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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Potus]

If she doesn't move left in the primary and picks Warner as her VP, she'll get Mitt'ed. Especially against a more moderate-in-tone type like Christie. Her base will damn her. That problem gets 100 times worse if Bill gets a hold of the campaign. You'll see the liberal echo chamber give up, low progressive turnout, fewer minority voters, and young voters will swing hard in the other direction. Then again, she'll pick up some centrist support but I still think that has a 50-50 chance of being a net positive.

[Potus]

The left wing internet echo chamber is already at risk of turning on Hillary. I think of them as the talk radio of the left. If they grow too dissatisfied with Hillary, they'll prop up a movement candidate. The President was bolstered by the internet's adoration. A lot of online opinion makers don't remember the Clinton years. They just know Obama and that the like him. Hillary needs to run from the President or look like "same old same old." That could lead to the alienation of the solid left.

[Potus]

And she may go too far to the left on issues in the primary, like repealing the partial birth abortion ban act, which 70% of Americans support (even Joseph Biden supports it).

Yeah, that may alienate Hispanics, too.

[Potus]

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.

So you subscribe to Sean Trende's "missing white voter" theory? The white share of the vote has steadily decreased since the late 80s (except for that small uptick in 92 thanks to Perot). Obama did a great job with black voters but I have a hard time believing that Hillary will do far worse in terms of her share of the vote and turnout. And as mentioned above, she beat Obama quite comfortably among Hispanics in the 08 primaries.

Hispanics voted for Sen. Hillary Clinton over Sen. Barack Obama by a margin of nearly two-to-one in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, according to an analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center of exit polls taken throughout the primary season.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/86.pdf

I also doubt she's gonna lose white voters by 20 points. If anything HRC represents the perfect storm of great appeal among minorities and a skin color that will allow her to at least win a county or two in WV.

I think the missing whites theory has a bit of credibility, but not enough to swing a presidential election. That's why I'm arguing for African American and Hispanic outreach. I don't think the gross numbers of white voters will increase, I think their share of the electorate will increase because fewer minorities will come out in support of Hillary.

Hispanics are all about messaging. We gotta talk about all issues like values issues. That's why Marco Rubio would do better among Hispanics, he does that fairly well already.

You think that white voters voted a certain way because of the President's skin color but African Americans didn't? That's absurd. Hillary will have issues.

I think the white vote will hold the line. Any gains the Clinton campaign makes among white voters will be among Bill's former constituencies. The votes won't be coming from Ohio, Florida, Colorado, etc. They'll be in Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama, etc. That'll be enough to turn them a slightly lighter shade of red, but it won't be flipping the south anytime soon. Especially with lower African American turnout.