How should the GOP try to win over more Hispanics and Aisans?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

A huge problem for the GOP right now, as everybody already knows.

According to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html
every one of these states have at least 8% Hispanic population. seven out of the eleven northeastern states are in this group. Only three states in the Midwest, Illinois, Nebraska, and Kansas. Eight southern states are not in this group, but six are. Only two western states don't,  Montana and Alaska. Also, I didn't include DC, but it also has over 8% Hispanic population.

Now here are the states that have at least 6% Hispanic population, according to the source above.

What this means is that Republicans need to step up their game on Hispanic voters, but you all knew that already.

Now here is a map of states that have over 5% Asian populations, from the same source as above.

So, for Hispanics I say stop bashing amnesty, and for Asians, well, target them more.

[TDAS04]

For both Hispanics and Asians, the GOP must appear less hostile towards immigration.

Particularly for Hispanics, the GOP cannot appear completely against the safety net for the poor.  Some may feel that socially conservative positions can win over Hispanics for Republicans, but that's not the case.  Not only do Hispanics vote primarily on economic issues, they aren't as SoCon as the stereotype.  Hispanic Catholics are actually less anti-gay than the general US public.

As for Asians, while they may have some culturally conservative values too, the younger generation is very socially liberal.  Also, Republicans will not win them over by hostility towards education or science.  In addition, while some Asians are Christian, some are not, the GOP should clarify that's it's not only the white Christian party.

There is one issue where Republicans could have a strong argument with Asian voters:  Affirmative action, which Asians do no benefit from.  Still, it probably won't help, since that could upset other minorities, and Asians won't vote on that alone.

To sum it up, Republicans need to be much more moderate on certain issues if it wants to win diverse groups.

[henster]

Immigration reform it's not that hard I doubt anything else works neither group wants to hear anything from the GOP.

[Mordecai]

Hispanics: Immigration reform (obviously). Also, stop pandering to the racists. Simple as that.

Asians: Stop the anti-intellectualism and religious fundamentalism. Asians can be very conservative and devoutly religious, but they also value higher education and knowledge so you'll scare them aware if you scream about how evolution is lies from the pit of hell and how education is elitist.

I'd say that a lot of it is mainly rhetoric and attitude. Democrats don't particularly target Hispanics and Asians, but they get their vote anyway because the rhetoric from Republican politicians scare them away. It's the same with African Americans, gays, and atheists. All of these minority groups have their conservative wings and would be willing to vote Republican if they didn't feel that the party was against them.

[illegaloperation]

Asians: Stop the anti-intellectualism and religious fundamentalism. Asians can be very conservative and devoutly religious, but they also value higher education and knowledge so you'll scare them aware if you scream about how evolution is lies from the pit of hell and how education is elitist.

Asians highly value education. Cutting education and expanding school voucher is a big red flag.

Oh, and being the anti-intellectual, anti-science party doesn't help.

[Mordecai]

Asians: Stop the anti-intellectualism and religious fundamentalism. Asians can be very conservative and devoutly religious, but they also value higher education and knowledge so you'll scare them aware if you scream about how evolution is lies from the pit of hell and how education is elitist.

Asians highly value education. Cutting education and expanding school voucher is a big red flag.

Oh, and being the anti-intellectual, anti-science party doesn't help.

Yes, like Bobby Jindal said, "We've got to stop being the stupid party."

[eric82oslo]

Asians: Stop the anti-intellectualism and religious fundamentalism. Asians can be very conservative and devoutly religious, but they also value higher education and knowledge so you'll scare them aware if you scream about how evolution is lies from the pit of hell and how education is elitist.

Asians highly value education. Cutting education and expanding school voucher is a big red flag.

Oh, and being the anti-intellectual, anti-science party doesn't help.

Yes, like Bobby Jindal said, "We've got to stop being the stupid party."

If only he could have said the same about economics: "We've got to stop being the economically stupid party" or "We've got to stop being the inequality party".

[Indy Texas]

It's worth remembering that Hispanics, while many are small business owners, are by and large poorer than the average American and certainly do not respond well to the GTH/GFY rhetoric the Republicans have adopted on economic issues.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(Brooks, 2012)

Regarding Asians, the anti-intellectualism and anti-science mentality hurts them. The Chinese certainly aren't doing anything to help mitigate global warming, but do you seriously think the scientists and engineers who run the Chinese Communist Party deny that it exists or say that it's part of some kind of divine plan? In Asian culture, teachers are respected, well-paid members of society. Ranting about them being "union thugs" and seeking to cut their pay and benefits doesn't help in that regard either.

