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.
Amnesty does nothing but kill any chances for Conservatives as adding 30,000,000 entitlement voters would doom America to one party rule by leftist.
Not a chance that happens...We lose, America loses, What do we gain? Nothing that off sets the massive loses of Independence's.
"The Hispanic vote" (seems like a patronizing term to me, but I'll go with it for this post) is generally overstated as a national election issue. It probably is important in certain states.
In 2012, Hispanics accounted for not quite 9% of voters nationally. By comparison, veterans were 12%. People with incomes over $100,000/year were 18%. People age 65 and up were 19%. Homeowners were 80%.
About two thirds of non-Hispanic whites who are eligible to vote do in fact vote. About half of Hispanics who are eligible to vote do in fact vote.
If you campaign a lot for "the Hispanic vote," and manage to increase your Hispanic support by 10%, that roughly equates in vote numbers to raising your support among non-Hispanic white voters by 1.25%. That is in terms of total national votes. The real effect is smaller (California and New York are probably going blue regardless, Texas is probably going red regardless, Florida Hispanics have different backgrounds and issues than in border states).
Nobody's paying me for campaign advice, but my suggestion to politicians would be to make no special effort to woo the Hispanic vote. In the short term, it probably won't work, in the long term, it probably won't matter. After a few generations in the U.S., Hispanic voting patterns are much more similar to non-Hispanic white voting patterns. That advice is worth twice what you paid for it.
The Republicans, in particular, need to worry a lot more about those 1.25%, 2.5% etc of the white vote. That is why they're losing, because they aren't giving those people enough reason to show up.
McCain lost because he was running at a time another Republican was leaving office with approvals in the 20's. The fact he ran much further to the right in 2008 than he did in 2000 and picked Palin didn't help.
As far as Romney, again the GOP Primary forced him to run so far to the right, there was no coming back from it.
AC is *NOT* going to run for WH unless the field is so cleared of choices such as HC or that governor of Maryland. Both have been out there along with a few other Democrats "introducing" themselves to the rest of America as it were. They all also carry less baggage (well not HC) than AC.
Andrew Cuomo has barely left New York State for political reasons and again when forced to do so was really only in response to disasters (flooding upstate and later super storm Sandy) to help with the heavy lifting politically to get money from Washington.
Much of the United States outside the NY, NJ, Conn tri-state area has no idea who AC is other than that governor from a very liberal state who forced through gay marriage.
As also previously stated AC is a bit of a hot head especially when it comes to people getting into his personal business. You cannot run for POTUS without all bets being off these days. All sorts of questions and snooping is going to be done and AC will either have to answer or risk coming in for more heavy handed treatment.
Large parts of the USA look upon New York State and City as everything that is repulsive to themselves. The idea of exporting such "progressive/liberal" government across the nation is not going to sit well once you cross the Mason-Dixon.
Leaving aside his recent trip to Israel (gotta keep those members of the tribe happy), AC has nil foreign policy experience. The USA will have been through eight years of another such naïf (Obama) in that area and look what it got us.
AC is *NOT* going to run for WH unless the field is so cleared of choices such as HC or that governor of Maryland. Both have been out there along with a few other Democrats "introducing" themselves to the rest of America as it were. They all also carry less baggage (well not HC) than AC.
Andrew Cuomo has barely left New York State for political reasons and again when forced to do so was really only in response to disasters (flooding upstate and later super storm Sandy) to help with the heavy lifting politically to get money from Washington.
Much of the United States outside the NY, NJ, Conn tri-state area has no idea who AC is other than that governor from a very liberal state who forced through gay marriage.
As also previously stated AC is a bit of a hot head especially when it comes to people getting into his personal business. You cannot run for POTUS without all bets being off these days. All sorts of questions and snooping is going to be done and AC will either have to answer or risk coming in for more heavy handed treatment.
Large parts of the USA look upon New York State and City as everything that is repulsive to themselves. The idea of exporting such "progressive/liberal" government across the nation is not going to sit well once you cross the Mason-Dixon.
Leaving aside his recent trip to Israel (gotta keep those members of the tribe happy), AC has nil foreign policy experience. The USA will have been through eight years of another such naïf (Obama) in that area and look what it got us.
We know who and what he is...And we want less then nothing to do with it..
Of course the fact that those "swing states" never sway right couldn't possibly even suggest that they're solidly entrenched LEFT.
*Sigh*
In the 6 presidential elections from 1992-2012, the 2 GOP wins were by extremely narrow margins: 271 EV for Bush in 2000 and 286 for Dubya in 2004. In both wins he carried Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.
If trends continue as they have for the past several elections and Virginia and Nevada join the Blue Wall, the GOP loses 19 more EV and the path to 270 becomes incredibly dicey without a take back or two from that solid Blue Wall. Winning an even higher percentage of the vote in places like Oklahoma or Mississippi isn't going to accomplish a thing. It's all about states, and it's a difficult case to make that any of the Purple States are trending toward the GOP.[/quote]
This is what conservatives don't seem to understand about Presidential elections.
Democrats have a lot of states they have not lost in a fairly long time 6 elections.
Many of the swing states are drifting to Democrats, and Democrats win the most populous states in the union, while conservatives tend to win relatively small states.
The conservative path to 270 is very narrow.
If they lose FL or OH they have zero chance to win.
The Democratic nominee can lose both and VA and still win as was the case with President Obama vs Mitt Rmoney in 2012.
President Obama won FL, OH, and VA in 2012 against Mitt Rmoney, but if he had of lost all three states he still would have won the election.
This is a dominating electoral college position for democrats.
Democrats can afford to lose the two states(FL, OH) that conservatives can't afford to lose.
This means if democrats put resources in those two states, conservatives have to over spend there because the electoral college math doesn't work if they don't win FL and OH, which leaves less money to challenge Democrats in other states.
I do believe though a moderate Repub running on moderate Repub values (not rabid pro life, nor against comprehensive immigration reform, just to name 2 issues) could eek out 270 with a moderate VP and a moderate platform and full always moderate campaign cycle . I'm talking a Joe Scarborough type, the Bob Dole persona of this generation.
Joe Scarborough was a radical back in 1994. I remember him and he still is, it's just that compared to Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Steve King, he looks moderate.
No we're not, we're a centrist country. We've always been since FDR, it's only since Reagan have idiot white working classes been convinced that Reaganomics is good for them.
Yes, he is. If left-wing groups have a grudge against him, he is right-wing. Just because he is a Democrat doesn't make him a communist-socialist-anarchist well, if you're a neo-Confederate I guess, anyone to the left of a neo-Confederate is a pinko commie
Your perception is skewed when you start at FDR being Centrist.
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.
