. this could be very, very bad for trump if they get motivated enough to turn out to vote.
Yeah and RBG might be a spark
Yes, Trump sees this as a lifeline, but it might create more of a wave.
It’s virtually a done deal. Dems are on TV with similar to these comments and please, we know the Rs laugh at us for thinking like this. It’s not a criticism, it’s a fact. They are pushing the norms and stealing Obama’s seat, then doing the opposite to benefit trumps ability to pick a judge,and laughing hysterically at us. If Dems aren’t ready to push the envelope in the senate if they win it, we will have 50 years of a conservative court.
If Trump is re-elected, and Republican maintain Senate majority, and the court gets another conservative judge, it's all over as far as I can imagine. I will completely divorce my things from all things political forever. If Democrats aren't strong enough to end minority tyranny, we have no hope. I never thought things would come to this. There is still time, but Biden has to win and the Senate has to go Democrat. We will know soon enough.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Without doing a bunch of research, this is instructive. I'm not saying that it proves or disproves your analysis because it's hard to know when an immigrant dies and how many take their place. But the numbers are pretty large. Add to that, the number of children per family has been stable since the 80's (a bit less than 2). https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time
I've always seen the number of kids as a bit higher than 2. The bit smaller than 2 usually refers to number of children under 18 living at home per family, which is around 1.9 I think. But that would mean a family with a 19, 17, and 15 year old at home would only count for 2. Last I saw the number of total children was still something like 2.2
Going back to the 60's, you can see the reduction in the 80s and then stable. I think knowing "at home" or not only matters for the specific year in question. When monitoring the trend, it doesn't matter because kids grow up and move out. According to this, it hasn't been over 2 since 77. And of course those kids are in their 40's now. https://www.statista.com/statistics/718084/average-number-of-own-children-per-family/
I actually googled the same thing like 10 minutes ago. That's where I think the living at home matters. If what you're saying is correct, then that means the US born population has decreased, and that there are 80 million more immigrants here today than in 1990 to make up for the population increase. That's 1/4 the total population. Not counting children of immigrants, because they would be part of that statistic. But just 80 million moved here, 1/4 the country. That doesn't seem correct to me.
I don't know that US born population has decreased. That's a tough one to determine without real research. But it does appear that the growth in US population is heavily influenced by immigration. Further, the increase in immigration will eventually (if not already) lead to larger increase in US born population, as those immigrants have children, grandchildren born in the US... all driven by immigration.
Without doing a bunch of research, this is instructive. I'm not saying that it proves or disproves your analysis because it's hard to know when an immigrant dies and how many take their place. But the numbers are pretty large. Add to that, the number of children per family has been stable since the 80's (a bit less than 2). https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time
I've always seen the number of kids as a bit higher than 2. The bit smaller than 2 usually refers to number of children under 18 living at home per family, which is around 1.9 I think. But that would mean a family with a 19, 17, and 15 year old at home would only count for 2. Last I saw the number of total children was still something like 2.2
Going back to the 60's, you can see the reduction in the 80s and then stable. I think knowing "at home" or not only matters for the specific year in question. When monitoring the trend, it doesn't matter because kids grow up and move out. According to this, it hasn't been over 2 since 77. And of course those kids are in their 40's now. https://www.statista.com/statistics/718084/average-number-of-own-children-per-family/
I actually googled the same thing like 10 minutes ago. That's where I think the living at home matters. If what you're saying is correct, then that means the US born population has decreased, and that there are 80 million more immigrants here today than in 1990 to make up for the population increase. That's 1/4 the total population. Not counting children of immigrants, because they would be part of that statistic. But just 80 million moved here, 1/4 the country. That doesn't seem correct to me.
I don't know that US born population has decreased. That's a tough one to determine without real research. But it does appear that the growth in US population is heavily influenced by immigration. Further, the increase in immigration will eventually (if not already) lead to larger increase in US born population, as those immigrants have children, grandchildren born in the US... all driven by immigration.
Wouldn't anything less than 2 kids per family mean the US born population is decreasing? 2 parents have 2 kids = stable population. More than 2 means its growing, less than 2 means its shrinking.
And I understand they have kids, grandkids, etc, but if the average is 2, or less than 2, then that wouldn't contribute to the continued growth of the population, it would just be the new stable, and I assume they are factored into the national average at that point.
This topic is interesting to me because I don't think we can sustain our growth. The 2 states I've ever lived in (southern CA and now CO) routinely have water shortages and droughts. There's not enough room for more infrastructure and the cities are too crowded and spreading out, traffic is unbearable. But I do believe I was correct in that the data you shared is only number of kids in the house. "Average number of own children under 18 in families with children" I take to mean if a family has 3 kids, 19, 17 and 15, they are counted as only have 2 kids in this study. Yes, at one time they were all under 18, but not when this data was collected. It took a few minutes, but the first source that talked about total kids put it at 2.4 kids per mother. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/07/family-size-among-mothers/
That seems more accurate given our growth as a nation. There's no way I would contribute a growth of 80 million in 30 years to immigrants.
