El Problema de los Republicanos

Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court justice

Justice Sonia Sotomayor (Image via Wikipedia)

About two years ago, during the non-stop silliness of the GOP reaction to Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination, Nate Silver published what he called a “thought experiment” in which he addressed whether Republicans could win the White House while continuing to lose ground nationally among Hispanics. Nate went on to postulate a rather tortured scenario in which this feat might be statistically possible, provided the GOP managed to “thread the needle perfectly,” picking up key swing states to offset losses in heavily Hispanic areas. If they failed to do that, Nate felt their task would become “nearly impossible.”

But even Nate’s projection didn’t foresee the epic proportions of the demographic tide now threatening to sweep away the Republican party as we know it. The new census numbers are absolutely stunning. They show Hispanics accounting for more than half of the U.S. population increase over the last decade. The nationwide Hispanic population has gone from 35.3 million in 2000 to 50.5 million in 2010.

And these new voters are not so warmly disposed toward the GOP, despite leading Republican strategists’ oft-repeated claims during the George W. Bush presidency that they were making progress within this demographic. In fact, the opposite appears to be happening. Exit polls indicated that John McCain garnered about 32% of the Hispanic vote. This compares to estimates of Hispanic support for George W. Bush in the range of 39+% in 2004. From the article:

For almost 10 years now, leading GOP strategists have suggested that the party is on its way to making lasting inroads with Latino voters. Unfortunately, the 2008 results indicate that the party is no closer to this goal now than it was when it started. Exit polls on election night indicated that Obama won 67 percent of the Latino vote; performing a bit better among Latino women (68 percent) than among Latino men (64 percent). The Pew Research Center’s national survey taken the weekend before election day showed virtually the same results: 32 percent for McCain and 68 percent for Obama.

Recent election results are even more lopsided. While exit polling estimates of Harry Reid’s 2010 share of the Hispanic vote over Sharron Angle vary from 90%/8% (Latino Decisions) to 67%/30% (CNN), nearly everyone agrees that the Latino vote put Reid over the top and handed him the victory that few expected him to achieve. Even if CNN’s numbers are the more accurate, these results should serve as a cautionary tale for Republicans, since most on-air political analysts I’ve seen in recent months—even prior to the census results—have agreed that no future candidate will be able to win the Presidency without getting at least a third of the Hispanic vote.

But, hamstrung as always by an electoral primary process that requires them to court the most reactionary, insular, and jingoistic portion of their base, Republicans seem ill-equipped to heed any cautionary tale, even when confronted with the kind of sobering data reported in this survey of California Hispanics.

Salient points from the linked article:

  • Latino voters are widely negative about the Republican Party (26% favorable/47% unfavorable/27% no opinion) and widely positive about the Democrat Party (62/22/17).
  • The GOP is not going to win many Latino voters by stressing conservatism; only 22% suggest that Republicans should, “stick to core values and nominate true Conservatives.”
  • While approximately a third of Latino voters say they will never vote for a Republican, a third also suggest they would consider GOP candidates if “Republicans move toward the center and nominate candidates who are less Conservative.”
  • The Arizona immigration law is widely unpopular; only 25% approve, while 71% disapprove of the law.

Republicans have always thought they could retain Hispanic voters in spite of everything simply because most Hispanic families are socially conservative and remain quite strongly opposed to abortion and gay marriage. However, as the previous article indicates, this is not a reliable metric for the GOP, and the reason is basic human nature. We don’t support people who show dislike or disrespect toward us, no matter what other values we may share. If you and the guy in the next cubicle both have a strong distaste for rap music, this may give you something in common. But if that same co-worker makes it obvious at every opportunity that he also detests you and your family, then you are never going to form a bond with him.

And that, in a nutshell, is the GOP’s Hispanic problem.


About filistro

Filistro is a Canadian writer and prairie dog who maintains burrows on both sides of the 49th parallel. Like all prairie dogs, she is keenly interested in politics and language. (Prairie dogs have been known to build organized towns the size of Maryland, and are the only furry mammal with a documented language.)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

109 Responses to El Problema de los Republicanos

  1. Mule Rider says:

    More garbage. This site has become nothing but a cesspool of partisan filth.

    The GOP’s “Hispanic problem” is merely a surface wound rather than a deep, penetrating blow.

    The entire meme that the Republican Party as we know it will simply wilt away because they’re not currently courting Hispanics at a very high rate (and since Hispanics are the fastest-growing demographic in the country) rests on one big ASSumption. That being that Democratic policies will lead to improving livelihoods, higher standards of living, a better quality of life, etc. in the Hispanic community, and I’m definitely not sold on that.

    Decades ago the Republican Party owned the black vote, and over the years, as it became apparent that living conditions in the black community weren’t improving under Republican leadership and policies, they switched parties and now predominantly vote Democratic. The same thing can happen here.

    People vote their well-being, not their race. And if their well-being isn’t improving under one party, they’ll vote for the other one. It’s as simple as that.

  2. filistro says:

    Muley, your plan for collecting Hispanic votes sounds a lot like the clever strategy of the underpants gnomes (recently explained to me by Monotreme and Mac):

    Strategy of Underpants Gnomes:

    1.) collect underpants

    2.) ??????

    3.) SUCCESS!!!!

  3. filistro says:

    And BTW… I do take a bit of umbrage at the words “garbage” and “cesspool of partisan filth.”

    If you’re going to throw stuff like that around, you could at least reference it. What part of the article is “garbage” or “partisan?” Every single data bit refers to documented fact except the opinion comment at the end about “detesting you and your family”… and that one is pretty well supported by the accompanying photo.

  4. dcpetterson says:

    Republicans have always thought they could retain Hispanic voters in spite of everything simply because most Hispanic families are socially conservative and remain quite strongly opposed to abortion and gay marriage.

    I think this underlines the biggest long-term problem the Republicans currently have. For decades, they have tried to bill themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility, and the the party of military strength. But since Reagan, whenever the Republicans get into power, they run up enormous deficits, culminating in the Bush Great Recession. As for the military, Bush got us into two unnecessary wars, and found no way out of either, stretching our military thin while cutting all the support services (such as the VA). Republican “strengths” have turned against them.

    But what we have seen in the budget fracas last week is that the Republicans don’t actually care about either of these issues (I’m talking about elected Republicans here, not the voters). They care about extremist social causes. They played brinksmanship over shutting down the US Government because they wanted to kill Public Television and health care for poor women, environmental protections and financial reform. Nothing about creating jobs, noting about improving the economy, and nothing about balancing the budget.

    Oh, they talked a big game about reducing the deficit. But they showed they’re not serious about it; not a peep about increasing revenues, and all the heat was over tiny programs that cost almost nothing in the Big Scheme Of Things.

    So they rely on these social-cause wedge issues to fire up the base. They assume this will bring in voters, now that the “fiscal responsibility” and “strong military” memes have utterly failed them. But the wedge issues are unpopular with huge segments of the public; and if you’re intentionally going for wedges, then by definition it’s sort of hard to build a coalition.

