Serious Q for Republicans

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

EHarding, you keep mentioning Williamson County, TN as an example of an upper-income place that voted against Trump in the primary and then refer to these types of places as places that will eventually be Democratic strongholds.  Do you really expect Williamson County- which The Daily Caller ranks as the most conservative place in America- to become Democratic territory?

It is certainly what he wants to happen, but it obviously won't.  WWC voters will become Democrats before Williamson County types, easily.

I agree but what are Williamson types? Genuinely curious.

Williamson County, Tennessee (a wealthy and conservative suburb of Nashville):

-The richest county in America, adjusted for cost of living (and richest in the South, even without an adjustment)
-The biggest homes in America
-Ranked by the Daily Caller as the most conservative county in America

It is the type of place where pure Heritage Foundation policies are extremely popular.  It is the base of Marsha Blackburn's (who is so conservative that she rejects the term "congresswoman" as a politically correct misnomer) support.

Makes sense to me. Yeah I see WWC going Dem before this county.

-You do realize Dana Rohrabacher represents a Clinton district, right?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

As Hispanics assimilate (just like the Irish, Italians, and Jews did), they will become part of the white mainstream (at least the majority of Hispanics who have white skin), so America will never truly be majority-minority (or anywhere close to it).

This might have happened... then Trump came alone.  See California over the last 20 years for more on this topic.

-Californian Hispanics are strongly Democrat because California's non-Hispanic Whites are strongly Democrat. California is filled with liberal elitists, including some of the first non-Jewish ones to switch to the Dems.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

As Hispanics assimilate (just like the Irish, Italians, and Jews did), they will become part of the white mainstream (at least the majority of Hispanics who have white skin), so America will never truly be majority-minority (or anywhere close to it).

This might have happened... then Trump came alone.  See California over the last 20 years for more on this topic.

-Californian Hispanics are strongly Democrat because California's non-Hispanic Whites are strongly Democrat. California is filled with liberal elitists, including some of the first non-Jewish ones to switch to the Dems.

Yes and this realization highlights one of the problems to the strategy I see being proferred here a lot... which is... Republicans will have an easier time picking off more white voters than minorities in the future... no... there will always be a solid 30%+ of white voters who will be the Democrats' most loyal constituency based on some ideological reason (abortion, gun control, gay marriage)... also there are certainly sub-groups of white voters (LGBTQ, Jewish, etc.) that will probably continue to staunchly support the Democratic party, ensuring Democrats a consistent share of the white vote.  Make no mistake, if Republicans don't improve with minorities they are going to have a problem going forward.  The fact that Trump won a bunch of swing states by tiny margins does not change that fact.

I hate to continually use Virginia as an example, but this is the future... Republicans maxed out the white vote... the minority population kept growing...  Republicans couldn't counter it and they couldn't improve further among whites in NOVA who are ideologically too liberal to swing over.

-No; the GOP didn't max out the White vote. VA's White vote in 2012 was only slightly more Republican than Indiana's, and far less so than Texas's, Georgia's, or even North Carolina's. The reason Trump lost Virginia was because a bunch of White liberal elitists moved in, attracted by filthy DC lucre. Washington, DC does not exist in every state in the country. In any case, it's still objectively easier for the GOP to win DC elitists (much as I despise them) than it is for them to win minorities. Look at Comstock.

Why do you suppose making gains among Dem minorities (a numerically smaller group nationwide than White Dems) would be any easier for the GOP than making massive gains among White Dems? Trump at least demonstrated one can do the latter, at least, among some types of White Dems. Meanwhile, not a single Republican candidate has ever won the Hispanic vote.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

LIBRULLL ELEATS.

-Yes; see the Kasich-voting towns in Massachusetts. They exist.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The one place where it might be profitable for the GOP to make gains among Hispanics is southern California. This is simply judging from the manner Schwarzenegger won. New Mexico might be another case. There really aren't that many others.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

As Hispanics assimilate (just like the Irish, Italians, and Jews did), they will become part of the white mainstream (at least the majority of Hispanics who have white skin), so America will never truly be majority-minority (or anywhere close to it).

This might have happened... then Trump came alone.  See California over the last 20 years for more on this topic.

-Californian Hispanics are strongly Democrat because California's non-Hispanic Whites are strongly Democrat. California is filled with liberal elitists, including some of the first non-Jewish ones to switch to the Dems.