This topic is interesting to me because I don't think we can sustain our growth. The 2 states I've ever lived in (southern CA and now CO) routinely have water shortages and droughts. There's not enough room for more infrastructure and the cities are too crowded and spreading out, traffic is unbearable. But I do believe I was correct in that the data you shared is only number of kids in the house. "Average number of own children under 18 in families with children" I take to mean if a family has 3 kids, 19, 17 and 15, they are counted as only have 2 kids in this study. Yes, at one time they were all under 18, but not when this data was collected. It took a few minutes, but the first source that talked about total kids put it at 2.4 kids per mother. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/07/family-size-among-mothers/
That seems more accurate given our growth as a nation. There's no way I would contribute a growth of 80 million in 30 years to immigrants.
I guess I don't understand how you can have 40 years of data where the number of kids never breaks 2 in one data set, yet the average per mother is 2.4 in another. That could theoretically happen if you have 18 or less years of data, but 40? It's confusing and there's something regarding the collection or the representation of the data that I'm missing.
It is very interesting, perhaps it warrants its own topic? Especially six weeks before the election and it’s in the main election topic?
I was going to tie it into if in fact the growth is due to immigration (which I don't believe it is) then whoever has better immigration reform would get my vote. That should be one of the top 2 or 3 topics in a candidate. I doubt this country could support itself in 50 years, maybe much less, if we continue to grow at the rate we have been.
i saw yesterday that there are more millennials of voting age than there are boomers. this could be very, very bad for trump if they get motivated enough to turn out to vote.
Yeah and RBG might be a spark
Yes, Trump sees this as a lifeline, but it might create more of a wave.
It’s virtually a done deal. Dems are on TV with similar to these comments and please, we know the Rs laugh at us for thinking like this. It’s not a criticism, it’s a fact. They are pushing the norms and stealing Obama’s seat, then doing the opposite to benefit trumps ability to pick a judge,and laughing hysterically at us. If Dems aren’t ready to push the envelope in the senate if they win it, we will have 50 years of a conservative court.
If Trump is re-elected, and Republican maintain Senate majority, and the court gets another conservative judge, it's all over as far as I can imagine. I will completely divorce my things from all things political forever. If Democrats aren't strong enough to end minority tyranny, we have no hope. I never thought things would come to this. There is still time, but Biden has to win and the Senate has to go Democrat. We will know soon enough.
Most importantly, Dems are ahead in the polls for President and senate. If they don’t take both it will be status quo the next two years , with a decent chance to flip the senate in 2022. So I’d say it’s important to stay with the cause until then if Biden wins but can’t take the senate with him this year
it is huge to take the senate by 2022 if Biden wins. The way the smaller white states have rallied around trump, the senate will get more difficult for the democrats to win as time goes by (the senate election maps are slightly favorable to Dems 2020 and 2022)
This is why it’s imperative the Dems be willing to do anything and everything that is not explicitly prohibited by the constitution. That’s how McConnell plays it, and if the Dems acquiesce when or if they are in power, the conservative court will be able to overturn any law it chooses for 40 plus years.
It is very interesting, perhaps it warrants its own topic? Especially six weeks before the election and it’s in the main election topic?
I was going to tie it into if in fact the growth is due to immigration (which I don't believe it is) then whoever has better immigration reform would get my vote. That should be one of the top 2 or 3 topics in a candidate. I doubt this country could support itself in 50 years, maybe much less, if we continue to grow at the rate we have been.
It is very interesting, perhaps it warrants its own topic? Especially six weeks before the election and it’s in the main election topic?
I was going to tie it into if in fact the growth is due to immigration (which I don't believe it is) then whoever has better immigration reform would get my vote. That should be one of the top 2 or 3 topics in a candidate. I doubt this country could support itself in 50 years, maybe much less, if we continue to grow at the rate we have been.
I agree that is interesting especially how trump masterminded leveraging immigration as a political weapon. Combine overpopulation with the environmental stress we see in the west, four more years could be the death knell.
We grew 30% from 1990 to now. If we grow another 30% in the next 30 years, we'd grow another 100 million to be at 430 million in 2050. The southwest is already at capacity. We already have power outages in the summer, already have water shortages, farmers will be overwhelmed. It can literally take 90 minutes to drive 15 miles in southern California. Imagine if we increase that population by 30%. I think the biggest impact for the environment is population, but that's rarely talked about. I don't see how this isn't a primary issue for most people, but its almost never talked about. I don't see there being universal healthcare, or a green deal, it'll be a collapse of a nation.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,759
i saw yesterday that there are more millennials of voting age than there are boomers. this could be very, very bad for trump if they get motivated enough to turn out to vote.