    If the whole strategy is to get people scared and divided and angry at each other, then some of the people you’re telling us to be angry at aren’t going to come on board. When you play divide-and-conquer games, even your potential supports are divided.

    The full panoply of social-agenda wedge items actually appeals to only a very small segment of the public. This is a loud segment, and an energetic one, and they have a big megaphone. But is it enough to win elections, as other segments realize they’re being scapegoated?

    The percentage of Hispanics and other minorities who are going to vote Republican will decrease; Republicans have lost the votes of public employees, in all levels of government; union workers are more fired up than ever, and that means a large chunk of the blue-collar vote, everyone who realizes that unions are the only reason we’ve got safe workplaces and child labor laws and paid vacations. Women, poor people, young people, immigrants, the elderly and disabled, all have been scapegoated and pushed away by Republican wedge-issue politics.

    Some Republicans will say, “Well, those people weren’t going to vote Republican anyway.” That’s true for some. It wouldn’t have to be true for all, especially not if Republicans were really serious about the fiscal issues. But you can’t maintain a healthy national party if you keep alienating big segments of the public by making them “the enemy.”

    And we’ve also seen, just last November, the effects of “enthusiasm.” If you energize the opposition, which the Republicans seem as if they are really dedicated in doing, you’re in deep, deep trouble.

  5. Picayune says:

    Mule Rider,

    You don’t think that Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” and the defection of Dixiecrats to the Republic Party after the 1968 election had anything to do with alienating blacks?

  6. Chris Rich says:

    The Cali GOP has run afoul of this demographic minefield frequently. Hispanic isn’t a ‘race’ and a good read of Stephen Jay Gould’s ‘The Mismeasurement of Man’ indicates race is a sketchy idea in the first place.

    Lets call this population of Orioles something else cause the feather color lay out is slightly different.

    If a mixed gender pair of critters can have viable babies, that is all that really matters to a taxonomist.

    Western Hispanics in border states are often descended from people who were there before the US stole it. It was called Aztlan. So yes. if the euromutt invaders in Arizona make too much noise through a GOP bullhorn, socially conservative old school Latinos will be glad to vote against them.

  7. Brian says:

    It’s not so much whether or not the Democrats are helping Hispanics or not, but if the Republicans are willing to take Hispanics in and embrace them. I’m really not seeing much of that. Certainly not any policies that would be beneficial to helping them.

  8. filistro says:

    for Chris:

    Nations are much like people, in that we are able to find forgiveness in our hearts for those who have wronged us… but we retain a lifelong resentment and dislike for those we have wronged.

  9. rgbact says:

    Marco Rubio. Susanna Martinez, Brian Sandoval, Raul Labrador.

    As usual, the Dems are always working off of static assumptions that noone will ever change or evolve. There’s no thought of what forces, like increased integration/wealth, that may change the current dynamic. The meme is that people vote based on their ethnicity, and thats it. I guess when you’re the party of “interest groups”, you want people to stay “in their group” and have that group get bigger.

  10. Mule Rider says:

    “It was called Aztlan.”

    That may be so, but it’s now the sovereign property of the United States of America, and if the jingoistic, nationalist Hispanics who live in THIS country yet threaten to reclaim that land from the “euromutts” under the auspices of re-establishing Aztlan will be put firmly in their place.

    Besides, they may be overplaying their hand a bit in thinking the land was “theirs” to begin with….

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztl%C3%A1n#Controversy_and_criticism

    The claim by some Chicano activists of entitlement to roughly the southwestern third of the United States (on the grounds that, allegedly, this area was once dominated by Aztecs and should therefore be returned) has been critiqued as being founded upon historical inaccuracies. Whether or not territories north of Mexico were once part of an Aztec homeland, the Aztec empire at the time of the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors was vastly smaller than legendary Aztlan, and was confined to what is now southern Mexico. Its area at that time totaled no more than 20% of modern-day Mexico, with no area at all within what is now the United States. What would eventually become the western and southwestern United States was, at the time, inhabited by a wide variety of Native American tribes – including the Shoshone, Ute, Hopi, Navajo, and Apache – but not Aztecs. This invalidates modern claims on the part of Chicano radicals that any part of the U.S. constitutes a part of the Aztec homeland, at least not within recent centuries.

    And while it is true that much of the western United States was formerly part of Mexico, these territories came under Mexican rule due not to Aztec habitation but because of Spanish (European) conquest of those territories, now commonly referred to as New Spain or Colonial Mexico. Only later, after the overthrow of the Spanish government in Mexico, did these territories become part of an independent Mexican nation.

  11. Mule Rider says:

    Very well said, rgbact, especially this part here:

    “I guess when you’re the party of “interest groups”, you want people to stay “in their group” and have that group get bigger.”

    Dems love to drag out the ol’ Southern Strategy claim against Nixon and how it’s been revived at times over the past 40 years but they sure love to ignore this very divisive strategy of their own. Now to come up with a good name for it…

  12. Mule Rider says:

    Either this crackpot Chris Rich goes or I go. There’s not enough room around here for both of us, and if his “insights” are welcomed as thoughtful analysis at this site, then I know for a FACT that you guys have jumped the shark and are nothing but a left-wing circle jerk echo chamber determined to shout down conservatism with partisan garbage and filth.

  13. filistro says:

    rgb… how are “Republican policies” somehow magically going to draw the Hispanic vote?

    During the 8 years of Bush’s presidency, Hispanic support for the GOP dropped by 7%… and that was during an administration that was largely favorable to Hispanic issues and supported a path to citizenship. The lower number reflects support for John McCain, who ALSO supported a path to citizenship. It’s only been in recent years that we’ve seen the the kind of virulent ugliness reflected in those signs about “invaders”, “wretched refuse” and “world’s septic tank.”

    The startling numbers for Harry Reid were a harbinger. If there is a lot of anti-immigrant rhetoric during the GOP primaries… and how could there not be, when it’s meat and drink to the “base?”…. then we will see some REALLY astonishing numbers in 2012.

  14. filistro says:

    Oh dear. This topic seems to have touched a nerve 😉

    I guess it IS unnerving when you see an enormous block of voters, growing all the time, and recognize that they are all going to vote against you… by the millions… unless you begin treating them better. But if you do that, you will infuriate your faithful base who will turn on you like a pack of wolves.

    Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place!

  15. rgbact says:

    Fili-

    Same forces that probabaly make every immigrant class change their voting patterns—greater integration/wealth. I suspect the Irish used to vote as a block 100 years ago. Then they became more integrated and became less associated with their ethnicity and more just voted on individual interests.

    My conclusion is that if 50 years from now, Hispanics are voting based on their ethnicity—it’ll mean they are largely segregated from whites and have not advanced much economically. If thats the case, we’ll probably have devolved into 3rd world country status and have bigger probelems than the GOP being extinct.

  16. Mule Rider says:

    “how are “Republican policies” somehow magically going to draw the Hispanic vote?”

    The better question is what “Democratic policies” are magically going to keep Hispanics voting for them?

