U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-22-2015, 05:29 PM
 
950 posts, read 711,603 times
Reputation: 1615

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AuburnAL View Post
This is the same woman who lost out on a cabinet position because she had to have a servant to clean her house and couldn't even be bothered to pay minimum wage right?

worthy of reposting for those who missed it
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-22-2015, 06:07 PM
 
698 posts, read 457,564 times
Reputation: 1899
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
Voting based on thumbing one's nose at our laws for one's ethnic group here illegally is quite different than desiring tax cuts. The latter is not disrespecting our laws nor does it have anything to do with supporting illegal foreigners which harms our own citizens.
Actually they are exactly the same. The people in both cases are voting for the candidates that they think will be able to enact changes in the law that they want. Voting to reform immigration law is no more thumbing your nose at current laws than is voting for a tax reduction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 06:45 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 17,031,359 times
Reputation: 7282
EndJr, What matters for POTUS is understanding you now face a diverse 125 million or so set of voters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 06:57 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
7,542 posts, read 8,403,198 times
Reputation: 3482
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
EndJr, What matters for POTUS is understanding you now face a diverse 125 million or so set of voters.
I don't think "diverse" is the right word, an emerging majority is in favor of much larger social programs and increased spending. Its less important what ethnicity the new poor are from, but that they are poor and are looking to politicians to help them.


The middle class is losing influence and they have fewer voters in comparison to other groups, and since they can expect to continue to shrink, it will be tough going for those voters wanting a government less intrusive on private business.


The Republicans can push for open borders and a massive amnesty, but it won't help them at the polls unless they divorce themselves from the idea of limiting the size and scope of new social program. In fact they'll hurt themselves if new citizens are made and the new citizens are interested in new and expanded programs.


The thought that "social issues" are the GOP's problem is false. I'm sure that a few are really gungho for abortion but most are just looking for programs and the few votes on the edge won't make a diff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 06:58 PM
 
11,057 posts, read 3,735,317 times
Reputation: 5190
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusNexus View Post
The problem is that Republicans had 8 years under Bush to show us an effective immigration policy, beyond the deportation-fest they so desperately crave. They had 8 more years under President Obama to demonstrate that they can devise, even contribute to, an effective immigration policy beyond their anti-immigration stance. That's 16 years of nothing, except rhetoric and obstruction, slapping Hispanics and Asians in the face 24/7. When Romney expressed that ridiculous idea about "SELF-DEPORTATION", I didn't see Rubio, Bush, or Paul (or any Republican) speaking publicly in opposition. When Romney was talking about representing less than half the country, not one of these three spoke up in opposition (or any Republican).

Chavez ignores the fact that you can't suddenly align yourself with the Democrat's immigration policy right before an election year, just so you can sucker in Hispanic and Latino votes. At least 16 years, Republicans have had ample time to show themselves, and all they did was expose themselves. They're stance on immigration is atrocious.

Also, Hispanics and Asians didn't abandon the GOP in 2012, the GOP NEVER HAD their support, and won't have it in 2016 either. Anytime the foundation of your ideology is built on racism and bigotry, you don't have the support of these groups.


1) Bush immigration plan was rejected by a Democrat congress in the last 2 years of his presidency.

2) Obama when he had a Democrat controlled house and senate from 2009 to 2011 didn't do anything when he made the promise in 2008 that's the first thing he would do as President. Instead Obama has deported more Latinos than any President in history.


3) Romney's plan of self deportartion makes sense. If people who entered our country ILLEGALLY refuses to obey our laws and refuses to get in line like the rest of the people trying to come here LEGALLY then don't give them jobs (punish the employers who break the law) and don't give them government handouts......2 things will happened.....they will return to their country or they will apply for a U.S. workers permit and get into the system like they were supposed to do when they entered the U.S. illegally.....that's a better plan than amnesty which it didn't work in 1986 and Democrats are trying to repeat in a larger scale.




I didn't know obeying and enforcing our laws was bigotry and racism.......you Democrats are a joke!.....NO WONDER the majority of the governorships in the nation and congress and the senate are Republican.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 07:05 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 17,031,359 times
Reputation: 7282
I Like Spam, The GOP has zero room to lose on the edge, as witnessed by single women going 67% Obama, 31% Mittens in 2012.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
7,542 posts, read 8,403,198 times
Reputation: 3482
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
I Like Spam, The GOP has zero room to lose on the edge, as witnessed by single women going 67% Obama, 31% Mittens in 2012.
Single women (and their dependent children) are the vast majority of TANF, WIC and SNAP recipients.

Identifying them as generic "single women" isn't specific enough to determine what the Republicans' problem here is.

Proposing massive expansion of those programs would improve the GOP's "single women" poll numbers significantly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 07:16 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 17,031,359 times
Reputation: 7282
The single women most likely to be concerned with social issues are not poor, but rather young educated women in the prime of their career, who have tons to lose if they were to enter the mommy track. You don't get 67% w/o them, and that is a huge demographic, as women are the majority of 21st century college grads. A mid 20 college grad at say, a Big 4 Accounting firm, will be promoted annually and increase salary sharply, if she avoids the mommy track at an inopportune time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 07:35 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
7,542 posts, read 8,403,198 times
Reputation: 3482
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
The single women most likely to be concerned with social issues are not poor, but rather young educated women in the prime of their career, who have tons to lose if they were to enter the mommy track. You don't get 67% w/o them, and that is a huge demographic, as women are the majority of 21st century college grads. A mid 20 college grad at say, a Big 4 Accounting firm, will be promoted annually and increase salary sharply, if she avoids the mommy track at an inopportune time.

There are a whole lot more single women with children relying on Uncle Sam because baby's daddy is in prison or otherwise not coming through, than there are upwardly mobile urban single women.


If you want to win elections, you have to appeal to where the large and growing populations are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 07:48 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 17,031,359 times
Reputation: 7282
Wrong again. 37% of women have, at minimum, a college degree. (vs 29% of men)

Facts | Women Moving Millions

and as for how the educated women vote....

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...12-women-vote/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:28 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top