What Should the GOP Do To Appeal To Minorities?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Republicans have shown that they can win without any minorities, but that era is fading. Simply supporting affirmative action isn't going to cut it unfortunately. Call for "open borders" with guards who let people easily and amnesty. Also, alot of my conservative counterparts don't realize this but amnesty allows more foreigners to be tracked as opposed to now where the government doesn't know exactly who is who within the illegal community.

I have explained this 100 times. You don't concede, you fight. The pressure groups who control minority votes will never support Republicans. You have to break their grip on those votes. You have to prove to them that they are self serving and not looking out for their best interests.

I won't go into detail on the Amnesty thing (I just did recently). The people pushing amnesty know damn well that future illegal immigration will be encouraged and they will demand yet another amnesty. These groups have been hindering enforcement operations and demaning amnesty since the when the ink had barely dried on the Reagan Amnesty. You are naive or unaware of the history if you think that we won't be having this same arguement 15 years from now. It never changes, it has been their game since the 60's. They won't machine voters, not good policy. I'll be damned if I sign of a bill that only benefits these groups and big agribusiness. It will do nothing for the immigrant who came here legally, the next wave of illegals who will be exploited, the victim of ID theft, and most certainly not the country at-large. My view is the "compassionate" view not the open borders one.

Oh and I please don't hit me with that "you can't round them up crap" because  I already went through why that is not necessary two days ago. Go dig for it.

Its not going to be easy, its going to take courage and effort. Simply changing one position is not going to do it. Bush promised everything under the son and got to 44% of Hispanics, 1% more among African Americans (I will note we are still in the mid 30's among Hispanics about 10% better then Dole's performance in 1996) but it was unsustainable and the promises impossible. A different approach is needed.

I'm against promising handouts. That does seem to be the mentality that alot of minorities have fallen under. What are your disagreements with affirmative action though? I'm against the way that the University of Michigan did it but other than that I'm a supporter.

I am mixed on Affirmative Action. I think most of it should be shifted from just race based to race+poverty. The arguement is that minorities have been hampered economically through because of discrimnation so it would make sense to just focus on poor minorities instead of all minorities.

How about making AA just based on financial status? That way, wealthy minorities can be excluded and poor white people can be included.

Thats a possibility.

[Bo]

Republicans have shown that they can win without any minorities, but that era is fading. Simply supporting affirmative action isn't going to cut it unfortunately. Call for "open borders" with guards who let people easily and amnesty. Also, alot of my conservative counterparts don't realize this but amnesty allows more foreigners to be tracked as opposed to now where the government doesn't know exactly who is who within the illegal community.

I have explained this 100 times. You don't concede, you fight. The pressure groups who control minority votes will never support Republicans. You have to break their grip on those votes. You have to prove to them that they are self serving and not looking out for their best interests.

I won't go into detail on the Amnesty thing (I just did recently). The people pushing amnesty know damn well that future illegal immigration will be encouraged and they will demand yet another amnesty. These groups have been hindering enforcement operations and demaning amnesty since the when the ink had barely dried on the Reagan Amnesty. You are naive or unaware of the history if you think that we won't be having this same arguement 15 years from now. It never changes, it has been their game since the 60's. They won't machine voters, not good policy. I'll be damned if I sign of a bill that only benefits these groups and big agribusiness. It will do nothing for the immigrant who came here legally, the next wave of illegals who will be exploited, the victim of ID theft, and most certainly not the country at-large. My view is the "compassionate" view not the open borders one.

Oh and I please don't hit me with that "you can't round them up crap" because  I already went through why that is not necessary two days ago. Go dig for it.

Its not going to be easy, its going to take courage and effort. Simply changing one position is not going to do it. Bush promised everything under the son and got to 44% of Hispanics, 1% more among African Americans (I will note we are still in the mid 30's among Hispanics about 10% better then Dole's performance in 1996) but it was unsustainable and the promises impossible. A different approach is needed.

I'm against promising handouts. That does seem to be the mentality that alot of minorities have fallen under. What are your disagreements with affirmative action though? I'm against the way that the University of Michigan did it but other than that I'm a supporter.

I am mixed on Affirmative Action. I think most of it should be shifted from just race based to race+poverty. The arguement is that minorities have been hampered economically through because of discrimnation so it would make sense to just focus on poor minorities instead of all minorities.

How about making AA just based on financial status? That way, wealthy minorities can be excluded and poor white people can be included.

Thats a possibility.

That way, affirmative action will actually become fairer. Even though racial discrimination created large income gaps in the past (which still exist today), many minorities nowadays are pretty wealthy and many white people are still poor. Thus, if race has any focus in affirmative action, many poor white people with good grades/academic records could get rejected from a certain college or job just so that wealthy minorities with worse grades/academic records could take those jobs. That's called reverse discrimination. The only way I would support affirmative action is if it was based entirely on financial status and 0% on race.

[Derek]

Republicans have shown that they can win without any minorities, but that era is fading. Simply supporting affirmative action isn't going to cut it unfortunately. Call for "open borders" with guards who let people easily and amnesty. Also, alot of my conservative counterparts don't realize this but amnesty allows more foreigners to be tracked as opposed to now where the government doesn't know exactly who is who within the illegal community.

I have explained this 100 times. You don't concede, you fight. The pressure groups who control minority votes will never support Republicans. You have to break their grip on those votes. You have to prove to them that they are self serving and not looking out for their best interests.

I won't go into detail on the Amnesty thing (I just did recently). The people pushing amnesty know damn well that future illegal immigration will be encouraged and they will demand yet another amnesty. These groups have been hindering enforcement operations and demaning amnesty since the when the ink had barely dried on the Reagan Amnesty. You are naive or unaware of the history if you think that we won't be having this same arguement 15 years from now. It never changes, it has been their game since the 60's. They won't machine voters, not good policy. I'll be damned if I sign of a bill that only benefits these groups and big agribusiness. It will do nothing for the immigrant who came here legally, the next wave of illegals who will be exploited, the victim of ID theft, and most certainly not the country at-large. My view is the "compassionate" view not the open borders one.

Oh and I please don't hit me with that "you can't round them up crap" because  I already went through why that is not necessary two days ago. Go dig for it.

Its not going to be easy, its going to take courage and effort. Simply changing one position is not going to do it. Bush promised everything under the son and got to 44% of Hispanics, 1% more among African Americans (I will note we are still in the mid 30's among Hispanics about 10% better then Dole's performance in 1996) but it was unsustainable and the promises impossible. A different approach is needed.

I'm against promising handouts. That does seem to be the mentality that alot of minorities have fallen under. What are your disagreements with affirmative action though? I'm against the way that the University of Michigan did it but other than that I'm a supporter.

I am mixed on Affirmative Action. I think most of it should be shifted from just race based to race+poverty. The arguement is that minorities have been hampered economically through because of discrimnation so it would make sense to just focus on poor minorities instead of all minorities.

How about making AA just based on financial status? That way, wealthy minorities can be excluded and poor white people can be included.

Thats a possibility.

That way, affirmative action will actually become fairer. Even though racial discrimination created large income gaps in the past (which still exist today), many minorities nowadays are pretty wealthy and many white people are still poor. Thus, if race has any focus in affirmative action, many poor white people with good grades/academic records could get rejected from a certain college or job just so that wealthy minorities with worse grades/academic records could take those jobs. That's called reverse discrimination. The only way I would support affirmative action is if it was based entirely on financial status and 0% on race.

What about affirmative action including the top 10% of each graduating class?

[CJK]

That way, affirmative action will actually become fairer. Even though racial discrimination created large income gaps in the past (which still exist today), many minorities nowadays are pretty wealthy and many white people are still poor. Thus, if race has any focus in affirmative action, many poor white people with good grades/academic records could get rejected from a certain college or job just so that wealthy minorities with worse grades/academic records could take those jobs. That's called reverse discrimination. The only way I would support affirmative action is if it was based entirely on financial status and 0% on race.

You don't seem to grasp that affirmative action was designed to help blacks at the expense of whites, not out of fairness. If affirmative action became class based, almost all the benefits would go to poor whites instead of blacks because poor whites still perform better than poor blacks.

[CJK]

I think you are being over-simplistic when you say Blacks are racist, meaning they are anti-White.  By your logic, Blacks are racist because they will never vote for McCain or any other white presidential candidate?  Now, a Black person may vote for Obama because he feels that Obama better represents his values and situation and can carry out actions that better effect his life.  I'm sure far more whites voted against Obama because of his skin color, than whites who voted for Obama because of guilt over his skin color.  Blacks may not have trusted McCain on issues that concerned them or think that McCain had concerns for Black citizens or the Black rising middle class. 

Do you think its better for Citizens to vote primarily on Wealth?  If I am Wealthy and make a certain tax bracket, then I should automatically vote Republican?  If I am a Christian conservative, then I have to vote Republican? 

There are many ways to stereotype voters based on Demographics.  The winner will always be the one who appeals to and appears to listen to the most voters.

I never said blacks were anti-white, I just said that blacks are racist for voting for one party based solely on racial loyalties.

[Heimen]

I think they should focus on winning back the white working class first but they could appeal to a lot of blacks by being anti-police state and anti-drug war. Most blacks are against illlegal immigration and support a more populist economic policy.

