Romney 2012: The Last Great White Campaign

[Sbane]

Although being stuck at 30% with Hispanics would be inconvenient, it's hardly an unsurmountable climb. No reason the GOP can't push up to 60% of the white vote as their norm. A GOP that dominates the Upper Midwest and Rust Belt can afford loses in the Southwest.

Plus, the Hispanic population will probably grow much slower than people expect. Net migration from Mexico is negative and the hispanic birth rate has /collapsed/ in recent years. Not to mention white hispanics (who have an extremely high intermarriage rate) intermarrying and having children who don't identify as hispanics (seriously, everyone considers George Zimmermann white), which also puts a crimp in that growth.

The intermarriage rate of non-white hispanics is very low and they will almost remain a very unfriendly demographic for the GOP, pushing large parts of the Southwest marginally to the left, but it's hardly a death knell.

Plus, the GOP does have one avenue for improvement. As Hispanic educational achievement increases (which it is rapidly doing so), obviously many Hispanics will drop out of religion. But at the same time, many won't, and those may start to vote based on their religious values. And the GOP's position can't really worse in that demographic, so it can only get up.

Also, immigration doesn't seem like the panacea to all issues with hispanic voters. Largely because hispanic immigration has collapsed.

AZ SB 1070. The reason Republicans are struggling is due to that and similar laws in other states, not differences on immigration.

[Link]

As Hispanic educational achievement increases (which it is rapidly doing so), obviously many Hispanics will drop out of religion. But at the same time, many won't, and those may start to vote based on their religious values. And the GOP's position can't really worse in that demographic, so it can only get up.

Your entire post made no sense.  I just picked the strangest of your utterances and high lighted it.

It's hilarious watching people try to comfort themselves when forced to reckon with the demographic inevitability.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As Hispanic educational achievement increases (which it is rapidly doing so), obviously many Hispanics will drop out of religion. But at the same time, many won't, and those may start to vote based on their religious values. And the GOP's position can't really worse in that demographic, so it can only get up.

Your entire post made no sense.  I just picked the strangest of your utterances and high lighted it.

It's hilarious watching people try to comfort themselves when forced to reckon with the demographic inevitability.

His post made sense to me, I just don't think it's correct. People who become less economically desperate do indeed sometimes start to vote on the basis of externalities that we on the left might not necessarily comprehend as connected to their so-called self-interest.

[AmericanNation]

"demographic inevitability"
LOL, The democrats are turning into a 15 state party and the republicans are becoming a 35 state party.  How you translate that to some permanent political minority status is astonishing.   

"basis of externalities that we on the left might not necessarily comprehend as connected to their so-called self-interest."
I know what your thinking, but try not to fall into that trap of thinking that republican votes are against the individuals self interest.  Government dependency isn't in an individuals "interest."  It is something to avoid and stigmatize because it causes far more damage than good.     

[後援会]

As Hispanic educational achievement increases (which it is rapidly doing so), obviously many Hispanics will drop out of religion. But at the same time, many won't, and those may start to vote based on their religious values. And the GOP's position can't really worse in that demographic, so it can only get up.

Your entire post made no sense.  I just picked the strangest of your utterances and high lighted it.

It's hilarious watching people try to comfort themselves when forced to reckon with the demographic inevitability.

I don't think I've ever seen you make a coherent post, but whatever.

Massive Italian, Irish, Polish, and etc. immigration terrified Gilded Age Republicans for many reasons. And unsurprisingly, those groups voted about as Democrat as Hispanic voters today. Of course, the Republicans did not do them favors by being extremely anti-immigration (immigration controls acts, anti-catholicism, rum, romanism, and rebellion). Nativism is hardly new.

Of course, no one really cares today about that. Although large non-white cohorts among the hispanic immigrant community will consistently make this group more electorally challenging, it is hardly a death sentence. The idea that some new "brown America" is going to ensure perpetual Democrat governance is simply incongruent with demographic and cultural reality.

[Sbane]

As Hispanic educational achievement increases (which it is rapidly doing so), obviously many Hispanics will drop out of religion. But at the same time, many won't, and those may start to vote based on their religious values. And the GOP's position can't really worse in that demographic, so it can only get up.

Your entire post made no sense.  I just picked the strangest of your utterances and high lighted it.

It's hilarious watching people try to comfort themselves when forced to reckon with the demographic inevitability.

I don't think I've ever seen you make a coherent post, but whatever.

Massive Italian, Irish, Polish, and etc. immigration terrified Gilded Age Republicans for many reasons. And unsurprisingly, those groups voted about as Democrat as Hispanic voters today. Of course, the Republicans did not do them favors by being extremely anti-immigration (immigration controls acts, anti-catholicism, rum, romanism, and rebellion). Nativism is hardly new.

Of course, no one really cares today about that. Although large non-white cohorts among the hispanic immigrant community will consistently make this group more electorally challenging, it is hardly a death sentence. The idea that some new "brown America" is going to ensure perpetual Democrat governance is simply incongruent with demographic and cultural reality.

Do you think there is anything inherent about their non-whiteness that makes them vote differently? Isn't what we are seeing today with Hispanic voters the same as was seen with the Irish and other ethnic white groups in the 19th and 20th century? I think we will see the same thing with over time Hispanics of all background becoming more likely to vote Republican. This is unless the Republicans go total white nationalist....which is possible if there is another economic downturn and it scares me. And the way some Republicans talk makes it seem like a real possibility. 

[後援会]

Do you think there is anything inherent about their non-whiteness that makes them vote differently? Isn't what we are seeing today with Hispanic voters the same as was seen with the Irish and other ethnic white groups in the 19th and 20th century? I think we will see the same thing with over time Hispanics of all background becoming more likely to vote Republican. This is unless the Republicans go total white nationalist....which is possible if there is another economic downturn and it scares me. And the way some Republicans talk makes it seem like a real possibility. 

Well, inherent with them? No. Inherent with our society? Probably. As unfortunate at it is, race is extremely strong dividing line in our society. And many societies. As we know, hispanic just means spanish-speaking; it's not a racial classification (although many white Americans are quite confused). There's a huge gap between hispanics between white and non-white hispanics. For example, there's is very little intermarriage between white hispanics and non-white hispanics (a similar trend we see with white anglos and non-white anglos).

Also, the idea of any American party going all white nationalist is improbable at best. Every legitimate business interest with any say in the matter will have ways to shut that whole thing down. Also, we don't really have immigration from Mexico anymore, so who will care in a generation?

I mean, it's still bad for the GOP. But considering that white hispanics will probably behave like other white ethnic groups, Hispanic-American birthrates have collapsed (to well, Mexican levels), and immigration from Latin America has largely died down, it's not going to be a death knell.

[AmericanNation]

Massive Italian, Irish, Polish, and Germans to some extent ,etc. immigration terrified Gilded Age Republicans old English/Dutch stock for many reasons. And unsurprisingly, those groups voted about as Democrat as Hispanic voters today. Of course, the Republicans did not do them favors by being extremely anti-immigration (immigration controls acts, anti-catholicism, rum, romanism, and rebellion). Nativism is hardly new.

Of course, no one really cares today about that. Although large non-white cohorts among the hispanic immigrant community will consistently make this group more electorally challenging, it is hardly a death sentence. The idea that some new "brown America" is going to ensure perpetual Democrat governance is simply incongruent with demographic and cultural reality.

Seeing as the republican party today is massively Italian, Irish, Polish, German, eastern European, etc; new immigrants have a much higher tendency to be republicans than in the gilded age.  Look at 1st/2nd generation Asians and Indians for instance.  This "anti-immigration" thing is an old template dems are trying to shoehorn onto a party of immigrants.  If anything the current dem new england establishment has more blood on there hands than the current GOP.  How dare we insist on laws being followed or changed and international borders acknowledged and defended!! That's white nationalist fascist-ism!!  LOL.           

[krazen1211]

It's really funny to read this thread from the party that attacks people of faith and people who are successful in business as they wage the war on whites and their values.

So whites have different values from others? Sure you aren't a racist?

Of course they do. There is a stark difference in the role of government. Whites feel that the more limited government that we used to have prior to the last few years will advance their personal financial interest. Nonwhites feel differently.

[Lief 🗽]

the more limited government that we used to have prior to the last few years

lol krazen thinks the size of government has actually noticeably expanded in the last few years?

[krazen1211]

the more limited government that we used to have prior to the last few years

lol krazen thinks the size of government has actually noticeably expanded in the last few years?

Such is evident by the numbers.

[後援会]

the more limited government that we used to have prior to the last few years

lol krazen thinks the size of government has actually noticeably expanded in the last few years?

Such is evident by the numbers.

The growth in government has been bipartisan and half driven by automatic stabilizers, but yeah, it has grown.

The irony is that the primary engine of government growth going into the next few decades will be programs like medicare and social security (defended by minority-backed Democrats), which will primarily service whites (due to older generations being much more white) until being completely insolvent by the time minority-heavy generations grow old enough to the point where they would have been able to collect.

[Sbane]

the more limited government that we used to have prior to the last few years

lol krazen thinks the size of government has actually noticeably expanded in the last few years?

Such is evident by the numbers.

The irony is that the primary engine of government growth going into the next few decades will be programs like medicare and social security (defended by minority-backed Democrats), which will primarily service whites (due to older generations being much more white) until being completely insolvent by the time minority-heavy generations grow old enough to the point where they would have been able to collect.

