The Hispanic vote isn't as large as Republicans believe

[dario73]

Ever since last November’s election, we’ve been hearing that Hispanics comprised a record 10 percent of the vote—which therefore obliges Republican Congressmen to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” a.k.a the Schumer-Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill RIGHT NOW.

For example:

National exit polls showed that 10 percent of the electorate was Hispanic, compared with 9 percent in 2008 and 8 percent in 2004. … A growing perception of hostility toward illegal immigrants by Republican candidates is driving many Latinos to the polls.

[Growing share of Hispanic voters helped push Obama to victory, By Donna St. George and Brady Dennis, Washington Post, November 7, 2012]

But what if these nice, round turnout numbers provided by the Edison exit poll company weren’t true? What if the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” clamor is based on exit poll error?

What if in 2012 the Sleeping Giant of the Latino Vote didn’t actually awake—but instead rolled over and started a new siesta?

In short, what if the Main Stream Media exaggerated the Hispanic share of the 2012 vote by a factor of almost 20 percent?

Well, we now have the numbers. We now know that the suppositions behind these awkward questions are true.

After every national election, the Census Bureau conducts a massive survey of voter turnout. Then it bureaucratically mulls over the results for months—while the conventional wisdom congeals around whatever slapdash numbers the exit poll firm emitted in the early going.

In contrast to the Census Bureau survey, though, exit polls aren’t designed to measure turnout. Heck, exit polls aren’t even very good at figuring out who won the election—just ask President John F. Kerry.

Exit polls can’t be based on the random samples that would be needed to measure turnout accurately, because the exit poll company has to bake a forecast of the electorate’s demographics into its plan of which precincts to send workers to cover. Not surprisingly, it tends to get back the results it anticipated.

Moreover, Hispanics are both of interest to sponsors and difficult to survey (they can need Spanish-speaking pollsters). So their needs are typically given more weight in planning the exit poll. The result:  national exit polls have overstated the Hispanic share of the vote at least since 2000.

Now, finally, on May 9, the Current Population Survey division of the Census Bureau has issued its turnout report, scintillatingly titledThe Diversifying Electorate—Voting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2012 (and Other Recent Elections)[PDF]

Despite the title, it makes compelling reading.

It turns out that the official best estimate of the Latino share of 2012 voters isn’t 10 percent—but merely 8.4 percent:



So the standard story you’ve been hearing in the MSM for almost seven months is indeed inflated by 19 percent.

But what can you expect … because the conventional wisdom as embodied in that Washington Post story has been exaggerated for, roughly, ever.

Hispanics didn’t account for 9 percent of the 2008 electorate, but 7.4 percent. And in 2004, they weren’t 8 percent, but 6.0 percent. Way back in 2000, the exit poll claimed that Hispanics made up 7 percent, but the real number turned out to be 5.4 percent, as I reported for UPI on July 24, 2001. [Mexican-American Vote Smaller than Many Think]

But who did turn out in 2012 to drive Obama to victory? Who was the fresh new face of the American electorate in 2012?

Old black ladies.

According to the Census survey, fans of Tyler Perry movies voted in remarkable numbers in 2012—even more than in Obama’s first victory in 2008.

Unsurprisingly, given Obama’s candidacy, from 2004 to 2008 the number of black voters had grown 15 percent.

Unexpectedly, however, blacks added another 10 percent to their vote total from 2008 to 2012. Nationally, 66.2 percent of eligible blacks voted compared to 64.1 percent of whites, 48.0 percent of Hispanics, and 47.3 percent of Asians.

[dario73]

Thus in the crucial battleground state of Ohio, blacks achieved a voting rate of 71.7 percent compared to 61.9 percent for whites.

Overall, the raw black vote total grew more than even the Hispanic vote from 2008 to 2012: an incremental 1.68 million for blacks versus 1.44 million for Hispanics, and a decline of 2.00 million for whites.

Among blacks, older women were the most diligent at increasing their turnout in 2012.

The Census Bureau explains:

In 2012, overall turnout rates decreased in comparison with both 2004 and 2008, a drop in voting characterized by large decreases in youth voting rates for all race groups and Hispanics. The only subgroups showing voting rate increases in 2012 were blacks between the ages of 45 to 64 and 65 years of age and over.

This growth in black turnout was particularly concentrated among those over age 65. Also, black women traditionally vote at significantly higher rates than black men, and the black gender gap in turnout hit a new record in 2012.[For First Time on Record, Black Voting Rate Outpaced Rate for Whites in 2012,By Sarah Wheaton, New York Times, May 8, 2013]

So why did so many old black ladies bother to vote in 2012?

To express racial solidarity. To win. To ensure the White House stays black.