Yes and this realization highlights one of the problems to the strategy I see being proferred here a lot... which is... Republicans will have an easier time picking off more white voters than minorities in the future... no... there will always be a solid 30%+ of white voters who will be the Democrats' most loyal constituency based on some ideological reason (abortion, gun control, gay marriage)... also there are certainly sub-groups of white voters (LGBTQ, Jewish, etc.) that will probably continue to staunchly support the Democratic party, ensuring Democrats a consistent share of the white vote.  Make no mistake, if Republicans don't improve with minorities they are going to have a problem going forward.  The fact that Trump won a bunch of swing states by tiny margins does not change that fact.

I hate to continually use Virginia as an example, but this is the future... Republicans maxed out the white vote... the minority population kept growing...  Republicans couldn't counter it and they couldn't improve further among whites in NOVA who are ideologically too liberal to swing over.

-No; the GOP didn't max out the White vote. VA's White vote in 2012 was only slightly more Republican than Indiana's, and far less so than Texas's, Georgia's, or even North Carolina's. The reason Trump lost Virginia was because a bunch of White liberal elitists moved in, attracted by filthy DC lucre. Washington, DC does not exist in every state in the country. In any case, it's still objectively easier for the GOP to win DC elitists (much as I despise them) than it is for them to win minorities. Look at Comstock.

Why do you suppose making gains among Dem minorities (a numerically smaller group nationwide than White Dems) would be any easier for the GOP than making massive gains among White Dems? Trump at least demonstrated one can do the latter, at least, among some types of White Dems. Meanwhile, not a single Republican candidate has ever won the Hispanic vote.

Comstock's days are obviously numbered.  I'd be surprised if she wins in 2018.

It is not objectively easier for Republicans to win "DC elitists" (i.e., liberals)... they are the ideological base of the democratic party.  Did you see footage of the women's march on washington... it was 2/3 white people.  These are some of the most engaged and energized democratic voters.  The are more ideologically in line with the democratic party as a whole and they tend to be the most pissed off by Republican policies (again, see women's march).

-Which Republican candidates on a statewide level have actually won the Hispanic vote without winning the liberal elitist vote? The big one I can think of is Schwarzenegger 2003.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

As Hispanics assimilate (just like the Irish, Italians, and Jews did), they will become part of the white mainstream (at least the majority of Hispanics who have white skin), so America will never truly be majority-minority (or anywhere close to it).

This might have happened... then Trump came alone.  See California over the last 20 years for more on this topic.

-Californian Hispanics are strongly Democrat because California's non-Hispanic Whites are strongly Democrat. California is filled with liberal elitists, including some of the first non-Jewish ones to switch to the Dems.

Yes and this realization highlights one of the problems to the strategy I see being proferred here a lot... which is... Republicans will have an easier time picking off more white voters than minorities in the future... no... there will always be a solid 30%+ of white voters who will be the Democrats' most loyal constituency based on some ideological reason (abortion, gun control, gay marriage)... also there are certainly sub-groups of white voters (LGBTQ, Jewish, etc.) that will probably continue to staunchly support the Democratic party, ensuring Democrats a consistent share of the white vote.  Make no mistake, if Republicans don't improve with minorities they are going to have a problem going forward.  The fact that Trump won a bunch of swing states by tiny margins does not change that fact.

I hate to continually use Virginia as an example, but this is the future... Republicans maxed out the white vote... the minority population kept growing...  Republicans couldn't counter it and they couldn't improve further among whites in NOVA who are ideologically too liberal to swing over.

-No; the GOP didn't max out the White vote. VA's White vote in 2012 was only slightly more Republican than Indiana's, and far less so than Texas's, Georgia's, or even North Carolina's. The reason Trump lost Virginia was because a bunch of White liberal elitists moved in, attracted by filthy DC lucre. Washington, DC does not exist in every state in the country. In any case, it's still objectively easier for the GOP to win DC elitists (much as I despise them) than it is for them to win minorities. Look at Comstock.

Why do you suppose making gains among Dem minorities (a numerically smaller group nationwide than White Dems) would be any easier for the GOP than making massive gains among White Dems? Trump at least demonstrated one can do the latter, at least, among some types of White Dems. Meanwhile, not a single Republican candidate has ever won the Hispanic vote.

Comstock's days are obviously numbered.  I'd be surprised if she wins in 2018.

