Solving the GOP's Demographic/Electoral Challenges (generation, president, Clinton, Reed)

[drishmael]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

"Good post as usual OP."

Thank you. Interpreting empirical data is a lot more interesting than name-calling, huh?

"Interesting numbers but there appear to be huge inconsistencies. Blacks have an overall negative view of capitalism and positive view of socialism, but a 60% positive view of conservatism. Hispanics have an overwhelming preference for bigger government but are split almost exactly evenly among preference for conservative/moderate/liberal. It doesn't add up."

I think that people are generally risk-averse and might therefore be drawn to the word 'conservative'. Likewise, blacks in particular might consider themselves conservative in a sense (religious, traditional, etc.) that doesn't translate into Republican votes. Again, I think the sticking-point is economic. Lastly, as you mention, we can't forget that much of the public has uninformed, ill-defined, or inconsistent political opinions.

"I believe much of the attitudes of minorities towards conservatism and the GOP are proxy for the feeling that the GOP is 'whites only.' As the GOP continues to recruit more minority candidates, this will change, and ideology will no longer be a function of race/ethnicity. Which I think any sane person would have to admit, is as it should be. Anyone who believes that one's ideas should hinge on one's skin color is by definition a racist."

I second the latter sentiment, but I think you're missing the degree to which ethnic/racial strife shapes ideology. Take my predominantly white homestate, for instance. Minnesota's current governor campaigned explicitly on a platform of raising taxes on the wealthy. His Republican critics predicted economic calamity would ensue, but in 2013, the governor got his wish (a new 9.85% income tax bracket), and the state's economy has subsequently outperformed most of the region/country (including Wisconsin, which took the opposite approach). Now, putting aside the question of whether you think this is a fluke, from the perspective of a working-class Minnesotan, would it not be rational to support a policy that results in better public infrastructure, lower college tuition, and reduced property taxes provided it costs you nothing and doesn't inhibit economic growth? Most people are much too pragmatic and self-interested to be dissuaded by abstract economic philosophies or the moral implications of depriving the affluent of some pocket-change. So there's a natural constituency for such a policy, and it likely represents an electoral majority. Across most of the developed world, particularly the most ethnically homogeneous enclaves (Scandinavia, Japan, etc.), relatively robust welfare states and extensive income redistribution enjoy widespread support. That the U.S. is somewhat of an outlier, I'd contend, stems in large part to the country's immense ethnic/racial diversity. Which is not to say that no one favors supply-side economics or an austere welfare state for reasons having nothing to do with racial angst -- just that absent that factor, the proponents would be far short of an electoral majority, and instead of debating the ACA vis-a-vis a minimally regulated market, we'd be debating the ACA vis-a-vis single-payer.

[drishmael]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

"So the issue of systematic racism rather than overt racism? Am I correct in my assessment of the public view on the current stance of the far-right if not the GOP as a whole?"

As I understand it. Were it not for the fear that certain segments of the population are out to fleece the others, the American infatuation with "small government" (as a philosophy, not necessarily a lived reality; alternatively, socialism for me but not for thee) would be much diminished.

[Oldglory]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

Amnesty wouldn't be enough to get the illegal aliens to cast for the GOP.


They'll vote almost uniformly for the Democrats, unless the GOP dumps their opposition to a massive expansion of the Welfare State.


People will vote their pocketbooks, and if you are relying on food stamps or SSD checks but don't pay taxes, a politician promising to curtail spending and taxes just isn't going to do it for you, regardless of whether they were for amnesty or not.

Are you speaking of illegal aliens who were granted amnesty and then became citizens? Only citizens can vote even though there is some evidence that some illegals have. Right now the Democrats are pandering to Hispanic "citizens" for their votes by promising their illegal amigos amnesty. They won't vote GOP regardless though. Why should they when the Democrats have already been promising it?

[bobtn]

wutitiz"Eventually we will reach a point where political ideology is not a function of skin tone, which should be the goal--don't you agree?"

Blue states have supported Dems of both mixed and Caucasian ethnicities; Red States have solely supported Caucasians. You are correct that hopefully, some day, the latter will not necessarily repel against those who do not look like them.