Old black ladies are American citizens. They are more than entitled to show up at the polls and vote for a credit to their race like Barack Obama.

But they are not exactly The Wave of the Future. The vast enthusiasm that Obama excited among aged African-Americans is not a logical reason to put Hispanic illegal aliens on the voting rolls.

But that is in fact the standard logic.

It’s worth noting that the Democrats are perfecting racial dog whistling with their constant claims that Republicans are trying to strip the vote from minorities, assertions that seemingly resounded with elderly blacks.

Black news site The Root reported:

The NAACP also credited its leadership in the pitched battle against Republican-led state voting restrictions such as photo-identification laws. Numerous civil rights groups and the Obama team fomented a backlash among black voters with a "Don’t let them take away your vote!" message.

[Black Voter Turnout Is Up. Will That Persist?, By Corey Dale, May 12, 2013]

This crowing by the NAACP, normally a dusty yesterday’s-news organization, is not unreasonable: The Census Bureau study suggests the NAACP really did help generate a backlash among elderly blacks.

From a game theory standpoint, the Democrats would want to cheat at least enough to cause Republicans to react to their cheating by proposing legislation to protect the validity of the vote. The Democrats can then rile up blacks with the message that Republicans are trying to take their votes away.

It seems to have worked.

In contrast to the fervent black effort to re-elect Obama, whites were strikingly unmotivated by Romney. The total white vote dropped from 100 million in 2008 to 98 million in 2012 (down two percent). Only 64.1 percent of eligible whites voted in 2012, down from 66.1 percent in 2008 and 67.2 percent in the recent high-water mark year of 2004. This was the first time in the history of the Census survey that whites were not the highest-ranking group in terms of their rate of voting.

Among Hispanics eligible to vote, gross numbers continued to rise—but the rate of those taking the trouble to vote dropped from 49.9 to 48.0 percent. The number of Hispanics who claimed to be eligible but didn’t bother to get to the polls soared from 9.8 million to12.1 million.

In a strikingly independent-minded column in the Washington Post, of all outlets, Esther J. Cepeda noted the slack Hispanic turnout in 2012:

After nearly a year of breathless reports about how Latinos were going to trip over themselves to get to the polls and vote against Mitt Romney’s hardline immigration stance — remember Time magazine’s Spanish-language cover “Yo Decido”? — the reality is less dramatic.

[The GOP’s Hispanic problem, May 15, 2013]

[dario73]

http://www.vdare.com/articles/census-bureau-refutes-comprehensive-immigration-reform-mantra-obama-won-because-of-old-blac

[dario73]

IF THE GOP IS THIS STUPID, IT DESERVES TO DIE
June 12, 2013



Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services1.8K

Democrats terrify Hispanics into thinking they'll be lynched if they vote for Republicans, and then turn around and taunt Republicans for not winning a majority of the Hispanic vote.

This line of attack has real resonance with our stupidest Republicans. (Proposed Republican primary targets: Sens. Kelly Ayotte, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio.) Which explains why Republicans are devoting all their energy to slightly increasing their share of the Hispanic vote while alienating everyone else in America.

It must be fun for liberals to manipulate Republicans into focusing on hopeless causes. Why don't Democrats waste their time trying to win the votes of gun owners?

As journalist Steve Sailer recently pointed out, the Hispanic vote terrifying Republicans isn't that big. It actually declined in 2012. The Census Bureau finally released the real voter turnout numbers from the last election, and the Hispanic vote came in at only 8.4 percent of the electorate -- not the 10 percent claimed by the pro-amnesty crowd.

The sleeping giant of the last election wasn't Hispanics; it was elderly black women, terrified of media claims that Republicans were trying to suppress the black vote and determined to keep the first African-American president in the White House.

Contrary to everyone's expectations, 10 percent more blacks voted in 2012 compared to 2008, even beating white voters, the usual turnout champions. Eligible black voters turned out at rate of 66.2 percent, compared to 64.1 percent of eligible white voters. Only 48 percent of all eligible Hispanic voters went to the polls.

No one saw this coming, which is probably why Gallup had Romney up by 5 points before Hurricane Sandy hit, and up by 1 point in its last pre-election poll after the hurricane.
Only two groups voted in larger numbers in 2012 compared to 2008: blacks aged 45-64, and blacks over the age of 65 -- mostly elderly black women.

In raw numbers, nearly twice as many blacks voted as Hispanics, and nine times as many whites voted as Hispanics. (Ninety-eight million whites, 18 million blacks and 11 million Hispanics.)


So, naturally, the Republican Party's entire battle plan going forward is to win slightly more votes from 8.4 percent of the electorate by giving them something they don't want.

As Byron York has shown, even if Mitt Romney had won 70 percent of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost. No Republican presidential candidate in at least 50 years has won even half of the Hispanic vote.

In the presidential election immediately after Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986, the Republican share of the Hispanic vote actually declined from 37 percent to 30 percent -- and that was in a landslide election for the GOP. Combined, the two Bush presidents averaged 32.5 percent of the Hispanic vote -- and they have Hispanics in their family Christmas cards. [b/]

John McCain, the nation's leading amnesty proponent, won only 31 percent of the Hispanic vote, not much more than anti-amnesty Romney's 27 percent.[b/]
Amnesty is a gift to employers, not employees.

The (pro-amnesty) Pew Research Hispanic Center has produced poll after poll showing that Hispanics don't care about amnesty. In a poll last fall, Hispanic voters said they cared more about education, jobs and health care than immigration. They even care more about the federal budget deficit than immigration! (To put that in perspective, the next item on their list of concerns was "scratchy towels.")

Also, note that Pew asked about "immigration," not "amnesty." Those Hispanics who said they cared about immigration might care about it the way I care about it -- by supporting a fence and E-Verify.

Who convinced Republicans that Hispanic wages aren't low enough and what they really need is an influx of low-wage workers competing for their jobs?

Maybe the greedy businessmen now running the Republican Party should talk with their Hispanic maids sometime. Ask Juanita if she'd like to have seven new immigrants competing with her for the opportunity to clean other people's houses, so that her wages can be dropped from $20 an hour to $10 an hour.

A wise Latina, A.J. Delgado, recently explained on Mediaite.com why amnesty won't win Republicans the Hispanic vote -- even if they get credit for it. Her very first argument was: "Latinos will resent the added competition for jobs."

But rich businessmen don't care. Big Republican donors -- and their campaign consultants -- just want to make money. They don't care about Hispanics, and they certainly don't care what happens to the country. If the country is hurt, I don't care, as long as I am doing better! This is the very definition of treason.

Hispanic voters are a small portion of the electorate. They don't want amnesty, and they're hopeless Democrats. So Republicans have decided the path to victory is to flood the country with lots more of them!

It's as if Republicans convinced Democrats to fixate on banning birth control to win more pro-life voters. This would be great for Republicans because Democrats will never win a majority of pro-life voters, and about as many pro-lifers care about birth control as Hispanics care about amnesty.

But that still wouldn't be as idiotic as what Republicans are doing because, according to Gallup, pro-lifers are nearly half of the electorate. Hispanics are only 8.4 percent of the electorate.

And it still wouldn't be as stupid as the GOP pushing amnesty, because banning birth control wouldn't create millions more voters who consistently vote against the Democrats.

Listening to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus burble a few weeks ago on "Fox News Sunday" about how amnesty is going to push the Republicans to new electoral heights, one is reminded of Democratic pollster Pat Caddell's reason for refusing to become a Republican: No matter how enraged he gets at Democratic corruption, he says he can't bear to join such a stupid party as the GOP.

[headhuntersix]

If the GOP can't field national level candidates that the base can get excited about....we're going to continue to loose. Some people chose not to vote because of Romney. I think he didn't attack Obama enough on the key issues. He never hammered home the abject failures of Obama. Obama had to allow Clinton and a storm to help him win. We need to stop worring about the racism charges, peoples feelings and just deal in facts. The dems are the party of racism. They have the negative history on their side. They did it in the 60's with the i your face stuff and they do it now with the economic slavery that won't do a damm thing for anybody.

[whork]

IF THE GOP IS THIS STUPID, IT DESERVES TO DIE
June 12, 2013



Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services1.8K

Democrats terrify Hispanics into thinking they'll be lynched if they vote for Republicans, and then turn around and taunt Republicans for not winning a majority of the Hispanic vote.

This line of attack has real resonance with our stupidest Republicans. (Proposed Republican primary targets: Sens. Kelly Ayotte, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio.) Which explains why Republicans are devoting all their energy to slightly increasing their share of the Hispanic vote while alienating everyone else in America.

It must be fun for liberals to manipulate Republicans into focusing on hopeless causes. Why don't Democrats waste their time trying to win the votes of gun owners?

As journalist Steve Sailer recently pointed out, the Hispanic vote terrifying Republicans isn't that big. It actually declined in 2012. The Census Bureau finally released the real voter turnout numbers from the last election, and the Hispanic vote came in at only 8.4 percent of the electorate -- not the 10 percent claimed by the pro-amnesty crowd.

The sleeping giant of the last election wasn't Hispanics; it was elderly black women, terrified of media claims that Republicans were trying to suppress the black vote and determined to keep the first African-American president in the White House.

Contrary to everyone's expectations, 10 percent more blacks voted in 2012 compared to 2008, even beating white voters, the usual turnout champions. Eligible black voters turned out at rate of 66.2 percent, compared to 64.1 percent of eligible white voters. Only 48 percent of all eligible Hispanic voters went to the polls.

No one saw this coming, which is probably why Gallup had Romney up by 5 points before Hurricane Sandy hit, and up by 1 point in its last pre-election poll after the hurricane.
Only two groups voted in larger numbers in 2012 compared to 2008: blacks aged 45-64, and blacks over the age of 65 -- mostly elderly black women.

In raw numbers, nearly twice as many blacks voted as Hispanics, and nine times as many whites voted as Hispanics. (Ninety-eight million whites, 18 million blacks and 11 million Hispanics.)


So, naturally, the Republican Party's entire battle plan going forward is to win slightly more votes from 8.4 percent of the electorate by giving them something they don't want.

As Byron York has shown, even if Mitt Romney had won 70 percent of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost. No Republican presidential candidate in at least 50 years has won even half of the Hispanic vote.

In the presidential election immediately after Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986, the Republican share of the Hispanic vote actually declined from 37 percent to 30 percent -- and that was in a landslide election for the GOP. Combined, the two Bush presidents averaged 32.5 percent of the Hispanic vote -- and they have Hispanics in their family Christmas cards. [b/]

John McCain, the nation's leading amnesty proponent, won only 31 percent of the Hispanic vote, not much more than anti-amnesty Romney's 27 percent.[b/]
Amnesty is a gift to employers, not employees.

The (pro-amnesty) Pew Research Hispanic Center has produced poll after poll showing that Hispanics don't care about amnesty. In a poll last fall, Hispanic voters said they cared more about education, jobs and health care than immigration. They even care more about the federal budget deficit than immigration! (To put that in perspective, the next item on their list of concerns was "scratchy towels.")

Also, note that Pew asked about "immigration," not "amnesty." Those Hispanics who said they cared about immigration might care about it the way I care about it -- by supporting a fence and E-Verify.

Who convinced Republicans that Hispanic wages aren't low enough and what they really need is an influx of low-wage workers competing for their jobs?

Maybe the greedy businessmen now running the Republican Party should talk with their Hispanic maids sometime. Ask Juanita if she'd like to have seven new immigrants competing with her for the opportunity to clean other people's houses, so that her wages can be dropped from $20 an hour to $10 an hour.

A wise Latina, A.J. Delgado, recently explained on Mediaite.com why amnesty won't win Republicans the Hispanic vote -- even if they get credit for it. Her very first argument was: "Latinos will resent the added competition for jobs."

But rich businessmen don't care. Big Republican donors -- and their campaign consultants -- just want to make money. They don't care about Hispanics, and they certainly don't care what happens to the country. If the country is hurt, I don't care, as long as I am doing better! This is the very definition of treason.

Hispanic voters are a small portion of the electorate. They don't want amnesty, and they're hopeless Democrats. So Republicans have decided the path to victory is to flood the country with lots more of them!

It's as if Republicans convinced Democrats to fixate on banning birth control to win more pro-life voters. This would be great for Republicans because Democrats will never win a majority of pro-life voters, and about as many pro-lifers care about birth control as Hispanics care about amnesty.

But that still wouldn't be as idiotic as what Republicans are doing because, according to Gallup, pro-lifers are nearly half of the electorate. Hispanics are only 8.4 percent of the electorate.

And it still wouldn't be as stupid as the GOP pushing amnesty, because banning birth control wouldn't create millions more voters who consistently vote against the Democrats.

Listening to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus burble a few weeks ago on "Fox News Sunday" about how amnesty is going to push the Republicans to new electoral heights, one is reminded of Democratic pollster Pat Caddell's reason for refusing to become a Republican: No matter how enraged he gets at Democratic corruption, he says he can't bear to join such a stupid party as the GOP.

This is good.

[Psychopath]

Do most Hispanics know how to read and write english? Or are they eligible to vote considering their illegal alien status?

Maybe Hispanics are far too familiar with how real politics work. Who gives a shit about voting in some clowns knowing it's just a farce night at the theatre?

[MCWAY]

The country has changed dramatically since the 60s. Romney and the GOP lost at the national level because the demographics have changed. If the GOP wants to win nationally, it is somehow going to have to figure out how to attract more women voters, more non-white voters, and more gay voters. Continuing to rely on its base of white, heterosexual males, is not going to be a winning formula going forward. It's not about issues. It's about demographics. When u say things like the "dems are the party of racism" u turn off women, moderate voters, non-whites, etc., and are basically dooming the GOP to minority party status.

Hardly! 4 million Republicans stayed home. Romney had fewer voters than McCain did. If he'd simply MATCH McCain's tally, he'd be president right now.

One study claimed Romney would have needed 73% of the Latino vote to beat Obama, with the numbers he had among white voters. As for dramatic change since the 60s, did you forget that Reagan and Bush I won LANDSLIDE elections, despite getting no more than 35% of the Latino vote, on average?

Bush only got 30% of the Latino vote, DESPITE Reagan granting full-blown unapologetic amnesty to Latinos, just 2 years earlier.

It is about issues; it's about relating conservative principles and how they, not liberal ones, address those issues. Romney thought that just the economy being sorry was enough to get people to turn on Obama. All Obama did (with plenty of help) is con those people into believing that his failure to live up to his promises wasn't really his fault.

Plus, you forget that politics can change on a dime (as I learned some time ago). Go back 8 years. Did ANYONE believe we'd be where we are after Bush got re-elected and the GOP got more seats in Congress?

The Dems are all about amnesty, because the more broke Latinos we have, the more government-dependent they are; thus, the more they vote Democrat. If Latinos voted GOP, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et. al. would ROUND THEM ALL UP PERSONALLY and haul them back to Mexico/Cuba/DR on the first thing smoking.

[andreisdaman]

Ever since last November’s election, we’ve been hearing that Hispanics comprised a record 10 percent of the vote—which therefore obliges Republican Congressmen to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” a.k.a the Schumer-Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill RIGHT NOW.

For example:

National exit polls showed that 10 percent of the electorate was Hispanic, compared with 9 percent in 2008 and 8 percent in 2004. … A growing perception of hostility toward illegal immigrants by Republican candidates is driving many Latinos to the polls.

[Growing share of Hispanic voters helped push Obama to victory, By Donna St. George and Brady Dennis, Washington Post, November 7, 2012]

But what if these nice, round turnout numbers provided by the Edison exit poll company weren’t true? What if the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” clamor is based on exit poll error?

What if in 2012 the Sleeping Giant of the Latino Vote didn’t actually awake—but instead rolled over and started a new siesta?

In short, what if the Main Stream Media exaggerated the Hispanic share of the 2012 vote by a factor of almost 20 percent?

Well, we now have the numbers. We now know that the suppositions behind these awkward questions are true.

After every national election, the Census Bureau conducts a massive survey of voter turnout. Then it bureaucratically mulls over the results for months—while the conventional wisdom congeals around whatever slapdash numbers the exit poll firm emitted in the early going.

In contrast to the Census Bureau survey, though, exit polls aren’t designed to measure turnout. Heck, exit polls aren’t even very good at figuring out who won the election—just ask President John F. Kerry.

Exit polls can’t be based on the random samples that would be needed to measure turnout accurately, because the exit poll company has to bake a forecast of the electorate’s demographics into its plan of which precincts to send workers to cover. Not surprisingly, it tends to get back the results it anticipated.

Moreover, Hispanics are both of interest to sponsors and difficult to survey (they can need Spanish-speaking pollsters). So their needs are typically given more weight in planning the exit poll. The result:  national exit polls have overstated the Hispanic share of the vote at least since 2000.

Now, finally, on May 9, the Current Population Survey division of the Census Bureau has issued its turnout report, scintillatingly titledThe Diversifying Electorate—Voting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2012 (and Other Recent Elections)[PDF]

Despite the title, it makes compelling reading.

It turns out that the official best estimate of the Latino share of 2012 voters isn’t 10 percent—but merely 8.4 percent:



So the standard story you’ve been hearing in the MSM for almost seven months is indeed inflated by 19 percent.

But what can you expect … because the conventional wisdom as embodied in that Washington Post story has been exaggerated for, roughly, ever.

Hispanics didn’t account for 9 percent of the 2008 electorate, but 7.4 percent. And in 2004, they weren’t 8 percent, but 6.0 percent. Way back in 2000, the exit poll claimed that Hispanics made up 7 percent, but the real number turned out to be 5.4 percent, as I reported for UPI on July 24, 2001. [Mexican-American Vote Smaller than Many Think]

But who did turn out in 2012 to drive Obama to victory? Who was the fresh new face of the American electorate in 2012?

Old black ladies.

According to the Census survey, fans of Tyler Perry movies voted in remarkable numbers in 2012—even more than in Obama’s first victory in 2008.

Unsurprisingly, given Obama’s candidacy, from 2004 to 2008 the number of black voters had grown 15 percent.

Unexpectedly, however, blacks added another 10 percent to their vote total from 2008 to 2012. Nationally, 66.2 percent of eligible blacks voted compared to 64.1 percent of whites, 48.0 percent of Hispanics, and 47.3 percent of Asians.

I gotta admit...excellent research..your research is so good I couldn't refute it if I wanted to....good job.,.interesting read..I really thought the Hispanic vote was much more than has been stated in your article

[Shockwave]

Not quite. Not sure where u came up with the 4 million figure but it wouldn't have done Romney much good to run up his margin of victory in states like GA, SC, MS, TX, etc. The electoral college would have still gone Obama's way because of states like CA and NY and the fact that former swing states like VA are now swinging Democratic due to demographic changes, which aren't all attributable to Hispanics. Yes, so-called Hispanics are part of it but so are other people of color, affluent whites everywhere but the deep south, women, gays, etc. The GOP has little attraction to these people.

The Reagan/Bush years are long, long, since over (we have gay marriage all over the place now, that would have been unheard of during the Reagan/Bush era). Do u think another Republican will ever win CA or NY (like Reagan did)? The electoral map is very difficult for national GOP candidates now. If the Hispanic vote in TX ever gains traction, and puts TX into play, there will never be another GOP president again. One thing the article completely misses is that even if the percentage of the Hispanic vote remains low, sheer numbers alone will make it a force to reckon with. The white population is aging and the birthdate is low. It's the complete opposite with the Hispanic population. Blacks will be in the worst shape. They will be passed by Hispanics as the número uno "minority" group and if prison is any barometer, Hispanics are merciless towards coloreds when they gain the upper hand over them.

And you're right, issues do matter to some extent. Abortion has sunk the national GOP with women voters since the 70s. There are no longer enough white males to counteract this. The gay marriage issue will alienate young voters from the national GOP since most young people don't have a problem with it. In some ways it's the new abortion issue.

IMO neither Romney or Obama convinced anyone to vote for them. People just voted the way they figured they were supposed to. The same way there was nothing Obama could say to convince a 70 year-old white man from rural Georgia to vote for him, there was no way Romney could convince a 40year-old affluent white woman living in Manhattan to vote for him. It's all about demographics and the trends aren't good for the GOP long-term.

Agreed, were rapidly becoming a one party system.... What we have is bad enough, but if the HOP doesn't start changing to reflect the rapidly leftward shifting views of so many people in this country... We will soon have a single party that dominates everything, and we may as well hand over our liberty on a silver platter.

Even thought its just a fucking circus act as it is, the elections are just smoke and mirrors to make people think they actually have a choice in their countries future... Reality is we lost having any day on our countries politics long ago.

[MCWAY]

Not quite. Not sure where u came up with the 4 million figure but it wouldn't have done Romney much good to run up his margin of victory in states like GA, SC, MS, TX, etc. The electoral college would have still gone Obama's way because of states like CA and NY and the fact that former swing states like VA are now swinging Democratic due to demographic changes, which aren't all attributable to Hispanics. Yes, so-called Hispanics are part of it but so are other people of color, affluent whites everywhere but the deep south, women, gays, etc. The GOP has little attraction to these people.

The Reagan/Bush years are long, long, since over (we have gay marriage all over the place now, that would have been unheard of during the Reagan/Bush era). Do u think another Republican will ever win CA or NY (like Reagan did)? The electoral map is very difficult for national GOP candidates now. If the Hispanic vote in TX ever gains traction, and puts TX into play, there will never be another GOP president again. One thing the article completely misses is that even if the percentage of the Hispanic vote remains low, sheer numbers alone will make it a force to reckon with. The white population is aging and the birthdate is low. It's the complete opposite with the Hispanic population. Blacks will be in the worst shape. They will be passed by Hispanics as the número uno "minority" group and if prison is any barometer, Hispanics are merciless towards coloreds when they gain the upper hand over them.

And you're right, issues do matter to some extent. Abortion has sunk the national GOP with women voters since the 70s. There are no longer enough white males to counteract this. The gay marriage issue will alienate young voters from the national GOP since most young people don't have a problem with it. In some ways it's the new abortion issue.

IMO neither Romney or Obama convinced anyone to vote for them. People just voted the way they figured they were supposed to. The same way there was nothing Obama could say to convince a 70 year-old white man from rural Georgia to vote for him, there was no way Romney could convince a 40year-old affluent white woman living in Manhattan to vote for him. It's all about demographics and the trends aren't good for the GOP long-term.

What makes you think that those who stayed home were merely in states that Romney would have won easily? Obama's margin was small in certain key swing state. It all came down to turnout. The reason Virginia is turning blue is because liberals from DC and Maryland, after screwing up those states with superhigh taxes and ludicrous laws, AVOID those very things by moving to northern VA.

The Dems want to stay in power by making blacks and Latinos PERMANENT underclasses, which is why they're so high on amnesty and other programs that keep them dependent on government. That is why Dems have a stranglehold on states like CA and NY.

Per the exit polls, the primary reason Latinos vote Democrat is NOT immigration. It's government programs, that supposedly help them. According to Pew Research Center, nearly SEVENTY percent of Hispanics like ObamaCare as is or want it expanded further.

http://www.cis.org/mortensen/hispanics-were-democrats-long-illegal-immigration-became-issue

[George Whorewell]

Agreed, were rapidly becoming a one party system.... What we have is bad enough, but if the HOP doesn't start changing to reflect the rapidly leftward shifting views of so many people in this country... We will soon have a single party that dominates everything, and we may as well hand over our liberty on a silver platter.

Even thought its just a fucking circus act as it is, the elections are just smoke and mirrors to make people think they actually have a choice in their countries future... Reality is we lost having any day on our countries politics long ago.

Shock, you're one of the few posters on here who is intelligent, so I mean this without any malice-- but I disagree with the entire premise of your post.

We are becoming a one party system because the establishment types on both sides of the aisle want it that way. This amnesty horseshit is an excuse to legalize 20 million permanent democratic voters.

Nobody can legitimately justify how legalizing 20 million unskilled, undocumented and for all intensive purposes, useless human beings will help the United States. Our massive welfare state is already unsustainable. What possible good can come of this? "Fairness"?

The GOP is going to go extinct by design. Even at the current rate of this nation's decline, the silent majority is still the majority for at least another 20 years or so. The left offers empty promises and avoids all issues of substance through victimization bet wetting and feigned outrage over racism and other nonsense. The media follows suit, and as a result, we have a right of center country veering to the left through apathy or Pavlovian ignorance.

The GOP will not gain a single Congressional seat or win another Presidential election if this rape of America immigration bill passes. Mark my words.

Once this country suffers... and I mean suffers-- and believe me, the suffering is right around the corner through Obamacare, Amnesty and all the rest-- then and only then will there be a noticeable shift in this countries mindset. All those years of "fairness" and phony compassion are going to wear thin as people realize they've been conned.

Liberalism is a cancer. Multiculturalism is a cancer. Look at the rest of the civilized world. Get a taste for what is coming.

The GOP keeps trotting out these delusional, sissy, country club elite Republican dickwads who are barely distinguishable from the leftist cockroaches destroying the nation.

That is why the left is in power. Pandering to victimization groups and patronizing them like useful idiots is a liberal tactic. If the GOP had half a brain and a set of balls they would see this immigration scam for what it is.

[Shockwave]

Shock, you're one of the few posters on here who is intelligent, so I mean this without any malice-- but I disagree with the entire premise of your post.

We are becoming a one party system because the establishment types on both sides of the aisle want it that way. This amnesty horseshit is an excuse to legalize 20 million permanent democratic voters.

Nobody can legitimately justify how legalizing 20 million unskilled, undocumented and for all intensive purposes, useless human beings will help the United States. Our massive welfare state is already unsustainable. What possible good can come of this? "Fairness"?

The GOP is going to go extinct by design. Even at the current rate of this nation's decline, the silent majority is still the majority for at least another 20 years or so. The left offers empty promises and avoids all issues of substance through victimization bet wetting and feigned outrage over racism and other nonsense. The media follows suit, and as a result, we have a right of center country veering to the left through apathy or Pavlovian ignorance.

The GOP will not gain a single Congressional seat or win another Presidential election if this rape of America immigration bill passes. Mark my words.

Once this country suffers... and I mean suffers-- and believe me, the suffering is right around the corner through Obamacare, Amnesty and all the rest-- then and only then will there be a noticeable shift in this countries mindset. All those years of "fairness" and phony compassion are going to wear thin as people realize they've been conned.

Liberalism is a cancer. Multiculturalism is a cancer. Look at the rest of the civilized world. Get a taste for what is coming.

The GOP keeps trotting out these delusional, sissy, country club elite Republican dickwads who are barely distinguishable from the leftist cockroaches destroying the nation.

That is why the left is in power. Pandering to victimization groups and patronizing them like useful idiots is a liberal tactic. If the GOP had half a brain and a set of balls they would see this immigration scam for what it is.

I agree with absolutely everything you said. My point was if they don't start producing candidates that people can get behind, they're fucked.

[MCWAY]

You seem fixated on the Hispanic vote, which is fair enough given the title of this thread. But you don't address the gender gap and the fact that affluent whites in states like CA, NY, etc., who have influence due to their financial and social status, don't feel comfortable in the GOP. (This is also what's going on in VA.)

I don't care either way since I don't vote and only financially support candidates (of either party) who will directly advocate for my business interests, but I think the trends are obvious and pretty clear.

The rich people in CA and NY don't feel comfortable in the GOP, for a number of reasons (usually social ones). Plus, it also depends on how they got rich. If their riches are due to public-sector work or so-called "non-profit" deals, they tend to lean towards the Democrats.

