Florida Democrats win Jacksonville mayor race, an emphatic FU to DeSantis Democrat Donna Deegan defeated DeSantis-endorsed Republican candidate, Daniel Davis, to succeed Mayor Lenny Curry (R), who is term-limited. Deegan, who will be the city’s first female mayor. Jacksonville, Fla.is currently the largest city in the country with a GOP leader. DeSantis endorsed Davis in late March. While the GOP saw a high turnout with 98,651 votes cast, independent voters tipped the scale for Deegan to give her the victory.
Why was she able to do what other Florida Democrats couldn’t? Was her opponent that bad, or did she have a different message that Florida Dems weren’t articulating previously?
One, I don't know. Two, Jacksonville has been growing rapidly and is now the 39th largest MSA in the country with 1.7 million people. I'd say it's a rite of passage to get a democratic mayor. Means you're a real city now.
Yes, as the demographics change and the voters change, who they elect changes. The voting age population was different four and eight years ago than it is now. You can see the changes over time in the link, if you bother to click on it. From 2010 to 2020, the percentage of the population that is white (the group that is most strongly Republican) went from 55.1% to 47.8%. I don't think there has been a demographic reversal since 2020, it is more likely the same trend continued, though I am happy to look at evidence to the contrary. If you don't want to accept that theory and instead think this Democratic mayoral candidate had some super secret campaign strategy, that's fine too. Usually it is the more obvious answer that proves correct, but it could be anything.
Sometimes white people elect Democrats (shocking, I know). Vermont is over 90% white, but has elected Bernie Sanders forever. White voters are not a monolith. The 2020 electorate by party, race, age, education, religion: Key things to know | Pew Research Center Very roughly, about 4 in 7 white voters are Republican, about 3 in 7 Democrat. Black voters are about 1 in 20 Republican, 19 in 20 Democrat. Hispanic Voters are about 7 in 20 Republican, 13 in 20 Democrat. So a white majority jurisdiction has a very good chance of going either way, but a district with a Hispanic or especially a black majority will almost always go to Democrats. There are also regional differences, like Miami Cubans tend to vote GOP much more than California Mexicans, even though both are Hispanic.
Reeko, S'Moniker is the same one that---when debating Demographics / Diverity---lumps Asians and White as one demographic group, https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/...y-impacts-neighborhoods.315693/#post-14071845
That wasn't a goalpost move, and Obama losing in 2008 is supported by what I wrote. I'm a bit confused by your response. Incorrect. I placed them in the set of demographic groups that have lower than average crime rates. Black and Hispanic were in the set of demographic groups that have higher than average crime rates. I don't know why you keep bringing it up, to just continually point out that I was right?
it was a 100% a goalpost move…you’re not even keeping up with whatever nonsense you’re posting…yeah, we’re done here
It seems you just didn't understand it, because it was not at all a goalpost move. Black voters are very reliably Democrat voters. They are the most monolithic racial voting block. White voters are the least monolithic racial voting block. Hispanic voters are more reliably for one party (Democrats) than white voters, but less than black voters. Thus, as the voting population in a race trends more black and Hispanic and less white, the Democratic candidates will more reliably win those races. That was the original point I made, it didn't change, and it is true. None of that means that a Democrat will never win in a white majority race, which was your counter example.
No, it wasn't. A goalpost move is when you establish a criteria and then shift that criteria when it was met. As that didn't happen, it wasn't a goalpost move. You thought for some reason that pointing out a Democrat win before the demographic shift was a solid counter-argument. It wasn't and I explained why it wasn't.