[Gass3268]

I have to imagine that Wisconsin will be over the 8% mark for Hispanics in 2020. Hispanics made up 1.9% of the state in 1990 and this number jumped to 5.9% in 2010.

[hopper]

Asians: Stop the anti-intellectualism and religious fundamentalism. Asians can be very conservative and devoutly religious, but they also value higher education and knowledge so you'll scare them aware if you scream about how evolution is lies from the pit of hell and how education is elitist.

Asians highly value education. Cutting education and expanding school voucher is a big red flag.

Oh, and being the anti-intellectual, anti-science party doesn't help.

Yeah Asians they are really into science and the Republicans in Washington DC are boring on that topic or are labeled as anti-science

School Vouchers? I don't get who wouldn't be for school vouchers I mean if your kid was stuck in a failing school.....

[hopper]

Hispanics: Immigration reform (obviously). Also, stop pandering to the racists. Simple as that.

Asians: Stop the anti-intellectualism and religious fundamentalism. Asians can be very conservative and devoutly religious, but they also value higher education and knowledge so you'll scare them aware if you scream about how evolution is lies from the pit of hell and how education is elitist.

I'd say that a lot of it is mainly rhetoric and attitude. Democrats don't particularly target Hispanics and Asians, but they get their vote anyway because the rhetoric from Republican politicians scare them away. It's the same with African Americans, gays, and atheists. All of these minority groups have their conservative wings and would be willing to vote Republican if they didn't feel that the party was against them.

Well yes and no. Mexicans are pretty "centrist/moderate" in terms of idealogy on a political scale. The GOP lost them after a few stupid Republicans(after 2004 or 2006) started their anti-immigration rhetoric and the AZ immigration law didn't help matters. Puerto Ricans are liberal in my opinion and I don't think they are gonna vote Republican anytime soon in big numbers.

African Americans-Yes they are culturally conservative but they like Big Government economically(a liberal populist idealogy.) Blacks might vote more Republican in the Western Party of the US but on the East Coast and the Deep South they are Solid D voters.

I just don't get it a few stupid Republicans say something off the wall and people believe  that's what the Republican Party stands for. Its not like these members speak for the whole party. That's what the mainstream media does they say this is the Republican Party(the member who just said something stupid) and people believe it. Its kind of laughable. I do it admit the AZ immigration has to be one of the stupidest thing a Republican has ever done to offend a group of people(Mexicans/Hispanics.)

[Beezer]

From another thread.

It's gonna take more than a couple of editorials to win over Hispanics. Numerous surveys have shown that they are staunch liberals when it comes to economics and the role of government and that many couldn't care less about social issues. Just arguing that poverty is bad and that we shouldn't close our eyes to it along with a couple of photos ops in a soup kitchen will simply not suffice.

Agreed, which is why we should carefully watch Rubio's next two years, and see what he does.

This brings us back to a key point though: Can a contemporary Republican appear compassionate on poverty and still win the party's nomination? The problem is that Hispanics and the voters that constitute today's Republican base are virtually diametrically opposed to one another when it comes to economic matters (and the basic question of what the government's role is). I don't doubt that some rhetoric about working hard and keeping your money can get you some additional Hispanic votes but at the end of the day Hispanics don't care much for Reaganomics. Now some of this may change over the coming decades as Hispanics integrate into American society (Protestantism is for example far more widespread among third and later generations and there is an increasing openness for GOP economic policies, see below) but in the short term I don't see much hope for getting back to 40%.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

From another thread.

It's gonna take more than a couple of editorials to win over Hispanics. Numerous surveys have shown that they are staunch liberals when it comes to economics and the role of government and that many couldn't care less about social issues. Just arguing that poverty is bad and that we shouldn't close our eyes to it along with a couple of photos ops in a soup kitchen will simply not suffice.

Agreed, which is why we should carefully watch Rubio's next two years, and see what he does.

