• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.

ivysaur12

Banned
Demographics question, but sort of related:

Can anyone explain the explosive population growth in Delaware? Looking at the numbers, it's on track to have double digit population growth again from 2010 - 2020, which its had since 1980 - 1990. It'll have one million people by 2020, and is on pace to eventually get another congressional seat in a decade or two.

What gives? What's in Delaware?
 
Demographics question, but sort of related:

Can anyone explain the explosive population growth in Delaware? Looking at the numbers, it's on track to have double digit population growth again from 2010 - 2020, which its had since 1980 - 1990. It'll have one million people by 2020, and is on pace to eventually get another congressional seat in a decade or to.

What gives? What's in Delaware?

People prefer to live free.

EDIT: Also, Metropolis.
 
Demographics question, but sort of related:

Can anyone explain the explosive population growth in Delaware? Looking at the numbers, it's on track to have double digit population growth again from 2010 - 2020, which its had since 1980 - 1990. It'll have one million people by 2020, and is on pace to eventually get another congressional seat in a decade or to.

What gives? What's in Delaware?

http://www.delawareonline.com/story...aware-retiree-growth-drives-economy/24785333/

According to this, it's retirees from slightly more northern states and overflow from Pennsylvania (ie - the coming Eastern Megacity. :))
 

ivysaur12

Banned
EDIT: Also, Metropolis.

Oh, duh.

http://www.delawareonline.com/story...aware-retiree-growth-drives-economy/24785333/

According to this, it's retirees from slightly more northern states and overflow from Pennsylvania (ie - the coming Eastern Megacity. :))

Maybe, but it's been happening for a while?

Historical population
Census Pop. %±
1790 59,096 —
1800 64,273 8.8%
1810 72,674 13.1%
1820 72,749 0.1%
1830 76,748 5.5%
1840 78,085 1.7%
1850 91,532 17.2%
1860 112,216 22.6%
1870 125,015 11.4%
1880 146,608 17.3%
1890 168,493 14.9%
1900 184,735 9.6%
1910 202,322 9.5%
1920 223,003 10.2%
1930 238,380 6.9%
1940 266,505 11.8%
1950 318,085 19.4%
1960 446,292 40.3%
1970 548,104 22.8%
1980 594,338 8.4%
1990 666,168 12.1%
2000 783,600 17.6%
2010 897,934 14.6%
Est. 2014 935,614 4.2%

Weirdly, the population of their biggest city -- Wilmington -- has been flat. So it seems like it's all suburban growth? Which is so unusual in 2015, when almost all growth in states is urban growth.
 
Oh, duh.



Maybe, but it's been happening for a while?



Weirdly, the population of their biggest city -- Wilmington -- has been flat. So it seems like it's all suburban growth? Which is so unusual in 2015, when almost all growth in states is urban growth.

Cheap to commute to philly?
 
Oh, duh.
Maybe, but it's been happening for a while?

Weirdly, the population of their biggest city -- Wilmington -- has been flat. So it seems like it's all suburban growth? Which is so unusual in 2015, when almost all growth in states is urban growth.

Cuz Wilmington sucks. Philly is like half an hour to the north so why would anyone want to live or shop* or spend time in the cultural wasteland that is delaware when an actual city is close by and not in Delaware.

*I'd rather spend philly tax than spend time in delaware.
 

kess

Member
Driving through Delaware is kinda rough, considering I remember what it was like when I was younger. It's very built up with suburbs and strip development south of the Pennsylvania border, not unlike Jersey. Whether or not it's going to be sustainable or desirable in the long term, I don't know.

giphy.gif


And, oh yeah, tolls.
 
Good jobs report. The inevitable response is to bring up part time or shitty jobs but the report shows most of the growth is in good full time jobs. Construction, healthcare, IT, business, etc.

Still can't help but think we'll see another summer slow down+rising gas prices.
 
Good jobs report. The inevitable response is to bring up part time or shitty jobs but the report shows most of the growth is in good full time jobs. Construction, healthcare, IT, business, etc.

Still can't help but think we'll see another summer slow down+rising gas prices.
Gas prices seem inevitable.

A slowdown... maybe. We'll see i suppose. Hopefully unemployment can get below 5% before the next election. We've got a year and a half to go.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Good jobs report. The inevitable response is to bring up part time or shitty jobs but the report shows most of the growth is in good full time jobs. Construction, healthcare, IT, business, etc.

Still can't help but think we'll see another summer slow down+rising gas prices.

It'd be rather incredible if Obama and Hillary could combine to make a strong new record over the 10 years without a recession caused by the dot-com boom. So incredible that it simply seems impossible, but you never know I guess.
 
You guys really think wall street won't cause another recession?

Be it mortgage backed securities, savings and loans, bubble stocks or whatever, what goes up must be exploited and exploded.

The bigger the rise, the harder the fall.


October 2016 Dow loses 2,000 points.

Hello President Cruz
 
It'd be rather incredible if Obama and Hillary could combine to make a strong new record over the 10 years without a recession caused by the dot-com boom. So incredible that it simply seems impossible, but you never know I guess.
Yeah until the American people decide "Hey, the economy's good enough, let's start cutting taxes!"

Is there really an obvious bubble this time around? I mean the economy could very well crash again but I don't think this current growth is being driven by anything as obviously unsustainable as the internet or housing.
 

Ecotic

Member
Millenials have experienced only one memorable recession, and so we're conditioned to think all recessions are so earth shattering they threaten the post-WWII order. But the early 90's and early 2000's recessions were such mild cases of the sniffles that I doubt many noticed them, especially since they were young. Probability wise, the next recession is more likely to be similar to those than 2008.

It's just a matter of luck, really. Maybe Hillary gets elected under this strong enough recovery, then experiences a mild recession starting in 2017 that lasts 2 or 3 quarters and then gets back on track with plenty of time before 2020. Or maybe not.

Is there really an obvious bubble this time around? I mean the economy could very well crash again but I don't think this current growth is being driven by anything as obviously unsustainable as the internet or housing.

Some people are saying student debt. I don't see it threatening the wider economy though. One thinks of bubbles as an asset being priced more than it's actually worth, but a college education today is more necessary than ever. Student loan debt probably acts more like a brake on the economy that slows down housing formation or overburdens young people from becoming entrepreneurs, or slows down their plans to settle down and have a family.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Yeah until the American people decide "Hey, the economy's good enough, let's start cutting taxes!"

Is there really an obvious bubble this time around? I mean the economy could very well crash again but I don't think this current growth is being driven by anything as obviously unsustainable as the internet or housing.

Student loans/higher education is all i can think of. Higher education because everyone calls it an investment you can't ever lose on even if you go far in debt for it, and student loans because everyone already knows about the problem but doesn't do anything about it.

You also might say the stock market in general is bubbling and in need of correction, thanks to the extended QE program and it finally ending.

The only other bubble or looming crisis I've heard rumblings about is subprime auto loans, but the car industry doesn't feel like it's bubbling in any way to me. I still wouldn't completely write it off. That would never come close to comparing to dot-com or subprime mortgages, but I guess it could cause a smaller recession.

There's also the hyperinflation gold bugs, but those people can be safely ignored. There's no real chance for hyperinflation to happen in america until Bernie Sanders becomes president, congress gets filled with Sanders's, those Sanders's all fully adopt MMT, and MMT ends up being completely wrong.
 
You guys really think wall street won't cause another recession?

Be it mortgage backed securities, savings and loans, bubble stocks or whatever, what goes up must be exploited and exploded.

The bigger the rise, the harder the fall.


October 2016 Dow loses 2,000 points.

Hello President Cruz
It's inevitable, especially with junk mortgages on the rise again. Probably in the next president's term(s). Expect some pretty funny Dodd Frank spin when it happens, specifically on the "no more too big to fail bailouts" part.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Student loans/higher education is all i can think of. Higher education because everyone calls it an investment you can't ever lose on even if you go far in debt for it, and student loans because everyone already knows about the problem but doesn't do anything about it.

You also might say the stock market in general is bubbling and in need of correction, thanks to the extended QE program and it finally ending.

The only other bubble or looming crisis I've heard rumblings about is subprime auto loans, but the car industry doesn't feel like it's bubbling in any way to me. I still wouldn't completely write it off. That would never come close to comparing to dot-com or subprime mortgages, but I guess it could cause a smaller recession.

There's also the hyperinflation gold bugs, but those people can be safely ignored. There's no real chance for hyperinflation to happen in america until Bernie Sanders becomes president, congress gets filled with Sanders's, those Sanders's all fully adopt MMT, and MMT ends up being completely wrong.

Generally I agree with you the whole way. The college debt thing won't be a bubble due to it's necessity. It'll definitely be a drag on the economy and hamper any growth though.

As far as the grammar thing goes here's the rule I was taught:

Possesive is: Sanders'

Plural for the family is: Sanderses

You wanted to use the lower of the two I believe. Personally I'd have put: "congress gets filled with people like Sanders, they all fully adopt MMT" if only to avoid the issue in the first place.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Generally I agree with you the whole way. The college debt thing won't be a bubble due to it's necessity. It'll definitely be a drag on the economy and hamper any growth though.

As far as the grammar thing goes here's the rule I was taught:

Possesive is: Sanders'

Plural for the family is: Sanderses

You wanted to use the lower of the two I believe. Personally I'd have put: "congress gets filled with people like Sanders, they all fully adopt MMT" if only to avoid the issue in the first place.
Thanks for the tip. I have no regrets accidentally screwing up the grammar to use the better word. That's like asking homer to say "the flanders children" instead of flandereses.
 
I'm pretty sure the market is gonna explode. But not anytime soon. We just about got back to normalcy, so it will take another 8-10 years for the next crash to happen.
 

Cat

Member
They let me vote since I had my driver's license. I figured I'd at least show up and see what happens, especially after reading that we generally have such a low turnout for local elections.
 
But the early 90's and early 2000's recessions were such mild cases of the sniffles that I doubt many noticed them, especially since they were young.

I actually remember the 2000s recession very well, because my dad got laid off in 2003, we had to declare bankruptcy, foreclosed on our house, and had to move to Colorado Springs.
 

Ecotic

Member
I actually remember the 200s recession very well, because my dad got laid off in 2003, we had to declare bankruptcy, foreclosed on our house, and had to move to Colorado Springs.

That could have happened even in normal times. Actually it did, since there weren't two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the early 2000's in the U.S. It was so mild, technically there was no recession.
 

Jooney

Member
Recessions tend to happen every six years or so.

What's the longest we've been without one?

It was roughly 9 years between the late 80's recession and the dot com bust. I honestly expect this one to last longer because for years growth was just barely above zero. Recessions don't just happen. They're caused by external factors like a major war ending or an internal drop in demand. Things like student loans are already dragging down growth, which sucks, but its not like a huge number of people are going to have to pay more all of the sudden. If we have a recession in the next 18 months it'll likely be because of something like China imploding that are outside of our control.
 
It was roughly 9 years between the late 80's recession and the dot com bust. I honestly expect this one to last longer because for years growth was just barely above zero. Recessions don't just happen. They're caused by external factors like a major war ending or an internal drop in demand. Things like student loans are already dragging down growth, which sucks, but its not like a huge number of people are going to have to pay more all of the sudden. If we have a recession in the next 18 months it'll likely be because of something like China imploding that are outside of our control.

Wasn't the 80s recession caused by the savings and loan scandal?

And haven't We been waiting for the Chinese property bubble to explode?

Half the cranes being used for construction in the US right now are being held up with Chinese money that can dry up as soon as one of those ghost cities comes home to roost.

Just in time for president Marco Rubio
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Larry Sabato highlights why it's a losing strategy for Republicans to go after PA:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/content/images//2015_05_07_pres_600.png

2015_05_07_pres_600.png


KDK2015050701-table3.png


9. Elastic states versus inelastic states: The cases of New Hampshire and Pennsylvania

We have ordered our Toss-up and Leans states in Table 3. You may notice that Pennsylvania, which we rate as Leans Democratic, was not as Democratic as some of our Toss-up states and could credibly be paired with the Midwest path to victory discussion for the GOP in point five. Meanwhile, New Hampshire, a Toss-up, was actually slightly more Democratic than Pennsylvania in 2012: Obama won 51.98% in the former and 51.96% in the latter.

So what gives? Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight examined the concept of electorate elasticity prior to the 2012 election. New Hampshire has one of the most elastic electorates according to his analysis, and the 2012 exit poll data helps us see why. The Granite State electorate had easily the largest percentage of self-identified independents (or something else) of all the battleground states, 43%. While most independent identifiers are closet partisans, the exit poll data suggest that, compared to other battlegrounds, New Hampshire may really have a larger block of voters who are potentially persuadable.

Another reason for this is that most of the Granite State electorate is white. Although white voters backed Romney by a 20-point margin in 2012 nationally, this paled in comparison to nonwhite voters, who supported Obama at a more-than-80% clip. So New Hampshire’s relative absence of diversity means that it lacks a large group of nonwhite voters who can be viewed as relatively reliable Democratic votes, particularly African Americans.

This is a key difference with Pennsylvania. Of our 10 battleground states, the Keystone State had the largest percentage of Democratic self-identifiers in 2012, in part because its electorate was 13% black and 21% nonwhite as a whole. At the same time, Pennsylvania also had the largest percentage of Republican self-identifiers, meaning that the state had by far the lowest percentage of independent identifiers in these states, 20%. The next-closest? North Carolina with 29%. These figures show why the Pennsylvania electorate is actually relatively inelastic because there are fewer potential swing voters and more base voters who will support their side in most every circumstance.

One other major difference between small New Hampshire and big Pennsylvania: In all likelihood, the Democratic nominee is going to get at least a 400,000 vote-edge out of Philadelphia County, and that might be low (Obama got close to a 500,000-vote lead there in 2012). It’s hard for Republicans to make that up in the rest of the state.

Thus, despite New Hampshire and Pennsylvania having nearly identical election results in 2012, the Granite State is a Toss-up because its electorate is among the most elastic, making it less predictable, whereas the Keystone State is Leans Democratic because its inelastic electorate gives Democrats a high floor.

Actually, no part of Sabato's analysis should be of any comfort to Republicans, except for maybe that Republicans could maybe just do better with white people. Maybe.
 
My advice to the GOP to win next year: Go after PA. Its makes your job that much easier.

A Republican has never won without OH so that is needed as well as FL.

http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bLgh
Political advice from Dick Morris would be more helpful.

I don't know if the GOP can expect to do better with whites than they did in 2012, honestly. Even if the GOP candidate did the same with whites as Romney did, Hillary could do slightly worse with minorities than Obama did (say, 90% with black voters and 67% with Hispanics/Asians) and still get more of the popular vote than he did.

God they're so fucked

I don't even think her numbers will go down with Hispanics - she's moved even more to the left on immigration than where Obama is, saying she would use executive action to allow all immigrants to stay and going hard on Bush and the others for their bullshit second-class "legal status"
 

Diablos

Member
Republicans are hopeless here in Pennsylvania for 2016. Their best chance would have been gerrymandering the EV but Wolf will never allow for it.

A lot of people outside of Pittsburgh who still lean left happened to also not be crazy about a black President (which is dumb but it's definitely evident around here). Hillary will make that a non-issue, and we all know Dems have the Philly and surrounding vote plus Central PA locked down anyway. I expect Hillary to outperform Obama overall here in the state. Toomey is done, too.

Aaron Strife said:
I don't even think her numbers will go down with Hispanics - she's moved even more to the left on immigration than where Obama is, saying she would use executive action to allow all immigrants to stay and going hard on Bush and the others for their bullshit second-class "legal status"
That's a big sell. She better not fuck with the hispanic vote just to get their support and then actually do nothing but hold firm on Obama's previous executive action.
 
My advice to the GOP to win next year: Go after PA. Its makes your job that much easier.

A Republican has never won without OH so that is needed as well as FL.

http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bLgh

An absolute waste of time and money. Why do people keep insisting that states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan are swing states in presidential elections?

The GOP needs to be relentless in trying to win Ohio, Florida, and Virginia (they need all three of them) and then pray that they flip a smaller state like Iowa or Colorado to put them over 270.
 

FiggyCal

Banned
I really wish they would stop putting Warren in the polls. It's such a waste of information and messes with actual candidates' polling.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Political advice from Dick Morris would be more helpful.

I don't know if the GOP can expect to do better with whites than they did in 2012, honestly. Even if the GOP candidate did the same with whites as Romney did, Hillary could do slightly worse with minorities than Obama did (say, 90% with black voters and 67% with Hispanics/Asians) and still get more of the popular vote than he did.

God they're so fucked

I don't even think her numbers will go down with Hispanics - she's moved even more to the left on immigration than where Obama is, saying she would use executive action to allow all immigrants to stay and going hard on Bush and the others for their bullshit second-class "legal status"

PA was Romney's best state of the toss ups out of OH and FL. If they are going to spend money there regardless of its lean D status, why not go all out? They have to put all their eggs in multiple swing state baskets anyway.

But what BertramCooper posted is a sad reality for them no matter how you spin it. Bush 2004 had VA and NC locked up before the cycle started. Now, they are up for grabs meaning more path ways for the Democrats to get to 270.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom