Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15868
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 15 Nov 2012, 5:23 pm

freeman2 wrote: While there was nothing wrong with the points you made, I could do without the tone (as if I am some idiot who doesn't understand that the Asian community cannot be reduced to a certain set of values and beliefs)
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines that Americans often think of 'Asian' to mean east asians.

Frankly, I think Southern Asians are also likely to be open to conservative values in general too.

I still find that it is an interesting question as to why the Asian community as a whole voted for Obama and that the Asian community as a whole looks to be a constituency that Republicans could appeal to, yet the focus has been entirely on the Hispanic vote.
The hispanic vote is larger and growing faster.

And the Republicans used to get more of it (particularly with Reagan and Bush II).
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: 19 Dec 2000, 4:40 pm

Post 15 Nov 2012, 6:01 pm

According to this article the Asian vote is 3 percent of the electorate(as opposed to 10 percent of the electorate for Hispanics) And is growing rapidly (though I suspect not as rapidly as the Hispanic vote). Point well-taken that Bush II recently did better with Hispanics. http://m.voanews.com/1540974.html

So not as important as the Hispanic vote but not insignificant.

What strikes me about the Rove led Bush campaigns is that they targeted certain constituencies (evangelicals, Hispanic , seniors) and Romney failed to really target any particular sector of the electorate.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15868
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 16 Nov 2012, 1:39 am

Of course he did. Otherwise that would 'pandering' and Republicans never do that (unless, of course to the angry white older male demographic)
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6645
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 16 Nov 2012, 7:10 am

What makes the white male demographic "angry"?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 16 Nov 2012, 7:18 am

neal
I think a lot of it was circumstantial. The Republicans beat themselves up getting through the primaries, the Democrats didn't have one. And I think this group of candidates was one of the most sub par I can recall

How did they beat themselves up? By enunciating their visions of America, and by proclaiming their fealty to Republican positions on social issues, immigration, regulation (particularly of the financial sector), taxation, health care, education and foreign affairs.
And by poking at Romney’s “weaknesses” in any of these areas. Making him enunciate his “severe conservatism” even louder….
It wasn’t just the candidates. It’s what they said they stood for and what they said they would do in office.
Is that “beating themselves up”, or is it losing in the court of public opinion?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20737
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Nov 2012, 8:07 am

I'm not as convinced as some here that the GOP is on life support.

Romney ran, at best, a tepid campaign. Furthermore, he was "broke" for a bit because of the primary and miscalculated the damage the ad blitz Obama ran against him would have. Apparently, calling him (in effect) a murderer, a tax cheat, a felon, and indifferent to the plight of people (never mind his personal generosity and the numerous people he helped away from the spotlight long before he was a political candidate). Obama ran ads saying Romney is "not one of us" (imagine the cries of "racism" and "dog whistles" if Romney had done that!).

At the end of the day, millions FEWER voted for President than in 2008. That spells "apathy" not "antipathy."

Furthermore, let's be realistic. In the past, the mantra "It's the economy, stupid!" seemed right. In this election, the economy, no matter what any survey said, did not make the difference. It's bad. The numbers will show it's getting worse.

This election was about who you want to have a beer with--and Romney doesn't drink.

The next election will be about two candidates. Who will the parties nominate? If the GOP nominates another in the line of Dole/McCain/Romney, it may lose. If it nominates a more articulate and impassioned presenter of conservatism, it will win. Democrats may end up nominating Clinton or Biden--neither of whom will excite young or minority voters.

Anyone who wants to pronounce the GOP dead is two things: liberal and dreaming.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 16 Nov 2012, 10:30 am

Furthermore, let's be realistic. In the past, the mantra "It's the economy, stupid!" seemed right. In this election, the economy, no matter what any survey said, did not make the difference. It's bad. The numbers will show it's getting worse.


The problem for Romney was that while the economy may be bad, the voters weren't convinced that he had any better answers to fix it. His entire pitch seemed to be 'the economy is bad so vote for me', which wasn't enough. In the absence of a convincing economic alternative then it's not surprising that voters will look at other aspects of the campaigns, and many were put off by some of the aspects of the Republican platform such as their uncompromisingly hardline social positions.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15868
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 16 Nov 2012, 10:38 am

bbauska wrote:What makes the white male demographic "angry"?
All kinds of things, apparently :wink:

The angry part was inclusive. I'm sure a lot of white males are not angry. But we see quite a few who are, and are angry at things like gay rights or women having freedoms they didn't use to, or the gradual reduction in white male political power, or whatever. A lot of people get angry about 'change', because change is about uncertainty and that provokes fear. One way to deal with fear is to lash out with anger (even if the target isn't the source of their problem).

And what the Republicans have seemed to do recently is to try and tap into the anger (some of it justifed, some of it not) of their base. Which is, since the Southern Strategy, largely white and male and middling in age and income.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20737
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Nov 2012, 10:55 am

danivon wrote: I'm sure a lot of white males are not angry. But we see quite a few who are, and are angry at things like gay rights or women having freedoms they didn't use to . . .


The first one is arguable, although I don't recall many anti-gay rights demonstrations manned by those nasty white males. I suspect a good percentage of the pro-gay marriage vote is from white males, but feel free to prove me wrong.

The second one . . . what are you talking about, specifically?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 16 Nov 2012, 11:54 am

Fate
I'm not as convinced as some here that the GOP is on life support.


But then you were convinced Romney would win.... so, rose colored glasses perhaps?
The GOP will change, because it has to change or it will forever be a minority. The desire for power will make its membership develop policies that are aceptable to the majority of Americans..... This is the wonder of democracy. Once minorities represent a powerful enough group - their needs are addressed.
Its pretty clear that retelling the same story, yelling louder or more elequently, and expecting the same policies that failed before to now be accepted.... isn't going to work. There has to be substantive change.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 16 Nov 2012, 12:31 pm

I think it's important to note that it it isn't necessarily the GOP policies that have been such a turnoff to minority voters. I saw an interesting little interview on the BBC news just after the election where they talked to a latino guy who ran a small business in Boston. He went on at length about how Republican values were in many ways in tune with his community, notably the emphasis on family values and religiosity, and in his own case their commitment to entrepreneurship and a drive to get ahead individually (something that tends to be a big deal for a lot of new immigrants). But he then went on to explain why he wouldn't vote Republican in 5 words, "they don't want us here".

This is just one man of course, but I get the feeling that his view of the Republican Party is widely shared in the latino community, and it's a problem that will take several years to overcome. It's a strange situation really because I suspect most Republican politicians are not especially hostile to latino immigrants, but a small number of extremists from border states have managed to hijack the message for the national party to the extent that millions of potential voters have been driven away. Most Republicans are probably not anti-homosexual either, but again they've allowed a vocal minority to define the party in a way that virtually guarantees that gay people can't possibly vote Republican. Essentially, the Republican Party has increasingly come to be defined by what the hardcore minority in the party are against rather than what the majority are for, and it's serving to drive away a huge number of voters who might otherwise be willing to support them. This will have to change. In the short term they may well manage to win elections here and there, but in the long run they can't afford to antagonise so many groups of people.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 16 Nov 2012, 2:31 pm

sass
I think it's important to note that it it isn't necessarily the GOP policies that have been such a turnoff to minority voters. ....


It actually is their policies....

But he then went on to explain why he wouldn't vote Republican in 5 words, "they don't want us here"


Represented by GOP policies on immigration. i.e. opposition to Dream Act, "self deportation". resistance to amnesties or roads to citizenship.

It isn't just how they say things. Its the actual laws they propose.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20737
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Nov 2012, 3:10 pm

rickyp wrote:The GOP will change, because it has to change or it will forever be a minority.


Maybe.

Answer a few questions and maybe you'll stumble into the truth.

1. Did Obama get more votes in 2012 or 2008?

2. Did Romney get more votes than McCain?

3. Did McCain get more of the Mormon vote than Romney?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 16 Nov 2012, 3:22 pm

Represented by GOP policies on immigration. i.e. opposition to Dream Act, "self deportation". resistance to amnesties or roads to citizenship.


Maybe, but then again maybe not. By definition any latinos who have the vote are unaffected by any of these policies. They're important symbolically but not on a practical level.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20737
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Nov 2012, 3:48 pm

Sassenach wrote:
Represented by GOP policies on immigration. i.e. opposition to Dream Act, "self deportation". resistance to amnesties or roads to citizenship.


Maybe, but then again maybe not. By definition any latinos who have the vote are unaffected by any of these policies. They're important symbolically but not on a practical level.


Theoretically, that's right.

However, if there was a national ID card required to vote . . . it might be incorrect.

Rubio had an immigration-solution plan before the election and it's taking shape: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/15/detai ... ct-emerge/