Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No bill is better than a bad bill. It is hard to predict how the issue will impact the 2016 prez election. Anyway you could be right. I'm sure the Dems will do everything within their power to keep their lock on the Hispanic vote (Obama 71, Romney 27) even if Martinez is on the ticket. R's don't necessarily need to get even a majority of the non-white vote. We can't keep losing by 70-30 margins though.
R's need at least 45%, as W's % will not cut it, with 2.4 million non white voters added every 4 years. At some point, 45% will not cut it, so a majority requirement is coming. It is simply a matter of when.
PS: The GOP must reduce the single women losing margin substantially also. That went 67-31 Obama, and the issue causing it IMO is reproductive rights.
R's need at least 45%, as W's % will not cut it, with 2.4 million non white voters added every 4 years. At some point, 45% will not cut it, so a majority requirement is coming. It is simply a matter of when.
PS: The GOP must reduce the single women losing margin substantially also. That went 67-31 Obama, and the issue causing it IMO is reproductive rights.
If Mitt Romney had won 32 percent of the non white vote, he would have won the election. He only got 20 percent, and lost. The pct. of electorate that is white declines by about 2 percent every 4 years, so there is time, but no doubt that the GOP has to adapt. I believe that we will.
If Mitt Romney had won 32 percent of the non white vote, he would have won the election. He only got 20 percent, and lost. The pct. of electorate that is white declines by about 2 percent every 4 years, so there is time, but no doubt that the GOP has to adapt. I believe that we will.
I hope so. This country needs two strong political parties. But until the GOP finds a way to deal with the Tea Party, they will continue to lose ground.
I see our VP choice as a minority of some kind or a female: I could be dead wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Come to think of it Susana Martinez would check both boxes, and is a much better speaker than Jindal. A better fit might be Martinez as VP and Jindal as HHS Secretary.
I like Bobby, but also think that the New Mexico governor would be an excellent choice. Not as strident and divisive as Palin was in 2008, she would appeal to moderate women and perhaps to more moderate Latinos that might bolt the Democratic Party.
If Mitt Romney had won 32 percent of the non white vote, he would have won the election. He only got 20 percent, and lost. The pct. of electorate that is white declines by about 2 percent every 4 years, so there is time, but no doubt that the GOP has to adapt. I believe that we will.
I did mean 45% of growing Latino vote. That is the only non-white voting block that has had any measurable movement towards the GOP. It is also the only non-white voting group I could reasonably see the GOP perform with..better than the overall non-white GOP %, so, as Latino voting % goes GOP, the non-white GOP vote will, no doubt, follow precisely the same way.
Latinos and single women are the 2 groups the GOP must become far, far, far more competitive with.
**To your point, 32% wouldn't do it in 2012. MR lost by about 5 million votes, and in terms of the EC pool, Obama won 270+ in states with margins much higher than 2%. Now 32% could have meant MR won popular, but lost EC vote, or at least extremely close! In all liklihood, if MR got 32%, FL goes MR, and almost no other state would tip, and 303 and 332 ECS still would mean Obama wins.
I did mean 45% of growing Latino vote. That is the only non-white voting block that has had any measurable movement towards the GOP. It is also the only non-white voting group I could reasonably see the GOP perform with..better than the overall non-white GOP %, so, as Latino voting % goes GOP, the non-white GOP vote will, no doubt, follow precisely the same way.
Latinos and single women are the 2 groups the GOP must become far, far, far more competitive with.
**To your point, 32% wouldn't do it in 2012. MR lost by about 5 million votes, and in terms of the EC pool, Obama won 270+ in states with margins much higher than 2%. Now 32% could have meant MR won popular, but lost EC vote, or at least extremely close! In all liklihood, if MR got 32%, FL goes MR, and almost no other state would tip, and 303 and 332 ECS still would mean Obama wins.
OK granted I did not take into account EC minutiae since 95% of the time, the candidate that wins the popular vote also wins the EC. With 32% of the non-white vote, Romney would have won the popular vote. Maybe I should have bumped that up to 33 to allow for the 1 in 20 chance that he wins the popular but loses the EC.
It is not written in stone that any non white voting block must always vote D. To think otherwise is to believe that ideology is a function of skin tine, which is a form of racism.
It is not written in stone that any non white voting block must always vote D. To think otherwise is to believe that ideology is a function of skin tine, which is a form of racism.
True, but insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting different results. Therefore, to expect to do better amongst any voting block, one must expect to have to offer a more appealing set of policies, beliefs, rhetoric, etc.
As for the EC, watch 2016 ..closely for the "hidden signals". Watch how fast densely populated EC rich states get called blue, while, at the same time, what i noticied in 2012 was Red States like Ga & SC did not get called until well over 40% of the vote was in. That tells you the polling data in blue states is indicating they are more solidly blue than their counterparts in red states are solidly red. That matters in winning elections as another fun thing to watch is who is campaigning in states that should be givens for them. In the 21st century, Team Red has spent far more time late in red states, than Team Blue has spent in Blue States. That frees Team Blue up for more "swing state time".
Picking Jindal as VP would be as disastrous as picking Palin or Ryan. Jindal has no more business on a presidential ticket than a RACCOON.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Absolutely not