Yeah and RBG might be a spark
Yes, Trump sees this as a lifeline, but it might create more of a wave.
It’s virtually a done deal. Dems are on TV with similar to these comments and please, we know the Rs laugh at us for thinking like this. It’s not a criticism, it’s a fact. They are pushing the norms and stealing Obama’s seat, then doing the opposite to benefit trumps ability to pick a judge,and laughing hysterically at us. If Dems aren’t ready to push the envelope in the senate if they win it, we will have 50 years of a conservative court.
If Trump is re-elected, and Republican maintain Senate majority, and the court gets another conservative judge, it's all over as far as I can imagine. I will completely divorce my things from all things political forever. If Democrats aren't strong enough to end minority tyranny, we have no hope. I never thought things would come to this. There is still time, but Biden has to win and the Senate has to go Democrat. We will know soon enough.
Most importantly, Dems are ahead in the polls for President and senate. If they don’t take both it will be status quo the next two years , with a decent chance to flip the senate in 2022. So I’d say it’s important to stay with the cause until then if Biden wins but can’t take the senate with him this year
it is huge to take the senate by 2022 if Biden wins. The way the smaller white states have rallied around trump, the senate will get more difficult for the democrats to win as time goes by (the senate election maps are slightly favorable to Dems 2020 and 2022)
This is why it’s imperative the Dems be willing to do anything and everything that is not explicitly prohibited by the constitution. That’s how McConnell plays it, and if the Dems acquiesce when or if they are in power, the conservative court will be able to overturn any law it chooses for 40 plus years.
I hadn't thought about 2022, L, so good point. I don't mean to sound like a quitter- I'm not- but these last four years have left me in a What's It All About Alfie frame of mind.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
If you really want Bernie voters the best thing might be to reach out and not have your surrogates vote shame, Also don’t go on national TV and say I’m not a socialist I beat the socialist, that’s how I got the nomination. By all means keep on courting the mythical moderate republicans rather than trying to strengthen the left by building a coalition..
If you really want Bernie voters the best thing might be to reach out and not have your surrogates vote shame, Also don’t go on national TV and say I’m not a socialist I beat the socialist, that’s how I got the nomination. By all means keep on courting the mythical moderate republicans rather than trying to strengthen the left by building a coalition..
There are non-socialist democrats that are far from mythical. I'm one of them.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
If you really want Bernie voters the best thing might be to reach out and not have your surrogates vote shame, Also don’t go on national TV and say I’m not a socialist I beat the socialist, that’s how I got the nomination. By all means keep on courting the mythical moderate republicans rather than trying to strengthen the left by building a coalition..
There are non-socialist democrats that are far from mythical. I'm one of them.
There are also plenty of moderate independents. We are the ones who will largely determine the results of this election just like two years ago.
Comments
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Without doing a bunch of research, this is instructive. I'm not saying that it proves or disproves your analysis because it's hard to know when an immigrant dies and how many take their place. But the numbers are pretty large. Add to that, the number of children per family has been stable since the 80's (a bit less than 2). https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time
Last I saw the number of total children was still something like 2.2
Even more if the number is actually less than 2.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/718084/average-number-of-own-children-per-family/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
If Trump is re-elected, and Republican maintain Senate majority, and the court gets another conservative judge, it's all over as far as I can imagine. I will completely divorce my things from all things political forever. If Democrats aren't strong enough to end minority tyranny, we have no hope. I never thought things would come to this. There is still time, but Biden has to win and the Senate has to go Democrat. We will know soon enough.
And I understand they have kids, grandkids, etc, but if the average is 2, or less than 2, then that wouldn't contribute to the continued growth of the population, it would just be the new stable, and I assume they are factored into the national average at that point.
But I do believe I was correct in that the data you shared is only number of kids in the house. "Average number of own children under 18 in families with children" I take to mean if a family has 3 kids, 19, 17 and 15, they are counted as only have 2 kids in this study. Yes, at one time they were all under 18, but not when this data was collected.
It took a few minutes, but the first source that talked about total kids put it at 2.4 kids per mother.
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/07/family-size-among-mothers/
That seems more accurate given our growth as a nation. There's no way I would contribute a growth of 80 million in 30 years to immigrants.
it is huge to take the senate by 2022 if Biden wins. The way the smaller white states have rallied around trump, the senate will get more difficult for the democrats to win as time goes by (the senate election maps are slightly favorable to Dems 2020 and 2022)
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/21/opinions/biden-may-seem-like-centrist-but-his-platform-is-progressive-chen/index.html
www.headstonesband.com
I hadn't thought about 2022, L, so good point. I don't mean to sound like a quitter- I'm not- but these last four years have left me in a What's It All About Alfie frame of mind.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/517522-bloomberg-pays-fines-for-32000-felons-in-florida-so-they-can-vote
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
I'd like some of that cash to be spent in PA though.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden