What Should the GOP Do To Appeal To Minorities?

[Bo]

I'd say move leftward economically and nominate more minority candidates.

[Bo]

As long as you have guys like Rush Limbaugh, Beck, etc. it's not going to happen.

Is that your only piece of advice? Keep in mind that most minorities (with the exception of Asians) voted for the Democrats continuously since the 1930s, way before talk radio was created.

[Bo]

I'd say move leftward economically

No.

nominate more minority candidates.

Sure.

^^^^

This.

The GOP tried nominating more minorities in 2006 and it didn't work.

[Bo]

I'd say move leftward economically

No.

nominate more minority candidates.

Sure.

^^^^

This.

The GOP tried nominating more minorities in 2006 and it didn't work.

I'd say move leftward economically and nominate more minority candidates.

I said the GOP needed to do both things simulatenously, not just nominate more minority candidates.

[Bo]

I'd say move leftward economically

No.

nominate more minority candidates.

Sure.

^^^^

This.

The GOP tried nominating more minorities in 2006 and it didn't work.

I'd say move leftward economically and nominate more minority candidates.

I said the GOP needed to do both things simulatenously, not just nominate more minority candidates.

I know, I'm just trolling you, man.

Anyway, I think that it would better suit the GOP to move to the left socially.

It might be more beneficial for them to move leftward socially if they want to get more young voters, but I was specifically asking about how they could get more minority voters, and I'm pretty sure most minorities vote for the Democrats due to economics (especially since many minorities are conservative on some social issues). I don't think the GOP is going to be very successful in winning voer minorities unless they abandon their "trickle-down policies" and embrace a more active govt. Finally, if the GOP moves leftward socially too soon, it might get more younger voters, but also might lose a lot of religious/moral voters and thus it might hurt them more than help them.

[Bo]

Given the past and the race of the current president, they might have no chance at blacks for the foreseeable future.  But some version of immigration reform would help them appeal to Hispanics; maybe they don't offer amnesty but it seems like trying to outright deport illegals is killing them among Hispanics.  I also think it would help for them to distance themselves from some of the more inflammatory conservative pundits, but they might not be able to do that.

There are other issues by which to win Hispanic support that don't involve abandoning their own base on a key issue.

Exactly, and besides, as Dallasfan previously mentioned, the GOP supported amnesty in the 1980s, and it didn't cause much more Latinos to vote for the Republicans afterwards. Thus the GOP is afraid that if they support amnesty again, the same thing is going to occur. They will fail to increase their % by much among Latino voters and will just alienate a large part of their base.

[Bo]

Do a paradigm change by renouncing the nativists and racists within the party in deed as well as in words (basically don't embrace them as a political asset, either covertly or overtly), and instead run on a platform of social conservatism (sanctity of life, protecting marriage from 'the gays', etc.), keeping the military strong and well-funded, and embrace the notion that government can actually be a force for good in this country while being cognizant of its limitations.  What I am saying is: go back to Eisenhower and Nixon when it comes to economic issues -'trickle down' economics of tax cuts and spending cuts is too fraught with racial overtones to be used any longer as a viable long-term economic strategy for political gain.  It is too easily interpreted as a means by which whites can covertly express their racial resentments by with-holding revenue to fund needed government programs for a diversifying society.  

Ask any African American or Native American on a reservation if they have seen an improvement in the communities situation over the past decades? They will say no. And enormous amounts of gov't aid, programs, and welfare. The answer will be no. The problem is not ideology. Many blacks are Conservative both Socially and Fiscally (maybe 1/4 of them) and the only reason that they vote Dem is because of talking points, pandering and fear mongering by Dems (Wasn't it John Lewis who ran an ad saying if his opponent won, crosses would burn back in 2004). The CBC and its members are interested in self preservative not the African American Community and most of the cities run by Democrats have collapsed, and the lack of competition breads incompetence and corruption. I think if the GOP were to agressively reach out, hear out concerns and offer up ideas and solutions they could peal off a slice of that vote. Could move a state like PA, MI or Ohio towards the GOP more.

Its not trickle down economics to use your phrase that hurts the GOP among minorities. Its lack of effort and Democratic fear mongering, which you yourself engaged in here. Why is securing our borders racist? its not. Why do legal Hispanics benefit from illegal immigration? They don't. Why is cracking down on employers who hire illegals nativist? Its not. Its all about politics and Democrats like yourself putting party ahead of the best interest of country, and surprisingly the very people you claim to fight for. The good think for you is the chances of them waking up are limited. If they did the Dems would be in trouble.

If I ever saw the GOP doing any of these things I'd never vote for them again.  The election is about being the best choice for president and not who can pander to the most ppl or give the most free hand outs.  I applaud my party for their efforts in staying true to their base and form this past year and a half. However, it couldn't hurt to learn how to talk about issues that would appeal to minorities in their own ways and offer their own ideas.  An example of this was the 2000 election when Bush talked mostly about education, social security, medicare, healthcare, and the environment.  He mad have had conservative ideas about these issues, but at least he didn't simply shrug it off as if those issues shouldn't matter.

Yes, issues such as those need to be discussed and you don't have to come in favor of Single Payer or something or abandon your positions. You need to fight back, defend the position, and argue for why its better then the Dem alternative.

First of all, the GOP is NOT the fiscally conservative party if you look at the fiscal records of the last five Presidents before Obama. Thus, I don't think the GOP would be able to appeal too well to fiscally conservative minorities. Secondly, even though Bush talked about a lot of important minority issues in 2000, he still didn't do very well in winning the votes of any minority group.