[CJK]

How the hell is that racism?

It's racist because because you said that they were voting for someone based on their race.

[Sbane]

How the hell is that racism?

It's racist because because you said that they were voting for someone based on their race.

Some of them (let's remember about 90% of blacks vote for the democrat regardless of race) were voting just to get the first black president. If the first black nominee was Republican, I am guessing he would have got about 25-30% of the black vote.

[Vepres]

How the hell is that racism?

It's racist because because you said that they were voting for someone based on their race.

Some of them (let's remember about 90% of blacks vote for the democrat regardless of race) were voting just to get the first black president. If the first black nominee was Republican, I am guessing he would have got about 25-30% of the black vote.

Actually, he probably would have gotten a strong majority of the black vote if he was perceived to have a chance at victory. Remember, as soon as Obama won Iowa, at least 75% of blacks voted for him in SC, and then over 80% voted for him then on.

Which, BTW, I wouldn't look down on them for doing. The symbolism is a big deal.

[Bo]

How the hell is that racism?

It's racist because because you said that they were voting for someone based on their race.

Some of them (let's remember about 90% of blacks vote for the democrat regardless of race) were voting just to get the first black president. If the first black nominee was Republican, I am guessing he would have got about 25-30% of the black vote.

Actually, he probably would have gotten a strong majority of the black vote if he was perceived to have a chance at victory. Remember, as soon as Obama won Iowa, at least 75% of blacks voted for him in SC, and then over 80% voted for him then on.

Which, BTW, I wouldn't look down on them for doing. The symbolism is a big deal.

Most blacks agreed with Obama on economics, though, while most blacks would probably not agree with the economic policies of a black GOP nominee.

[Mechaman]

How the hell is that racism?

It's racist because because you said that they were voting for someone based on their race.

Some of them (let's remember about 90% of blacks vote for the democrat regardless of race) were voting just to get the first black president. If the first black nominee was Republican, I am guessing he would have got about 25-30% of the black vote.

Actually, he probably would have gotten a strong majority of the black vote if he was perceived to have a chance at victory. Remember, as soon as Obama won Iowa, at least 75% of blacks voted for him in SC, and then over 80% voted for him then on.

Which, BTW, I wouldn't look down on them for doing. The symbolism is a big deal.

Most blacks agreed with Obama on economics, though, while most blacks would probably not agree with the economic policies of a black GOP nominee.

Agreed.

I doubt that a Republican like JC Watts would get a majority of the black vote against someone like John Kerry (even if he is VERY uninspiring).  It is just that strong.

[DS0816]

What Should the GOP Do To Appeal To Minorities?


Reinvent the party.

[Bo]

What Should the GOP Do To Appeal To Minorities?


Reinvent the party.

How?

[DS0816]

What Should the GOP Do To Appeal To Minorities?


Reinvent the party.

How?

Their social platform.

[Sbane]

How the hell is that racism?

It's racist because because you said that they were voting for someone based on their race.

Some of them (let's remember about 90% of blacks vote for the democrat regardless of race) were voting just to get the first black president. If the first black nominee was Republican, I am guessing he would have got about 25-30% of the black vote.

Actually, he probably would have gotten a strong majority of the black vote if he was perceived to have a chance at victory. Remember, as soon as Obama won Iowa, at least 75% of blacks voted for him in SC, and then over 80% voted for him then on.

Which, BTW, I wouldn't look down on them for doing. The symbolism is a big deal.

Primaries are different from the general election. The black electorate would overwhelmingly disagree with whatever the black nominee for the GOP would want to do. If it was to make him the first black president, sure a lot of them would vote for him but it wouldn't be a majority. And now that Obama has become president, the chance of a black republican nominee getting a large portion of the black vote has gone down.

[Derek]

How the hell is that racism?

It's racist because because you said that they were voting for someone based on their race.

Some of them (let's remember about 90% of blacks vote for the democrat regardless of race) were voting just to get the first black president. If the first black nominee was Republican, I am guessing he would have got about 25-30% of the black vote.

Actually, he probably would have gotten a strong majority of the black vote if he was perceived to have a chance at victory. Remember, as soon as Obama won Iowa, at least 75% of blacks voted for him in SC, and then over 80% voted for him then on.

Which, BTW, I wouldn't look down on them for doing. The symbolism is a big deal.

Primaries are different from the general election. The black electorate would overwhelmingly disagree with whatever the black nominee for the GOP would want to do. If it was to make him the first black president, sure a lot of them would vote for him but it wouldn't be a majority. And now that Obama has become president, the chance of a black republican nominee getting a large portion of the black vote has gone down.

He would be crucified as a traitor even though the GOP would be better with putting black history into text books.