    As I alluded to above, give it a few more years of failed liberal policies and Hispanics will be looking for a change. The immigration thing gets a few people a little too charged up and they say some regrettable things, but it still boils down to which party has a platform that will give you the best chance to improve your well-being. Right now, the Democrats have won the messaging war by scurrilously painting all conservatives as a bunch of Mexican-hating radicals (based on just a handful of haters), but when those failed left-wing policies don’t make their situation any better, they’ll start looking for alternatives.

  17. filistro says:

    rgb and Muley…

    1.) collect underpants….

  18. Picayune says:

    Mule Rider,

    I’m new here, but on most of the blogs where I comment, the commenters don’t get to decide who stays and who goes.

    It would be a shame if you left, because we are both Southerners (although, I guess we run in different circles) and I always enjoy a good discussion, even when I disagree with you.

  19. filistro says:

    Welcome, Picayune… and don’t worry, Muley doesn’t get to decide who stays or goes.

    A good thing, too… because Muley is one of our long-time favorites, and Chris Rich is an absolutely irreplaceable treasure, so neither of them is going anywhere 🙂

  20. Mule Rider says:

    “My conclusion is that if 50 years from now, Hispanics are voting based on their ethnicity—it’ll mean they are largely segregated from whites and have not advanced much economically. If thats the case, we’ll probably have devolved into 3rd world country status and have bigger probelems than the GOP being extinct.”

    Another very good point that bears repeating…..and something I fear we could be headed towards….this “handout society” that is perpetuated by left-wing policies is, I’m afraid, leading us to a situation where a majority of voters will be “getting things” from the rest of us and they’ll continue to vote for politicians that keep the goodies coming; and it will be nearly impossible to vote them out, simply because this country will have more “takers” than “makers.” And once we’ve hit that point – actually it’ll probably happen long before – we’ll be, as you said, 3rd world backwater shithole status.

  21. Mule Rider says:

    “I’m new here, but on most of the blogs where I comment, the commenters don’t get to decide who stays and who goes.”

    I was being a little hyperbolic….if you’re around me for more than a few minutes, you’ll know it happens from time to time.

    And I enjoy getting into a good, hearty discussion, so I hope we get that chance.

  22. filistro says:

    @Muley… I alluded to above, give it a few more years of failed liberal policies and Hispanics will be looking for a change.

    @rgb… Same forces that probabaly make every immigrant class change their voting patterns—greater integration/wealth.

    Mm hmmm. Yup.

    And how long have Republicans been waiting for the black community to wake up and realize conservative policies are actually GOOD for them? Why can’t those blockheaded minorities ever grasp that the yellow stuff trickling down on their heads is really liquid gold?

  23. rgbact says:

    Fili-

    Do you really see a future of middle class Hispanics living in the whitey suburbs, holding good jobs—but still voting overwhelmingly Democrat? I agree with Mule—if Hispanics end up being another black underclass—-we will have massive social problems as the producers will not continue to fund the non producers. We may be seeing some of that emerging already. Great news for Democrats—not so great news for keeping a country together.

  24. filistro says:

    @rgb… Do you really see a future of middle class Hispanics living in the whitey suburbs, holding good jobs—but still voting overwhelmingly Democrat?

    No and yes. It looks to me like you’re still collecting magic underpants.

    How exactly do they “get into the whitey suburbs” and “hold good jobs?” Through ACCEPTANCE and EDUCATION. What Republican policies would serve to advance either?

  25. dcpetterson says:

    @rgbact

    If the Republicans continue to scapegoat Hispanics as being the reason for America’s economic problems, if they continue to demonize immigrants, if they continue to attack workers’ rights, then yes, I see a majority of Hispanics continuing to vote Democratic regardless of their economic status.

    By the way, I’m a suburbanite, middle-class, white, male, over 50 — and I vote Democratic. I’m aware I’m a minority within my demographic cohort, but my point is that simply being within the given cohort doesn’t necessarily control one’s voting patterns. What is significant here (if I read filistro’s article correctly) is that as long as Republicans scapegoat a particular group, that group is unlikely to vote in great numbers for Republicans, regardless of other economic factors. And since one of the groups that Republicans have been scapegoating has been a growing part of the American population, Republicans might want to rethink their scapegoating strategy — if, that is, they want to remain a viable political party.

  26. Mule Rider says:

    “If the Republicans continue to scapegoat Hispanics as being the reason for America’s economic problems…”

    Please point to us where this is a pervasive issue among Republican/conservative circles. I don’t see any Republicans/conservatives – prominent or otherwise – scapegoating Hispanics as the “reason for America’s economic problems.” I see a few Reps/cons who think illegal immigration is a problem – and it is – that needs to be dealt with – and it does but not really anybody taking it as fas as you suggest and blaming Hispanics as the reason our economy sucks. Feel free to point out instances where that’s the case.

    “if they continue to demonize immigrants”

    Again, it’s pretty rare to see people simply “demonizing immigrants.” Yes, some passionately – and maybe a little wrong-headedly – attack the problem of illegal immigration, and in the process they make some legal immigrants feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. And that’s a shame, but I’m hoping that the majority of immigrants can differentiate the extreme minority of voters and political activists who take their rhetoric a little too far in trying to address a pretty serious issue and the vast majority of people of all policital stripes who are soberly and cogently offering solutions that don’t “demonize” anyone of any race.

  27. Mule Rider says:

    “If the Republicans continue to scapegoat Hispanics as being the reason for America’s economic problems…”

    You guys have asked that we point out when you use an “empty talking point,” well here ya go….

  28. dcpetterson says:

    Mule, can you seriously say that conservatives and Republicans have not used the meme of people from Mexico or Central America coming here to steal our jobs? Really?

  29. filistro says:

    @Muley… Yes, some passionately – and maybe a little wrong-headedly – attack the problem of illegal immigration, and in the process they make some legal immigrants feel uncomfortable or unwelcome.

    LOL Muley, what masterful understatement.

    That’s like Lady Gaga saying, “Perhaps a few of my outfits are a tiny bit overdone, and may cause some people to think (mistakenly) that I’m something other than just an ordinary girl-next-door type of person.”

  30. Mule Rider says:

    “Mule, can you seriously say that conservatives and Republicans have not used the meme of people from Mexico or Central America coming here to steal our jobs? Really?”

    First of all, I’ve heard that statement uttered by many people on BOTH sides of the aisle, so it’s not just an issue with Reps/cons. Second, there is a real problem with undocumented workers (under the radar of government) performing a variety of tasks at below-market wages (i.e. black market labor). Third, it’s an argument against job displacement for legal, documented workers here in the States and against many of the things that often accompany it (identity theft, exploitation, etc.) and NOT scapegoating an entire ethic group as the “reason for our economic problems.”

    Let me give you an analogy: I’m troubled by people who pervasively and excessively speed….not just people who occasionally go 3-4 mph over the limit but 10+ mph over the limit all the freaking time. Because their behavior is a danger to everyone on the road. Now, I’m smart enough to realize that there are some very specific hazards caused by pervasive speeding by a few people, but there are limits to the damage they cause and I’d be foolish to lay the blame of all traffic/driving problems at the feet of people who excessively/pervasively speed. I realize that the people not paying attention, people drinking, poorly constructed roads or those that haven’t been maintained, and any number of other issues contribute to the overall dangers of driving besides speeding. What you’re doing is saying that a group of people is blaming only the speeders and that’s simply not true.

  31. filistro says:

    Muley, it’s true that only a very tiny minority of Republicans actually carry signs at rallies saying “To hell with the wretched refuse!”

    But this is politics, where what matters most is perceptions and impressions. The general perception, now a broad impression throughout the nation, is that Republicans are anti-minority and anti-immigrant. The only way to counteract that perception would be for high-profile Republican politicians to refute it, as George W. Bush did, by publicly embracing the Hispanic population, proposing immigration reform and offering a path to citizenship.

    I ask you… if any politician did that now, could he possibly survive a Republican primary, or even get a strong Republican vote in the general?

  32. rgbact says:

    DC-

    I agree that scapegoating is generally a bad thing. All people do it when the economy goes south. I just don’t know if that makes for a lasting coalition. Today’s immigrant becomes tomorrow’s native. I’m sure the Irish were scapgoated 100 years—now they are the one’s complaining about outsiders. I just don’t see the “scapegoating issue” keeping Hispanics Democrats as they presumably integrate into American life.

  33. dcpetterson says:

    Mule, I understand the distinction you’re making. But I think the nuance of it is lost on most voters. When the complaint is heard that people from Mexico are stealing “our” jobs, this is going to be heard (and presented) as targeting Hispanic immigrants. That is particularly so when any suggested path to citizenship for immigrants is sneeringly dismissed as “amnesty,” and when laws such as the Arizona citizenship-papers law are pushed so aggressively.

    It’s going to be hard to overcome the image Republicans have earned, of scapegoating Hispanics. I understand that you see a different focus; but I think the majority of the Hispanic community disagrees with you, because they have to live with the practical results of those policies and those memes. If the Republicans want to reverse this image, they’re going to have to work hard to do so, and in ways other than merely repeating, “It’s not all Hispanics I don’t like — just the illegal ones!” A real effort to reach out is needed, and I honestly don’t see that happening.

  34. dcpetterson says:

    rgbact, you are right as far as you go. The question is whether, when, and how the scapegoating will stop. In the example you used, of Irish immigrants, it stopped (at least, for the most part) when Irish people began to hold increasing numbers of important governmental positions and were able to reverse some of the de facto discriminatory policies. But even as late as 1960, John Kennedy ran into some of the old prejudice in his presidential bid.

    You are right, that the scapegoating will eventually cease, and will lose impact upon society. But it ends when the scapegoated group is no longer scapegoated. This doesn’t seem like something the current crop of Republicans seems anxious to give up. Maybe a generation from now things will change, and this will no longer be an issue hampering the Republican Party. But if so, it will be because the Republican Party has changed the way it treats Hispanics.

  35. Picayune says:

    I’d also add that when your skin is a particular color, or you have an accent, it’s hard to see that the person treating you with rudeness is having a bad day or advancing a pro-legal immigration agenda.

    It’s easy to assume that it’s racism, regardless of the reasons. People (including me) tend to jump to those conclusions when they’re treated bad.

  36. rgbact says:

    Immigration reform is dead in the GOP. Liberalizing immigration in tough times is suicide politically. People might go for it in happy times like 2007. I can’t imagine even Obama will touch it now. I’m eager to see how he handles this issue.

  37. filistro says:

    @rgb.. Immigration reform is dead in the GOP. Liberalizing immigration in tough times is suicide politically.

    I’m not sure that’s true… but it’s also not the issue.

    The problem for Republicans is more a matter of electoral college politics, as Nate’s analysis shows in the linked article. It’s very, very difficult for the GOP to toss Hispanics overboard and still win the White House anytime in the foreseeable future. And with these new census numbers, coupled with the increasing virulence of conservative anti-immigrant rhetoric, it becomes (as Nate says) “nearly impossible.”

  38. Mr. Universe says:

    Either this crackpot Chris Rich goes or I go

    …yeeeah, lemme get right on that.

    Face it, Mule. We’re like your Brokeback Mountain. You just can’t quit us.

  39. rgbact says:

    Fili-

    You have to convince me that there is something inherent about the Hispanic race that makes them ammendable long-term to the Dem agenda. A fondness for gay marriage? A hatred of big militaries? It shouldn’t be for religion–like for jews and asians. Blacks vote as a bloc because they are poor and segregated. Yes, if Hispanics stay poor and segragated they will vote Democrat as a bloc and the GOP will go extinct. Course, the country will have devolved into civil unrest/seccession long before that happens…so I’m not so concerned about the GOP overall.

  40. Mr. Universe says:

    Mule said,

    You guys have asked that we point out when you use an “empty talking point,” well here ya go….

    A Google search of ‘Mexicans stealing American jobs’ reveals 8,380,000 results. Hardly an empty talking point.

  41. Monotreme says:

    Rgbact,

    There is no such thing as “the Hispanic race”. That makes the rest of your analysis invalid.

  42. filistro says:

    @rgb… You have to convince me that there is something inherent about the Hispanic race that makes them ammendable long-term to the Dem agenda.

    No…you have to convince ME the GOP is suddenly going to start embracing tolerance and inclusiveness to the extent that Hispanics will feel comfortable within the party. Because I’m not seeing any signs of it… apart from every four years when they’ll put 45 black people and a mariachi band onstage during their nomination convention.

    The GOP could just manage to skin by in the past with a large visible minority voting 4 to 1 against them. How are they going to manage when that becomes TWO large minorities?

    An election campaign is just like a courtship. You have to woo the voters… show them what you have to offer them in particular… make them feel secure that you really care about them… win their trust and their hearts enough that they are prepared to make a commitment.

    So… let’s say a guy sees a girl who really turns him on. He walks up and says, “Yo babe, my family hates your family’s guts. We all think you guys are pretty much freeloaders, troublemakers and criminals, and we wish you’d all just get out of town. Wanna go for coffee?”

  43. Mule Rider says:

    “A Google search of ‘Mexicans stealing American jobs’ reveals 8,380,000 results. Hardly an empty talking point.”

    Nice strawman/lie/misrepresentation….not sure if you were being willfully disingenuous or an out-and-out ignoramus, but let me RE-POST what dc said that I called an “empty talking point.”

    “If the Republicans continue to scapegoat Hispanics as being the reason for America’s economic problems…”

    I know you can be quite the dumb f**k with some reading comprehension issues, but I know you’re still smart enough to realize the above is NOT the same as “Mexicans stealing American jobs.” So stop patronizing me with your word games.

  44. shortchain says:

    rgbact,

    Reasons hispanics might be amenable to the “Democratic agenda” or, at least, not amenable to the “Republican agenda”:

    1. Ever looked at how popular Ayn Rand is in Spanish translation?
    2. Ever looked at the leadership of the GOP to find any minorities that aren’t resented and mistrusted by the majority of the rank-and-file GOP? The GOP only loves their minorities when those minorities know their place, and, oddly, minorities don’t seem to reciprocate that feeling.
    3. You can point to Marco Rubio, but perhaps you didn’t hear what happened recently when the RNC sent out a letter over his signature. He wasn’t happy. (See item 2.)
    4. What you overlook is the concept of empathy. When people see other people like themselves get handed the dirty end of the stick, they tend to dissociate with the people who did it.

    (Not an exhaustive list.)

    As always, you need to consider these in the context of statistics. There are going to be individuals and areas which lean Republican, and of course, the GOP-controlled legislatures will be working overtime gerrymandering districts to minimize the electoral problems they’ll face. That will merely make the problems worse for them when it comes.

  45. Mule Rider says:

    “That makes the rest of your analysis invalid.”

    No it doesn’t. Accidentally replacing culture/ethnicity with “race” – while inaccurate – does not invalidate the broader point he is making. Not sure which Latin phrased logical fallacy it is, but I know it is one. It’s kinda like saying, “Hitler was a dog lover but we know he was a bad person who believed a lot of terrible things so loving dogs must not be a rational or good feeling.”

    Sorry, try again.

  46. Mule Rider says:

    The obtuseness, deception, and willful disingenuousness of some of the main contributors at this site is at its highest level in quite a while – and maybe about the highest ever that I can recall – on this comment board and if the shit doesn’t stop now, you guys are really going to find yourselves with nothing but a far left-wing echo chamber to finish each other off in while the rest of society looks on and laughs.

    Shape it up now, guys and gals, or we’ll leave you to sit and stew over all of the lies, misrepresentations, and empty talking points you can come up with.

    You’re being a bunch of jerkoffs and it needs to stop.

  47. filistro says:

    Translation of Muley’s post at 11:36…

    *The righties are losing the argument.*

    This has been a public service announcement. We now return you to your regular comments thread.

  48. Mr. Universe says:

    A Google search with the terms Republicans ‘Mexicans stealing American jobs’ revealed 15,800,000 results.

    Want to quit digging while you’re behind? Cause I can do this all day.

  49. filistro says:

    Sorry Muley.

    You’re right and we’re wrong.

    The GOp is really nice to Hispanics, there will be a huge swing in Hispanic votes from the Dems to the GOP in the next decade, and they will become a strong voting bloc for the R’s.

    There you go.

  50. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    rgb,

    Marco Rubio. Susanna Martinez, Brian Sandoval, Raul Labrador.

    Doesn’t mean shit!!! Zero, Nada, Zip!

    J.C. Watt, Michael Steele, Armstrong Williams, Herman Cain, Condi Rice.

    They brought A LOT of black voters with, didn’t they?

    In both cases, they are the exception to the rule. Hell, there are a number of GAY Republicans!

    You can always find good people who, in spite of everything, trend towards those who treat them like shit.

    It’s also seen in “Battered Wife Syndrome”.

  51. rgbact says:

    All I can say is offhand I can think of more Repub minorities elected by whites than Dems. Basically, if you’re a Dem minority and you want to get elected by people other than your own race…..your best bet is to switch parties. You can call GOP minorities stooges….but most Dem minority politicians woulnd’t have jobs if it wasn’t for people voting on race.

  52. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Mule,

    fili has substantially more patience with you than I. Must be my Southern, Scots-Irish heritage to not suffer fools gladly.

    You fire your first shots in this thread: “More garbage. This site has become nothing but a cesspool of partisan filth.

    THEN you piss and moan about about getting treated with partisan results.

    You are like the teen (Menendez??) who murders his parents, then wants mercy because he’s an orphan.

  53. dcpetterson says:

    Mule, I’m not sure what part of my statement you’re taking objection to. Perhaps you don’t think “Mexicans” says anything about “Hispanics,” or perhaps “stealing jobs” does not imply an economic impact to you.

    Perhaps my wording is giving you pause — “… the reason for …” Would it make you feel better if I reworded that as “a major contributing factor”? Does that make the scapegoating any more justified?

    Prior to the worldwide economic collapse of late 2008, the cost of Mexicans sneaking over the border was certainly held up as a horrendous drain on the nation and on the states — Mexicans were bankrupting southwestern states because of the costs of education and medical care, not to mention all the jobs they took from hard-working Americans. Oh, and the drug wars. Do you truly not recall those discussions on the old FiveThirtyEight? Didn’t a number of politicians suggest we build some kind of wall? Or did I imagine that?

    It’s true that new scapegoats have been found and added to the zoo — primarily, mortgage cheaters who forced those helpless bankers into giving them loans they couldn’t afford. And public employee union workers, who, until the last election, apparently were not bankrupting the states as much as the Mexicans were. Perhaps the Republicans really are trying to win back the Hispanic vote, by demonizing someone else instead — “It’s not you guys any more, it’s the unions. So you can vote for us now!”

  54. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Google “Republicans driving US over cliff” and there’s over 7 MILLION results!

    “Republicans killing American jobs” rings up 16.9 MILLIONS results.

    What’s the point here?

  55. filistro says:

    @rgb.. Basically, if you’re a Dem minority and you want to get elected by people other than your own race…..your best bet is to switch parties.

    I hesitate to point this out lest Muley get upset with me, but…

    coffobamacoffcoff

  56. Mr. Universe says:

    @rgbact

    more Repub minorities elected by whites than Dems.

    I really don’t want to get into the ‘we have more minorities than you’ argument but I think that statement is incorrect at best, non-sequitur at worst. I bet if you looked a little deeper, you would agree.

    But then the wording of the comment wasn’t entirely clear.

  57. Mule Rider says:

    “Want to quit digging while you’re behind? Cause I can do this all day.”

    And I can keep coming back and calling you a lying f**k all day too. I don’t know how else to explain this to you in a manner you’ll either comprehend or that will encourage you to not lie/misrepresent what I said. DC said, “If the Republicans continue to scapegoat Hispanics as being the reason for America’s economic problems…” which I immediately called out as being an empty talking point. DC DIDN’T say, “If the Republicans continue to blame Hispanics for stealing American jobs.”

    His accusation that they are being scapegoated as the (sole) reason for America’s economic problems is not the same as some Americans blaming them for “stealing jobs.” Sorry, that shit doesn’t fly. In fact, it smells, and you need to clean it up, or I’ll do it for you by calling you a lying son-of-a-bitch.

    Admit you’re wrong or we’ll do this all day.

  58. Monotreme says:

    Let’s recap.

    rgbact said,

    You have to convince me that there is something inherent about the Hispanic race that makes them ammendable long-term to the Dem agenda. A fondness for gay marriage? A hatred of big militaries? It shouldn’t be for religion–like for jews and asians. Blacks vote as a bloc because they are poor and segregated. Yes, if Hispanics stay poor and segragated they will vote Democrat as a bloc and the GOP will go extinct. Course, the country will have devolved into civil unrest/seccession long before that happens…so I’m not so concerned about the GOP overall.

    I said,

    There is no such thing as “the Hispanic race”. That makes the rest of your analysis invalid.

    Mule Rider said,

    No it doesn’t. Accidentally replacing culture/ethnicity with “race” – while inaccurate – does not invalidate the broader point he is making. Not sure which Latin phrased logical fallacy it is, but I know it is one. It’s kinda like saying, “Hitler was a dog lover but we know he was a bad person who believed a lot of terrible things so loving dogs must not be a rational or good feeling.”

    Look, Mr. Rider, you seem to be a mite tetchy about this whole subject and I really do value your contributions to the site most days, even though I often disagree with you.

    I don’t want you to be upset. Call it a character defect, but that’s the way I am.

    I do feel the need to defend myself. Then, as with GROG the other day, I’m going to make this my last comment on the thread and you can have the last word if you wish.

    My interpretation of rgbact’s analysis (which I have reproduced in its entirety above) is that “race”=”voting bloc”. Maybe I’ve mis-read what he said, but I’m pretty sure it’s in there. Maybe if you read it, you will see it too.

    What I am saying is that if there is no identifiable race, there is no voting bloc. Then, any assumptions about what “Hispanics” will do break down when you realize you’ve lumped Black Cuban descendants of former slaves with Castilian Spaniards with Argentinians with Californians of Guatemalan descent.

    There’s no reason to assume that all of these people have the same interests, and therefore no reason to assume that they will vote as a bloc — unless.

    Unless a political party insists on marginalizing them all based on a shared language and nothing else. Unless a political party insists on lumping them all in the same bin (“illegal immigrants”) based on a lilt in the voice, or skin color, or some other normally irrelevant factor. Unless a political party makes it clear that whatever their mutual interest is (e.g. a legal path to citizenship), this party is agin’ it.

    This ostracizing of a group, paradoxically, creates and strengthens the group identity.

    Which is what filistro argues in her piece above. You can reasonably disagree with her evidence, or with her conclusions, but you can’t just dismiss it as “partisan” until you provide evidence for your assertions, as she’s provided evidence for hers.

  59. Mule Rider says:

    @Max,

    I thought I told you to STFU and not talk to me, old man. You’re another liar who has cowered and deflected when confronted with the harsh reality of having your bullshit flung back in your face.

    By the way, what again was a “wrong-headed opinion” of mine from the other day when I listed FACTS about the President and the Executive Branch of government.

  60. dcpetterson says:

    Ah, Mule, thanks for the clarification. As I mentioned in my last comment, I’d be glad to amend it to saying that Hispanics are being scapegoated as being a major contributing factor to America’s economic problems; and prior to the collapse of late ’08, perhaps even THE major contributing factor. I don’t think that makes the scapegoating any more defensible or any less real. Do you?

  61. rgbact says:

    Fili-

    Does Obama count as non-white?

    My theory was that Obama was so historic for Dems cuz they finally found a minority politician that didn’t scare the beejebuz out of white people. Getting Charlie Rangel elected for 40 years in Harlem isn’t exactly proof of being the “non-bigoted” party.

    Mr Uni-

    Frankly, demeaning minority Repubs as “ornaments” then saying “lets not look st the facts” isn’t gonna fly.

  62. Mule Rider says:

    Thanks for your explanation, Monotreme. I think we were looking at what rgbact said through slightly different lenses.

  63. Mule Rider says:

    dcpetterson,

    Thanks for acknowledging your original comment could use some amending. That’s all I was shooting for. We still might not see eye-to-eye perfectly, but I appreciate that you’re willing that you should probably shift to some more defensible wording than what you had in your original statement.

    No need to press further then and thanks again for your response.

  64. Mr. Universe says:

    {{{sigh}}}

    I know I’ll regret this but,

    A Google search for the terms Republicans scapegoat Hispanics America’s economic found 1,840,000 results

    We can split hairs over your interpretation of what DC said all day. My point was you said it was an empty talking point. I have repeatedly demonstrated that it’s anything but empty. End of discussion.

  65. Brian says:

    Those Google searches are only of any value when looking at both sides.

    “Republicans scapegoat Hispanics America’s economic”- 1.9 mil
    “Democrats scapegoat Hispanics America’s economic”- 2.0 mil

    “Republicans driving US over cliff”- 7.0 mil
    “Democrats driving US over cliff”-5.9 mil

    “Republicans killing American jobs”-16.9 mil
    “Democrats killing American jobs”-13.5 mil

  66. WA7th says:

    A steady influx from a large-enough group over time changes the notions of what is American, as Americans adopt outside influences as their own, redefining the flavor of the entire stew, if you will, rather than melting into it.

    In other words, I’m hungry. Now, do I want a slice of pizza for lunch or a fajita?

  67. Mr. Universe says:

    @rgbact

    Frankly, demeaning minority Repubs as “ornaments” then saying “lets not look st the facts” isn’t gonna fly.

    A. Your words; not mine. Though I have been guilty of referring to Michael Steele (whom I hold in high regard, BTW) as the token Republican black man.
    B. I think you overlook many of the elected Democratic minorities in congress in making your sweeping generalization.

    As for facts. Well if you insist. here is the most recent list I could Google of the 111th congress.

    http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/111-congress-african-americans.html

    That’s just African Americans. 43 Democrats. No Republicans If you’re counting Hispanics:

    http://www.factmonster.com/us/government/111-congress-hispanics.html

    Of the 27 Hispanics in the 111th Congress, five were Republican; four of those from Florida.

    Shall we talk about Women while we’re at it?

    http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/111-congress-women.html

    Of the 94 women in Congress, 22 are Republican, the rest are Dems. But let’s not discriminate and leave out the Asian/Pacific islanders:

    http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/111-congress-asians-pacific-islanders.html

    All eight Dems. No Repubs.

    So if you’re trying to make an argument that the Democratic Party isn’t nearly as representative of the American population as the Republicans…well that argument falls flat on its face and in the face of the facts.

    I’m not trying to be a smart-ass but I’m not going to let generalizations like that slip by.

  68. Mr. Universe says:

    Does Obama count as non-white?

    He lists himself in the 2010 census as African American

  69. Mule Rider says:

    “We can split hairs over your interpretation of what DC said all day. My point was you said it was an empty talking point. I have repeatedly demonstrated that it’s anything but empty. End of discussion.”

    No, there’s no splitting hairs over an “interpretation.” My point was and still is that saying one party is blaming/scapegoating a group of people as the sole reason for the country’s economic problems is a FAR, FAR different thing than saying that party is blaming/scapegoating a group of people for “stealing” American jobs, which most people realize is happening in only a small corner of the “economy.” One very much is an empty talking point and is completely indefensible – because there is little/no evidence of anyone on either side scapegoating Hispanics as the sole reason for our economic problems – while the other is “defensible” in that there are actually “Google hits” and pictures of people with signs saying such things. And I have repeatedly demonstrated the difference and how one is an empty talking point and how one is not. That’s the end of discussion, my friend.

  70. Mule Rider says:

    @Mr. Universe,

    rgbact’s point was that few minority Dem politicians are getting elected outside of minority-majority districts (i.e. the Rangel from Harlem example), NOT that there were more Rep minority politicians in office. He’s suggesting – I’m not taking a side either way because I haven’t looked at the data – that there are just as many or more minority Rep candidates getting elected in majority-white districts as there are Dem candidates in majority-white districts.

  71. Mr. Universe says:

    Basically, if you’re a Dem minority and you want to get elected by people other than your own race…..your best bet is to switch parties.

    I don’t even know what this argument means. You’ll have to provide some data and clarification.

  72. Mule Rider says:

    “Does Obama count as non-white?” He can self-identify however he wants, but the fact remains he is of 1/2 Caucasian and 1/2 Negroid ancestry, giving him just as much in common, racially speaking, with the ~65% in this country who are non-Hispanic whites as the 12%-13% who are African-American.

  73. dcpetterson says:

    This is only a single datapoint, but I live in a majority white district. My Congressman is African-American, a Democratic liberal firebrand, and is America’s first Islamic member of the House (by the way, my district also has a very high percentage of Jewish voters).

  74. Rock Hudson says:

    Rare footage of Mule Rider vs. Mr. Universe.

  75. rgbact says:

    Mr U-

    My point is—having more minority politicians is not a sign of “non-bigotry”. If people vote for someone the same race as they are—that implies racism. John Conyers and Raul Grivalia getting elected can actually be signs of racism–not color blindness. A better sign of non-bigotry is if people elect someone of a group other than there’s—like a black guy getting elected in Iowa or an Indian getting elected in South Carolina.

    Good call DC. I had a Dem in Georgia the only one. but Ellison certainly qualifies. Good for him-and kudos to you.

  76. filistro says:

    Hey Rock… in my books, you WON that fight! 🙂

    LOL… aren’t those old fight scenes funny? As a frequent barroom brawler, I can attest that any single one of those punches would put any ordinary person in the hospital with a concussion, a broken jaw, eye-socket trauma and a morphine drip.

    But those guys… they just get up and keep on comin’ !

  77. Mr. Universe says:

    I’ll assume that I’m portrayed by Rock Hudson. All moral high ground and can’t take a roundhouse.

  78. Rorgg says:

    “And I can keep coming back and calling you a lying f**k all day too.”

    And someone was complaining the level of discourse was low here. Pshaw. Who was saying that again…?

  79. WA7th says:

    Hey Rock… in my book, Liz Taylor kicked your butt AND Dennis Hopper’s at the same time, and her attorneys walked off with every penny of that oil money.

  80. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    @Max,

    I thought I told you to STFU and not talk to me, old man. You’re another liar who has cowered and deflected when confronted with the harsh reality of having your bullshit flung back in your face.

    You are SOOOOOO FUNNY!

    It’s a shame you only contribute a rational argument 1% of the time. The rest is more of the same as this quote of yours. I’m surprised you haven’t received the identical treatment as Bart with such consistent comments as this. Perhaps it’s for your amusement value.

    Arguing minority elections is to a significant degree meaningless. The gerrymandering of so many House districts into partisan majorities means that MAYBE 150 or so seats are truly at issue when not allowing for incumbency. That’s barely a third!

    I’ve not actually done a real analysis on the current state of gerrymandering, but I’ll bet that such would show that 150 or so seats are each in “safe” GOP or Dem districts. Since a number of those on the Dem side are black or Hispanic majorities, not counting the Cuban-Hispanic GOP districts in FL, you are going to get the results as outlined earlier.

    The party affiliation of women may well make the better point.

  81. Mule Rider says:

    “It’s a shame you only contribute a rational argument 1% of the time.”

    It’s still infinitely larger than the 0% contribution rate you give us, old man.

  82. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Muley, Muley,

    Your logic is irrefutable. Too bad there is no basis to your original premise.

    rgb,

    If people vote for someone the same race as they are—that implies racism.

    But the implication only applies with the choice being between differing races. That is very seldom the case. Largely due to the gerrymandering I spoke of above. Both parties have seen to that over the course of the past couple decades so as to insure “safe” seats. My House District (TX-28) is a gerrymandered Democratic Hispanic district (currently-Henry Cuellar) since it was created in 1992. The one next door (TX-21) is the opposite, a white GOP district (currently-Lamar Smith) for over 30 years!

    Thanks to Tom DeLay!

  83. WA7th says:

    …actually it’ll probably happen long before – we’ll be, as you said, 3rd world backwater shithole status.

    We’re already there.

    Swedwood’s Steen said the company is reducing the number of temps, but she acknowledged the pay gap between factories in Europe and the U.S. “That is related to the standard of living and general conditions in the different countries,” Steen said.

    As I like to frequently say:

    Hoppa ner, vända, plocka en bal av bomull.

  84. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Wa7th,

    You mean them Sweedish Euros have got a better standard of living, higher pay and better benefits than here in the good ole USA?

    Surely Sweden is about to go into the tank because of all that socialism, at least that’s what the GOP wants me to believe. Ya might better check on that before ya brag too much, ya know!

  85. rgbact says:

    GDP per capita:

    US–$47,000
    Sweden–$38,000
    India—$3,300

    It appears making Sweden’s minimum wage…..gets you to its per capita income level. Maybe its also the maximum wage? Something doesn’t make sense

  86. WA7th says:

    rgbact:

    Thanks for the GDP figures. Are there any resources where you found those as to what the average private citizen in each of those nations spends on neccessities, such as health care?

  87. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    according to Wiki Sweden has no minimum wage.

  88. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Again, GDP according to Wiki:

    US IMF(2010) $47,132(7th) World Bank(2009) 45,989(9th) CIA Factbook (2010) 47,100(10th)

    Sweden IMF(2010) $47,667(9th) World Bank(2009) 43,654(14th) CIA Factbook(2010) 49,000(8th)

  89. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Oh, and India, same sources, $1100-1200 and in the 130-140th rank

  90. rgbact says:

    My bad–I guess “minimum wage” of $19 is the Ikea minimum. Either way, seems weird that working an Ikea job puts you at the median pay of the Swedish workforce.

    I know squat about Sweden otherwise. Except its full of whiteys.

  91. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    By life expectancy, same source:

    Sweden 7th – 80.9yrs
    US 36th – 78.3

  92. dcpetterson says:

    The fact that the vast majority of elected officials who are non-white are Democratic is, in fact, significant. It is not merely a function of people voting for candidates of their own race; it shows that minority voters, and minority candidates, are convinced their interests are better served by the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. Otherwise, majority-minority districts would be as likely to vote for Republican minorities as for Democratic minorities.

    The argument that majority-white districts are more likely to vote for a Republican minority candidate than for a Democratic minority candidate would need evidence to support it. You have to first show that there are more Republican minorities from majority white districts than there are minority Democrats from majority white districts. Then you would have to show that this cannot be explained by having a disparate number of minority candidates in majority white districts.

    We do know that elected minorities tend overwhelmingly to prefer the Democratic Party. This would tend to imply they feel more welcome in the Democratic Party, as well as showing that minorities are far more likely to be elected if they are Democrats.

