Romney 2012: The Last Great White Campaign

[Sbane]

Once again...I don't see any difference in method or morals between a campaign boosting white turnout and one boosting black turnout

The problem is that the white turnout is being boosted by using racist/xenophobic rhetoric such as Obama "doesn't understand America", is the first "food stamp president" and of course all the birther nonsense, which Romney signed on to with his "joke" a few days ago.

I don't care that much about the election because I see the country struggling politically speaking for the next 4 years regardless of who wins. But I hope the Republicans lose so this strategy is discarded for the future. It's not good for America, surely you realize that. I can understand not reaching out to Blacks since they support Obama overwhelmingly, but the lashing out at Hispanics (and immigrants in general) over the last 4 years is politically dumb and inexcusable. Unless the GOP really is looking to become the white nationalist fascist party, in which case many posters here should really evaluate their political choices.

[Sbane]

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?

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[Sbane]

That is exactly the wrong approach and will only hurt the economy, Jaichind. A tax code that is permanent is needed but there is too much childishness and ego in Washington to get it done. Remember the fiscal cliff was set up in just that sort of deal. We can't continue doing that forever.

[Sbane]

Don't underestimate the military industrial complex, Koenkai.

[Sbane]

Yes, both parties are dependent on military spending in their impoverished districts. But since they do tend to be concentrated more in rural (small town) areas, maybe Democrats are not as beholden to it as they were previously. They don't really hold the Murtha type districts anymore, replaced by populist Republicans.

[Sbane]

Yeah, I think we all underestimated the power of demographics in this election. As long as democrats turn out their base and as long as the GOP remains appalling to minorities, we should win.

I always thought whites would only make up between 72-73% of the electorate. 74% would have needed exceptional turnout amongst whites. Of course what I did not anticipate was the level of support for Obama amongst Hispanics AND Asians. I really thought the latter would at least swing against Obama, if not trend against him. Of course the sub samples in the exit polls should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

[Sbane]

This is directed towards Politico and the bunch of people out there saying similar things like him. I think Republicans will never win with minorities because all they do is demean them. Instead of reaching out to them, mostly all I have heard is blame being directed towards them. They are being called moochers, when a lot of the margin in the Hispanic vote had to do with racist laws passed in a few states by Republicans. Instead of acknowledging that (although some have), the Republicans are doubling down on race baiting. It's really disgusting.

Why can't you Republicans win the 100k+ minority vote, huh? It's a lot of Asians...why can't you win that vote? Why don't you reflect on things a little bit and figure that out? Or is continued race baiting all you guys know how to do?

[Sbane]

I think Republicans will never win with minorities because all they do is demean them.

When does the special ingredient in the Democratic Kool-Aid start to kick in?

Here's a secret about many professional Democrats: They do NOT want minorities to see their standard of living improve. Why? Because these Democrats want minorities to be dependent upon Democratic politicians every election season...

Here are some prominent Republican minorities: Marco Rubio, Susana Martinez, Bobby Jindal, Allen West, J.C. Watts, Condi Rice, Gary Franks, Herman Cain, Alan Keyes, Colin Powell, Claude Allen, Peter Boulware, Kenneth Blackwell, Michael Steele, Lynn Swann, Thurman Thomas, Clarence Thomas, etc.

Martin Luther King, Sr. was a lifelong Republican.

There were 32 African-American Republican candidates for Congress in 2010.

I am a Democrat, and I have been in meetings where union leaders cracked off-color jokes. I have never seen such behavior among professional Republicans (e.g., not even among Deep South delegates at the RNC).

The Republican Party of the 21st Century wants to improve the standard of living for people of all backgrounds. They do not believe that a culture of dependency, a mentality of entitlement, will move us forward towards a color blind society. Obviously Republicans are repulsed by people such as the "Obama Phone Lady," but race has nothing to do with it.

AZ SB 1070.

Republicans will go ahead and let police harass minorities if they think it will buy them a couple votes here or there. Democrats don't do that, which is why they get the minority vote. And it's not just Hispanics and Blacks, it's also the Asian vote. What do you have to say about that? You do realize Asians make more money than whites? Why don't they vote Republican? It's because they are nativists! The modern day Know-nothing party!