Rove says: More White Votes Won't Save the GOP

[blacken700]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323873904578569480696746650.html


It is true that Mr. Romney would not have been elected if he only increased his percentage of Hispanic voters. Had he received 35% of the Latino vote instead of the 27% he did, Mr. Obama would still have won by roughly 4,083,340 votes. The upshot is that if Republicans hope to win the presidency in 2016, they need to do better with both white and Hispanic voters.

How much better? A higher turnout among whites (to 2008 levels) and a small increase in the GOP share of the white vote (say raising it 1% to 60%), along with a somewhat better performance among Latinos (say 35%), and Mr. Romney would have landed in the White House.

The reality is that the nonwhite share of the vote will keep growing. As the American Enterprise Institute's Henry Olsen pointed out in a recent speech, the nonwhite vote as a share of total voters has increased in every presidential election since 1996 by 2% (much of it Hispanic) while the share of the white vote has dropped by 2% each election.

If the GOP leaves nonwhite voters to the Democrats, then its margins in safe congressional districts and red states will dwindle—not overnight, but over years and decades.

[LurkerNoMore]

HAHA!  Nothing is going to save the GOP.

Doomed =  the country demands a reform of immigration, but their constituents demand only more police and more fences.

Constituents trump Country.

Bye, bye, GOP.

[Dos Equis]

The GOP isn't going anywhere.  It's not like Democrats are full of great ideas, candidates, etc.  We're likely going to continue see marginal Republicans and Democrats getting elected, running the country into the ground, arguing over stupid stuff, spending money we don't have, etc. 

[OzmO]

The GOP isn't going anywhere.  It's not like Democrats are full of great ideas, candidates, etc.  We're likely going to continue see marginal Republicans and Democrats getting elected, running the country into the ground, arguing over stupid stuff, spending money we don't have, etc. 

sad but true

[chadstallion]

that's why Sarah Palin's idea of a third party needs to be supported, nurtured and allowed to grow.

[Straw Man]

The GOP isn't going anywhere.  It's not like Democrats are full of great ideas, candidates, etc.  We're likely going to continue see marginal Republicans and Democrats getting elected, running the country into the ground, arguing over stupid stuff, spending money we don't have, etc. 

Dems have a lot more of both than the GOP

[Archer77]

that's why Sarah Palin's idea of a third party needs to be supported, nurtured and allowed to grow.

They already tried that with the American Independent Party and failed miserably

[240 is Back]

that's why Sarah Palin's idea of a third party needs to be supported, nurtured and allowed to grow.

that COULD work - BUT we should realize there would be a decade or two of dems dominating almost EVERY election with 40% as the OLD and NEW versions of the GOP each won 30% of the vote.  In currently close districts, dems would own.

Over time, repubs would choose one of the flavors, but wow, so much dem damage would be done in the meantime.

[tonymctones]

Dems have a lot more of both than the GOP

says the guy who backs nancy pelosi.....

[LurkerNoMore]

The GOP isn't going anywhere.  It's not like Democrats are full of great ideas, candidates, etc.  We're likely going to continue see marginal Republicans and Democrats getting elected, running the country into the ground, arguing over stupid stuff, spending money we don't have, etc. 

Yeah.  Right.  It might take a short while, but their fate is already sealed. Rumors of their death are NOT premature.  While the prominent base consisting of old white males are dying out leaving only the Bible bots and tea nuts to constitute the majority, they are really going to be swelling their ranks with what again?  Women?  Moderates? Minorities? 

Ironic that the gerrymandering they did to keep themselves in perpetual control of the House is now serving to wipe them out as a National Party.

[240 is Back]

I know how repubs can WIN back the senate and white house.

They need to STOP focusing on issues that are social, start focusing on FISCAL.

I mean, they should be entering 5 new JOBS bills a week, just attacking obama on economy, etc.

Instead, it's all of these social issues that mattered to majority 40 years ago, but not today.  Sadly, we live in a world driven by money and success and all that - not by the wedge social issues that older Rush listeners enjoy.   It is what it is.   They can keep gripping onto signing pledges and seeing who is the most conservative, or they can just be the party of COMMON SENSE, GOLDEN RULE and FINANCIAL RESPONSBILITY.

There, I just gave the Gop a way to win it all back. 

[Archer77]

I know how repubs can WIN back the senate and white house.

They need to STOP focusing on issues that are social, start focusing on FISCAL.

I mean, they should be entering 5 new JOBS bills a week, just attacking obama on economy, etc.

Instead, it's all of these social issues that mattered to majority 40 years ago, but not today.  Sadly, we live in a world driven by money and success and all that - not by the wedge social issues that older Rush listeners enjoy.   It is what it is.   They can keep gripping onto signing pledges and seeing who is the most conservative, or they can just be the party of COMMON SENSE, GOLDEN RULE and FINANCIAL RESPONSBILITY.

There, I just gave the Gop a way to win it all back. 

Republicans dont have much of a plan for the economy other than deregulate and cutting taxes for the wealthy. If they were honest about it and didnt use social issues as a distraction they wouldn't get many votes from working class people.  Not that the democrats have much of a plan either other than increasing spending. 