  93. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    By infant mortality (this and life expectancy from CIA Factbook)

    Sweden – 4th best – 2.74 per 1000 live births
    US – 46th best – 6.14

  94. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    We were talking earlier about the Canadian health system vs US. Here are same last 2 numbers for Canada:

    Infant mortality – 37th best – 4.77 per 1000 live births. US 46th
    Life expectancy 11th – 80.7. US 36th

  95. Mainer says:

    While all of this wrangling is interesting it misses the major point entirely. I and some others on here have been saying since the 2008 elections that most likely the Republican party as we have known it would most likely not survive. I have stated on the old board that it was likely that the party would have a spike or so left in it (as 2010 would seem to support) but that each of those victories would come at a cost that would ultimately be the parties undoing for the more any party has to cater to its most base elements to find an audience the fewer individuals from the broader electorate they are going to be able to attract.

    The Republicans coming out of the 2010 election had at least some opportunity to reverse the trend but they have by now pretty much squandered that opportunity and as the effect of all those protest votes comes home to roost on people that are seeing the party for that which it has become and is quite possibly not what they thought they voted for closing the gap on the vote difference between Obama and McCain is going to get ever harder to do.

    I know the mantra of but McCain didn’t excite the real conservative base so many votes stayed home….maybe. But if the Republicans do field a candidate that does excite that base they are just as likely to lose as many middle of the spectrum/independent voters as they gain still loccking the party into a race with the other guy perhaps starting out with 5 to 6 million extra votes. But in some ways it gets worse than that. Take this whole Hispanic go round on here today as a starting point.

    One does not have to accept as a whole the argument of eith side to see how this will mostlikely play out. R’s start the race from at best even to 5 to 6 million down so we look at the last general or other data points and we see that the R’s based on recent history will probably not gain any Hispanic votes but could in all likelyhood lose some maybe even a large number but lets say they have alienated an additional 2 or 3%. Ok not a disaster but more vote hole to fill.

    Well then one could expect the plan must be to gain with other demographic elements of the American voting public. Right now I would be hard pressed to see significant Republican gains with women (especially working women), blacks (if the president holds or is even down a % point or two his last numbers another hurdle for the R’s, Gays/Lesbians……yeah right I’m guessing that boat sailed with DADT so could actually turn out to be another percentage point or so loss to the R side. Seniors? that could hold for the R’s but don’t count on it. After some of the teaper legislative efforts come home to roost especially at the state level that may cost them some percentage points there as well. The young college types? Not likely for as a group the SoCon legislative wish list is not that well looked apon in the best of times and this isn’t so a conservative guess would be several more percentge points for the D’s.

    So far from being a simple Hispanic issue this is a much larger issue of numbers in general divided over a number of groups and I’m not seeing where the R side of the field can gain the point here and there to add up to a victory in deed from where I am sitting I see more lost votes than votes gained to this point. But hey it is my opinion so where am I wrong?

  96. Mainer says:

    rgb…….Sweden is considerably less white than my state of Maine……..wild, heh?

  97. shiloh says:

    @rgbact

    People might go for it in happy times like 2007.
    ~~~~~

    Please define “happy times” ?!? ie Bush’s Gallup job approval rating July 2007 ~ 29%.

    Re: Rubio/Martinez/Sandoval/Labrador.

    Fili’s post being about (((presidential politics))) notwithstanding, hopefully one is not basing a historic wave mid-term election for Reps in 2010 as indicative of any political trends.

    All fame is fleeting …

    >

    @shilohbuster

    Decades ago the Republican Party owned the black vote

    hmm, how many decades should “we” go back knowing the difficulty African/Americans had voting in the South up until the ’60s because of hatred/prejudice/Jim Crow etc.

    And yes, after the 1964/1965 Civil Rights Acts the South switched from solid Dem, to solid Rep ~ go figure! ~ but, but, but it was easier for African/Americans to vote! 🙂

    >

    As always, anything else I would add would just be redundant 😛

    Either this crackpot Chris Rich goes or I go. There’s not enough room around here for both of us, and if his “insights” are welcomed as thoughtful analysis at this site, then I know for a FACT that you guys have jumped the shark and are nothing but a left-wing circle jerk echo chamber determined to shout down conservatism with partisan garbage and filth.

    Oh the humanity as the above ad nauseam, absurd inanity is too ironic to pass over 😀

    Again, like Chris Rich, I yield back the balance of my time …

    take care, blessings

  98. rgbact says:

    Mainer-

    I’m still not convinced that Hispanics are a long term solid bloc. I’d like to see the voting pattern of immigrants since 1900. Are you sure you couldn’t just replace “Hispanics” with “Immigrants” and come to the same conclusion of a coming wave of bloc voters at any point in history? Or because these immigrants aren’t from Europe, that will kill the GOP?

    I imagine every new Hispanic kid just replaces the kids a white Northeast liberal decided not to have. So, you get new Hispanic voters….but get crushed among white voters.

  99. Mule Rider says:

    “I imagine every new Hispanic kid just replaces the kids a white Northeast liberal decided not to have. So, you get new Hispanic voters….but get crushed among white voters.”

    Well put….another trend our lily white liberal friends fail to acknowledge. I’m pretty sure conservatives in the Heartland are reproducing at a much faster clip than the Coastal Liberals….don’t forget all the homosexual couples either who mostly lean Dem and, despite an adoption here or there, are predominantly childless.

  100. Mule Rider says:

    Don’t know about “considerably less” Mainer….a cursory glance at Wiki showed that 97-98 percent of Maine is non-Hispanic white while at least 90 percent of Sweden is comprised of Caucasian groups….

  101. rgbact says:

    Mule-

    Libs need to looks at the depressing census counts in New York and Massachussets. ….not just the giddy ones in California. White liberals may be extinct soon.

  102. Mr. Universe says:

    @rgbact

    White liberals may be extinct soon.

    You do realize that means white conservatives will be in a perpetual minority, right? And as demonstrated by earlier ‘facts’, conservatives don’t tend to run out and get all cuddly with people who don’t look like they do.

    I thought you were an actuary? Don’t you guys deal with changing demographics?

  103. filistro says:

    @rgb… White liberals may be extinct soon.

    And that’s a problem… why, exactly?

  104. rgbact says:

    Mr U-

    We don’t study ethnicity much. Regulators sorta frown on it.

    I may be a white conservative but I’m a big fan of Hispanic ladies. Therefore, I see great prospects for solving this divisive demographic issue.

  105. WA7th says:

    The preceding Miller-Cune comment was an unpaid advertisement for Miller-McCune brought to you free of charge by Miller-McCune.

    Miller-McCune. We’re smart. Real smart.

  106. Yep, that spam got through. Now if only they paid us for it…

  107. Mule Rider says:

    “I may be a white conservative but I’m a big fan of Hispanic ladies. Therefore, I see great prospects for solving this divisive demographic issue.”

    LOL. Good one…

  108. Mainer says:

    Guys on Sweden/Maine I may have misread the earlier comment (hey enough good Canadian and it happens) Maine is 97-98 %white. Sweden is 90 or slightly less % white. I have no idea the Hispanic % of either…….now we do have an Hispanic couple here in town so I know we have some but they are vastly out numbered by the 3 black families or even the 2 Philipino families. Now if the Hispanic couple is oh say maybe gay do they still count as Hispanic?

    Rgb then by all means study those Spanish ladies….makes all the sense in the world to me.Why I can almost hear the strains of Spanish Eyes. And they say conservatives and progressives can’t agree on any thing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s