Clinton claim of voter supression (Page 2): No Bob, you are mistaken. Again. The death rate is not higher than the birth rate in the United States. The US has one of the fastest...

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

boberic wrote:

The nations birth rate is in DECLINE. The population as a result is aging as a result. The death rate is higher than the birth rate.

No Bob, you are mistaken. Again. The death rate is not higher than the birth rate in the United States. The US has one of the fastest natural population growth rates among first world developed nations. Do you honestly not understand the difference between decline in birth rate and decline in population? You don't even understand the term "birth rate", do you?

Just a suggestion: Try not to throw around terms that you don't understand. Also, try not to make so many blatantly false claims, so that you won't look like such a fool all the time.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Keenan wrote:

No Bob, you are mistaken. Again. The death rate is... (show quote)

My humble apologies. I was incorrect and you were right. the birth rate is indeed higher than the death rate. I just checked and the birth rate is 0.8% and the death rate is 0.7% So we are growing by the astounding rate of 0.1% yearly. Again my apologies.

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

boberic wrote:

My humble apologies. I was incorrect and you were right. the birth rate is indeed higher than the death rate. I just checked and the birth rate is 0.8% and the death rate is 0.7% So we are growing by the astounding rate of 0.1% yearly. Again my apologies.

Here's data for 2015:

US death rate in 2015: 729.5 per 100,000 people
US birth rate in 2015: 1,240 per 100,000 people = birth rate of 1.2%, not 0.8%

Number of births: 3,978,497
Number of deaths: 2,340,000

Natural population increase = 1,639,000
Natural population growth rate = 0.5% not 0.1%

sources:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/

Note: it appears you were confusing fertility rate with birth rate per 100,000 population. Fertility rate is births per 1,000 women aged 15 - 44

US Fertility rate in 2015 = 62.5 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years

Know your terms

hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts

boberic wrote:

The population is growing due to the influx of immigrants as well as illegals, who tend to vote democrat. Hillary's claim of voter supression is totally without merit

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time?width=900&height=850&iframe=true

This chart would seem to support that the population, which counts immigrants and citizens alike, is also growing from immigration.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

Keenan wrote:

Wrong. Net migration has been close to zero for the last 8 years. The population is growing primarily due to the birth rate of Americans.

No. Net ILLEGAL immigration is close to zero. LEGAL migration remains high.

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

JamesCurran wrote:

No. Net ILLEGAL immigration is close to zero. LEGAL migration remains high.

That's what I meant. Illegal immigration has been close to zero for 8 years. However, about 1 million legal immigrants and refugees per year in the last few years.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

boberic wrote:

The population is growing due to the influx of immigrants as well as illegals, who tend to vote democrat. Hillary's claim of voter supression is totally without merit

Neither recent immigrants, nor illegals can vote at all.

Newly naturalized citizens tend to vote Democratic.

And the fact that the number of people who tend to Democratic increased much faster than the number of people who DID vote Democratic *completely* supports the claim of voter suppression.

Then there's also the Appeals Court finding that many new laws were specifically designed to suppress the vote of young and minority voters.

In fact the Supreme Court (with the Majority including Clarence Thomas) just found the North Caralina's redistricting was made on the basis of race.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

EyeSawYou wrote:

All three past elections the Democrat candidate won the popular vote yet the total votes virtually stayed the same, with the exception of 2016 with 4 million more total votes. From 2009-2016 it appears that Dems lost 6 million votes and the Reps gained 5 million more votes since 2009. Where is this voter suppression?

And as we've learned elsewhere in this thread, the US population is growing by about 1.6 Million a year, which is 6.4 million per election cycle. So, there should have been nearly 13 million more in 2016 than in 2008. Further, new voters (young & recently naturalized) tend to be Democratic, while those who stop voting (because they died of old age) tend to be Republican. Hence the vote totals completely support the charge of voter suppression.

hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts

JamesCurran wrote:

And as we've learned elsewhere in this thread, the US population is growing by about 1.6 Million a year, which is 6.4 million per election cycle. So, there should have been nearly 13 million more in 2016 than in 2008. Further, new voters (young & recently naturalized) tend to be Democratic, while those who stop voting (because they died of old age) tend to be Republican. Hence the vote totals completely support the charge of voter suppression.

How do you come up with that? Here's a screen shot from wikipedia showing voter turnout from each presidential election since 1972. It actually shows an uptick from the 2012 election. On average though this past election is smack in the middle. Seems to me that someone here is trying to skew the argument in a direction away from the truth.

And consider that the US Population counts both citizens and non-citizens the number is closer to 3 million per year.

FRENCHY Loc: Stone Mountain , Ga

boberic wrote:

In her commencement speech at Wellsley she claime... (show quote)

Anything to blame someone else for her stupidity , and she will not stop anytime soon looking at her action today recently .

hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts

JamesCurran wrote:

And as we've learned elsewhere in this thread, the US population is growing by about 1.6 Million a year, which is 6.4 million per election cycle. So, there should have been nearly 13 million more in 2016 than in 2008. Further, new voters (young & recently naturalized) tend to be Democratic, while those who stop voting (because they died of old age) tend to be Republican. Hence the vote totals completely support the charge of voter suppression.

You realize that those 1.6 million are births and that they won't be able to vote for a while right?

stillducky

I almost lowered myself to one of the Attic idiots by commenting on this thread. Then I remembered that you can't argue with stupid or his brother!

hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts

stillducky wrote:

I almost lowered myself to one of the Attic idiots by commenting on this thread. Then I remembered that you can't argue with stupid or his brother!

And yet, here you are. Commenting.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

The total vote sequence of Denocratic (65, 63, 66) and Republican (59, 60, 63) needs to be normalized to reflect both population and registratered voters and to somehow factor in regionalism in order to begin to understand the trends. This is for the 'vote junkies' and not the faint hearted. I think there was a socio-political pattern in the 2016 election that needs to be understood on a regional basis. If the Democratics are not very hard at work on this, then the 2018 election will have a foregone conclusion.

boberic wrote:

In her commencement speech at Wellsley she claime... (show quote)

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

hondo812 wrote:

You realize that those 1.6 million are births and that they won't be able to vote for a while right?

Yes, I actually meant to point that out in one of my messages, it's not the birth or immigration rates NOW, but the birth rate 18 years ago (and the immigration rate 5 years ago).