It is not objectively easier for Republicans to win "DC elitists" (i.e., liberals)... they are the ideological base of the democratic party.  Did you see footage of the women's march on washington... it was 2/3 white people.  These are some of the most engaged and energized democratic voters.  The are more ideologically in line with the democratic party as a whole and they tend to be the most pissed off by Republican policies (again, see women's march).

-Which Republican candidates on a statewide level have actually won the Hispanic vote without winning the liberal elitist vote? The big one I can think of is Schwarzenegger 2003.

WTF?  Do they now let you check off "liberal elitist white" on exit polls?

Barbara Comstock was able to hold on to some of this vote in NOVA but that's largely because she has huge name recognition in the district.  She has worked the district for years.

-OK; areas of a per capita income 50% or more above the national average in which Obama got over 60% of the non-Hispanic-White vote in 2012.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

As Hispanics assimilate (just like the Irish, Italians, and Jews did), they will become part of the white mainstream (at least the majority of Hispanics who have white skin), so America will never truly be majority-minority (or anywhere close to it).

This might have happened... then Trump came alone.  See California over the last 20 years for more on this topic.

-Californian Hispanics are strongly Democrat because California's non-Hispanic Whites are strongly Democrat. California is filled with liberal elitists, including some of the first non-Jewish ones to switch to the Dems.

Yes and this realization highlights one of the problems to the strategy I see being proferred here a lot... which is... Republicans will have an easier time picking off more white voters than minorities in the future... no... there will always be a solid 30%+ of white voters who will be the Democrats' most loyal constituency based on some ideological reason (abortion, gun control, gay marriage)... also there are certainly sub-groups of white voters (LGBTQ, Jewish, etc.) that will probably continue to staunchly support the Democratic party, ensuring Democrats a consistent share of the white vote.  Make no mistake, if Republicans don't improve with minorities they are going to have a problem going forward.  The fact that Trump won a bunch of swing states by tiny margins does not change that fact.

I hate to continually use Virginia as an example, but this is the future... Republicans maxed out the white vote... the minority population kept growing...  Republicans couldn't counter it and they couldn't improve further among whites in NOVA who are ideologically too liberal to swing over.

-No; the GOP didn't max out the White vote. VA's White vote in 2012 was only slightly more Republican than Indiana's, and far less so than Texas's, Georgia's, or even North Carolina's. The reason Trump lost Virginia was because a bunch of White liberal elitists moved in, attracted by filthy DC lucre. Washington, DC does not exist in every state in the country. In any case, it's still objectively easier for the GOP to win DC elitists (much as I despise them) than it is for them to win minorities. Look at Comstock.

Why do you suppose making gains among Dem minorities (a numerically smaller group nationwide than White Dems) would be any easier for the GOP than making massive gains among White Dems? Trump at least demonstrated one can do the latter, at least, among some types of White Dems. Meanwhile, not a single Republican candidate has ever won the Hispanic vote.

Comstock's days are obviously numbered.  I'd be surprised if she wins in 2018.

It is not objectively easier for Republicans to win "DC elitists" (i.e., liberals)... they are the ideological base of the democratic party.  Did you see footage of the women's march on washington... it was 2/3 white people.  These are some of the most engaged and energized democratic voters.  The are more ideologically in line with the democratic party as a whole and they tend to be the most pissed off by Republican policies (again, see women's march).

-Which Republican candidates on a statewide level have actually won the Hispanic vote without winning the liberal elitist vote? The big one I can think of is Schwarzenegger 2003.

WTF?  Do they now let you check off "liberal elitist white" on exit polls?

Barbara Comstock was able to hold on to some of this vote in NOVA but that's largely because she has huge name recognition in the district.  She has worked the district for years.

-OK; areas of a per capita income 50% or more above the national average in which Obama got over 60% of the non-Hispanic-White vote in 2012.

Ironic that you mention NOVA elitists... I doubt even Fairfax County falls in that category.  Fairfax is maybe 2-1 Democrat but when you factor out the very large minority population it's probably 50/50 among whites.  There are probably very few extremely rich counties where 60% of the white vote went for Obama in 2012.  Even in relatively dem strong counties those margins rely on a coalition with minorities.  For those kinds of numbers you would need to go into urban precincts like Dupont Circle DC.