Getting rich via "green" energy: Democrats. Getting rich via fossil fuels: Republicans

Getting rich via TV and cable media: Democrats; Getting rich via talk radio: Republicans

Or, if you dive into music.....

Rap, R&B, Rock-n-roll, Pop, Gospel: Democrats; Country, Southern Gospel, Contemporary Christian: Republicans.

[Dos Equis]

Not quite. Not sure where u came up with the 4 million figure but it wouldn't have done Romney much good to run up his margin of victory in states like GA, SC, MS, TX, etc. The electoral college would have still gone Obama's way because of states like CA and NY and the fact that former swing states like VA are now swinging Democratic due to demographic changes, which aren't all attributable to Hispanics. Yes, so-called Hispanics are part of it but so are other people of color, affluent whites everywhere but the deep south, women, gays, etc. The GOP has little attraction to these people.

The Reagan/Bush years are long, long, since over (we have gay marriage all over the place now, that would have been unheard of during the Reagan/Bush era). Do u think another Republican will ever win CA or NY (like Reagan did)? The electoral map is very difficult for national GOP candidates now. If the Hispanic vote in TX ever gains traction, and puts TX into play, there will never be another GOP president again. One thing the article completely misses is that even if the percentage of the Hispanic vote remains low, sheer numbers alone will make it a force to reckon with. The white population is aging and the birthdate is low. It's the complete opposite with the Hispanic population. Blacks will be in the worst shape. They will be passed by Hispanics as the número uno "minority" group and if prison is any barometer, Hispanics are merciless towards coloreds when they gain the upper hand over them.

And you're right, issues do matter to some extent. Abortion has sunk the national GOP with women voters since the 70s. There are no longer enough white males to counteract this. The gay marriage issue will alienate young voters from the national GOP since most young people don't have a problem with it. In some ways it's the new abortion issue.

IMO neither Romney or Obama convinced anyone to vote for them. People just voted the way they figured they were supposed to. The same way there was nothing Obama could say to convince a 70 year-old white man from rural Georgia to vote for him, there was no way Romney could convince a 40year-old affluent white woman living in Manhattan to vote for him. It's all about demographics and the trends aren't good for the GOP long-term.

I think you’re overstating things a bit.  The 2012 presidential election was not the signal of a major shift in voter demographics.  You have to look at all elections to get a true picture of where voters are moving.  Republicans control the House and have a shot to take the Senate in 2014.  The majority of the states have Republican governors.  I think a majority of the states have Republican controlled legislatures? 

If there was a true shift, you’d see Democrats in control of Congress and making great strides at the state level.  That isn’t happening. 

[whork]

Hardly! 4 million Republicans stayed home. Romney had fewer voters than McCain did. If he'd simply MATCH McCain's tally, he'd be president right now.

One study claimed Romney would have needed 73% of the Latino vote to beat Obama, with the numbers he had among white voters. As for dramatic change since the 60s, did you forget that Reagan and Bush I won LANDSLIDE elections, despite getting no more than 35% of the Latino vote, on average?

Bush only got 30% of the Latino vote, DESPITE Reagan granting full-blown unapologetic amnesty to Latinos, just 2 years earlier.

It is about issues; it's about relating conservative principles and how they, not liberal ones, address those issues. Romney thought that just the economy being sorry was enough to get people to turn on Obama. All Obama did (with plenty of help) is con those people into believing that his failure to live up to his promises wasn't really his fault.

Plus, you forget that politics can change on a dime (as I learned some time ago). Go back 8 years. Did ANYONE believe we'd be where we are after Bush got re-elected and the GOP got more seats in Congress?

The Dems are all about amnesty, because the more broke Latinos we have, the more government-dependent they are; thus, the more they vote Democrat. If Latinos voted GOP, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et. al. would ROUND THEM ALL UP PERSONALLY and haul them back to Mexico/Cuba/DR on the first thing smoking.

You are saying the GOP voters prefer a black commie dictator over the republican alternative.

If thats not a change in the voters i dont now what is.

[tu_holmes]

You are saying the GOP voters prefer a black commie dictator over the republican alternative.

If thats not a change in the voters i dont now what is.

I agree... How in the hell can the GOP voters just decide they didn't want to turn out knowing that Obama's world was the absolute WORST thing in the world!!!

How could you stay home?!

[Archer77]

As usual the media built up a narrative about Hispanic voters that was easily digestible to the public.  Hispanics are definitely going to impact elections on the national level but with all the gerrymandering it will be a while before they start effecting local and state elections.  I also don't think they are a demographic that is beyond reach for the GOP.  I've seen it, once a Latino gets money he turns white overnight and votes republican.