Biden vs Trump 2020 - vote now and discuss!

1…217218220222223…607

Comments

  • Posts: 9,825
    edited 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. 
  • Posts: 44,372
    Biden
    are we talking citizens only or does this also include legal noncitizens and the undocumented
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    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
  • Posts: 30,879
    Biden


    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
  • Posts: 49,594
    Biden
    cincybearcat said:
    show previous quotes
    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. 
    www.myspace.com
  • Posts: 9,825
    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
  • Posts: 9,825
    edited 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.
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • Posts: 30,879
    Biden
    mace1229 said:
    show previous quotes
    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/
  • Posts: 9,825
    edited September 2020
    mrussel1 said:
    show previous quotes
    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. 
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • Posts: 42,119

    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Posts: 7,853
    edited September 2020
    mrussel1 said:
    show previous quotes
    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.
  • Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    Biden
    Lerxst1992 said:
    show previous quotes

    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.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Posts: 30,879
    Biden
    mace1229 said:
    show previous quotes
    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. 
  • Posts: 9,825
    mrussel1 said:
    show previous quotes
    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. 
  • Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    edited September 2020
    edited
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Posts: 9,825
    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.
  • Posts: 30,879
    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. 
  • Posts: 7,853
    It is very interesting, perhaps it warrants its own topic? Especially six weeks before the election and it’s in the main election topic?
  • Posts: 9,825
    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.
  • Posts: 7,853
    edited September 2020
    brianlux said:
    show previous quotes

    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.
    Post edited by Lerxst1992 on
  • Winnipeg Posts: 39,473
    Biden
    mace1229 said:
    show previous quotes
    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
    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register

Quick Links

Categories