[Packard fan]

Originally Posted by bobtn

wutitiz"Eventually we will reach a point where political ideology is not a function of skin tone, which should be the goal--don't you agree?"

Blue states have supported Dems of both mixed and Caucasian ethnicities; Red States have solely supported Caucasians. You are correct that hopefully, some day, the latter will not necessarily repel against those who do not look like them.

Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal are "anglo white"? I say that because South Carolina and Louisiana are def red states and both people are their governors. lol

[bobtn]

This thread is about POTUS.

[wutitiz]

Originally Posted by bobtn

Red States have solely supported Caucasians. .

Bob, you're going to make me start yet another thread about Mia Love, aren't you.

Democrats and liberals still obviously have an overwhelming edge when it comes to diversity, but the times they are a changing. The NYT noticed the trend back in 2008; you're behind the curve, bob.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/us...s&emc=rss&_r=0

It takes time to turn a ship, but once the ship turns, it is not easy to stop. Remember that in 1960, Democrats were the party of segregation. Bill Clinton served as driver for AR gov Orval Faubus, who famously stood in the school doorway blocking black children, but was thwarted when the GOP prez Ike called in the 101st Airborne to safeguard the children. Clinton later became an unquestioned warrior for equality who was proud of his label as 'first black president,' and opened his post-prez office in Harlem, NYC.

It takes time for a ship to turn, but turn they can.

[prospectheightsresident]

OP, you bring up a good point. But the GOP has to understand that minority outreach doesn't begin during election season. They have to be actively engaging those communities at all times. If the GOP holds steady with their share of the white vote, can win 30% of the Hispanic vote, and 20% of the black vote (note, this would still mean than an overwhelming majority of 80% of blacks would be voting Democratic . . . such numbers aren't impossible for a GOP that is actively engaging blacks), the Democratic Party could never win states like Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado. States like Georgia and North Carolina would become even more Red than they are. But Republicans aren't engaging.

Instead of preaching that English should be the national language and that people who immigrate here should learn English (they should), the GOP should be hosting English language classes for recent immigrants.

Instead of merely preaching about the virtues of school vouchers and the harm that teacher's unions/Democratic establishment are doing to our schools, the GOP needs to be holding town halls in affected communities, selling their messages directly to the people instead of talking down on people.

Yes, the Democrats will fight the GOP on these outreach efforts all the way, but that's only because the know the ramifications of the GOP winning even a few more black/Latino votes than they have been winning. Don't expect to get a vote if you don't serious court that vote.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by bobtn

wutitiz"Eventually we will reach a point where political ideology is not a function of skin tone, which should be the goal--don't you agree?"

Blue states have supported Dems of both mixed and Caucasian ethnicities; Red States have solely supported Caucasians. You are correct that hopefully, some day, the latter will not necessarily repel against those who do not look like them.

Reading/listening to too much Think Progress, NPR (National Palestinian Radio), NYT are we?

You conveniently leave out:

-South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (Indian American GOP Governor),

-South Carolina Senator Tim Scott (black GOP US Senator),

-former Rep. Allen West (black GOP House member from Florida),

-former Rep. JC Watts (black GOP House member from Oklahoma),

-former Oklahoma State House Speaker TW Shannon (black GOP politician),

-current and former statewide minority GOP elected office holders in TX (from the former Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court to Sen. Ted Cruz to other statewide GOP elected officeholders who are "not" white),

-current Rep Mia Love (black GOP House member from Utah),

-current West Virginia State Legislator Jill Upson (black GOP politician),

-current Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (Indian American GOP Governor),

The list goes on and on. And, note, this is an incomplete list of elected black GOP politicians from "Red States." The list grows a lot more when we consider the more politically moderate states.

The overwhelming majority of Democratic minority officeholders come from majority minority districts, hardly a sign of "openness" from white Democrats. Give me a break. Put the Kool Aid down.

[Oldglory]

So I guess the claim is that in order for either party to gain the minority vote they have to have more minority politicians in their party? WTH? What difference does it make what skin color/race or ethnicity one is? What an admittance that minorities are ethnocentric and play identity politics.