This brings us back to a key point though: Can a contemporary Republican appear compassionate on poverty and still win the party's nomination? The problem is that Hispanics and the voters that constitute today's Republican base are virtually diametrically opposed when it comes to economic matters. I don't doubt that some rhetoric about working hard and keeping your money can get you some additional Hispanic votes but at the end of the day Hispanics don't care much for Reaganomics.

But remember, Republicans aren't expecting to get over 50% of the Hispanic vote.
They are just aiming for something like 35 to 40%, (like W. Bush)
Anyway, it is going to be interesting if Rubio starts to distance himself from the Tea Party, he arguably already is with his new anti poverty outlook.
But yes, that will arguably (in my opinion) be the toughest thing for Republicans to receive Hispanic votes.

[Potus]

Anyway, I don't know about African Americans, I think they are way too solidly D.... And not just because of Obama.
That's why Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia  scare me more than Florida or Colorado.
But yeah, nice writeup about the NSA, the question is whether Republicans actually push the anti NSA message forward.
One thing about civil liberties is that even a majority of young Republicans support legalization of same sex marriage.

I think we lose elections by writing off whole segments of society. If you adjusted the 2012 African American vote to Kerry's level of 88%, that flips Florida. We need to work on an ambitious urban voter agenda. I mean, inner city schools are hellholes. Let's turn them around. Talk about when businesses leave cities, they end up like Detroit and no one wants that for Downtown Cleveland. We just need to talk to them.

If we get 20% of the African American vote, which sounds like a major feat, we would flip Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. It's worth looking into. That's also assuming that 2012 turnout continues on its current trajectory, which I don't think it will with Hillary and Bill running the show.

It's gonna take more than a couple of editorials to win over Hispanics. Numerous surveys have shown that they are staunch liberals when it comes to economics and the role of government and that many couldn't care less about social issues. Just arguing that poverty is bad and that we shouldn't close our eyes to it along with a couple of photos ops in a soup kitchen will simply not suffice.

Ryan is actually really addressing the issue of poverty, it's him continuing Kemp's legacy. We can't just say "welfare is evil!" We need to strike a more understanding tone that sometimes people need it. That softens our image on the role of government and makes us more palatable. The reason they're staunch economic liberals is because liberals have been the only ones to turn economics into a values issue for them.

Whenever you vote for someone, you're always a values voter. Whether they're social issues or not. We need to start talking conservative economic policy in terms of values. Rubio actually does a pretty good job of this. Ryan is a bit too wonkish about it, but he's on the right track. Less "47%" more "The GOP wants to make America a place where everyone has the opportunity to succeed." Reassert our moral authority on the issues. Bush did it, we won.

This says otherwise: http://www.nytimes.com/projects/elections/2013/general/virginia/exit-polls.html Sure T-Mac also got a somewhat weaksauce 45%, but that's a hell of a lot better than the Cooch's 40%. Though you may be onto something with your civil liberties argument seeing as Sarvis got 15%, by far the highest of any age group.

Turner has him winning the 18-24 bracket by 6 points. With Sarvis still at 15%.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/11/05/va.gov.exit.polls.1120p.110513.v2.final%5B1%5D.copy.pdf


Young voters are pretty libertarian.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Yes, I just looked into Paul Ryan's anti poverty rhetoric lately, unfortunately, he is sternly conservative on immigration.

[Beezer]

But remember, Republicans aren't expecting to get over 50% of the Hispanic vote.
They are just aiming for something like 35 to 40%, (like W. Bush)
Anyway, it is going to be interesting if Rubio starts to distance himself from the Tea Party, he arguably already is with his new anti poverty outlook.
But yes, that will arguably (in my opinion) be the toughest thing for Republicans to receive Hispanic votes.

True and I believe that in the long run, the GOP could actually profit from immigration reform. Among third generation Hispanics, you get to that magic 40% when they're being asked the classic question on the role of government in economics (more government investment or lower taxes and spending cuts). I just think that as I said above, right now with the rabid anti-statist GOP base in place, it'll be very hard to make inroads into the Hispanic electorate without simultaneously wrecking your own support within the party.

[Potus]

All issues are values issues. Why are you an economic liberal? "I believe the rich should pay their fair share and help the poorest among us." Why are you a fiscal conservative? "We're seeing huge deficits, unemployment is high for 5 years now, median income is falling, and the President is supposed to be our economic steward!"

One of those is compelling to political types like us, the conservative, and the other is compelling to everyone. Republicans won in 80, 84, 00, and 04 when they made the elections about values, not in a relgious right kind of way.


EDIT: I expect Ryan to be forced to the center on immigration by the Tea people. They have a tendency to not only disagree, but wholly alienate, opposing viewpoints.

[Beezer]

Ryan is actually really addressing the issue of poverty, it's him continuing Kemp's legacy. We can't just say "welfare is evil!" We need to strike a more understanding tone that sometimes people need it. That softens our image on the role of government and makes us more palatable. The reason they're staunch economic liberals is because liberals have been the only ones to turn economics into a values issue for them.

Whenever you vote for someone, you're always a values voter. Whether they're social issues or not. We need to start talking conservative economic policy in terms of values. Rubio actually does a pretty good job of this. Ryan is a bit too wonkish about it, but he's on the right track. Less "47%" more "The GOP wants to make America a place where everyone has the opportunity to succeed." Reassert our moral authority on the issues. Bush did it, we won.

I'd still argue it's not as simple as that. Any efforts to portray the party in a more favorable light are immediately squashed when you cut food stamp funding and go on and on about the evils of socialized health care (which is actually pretty popular among Hispanics).

"The GOP wants to make America a place where everyone has the opportunity to succeed."

People also care about your plans for what happens when you don't succeed in America even if you are, as a party, trying your best to ensure that everyone can move up the social ladder. If your answer is, "sorry but you're on your own since you've got no one to blame but yourself," you won't get all that far among Hispanics.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

But remember, Republicans aren't expecting to get over 50% of the Hispanic vote.
They are just aiming for something like 35 to 40%, (like W. Bush)
Anyway, it is going to be interesting if Rubio starts to distance himself from the Tea Party, he arguably already is with his new anti poverty outlook.
But yes, that will arguably (in my opinion) be the toughest thing for Republicans to receive Hispanic votes.

True and I believe that in the long run, the GOP could actually profit from immigration reform. Among third generation Hispanics, you get to that magic 40% when they're being asked the classic question on the role of government in economics (more government investment or lower taxes and spending cuts). I just think that as I said above, right now with the rabid anti-statist GOP base in place, it'll be very hard to make inroads into the Hispanic electorate without simultaneously wrecking your own support within the party.

Very well said, but I do think most Republican possible 2016 candidates have ruined themselves already on immigration, Christie didn't, but now he has those scandals so he is out (I think).
Rubio actually has the best position for a general election I think, and with help from the establishment, can win the GOP primary.
Anyway, does anyone think it is possible Cruz would do Romney Latino numbers? I think so.
Anyway, yeah, Republicans should also focus on African Americans, but even Bush only won 11% in 2004. I think something like that is a better target than 20%.

[Potus]

Ryan is actually really addressing the issue of poverty, it's him continuing Kemp's legacy. We can't just say "welfare is evil!" We need to strike a more understanding tone that sometimes people need it. That softens our image on the role of government and makes us more palatable. The reason they're staunch economic liberals is because liberals have been the only ones to turn economics into a values issue for them.

Whenever you vote for someone, you're always a values voter. Whether they're social issues or not. We need to start talking conservative economic policy in terms of values. Rubio actually does a pretty good job of this. Ryan is a bit too wonkish about it, but he's on the right track. Less "47%" more "The GOP wants to make America a place where everyone has the opportunity to succeed." Reassert our moral authority on the issues. Bush did it, we won.

I'd still argue it's not as simple as that. Any efforts to portray the party in a more favorable light are immediately squashed when you cut food stamp funding and go on and on about the evils of socialized health care (which is actually pretty popular among Hispanics).

"The GOP wants to make America a place where everyone has the opportunity to succeed."

People also care about your plans for what happens when you don't succeed in America even if you are, as a party, trying your best to ensure that everyone can move up the social ladder. If your answer is, "sorry but you're on your own since you've got no one to blame but yourself," you won't get all that far among Hispanics.

Congressman Ryan supports consolidating the current war on poverty programs into one Universal Credit-style basic income guarantee. He supports tapering benefits off, rather than a single "make a dollar more!" dropoff that is in place now. Those are good ideas from a conservative sweetheart to help deal with poverty. We just need to talk about those ideas rather than contraception.