-Fairfax County did not fall into this category in 2012 (maybe 2016?), but Arlington and Alexandria sure did.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

In any case, I repeat my question: which Republican candidates on a statewide level have actually won the Hispanic vote without winning the liberal elitist vote?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I define "Liberal elitists" as "residents of an area with a per capita income 50% or more above the national average in which Obama got over 60% of the non-Hispanic-White vote in 2012".

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

In any case, I repeat my question: which Republican candidates on a statewide level have actually won the Hispanic vote without winning the liberal elitist vote?

John McCain has won as much as 65% of the hispanic vote in his Arizona Senate campaigns. Not exactly sure if there are that many liberal elitists in Arizona, much less how they feel about Sen. McCain, but the Trumpie populists and the Alt-Right crowd sure do despise him.

-The closest thing to a "liberal elitist" area in AZ is Coconino County. Did he crack 60% there when he won Hispanics?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I define "Liberal elitists" as "residents of an area with a per capita income 50% or more above the national average in which Obama got over 60% of the non-Hispanic-White vote in 2012".

Such a broad brush you have there.

-Narrow, you mean. Does not include Fairfax County, as Non-Swing pointed out.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

In the long term, the Republicans best chance of winning Hispanic votes is to focus on the needs of blue collar Americans. In the end, Hispanics have more in common with working class whites than they do with college educated whites, and are unlikely to be a permanently disadvantaged community. Now, Donald Trump is not the ideal Republican candidate to do so, but he's also not going to be president forever. It turns out Hispanics want the same things everyone else does.

-I have sympathies to this position, but Hispanics clearly have a great deal of Dem machine loyalty not explainable by social rank. Compare places of similar income in East Tennessee and South Texas.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Working class Whites, by how you both defined them, will not be a significant part of the GOP in 20 years.  The future of minority outreach is getting affluent minorities to appreciate conservatism that would benefit them.

-Affluent minorities do not and will not "appreciate conservatism" because they aren't conservative. The WWC is. Your predictions are quite far from reality. Would you have predicted in 1996 that the Dems would win DuPage County in 2012?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

EHarding, you keep mentioning Williamson County, TN as an example of an upper-income place that voted against Trump in the primary and then refer to these types of places as places that will eventually be Democratic strongholds.  Do you really expect Williamson County- which The Daily Caller ranks as the most conservative place in America- to become Democratic territory?

-By fits and starts, eventually. Not in 2024, but maybe 2036. The model for this is DuPage county, IL. Nearly the same percentage of Williamson County, TN voters went for HRC in 2016 as DuPage County, IL voters went for Michael Dukakis. Twenty years after 1988, DuPage County, IL voted Dem for the first time ever -and will stay that way on the presidential level for a long, long time. But I expect Delaware County, Ohio and the Texas suburbs to flip first. Who will be Texas's Democratic John Tower, I wonder?

I don't know if I am going off on topic here but without Cook County and it wouldn't matter how DuPage County votes Illinois is probably politically like Missouri.

-Try Iowa or Ohio. Trump won Illinois by 6.75 points outside Cook County.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Working class Whites, by how you both defined them, will not be a significant part of the GOP in 20 years.  The future of minority outreach is getting affluent minorities to appreciate conservatism that would benefit them.

-Affluent minorities do not and will not "appreciate conservatism" because they aren't conservative. The WWC is. Your predictions are quite far from reality. Would you have predicted in 1996 that the Dems would win DuPage County in 2012?

Hispanics actually vote more R the more money that they make. With Asian and Black People income means very little in terms of voting R vs D although the poorest Asians do vote more D than the Asian Vote as a whole.

WWC is conservative-Depends which WWC's you are talking about. If you are talking WWC Conservatives than yes but if you are talking about WWC Moderates than no. WWC's aren't conservative as a whole I don't think. Obama only lost WWC Moderates by 13% in 2012 where as Hillary lost them by double that by 26% from an article I read on Real Clear Politics.Com  a couple months ago.

-I suspect the income--->Republican vote correlation among Hispanics is stronger in low-rent states such as TX than in high-rent states like CA.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Tartarus, you are half-right and half-wrong. What you must remember is there are ALWAYS more people than elites. That's how Trump won.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Tartarus, you are half-right and half-wrong. What you must remember is there are ALWAYS more people than elites. That's how Trump won.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Tartarus, you are half-right and half-wrong. What you must remember is there are ALWAYS more people than elites. That's how Trump won.

Will you stop acting like Clinton voters were "elites"?

-Romney-Clinton voters were mostly elites.