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.
Sweeping is most likely not needed yet. Latino % in the 40s, though, is a prereq, especially added to overall dismal GOP showing with non-whites and with single women. And this POTUS election we can expect GOP share of LGBT to be even weaker than previous cycles, given the rhetoric of many of their candidates.
Yet is underlined since when we add 1 mill 18 year old Latinos annually, just via citizens already here, sweeping that group up the road will be a GOP prereq for truly contending for POTUS.
If the Republicans get only 40% of the hispanic vote after going all in and nominating Jeb, how does that add up to a GOP victory?
I don't see it.
Remember, by flipping on the issue, they'll lose a certain number of votes they had previously- an unknown number of voters who would think that GOP support for amnesty is a deal breaker. In order to make up those voters, in addition to gaining enough hispanic voters to go over the top and vanquish the Democrats, I would think they'd need at the minimum 2/3 of the hispanic vote to win.
If the Republicans get only 40% of the hispanic vote after going all in and nominating Jeb, how does that add up to a GOP victory?
I don't see it.
Remember, by flipping on the issue, they'll lose a certain number of votes they had previously- an unknown number of voters who would think that GOP support for amnesty is a deal breaker. In order to make up those voters, in addition to gaining enough hispanic voters to go over the top and vanquish the Democrats, I would think they'd need at the minimum 2/3 of the hispanic vote to win.
Exactly, are the GOP candidates willing to put off all the pro-law Americans for a few more Hispanic votes? I don't think most are really that stupid. Aren't politicians supposed to show they care about the best interests of Americans to win elections? Amnesty is the opposite of that and most Americans know it.
If the Republicans get only 40% of the hispanic vote after going all in and nominating Jeb, how does that add up to a GOP victory?
I don't see it.
Remember, by flipping on the issue, they'll lose a certain number of votes they had previously- an unknown number of voters who would think that GOP support for amnesty is a deal breaker. In order to make up those voters, in addition to gaining enough hispanic voters to go over the top and vanquish the Democrats, I would think they'd need at the minimum 2/3 of the hispanic vote to win.
There's a wild card at play here. A lot of democratic/independent voters, who don't want to vote for Hillary, will go for Jeb and no other Republican Candidate. Jeb is counting on picking them up to marginalize the shortfall from the right wing/tea party.
He's not just going for the Hispanic vote, he's going for the anti Clinton vote of Democrats who have the same ideals.
13% more of Latinos = 4 mill votes. If that occurs in swing states, it makes 270 a reasonable possibility.
GOP lost by around 5 mill in '12, but one can lose popular by a far narrower margin than 5 mill and get 270. W did just that; Gore won the popular vote.
I would hope they shoot to repeat W's 44%, but first they must break to 40%+.
Or get used to saying President Clinton again.
PS: The fringe wing nuts they may lose are in blood red states (Confederacy) where they have 10% or more of all votes to spare. Winning Tn by 13% or 6% gets the same electoral vote quantity.
You can't out-pander the Democrats. If the GOP thinks they can, they're going to lose a lot of elections. And not because of demographics either.
It's not really pandering. It's honestly dealing with the elephant in the National living room.
Every politician realizes the issue needs to be addressed. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill as recently as 2013 by 68-32 for comprehensive immigration reform including a path to citizenship. Everyone knows it needs to be resolved.
Only the far right use it as a wedge issue and scream about all the money it will cost. Pennies, compared to our military.
Weill, I'll admit, that in our history, the nation has made investments in immigrants and in every case, throughout history, that investment has paid dividends.
It is the same in this case. it's not like we're accepting a whole nation of people as refugees, all at once. These people have been here for many years. They are already part of our social fabric. Those 11 million are the shadow people who have been here a very long time and it's a ray of hope that there is a credible republican willing to acknowledge that fact. Jeb Bush offers moderate republicans and independents an honest alternative to HRC.
If this ^^ is the case, why is it that Rubio and the "gang of eight" rapidly tanked in ratings after introducing their "comprehensive" reform? Jeb isn't popular for the same reason. The politicians want us to believe that "everyone" favors reform, however that is quickly debunked via elections and support.
There are a few problems with "comprehensive immigration reform." First of all, what is it? And, do we need it? Many people say yes we need it, but I say no. How can we ENFORCE comprehensive immigration reform if we can't enforce simple border security and other issues related to illegal immigration. So, I say NO to new laws!!!
Another obvious problem is that we have millions of illegals here already, which is what J. Bush is saying. If we can't (or won't) deport them, then we have a stalemate. I haven't heard anyone really give a good solution... although I like Romney's idea of "self-deportation". It is the best option, but it isn't politically correct. Bush is saying the more politically correct thing. If we would enforce border security, drug dealing, and illegal employment then that would be progress.
If you remember, GW Bush also wanted comprehensive immigration reform.
13% more of Latinos = 4 mill votes. If that occurs in swing states, it makes 270 a reasonable possibility.
GOP lost by around 5 mill in '12, but one can lose popular by a far narrower margin than 5 mill and get 270. W did just that; Gore won the popular vote.
I would hope they shoot to repeat W's 44%, but first they must break to 40%+.
Or get used to saying President Clinton again.
PS: The fringe wing nuts they may lose are in blood red states (Confederacy) where they have 10% or more of all votes to spare. Winning Tn by 13% or 6% gets the same electoral vote quantity.
Can we forget about election numbers and focus on a policy?
That stalemate benefits President Clinton, as this status quo equals,
11 mill staying here, working, most paying NO taxes
and
a 2016 Wedge issue which will repeat the 73-27% trip to the woodshed Latino citizens sent Mittens on.
When he was self-deported from POTUS contention.
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.