[tonymctones]

Republicans dont have much of a plan for the economy other than deregulate and cutting taxes for the wealthy. If they were honest about it and didnt use social issues as a distraction they wouldn't get many votes from working class people.  Not that the democrats have much of a plan either other than increasing spending. 

I slightly disagree but their plans for the economy do mean less social programs.

What the really need to get back to is the smaller govt form of conservative. If someone would get up there and fight for a smaller, leaner govt and not just stop spending money on this but spend money on that "small govt" that person would be a winner for sure.

The democrat would have to argue that the govt is not wasteful and inefficient, kinda like those morons did with the sequester.

[240 is Back]

Republicans dont have much of a plan for the economy other than deregulate and cutting taxes for the wealthy. If they were honest about it and didnt use social issues as a distraction they wouldn't get many votes from working class people.  Not that the democrats have much of a plan either other than increasing spending. 

then they need a plan that involves a lot more compromise -

OR

At the very least, show us how your policies will fix America.  Both parties have had their chance, and the debt has been growing for decades at a pretty alarming rate.

It would require a change of a lot of things - mostly, spending - which eliminates jobs for americans and lowers spending by 305 million americans, leading to loss of more jobs.

At this point, slashing a big chunk of govt spending would actually deliver a huge hit to the economy.  Nobody can deny that.  Would it be better in the long run?  Sure.  But the smart people that run the country must think that the initial hit would cost us a lot of worldwide ground (as other nations move in for resources) so hey, nothing changes.

it is what it is. 

[George Whorewell]

Dems have a lot more of both than the GOP

Agreed. And those great idea's are taking form right now. Things couldn't be better. 

[LurkerNoMore]

GOP has some great policies.

[whork]

GOP has some great policies.

 

[Archer77]

I slightly disagree but their plans for the economy do mean less social programs.

What the really need to get back to is the smaller govt form of conservative. If someone would get up there and fight for a smaller, leaner govt and not just stop spending money on this but spend money on that "small govt" that person would be a winner for sure.

The democrat would have to argue that the govt is not wasteful and inefficient, kinda like those morons did with the sequester.

Problem is that every time republicans cut taxes they increase spending.  Even when they cut social programs they find other ways to spend the money.  Reagan did and of course so did Bush 2 electric boogaloo. They would have to seriously consider cutting military spending which they won't.

then they need a plan that involves a lot more compromise -

OR

At the very least, show us how your policies will fix America.  Both parties have had their chance, and the debt has been growing for decades at a pretty alarming rate.

It would require a change of a lot of things - mostly, spending - which eliminates jobs for americans and lowers spending by 305 million americans, leading to loss of more jobs.

At this point, slashing a big chunk of govt spending would actually deliver a huge hit to the economy.  Nobody can deny that.  Would it be better in the long run?  Sure.  But the smart people that run the country must think that the initial hit would cost us a lot of worldwide ground (as other nations move in for resources) so hey, nothing changes.

it is what it is. 

Compromise is not in the cards.  Economic policy on both sides is much to polarized at this point.  We aren't dealing with pragmatists willing to consider alternate opinions but die hard believers.  The neoconservative philosophy has never been about compromise.

[LurkerNoMore]

Problem is that every time republicans cut taxes they increase spending.  Even when they cut social programs they find other ways to spend the money.  Reagan did and of course so did Bush 2 electric boogaloo. They would have to seriously consider cutting military spending which they won't.

Compromise is not in the cards.  Economic policy on both sides is much to polarized at this point.  We aren't dealing with pragmatists willing to consider alternate opinions but die hard believers.  The neoconservative philosophy has never been about compromise.

yep

[tonymctones]

GOP has some great policies.

i know youre smarter than to believe that bullshit you posted, dont propagate the stupidity on the left

[LurkerNoMore]

i know youre smarter than to believe that bullshit you posted, dont propagate the stupidity on the left

Then offer evidence that refutes it.

[tonymctones]

how about your offer evidence to support your idiotic claims?

[tonymctones]

As I have said for a while now...

the fundy libtards mantra

anti abortion = anti womens rights
anti gay marriage = hate gays
anti amnesty = anti immigration, not just illegal but all immigration
anti universal healthcare = anti healthcare
anti govt waste = anti social programs

only a fundamental libtard believes like this

[LurkerNoMore]

how about your offer evidence to support your idiotic claims?

Don't need to.  If you don't like my post, it's up to you to refute it or STFU.

Quote from: LurkerNoMore on March 28, 2013, 09:35:08 AM
Good luck with that. He overcompensates by trying to string buzz words together in an attempt to sound witty and knowledgeable which in reality leaves any argument or stance of his with a bigger gap in it than there was before.

Particularly amusing is his habit of trying to reverse your statement back in the form of a rhetorical question in the hopes that you will make his argument for him.  Since he isn't exactly sure of what he is trying to say or how to convey it. 

[blacken700]

Quote from: LurkerNoMore on March 28, 2013, 09:35:08 AM
Good luck with that. He overcompensates by trying to string buzz words together in an attempt to sound witty and knowledgeable which in reality leaves any argument or stance of his with a bigger gap in it than there was before.

Particularly amusing is his habit of trying to reverse your statement back in the form of a rhetorical question in the hopes that you will make his argument for him.  Since he isn't exactly sure of what he is trying to say or how to convey it. 
 
that is a great quote,fits to a tee