Biden vs Trump 2020 - vote now and discuss!

mace1229 · September 2020

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.

mickeyrat · September 2020

Biden

are we talking citizens only or does this also include legal noncitizens and the undocumented

mrussel1 · September 2020

Biden

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5021252/uploads/editor/wa/d8ib0um9ketf.png

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

The Juggler · September 2020

Biden

cincybearcat said:

Gern Blansten said:

dignin said:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/21/we-may-get-2008-level-turnout-among-young-voters-thats-bad-trump/

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.

mace1229 · September 2020

mrussel1 said:

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

mace1229 · September 2020

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.

mrussel1 · September 2020

Biden

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

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/

mace1229 · September 2020

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

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.

Halifax2TheMax · September 2020

Lerxst1992 · September 2020

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.

brianlux · September 2020

Biden

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.

mrussel1 · September 2020

Biden

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

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.

mace1229 · September 2020

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

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.

oftenreading · September 2020

edited

mace1229 · September 2020

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.

mrussel1 · September 2020

Biden

mace1229 said:

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.

Lerxst1992 · September 2020

It is very interesting, perhaps it warrants its own topic? Especially six weeks before the election and it’s in the main election topic?

mace1229 · September 2020

Lerxst1992 said:

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.

Lerxst1992 · September 2020

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.

HughFreakingDillon · September 2020

Biden

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

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.

not to mention how much biden plans to spend:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/21/opinions/biden-may-seem-like-centrist-but-his-platform-is-progressive-chen/index.html

Biden vs Trump 2020 - vote now and discuss!

Comments

We may get 2008 level turnout among young voters. That’s bad for Trump.

Categories