But remember, Republicans aren't expecting to get over 50% of the Hispanic vote.
They are just aiming for something like 35 to 40%, (like W. Bush)
Anyway, it is going to be interesting if Rubio starts to distance himself from the Tea Party, he arguably already is with his new anti poverty outlook.
But yes, that will arguably (in my opinion) be the toughest thing for Republicans to receive Hispanic votes.

True and I believe that in the long run, the GOP could actually profit from immigration reform. Among third generation Hispanics, you get to that magic 40% when they're being asked the classic question on the role of government in economics (more government investment or lower taxes and spending cuts). I just think that as I said above, right now with the rabid anti-statist GOP base in place, it'll be very hard to make inroads into the Hispanic electorate without simultaneously wrecking your own support within the party.

Very well said, but I do think most Republican possible 2016 candidates have ruined themselves already on immigration, Christie didn't, but now he has those scandals so he is out (I think).
Rubio actually has the best position for a general election I think, and with help from the establishment, can win the GOP primary.
Anyway, does anyone think it is possible Cruz would do Romney Latino numbers? I think so.
Anyway, yeah, Republicans should also focus on African Americans, but even Bush only won 11% in 2004. I think something like that is a better target than 20%.

Cruz would be a disaster. Knocking Hillary down to Kerry numbers would be great. Especially if turnout is similar to Kerry levels, which I think is possible with Bill and Hill in charge. ESPECIALLY if Bill gets his hands on the campaign in the primary. They'll destroy the Obama Coalition in hopes of reviving the Bubba coalition, which they won't. All those votes aren't in swings states anyway.

[Beezer]

One of those is compelling to political types like us, the conservative, and the other is compelling to everyone. Republicans won in 80, 84, 00, and 04 when they made the elections about values, not in a relgious right kind of way.

BTW, in 88 Bush won 30% of the Hispanic vote while Reagan won 34% four years earlier. The case can be made that the GOP won in those years not because of a nice message that appealed to everyone but rather because of a signficiantly different electorate that's not coming back. Let's not forget that Romney would have won the election had it been run with the 2000 demographic composition...in other words he actually fared better than Bush did, his only problem being that whites only comprised 72% of the electorate instead of the 81% they made up 12 years earlier.

[Potus]

One of those is compelling to political types like us, the conservative, and the other is compelling to everyone. Republicans won in 80, 84, 00, and 04 when they made the elections about values, not in a relgious right kind of way.

BTW, in 88 Bush won 30% of the Hispanic vote while Reagan won 34% four years earlier. The case can be made that the GOP won in those years not because of a nice message that appealed to everyone but rather because of a signficiantly different electorate that's not coming back. Let's not forget that Romney would have won the election had it been run with the 2000 demographic composition...in other words he actually fared better than Bush did, his only problem being that whites only comprised 72% of the electorate instead of the 81% they made up 12 years earlier.

Right, but now we're going to need to change our messaging in order to make up for that demographic change. That's the whole conversation.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Agreed on Clinton, there also have been reports that Bill is still thinking about wherever Hillary should run, because he is worried about his legacy.

[Beezer]

One of those is compelling to political types like us, the conservative, and the other is compelling to everyone. Republicans won in 80, 84, 00, and 04 when they made the elections about values, not in a relgious right kind of way.

BTW, in 88 Bush won 30% of the Hispanic vote while Reagan won 34% four years earlier. The case can be made that the GOP won in those years not because of a nice message that appealed to everyone but rather because of a signficiantly different electorate that's not coming back. Let's not forget that Romney would have won the election had it been run with the 2000 demographic composition...in other words he actually fared better than Bush did, his only problem being that whites only comprised 72% of the electorate instead of the 81% they made up 12 years earlier.

Right, but now we're going to need to change our messaging in order to make up for that demographic change. That's the whole conversation.

Exactly and I'm arguing that the messaging change will yield very limited returns (see earlier elections that you mentioned as examples in which the GOP used a more upbeat economic "values" message).

[Potus]

Agreed on Clinton, there also have been reports that Bill is still thinking about wherever Hillary should run, because he is worried about his legacy.

Hillary will underperform among youth, hispanics, African Americans, probably asians, and hold the line on white voters. Any effort to make the south competitive will involve cannibalizing their numbers among African Americans. You'll see better GOP performance in general among more diverse demographics, but you'll also see white share of the vote increase.