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.
This is why it might surprise you to hear that Republicans are by far the more diverse party when it comes to statewide elected officials such as senators and governors. On this front, they leave Democrats in the dust....
It's counterintuitive but true. Numbers don't lie.
The same kind of thing has happened in the past, bob.
Before 1970, the vast majority of ethnic groups who settled in America during the late 19th/early 20th Century were still firmly liberal and polls indicated that.
But as they moved out of the proletariat in the inner cities, and into middle class suburbia, the liberal grip on the the Poles and the Italians, Greeks, Slovaks and Serbs, all faded pretty quickly. In the current era, I don't think that you could even find a poll measuring how Italians voted (as opposed to other ethnic groups) in the 2012 election.
If the newer to America ethnic groups can raise themselves to the world of SUV's, orthodontic bills and white picket fences, like their predecessors did, you can expect them to change their voting patterns in the same way.
There is no reason why they shouldn't be able to raise their economic circumstances.
Agreed. All of those people are now "anglo white" here in Arizona and more and more "Hispanics" are now coming on board, flipping off la raza.
wutitiz"I think the main problem for the Republican party is a perception built over years that it is a 'whites only' party."
95% of 2012 GOP primary voters were white. That is a fact, not a perception. Only 72% of POTUS voters were white. Also a fact, not a perception.
72 percent of POTUS voters are "white". Well; looking at voting age people, about 70 percent of ALL US citizens are anglo white. Many Black dudes CAN'T vote because they played the fool and are convicted felons. Hispanics: many are legal aliens, illegals don't count.
The number of evangelicals out there is a fluid number, not a fixed one.
Religious revivals ebb and flow, gaining and losing adherents.
Yeah I didn't address that but it is true. The issue is it still is a minority of the base. Might be the most vocal group but it is a minority of the votes who will likely vote R anyway.
Quote:
Further, not everyone who opposes abortions or gay rights is an evangelical or fundamentalist. A lot of people have secular reasons why they have problems with one or the other or both. Further, a lot of "indy moderates" could care less about these issues, and it won't influence their vote one way or another.
True, but they may not like hearing some of the nuttier comments about rape or gays that more conservative candidates do make.
We have heard a great deal about the Democratic Party's demographic advantages -- how it appeals more to younger, more diverse voters of the sort now preparing to boycott the state of Indiana. These voters are the future, and the angry old white guys who form the core of the GOP are fast fading away.
But there is a troubling paradox here. The party of angry old white guys have elected youngsters -- like Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley, both 43 -- while the party of youth and diversity has put Jerry Brown, 76, in the California Governor's office.
Def a very "lib" article but; the writer's right just looking at the numbers. The Dems are in some real trouble, especially if Hillary doesn't run.
God. Republicans are so literal. It's not their age - it's what they stand for! Or at least what they say they stand for and that applies to both parties.
Do they stand for the past - wanting to drag us backward into the 1950's or the wild, wild West? Or do they stand for the future which is looking more and more progressive.
God. Republicans are so literal. It's not their age - it's what they stand for! Or at least what they say they stand for and that applies to both parties.
Do they stand for the past - wanting to drag us backward into the 1950's or the wild, wild West? Or do they stand for the future which is looking more and more progressive.
Uh; the progs have messed things up pretty bad IMHO. It's on Obama to make them look good; IF he proves to be a full on failure, the Dems are screwed for 2016. I was quite pissed at the Repubs in 2008 but; they haven't been in the White House for years so it's on the present POTUS.
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.