So shouldn't any changes apply to anyone who is not already on those programs? You do realize that is not what the Republicans are proposing....perhaps to protect their old, white base and ensure they keep voting for them.

[Sbane]

Massive Italian, Irish, Polish, and Germans to some extent ,etc. immigration terrified Gilded Age Republicans old English/Dutch stock for many reasons. And unsurprisingly, those groups voted about as Democrat as Hispanic voters today. Of course, the Republicans did not do them favors by being extremely anti-immigration (immigration controls acts, anti-catholicism, rum, romanism, and rebellion). Nativism is hardly new.

Of course, no one really cares today about that. Although large non-white cohorts among the hispanic immigrant community will consistently make this group more electorally challenging, it is hardly a death sentence. The idea that some new "brown America" is going to ensure perpetual Democrat governance is simply incongruent with demographic and cultural reality.

Seeing as the republican party today is massively Italian, Irish, Polish, German, eastern European, etc; new immigrants have a much higher tendency to be republicans than in the gilded age.  Look at 1st/2nd generation Asians and Indians for instance.  This "anti-immigration" thing is an old template dems are trying to shoehorn onto a party of immigrants.  If anything the current dem new england establishment has more blood on there hands than the current GOP.  How dare we insist on laws being followed or changed and international borders acknowledged and defended!! That's white nationalist fascist-ism!!  LOL.           

The Arizona "immigration" law has little to do with immigration and mostly to do with giving police a blank check to discriminate against anyone who doesn't look "muhrican". If Brewer had sent the national guard to the border, that would be something, but pulling over Mexicans doesn't solve any problems. Unless of course your goal is to get the old, kinda racist GOP base in AZ to turn out and vote for you. Let's not forget the AZ republicans ran up a huge deficit and had no one to blame but themselves...so they blamed the Mexicans. What group are the GOP going to pick on next when the economy goes sour?

I don't like populism in all it's forms, but right wing populism is especially dangerous.

[Adam Griffin]

the more limited government that we used to have prior to the last few years

lol krazen thinks the size of government has actually noticeably expanded in the last few years?

Such is evident by the numbers.

Which numbers? Drudge's numbers?

[Likely Voter]

facts have a liberal bias. What matters is your gut. And it just feels like Obama has raised taxes, increased spending and added more job killing regulations.

[krazen1211]

the more limited government that we used to have prior to the last few years

lol krazen thinks the size of government has actually noticeably expanded in the last few years?

Such is evident by the numbers.

Which numbers? Drudge's numbers?

No, the ones you linked. Spending of $3.8 trillion is baffling to many whites who seek limited government, despite your bizarre idea that Barack Obama was not President in 2009.

[後援会]

So shouldn't any changes apply to anyone who is not already on those programs? You do realize that is not what the Republicans are proposing....perhaps to protect their old, white base and ensure they keep voting for them.

The whole "doesn't affect people over-55", which is not a good plank, was not part of the original Ryan plan. It was inserted in after the Democrats charged the Paul Ryan was plotting to kill grandmom.

[krazen1211]

facts have a liberal bias. What matters is your gut. And it just feels like Obama has raised taxes, increased spending and added more job killing regulations.

Yes, $5.3 trillion in borrowing to pay for whatever social programs you want, along with the additional ones you want to create, creates that impression. Here are the last few years of federal receipts and outlays, respectively.


2007   2,567,985   2,728,686
2008   2,523,991   2,982,544
2009   2,104,989   3,517,677
2010   2,162,724   3,456,213
2011   2,303,466   3,603,061
2012 estimate   2,468,599   3,795,547


Some consider this to be a problem.

[Maxwell]

facts have a liberal bias. What matters is your gut. And it just feels like Obama has raised taxes, increased spending and added more job killing regulations.

How can someone, then, increase spending by so little (according to those sources), but still be bloating the deficit? The numbers don't add up in my mind, but maybe I'm not picking up something.

You can look at Obama's increase in the deficit as a percentage, which it would be less than Bush, but honestly thats just spin. In pure numbers, Obama has increased it almost a trillion more in four years than Bush in eight, and Bush, besides Obama, is one of  the most fiscally irresponsible presidents and, in terms of balanced budgets, the most fiscally liberal president since Nixon.

[後援会]

How can someone, then, increase spending by so little (according to those sources), but still be bloating the deficit? The numbers don't add up in my mind, but maybe I'm not picking up something.

Uh, it's actually quite simple. Thanks to the joy of Obamanomics, tax revenues have plunged off a cliff.

[krazen1211]

How can someone, then, increase spending by so little (according to those sources), but still be bloating the deficit? The numbers don't add up in my mind, but maybe I'm not picking up something.

Uh, it's actually quite simple. Thanks to the joy of Obamanomics, tax revenues have plunged off a cliff.

And it goes beyond that.

When the Democrats and liberals scream like little girls about 'Draconian Spending Cuts!!!!!!!!11!!!' people come to the idea that Romney Ryan will engage in, well, spending cutting, and those that favor that are attracted to them.

Go figure!

[Vosem]

How can someone, then, increase spending by so little (according to those sources), but still be bloating the deficit? The numbers don't add up in my mind, but maybe I'm not picking up something.

Uh, it's actually quite simple. Thanks to the joy of Obamanomics, tax revenues have plunged off a cliff.

And it goes beyond that.

When the Democrats and liberals scream like little girls about 'Draconian Spending Cuts!!!!!!!!11!!!' people come to the idea that Romney Ryan will engage in, well, spending cutting, and those that favor that are attracted to them.

Go figure!

Mmhmm. As I recall, 2007 was the year in which the US government collected the biggest ever amount in taxes.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

How can someone, then, increase spending by so little (according to those sources), but still be bloating the deficit? The numbers don't add up in my mind, but maybe I'm not picking up something.

Uh, it's actually quite simple. Thanks to the joy of Obamanomics, tax revenues have plunged off a cliff.

And it goes beyond that.

When the Democrats and liberals scream like little girls about 'Draconian Spending Cuts!!!!!!!!11!!!' people come to the idea that Romney Ryan will engage in, well, spending cutting, and those that favor that are attracted to them.

Go figure!

Mmhmm. As I recall, 2007 was the year in which the US government collected the biggest ever amount in taxes.

Taxes are at their lowest since the 1950s.

Obama isn't the reason revenue is so low. We are recovering from a financial crisis, so revenue is obviously down. But yes, he has given 17 tax cuts in the past 4 years. I don't think you can attack him for such low revenue when that is the centerpiece of the GOP Recovery Plan.

[AmericanNation]

Massive Italian, Irish, Polish, and Germans to some extent ,etc. immigration terrified Gilded Age Republicans old English/Dutch stock for many reasons. And unsurprisingly, those groups voted about as Democrat as Hispanic voters today. Of course, the Republicans did not do them favors by being extremely anti-immigration (immigration controls acts, anti-catholicism, rum, romanism, and rebellion). Nativism is hardly new.

Of course, no one really cares today about that. Although large non-white cohorts among the hispanic immigrant community will consistently make this group more electorally challenging, it is hardly a death sentence. The idea that some new "brown America" is going to ensure perpetual Democrat governance is simply incongruent with demographic and cultural reality.

Seeing as the republican party today is massively Italian, Irish, Polish, German, eastern European, etc; new immigrants have a much higher tendency to be republicans than in the gilded age.  Look at 1st/2nd generation Asians and Indians for instance.  This "anti-immigration" thing is an old template dems are trying to shoehorn onto a party of immigrants.  If anything the current dem new england establishment has more blood on there hands than the current GOP.  How dare we insist on laws being followed or changed and international borders acknowledged and defended!! That's white nationalist fascist-ism!!  LOL.           

The Arizona "immigration" law has little to do with immigration and mostly to do with giving police a blank check to discriminate against anyone who doesn't look "muhrican". If Brewer had sent the national guard to the border, that would be something, but pulling over Mexicans doesn't solve any problems. Unless of course your goal is to get the old, kinda racist GOP base in AZ to turn out and vote for you. Let's not forget the AZ republicans ran up a huge deficit and had no one to blame but themselves...so they blamed the Mexicans. What group are the GOP going to pick on next when the economy goes sour?

I don't like populism in all it's forms, but right wing populism is especially dangerous.

Umm you have to admit:
1) educating, providing hospital care, policing, providing "safety net" benefits, etc to a horde of illegal immigrants has a cost associated with it.   
2) If the federal government did it's job of protecting Arizona from all these problems and costs(per their duty outlined in the constitution, law, etc), then their would be no basis for the law. 
3) given 1&2 are true, than your assertion that the law is race based doesn't hold any weight in the face of the legitimate real reasons.

This isn't right wing populism.  If anything the GOP is focused on the most boring and least populist issues.  The fact that the issues are important and a significant chunk of the country is beginning to recognize the importance doesn't make it "populist" it makes it an "adult conversation." 

Frankly I'm in shock how lunatic racist the leftist media has been the last few days.  I would have to assume this originated in a democrat talking point or something like that.  I'm guessing this thread appeared as a result of these developments.  MSNBC pumps this racist propaganda and than cuts out showing all the minority speakers at the convention.  They cut away from prominent minority speakers in order to talk about how racist republicans are... how disgraceful can you be?