[Bo]

The issue of immigration and the internal struggles within the GOP is rather interesting. The vast majority of the party wants to crack down on illegal immigration but those who fund the party want the exact opposite.

The easiest way to crack down on illegal immigration and not cause a backlash amongst Hispanics is to go after the employers.....who basically fund the Republican party. So you can see what the problem is. Also increasing enforcement at the borders is something most people don't have a problem with. But when you start talking about deporting 12 million individuals.......

Why should the employers be punished and not the illegals themselves? The illegals came there illegally, and the employers are just making use of this fact. Also, what is happening with the border fence Bush Jr. signed into law in 2006?

[Bo]

The issue of immigration and the internal struggles within the GOP is rather interesting. The vast majority of the party wants to crack down on illegal immigration but those who fund the party want the exact opposite.

The easiest way to crack down on illegal immigration and not cause a backlash amongst Hispanics is to go after the employers.....who basically fund the Republican party. So you can see what the problem is. Also increasing enforcement at the borders is something most people don't have a problem with. But when you start talking about deporting 12 million individuals.......

Why should the employers be punished and not the illegals themselves? The illegals came there illegally, and the employers are just making use of this fact. Also, what is happening with the border fence Bush Jr. signed into law in 2006?

Because the illegals only came here to better their lives and that of their families? Why do people always think that people coming here illegally are part of some mass conspiracy to undermine the laws of the US. There is no system set up for working class people to immigrate to the US, so these people have to go this route. I see no reason at all to punish them.

On the other hand I don't really want to punish business owners. I just want them to follow the law. Most business owners already do, so in effect more enforcement of the law would help them as those companies who don't follow the law don't have an unfair advantage anymore. Furthermore, it's much easier to enforce these laws than stopping every brown person and asking for papeles (not to mention how damn offensive that is).

Wow, you are such a liberal humanitarian. Anyway, you still didn't answer my question about the border fence?

[Bo]

Maybe they could find a token black to chair the RNC.

[Bo]

The issue of immigration and the internal struggles within the GOP is rather interesting. The vast majority of the party wants to crack down on illegal immigration but those who fund the party want the exact opposite.

The easiest way to crack down on illegal immigration and not cause a backlash amongst Hispanics is to go after the employers.....who basically fund the Republican party. So you can see what the problem is. Also increasing enforcement at the borders is something most people don't have a problem with. But when you start talking about deporting 12 million individuals.......

Why should the employers be punished and not the illegals themselves? The illegals came there illegally, and the employers are just making use of this fact. Also, what is happening with the border fence Bush Jr. signed into law in 2006?

Because the illegals only came here to better their lives and that of their families? Why do people always think that people coming here illegally are part of some mass conspiracy to undermine the laws of the US. There is no system set up for working class people to immigrate to the US, so these people have to go this route. I see no reason at all to punish them.

On the other hand I don't really want to punish business owners. I just want them to follow the law. Most business owners already do, so in effect more enforcement of the law would help them as those companies who don't follow the law don't have an unfair advantage anymore. Furthermore, it's much easier to enforce these laws than stopping every brown person and asking for papeles (not to mention how damn offensive that is).

Wow, you are such a liberal humanitarian. Anyway, you still didn't answer my question about the border fence?

Since you spend all your time inside, I am pretty sure you can find that answer all by yourself, douche.

[Bo]

The issue of immigration and the internal struggles within the GOP is rather interesting. The vast majority of the party wants to crack down on illegal immigration but those who fund the party want the exact opposite.

The easiest way to crack down on illegal immigration and not cause a backlash amongst Hispanics is to go after the employers.....who basically fund the Republican party. So you can see what the problem is. Also increasing enforcement at the borders is something most people don't have a problem with. But when you start talking about deporting 12 million individuals.......

Why should the employers be punished and not the illegals themselves? The illegals came there illegally, and the employers are just making use of this fact. Also, what is happening with the border fence Bush Jr. signed into law in 2006?

Because the illegals only came here to better their lives and that of their families? Why do people always think that people coming here illegally are part of some mass conspiracy to undermine the laws of the US. There is no system set up for working class people to immigrate to the US, so these people have to go this route. I see no reason at all to punish them.

On the other hand I don't really want to punish business owners. I just want them to follow the law. Most business owners already do, so in effect more enforcement of the law would help them as those companies who don't follow the law don't have an unfair advantage anymore. Furthermore, it's much easier to enforce these laws than stopping every brown person and asking for papeles (not to mention how damn offensive that is).

Wow, you are such a liberal humanitarian. Anyway, you still didn't answer my question about the border fence?

Since you spend all your time inside, I am pretty sure you can find that answer all by yourself, douche.

Yes I know you were being ironic....

^

[Bo]

Well, passing the bill they just did in Arizona is not going to help.

True, but supporting amnesty for illegals is not going to help either (ex. Reagan in 1986).

[Bo]

Though in other news, the Arizona law has had essentially no change on the Voting intentions of Hispanics (or anyone else in that matter) according to Gallup.  Kind of surprising, really

http://www.gallup.com/poll/139751/Hispanic-Voters-Preferences-Unchanged-Post-Arizona-Law.aspx

It isn't really surprising. Latino voters already thought that the GOP was against them and illegals before Arizona passed this law, so why would it make a huge difference in how Latinos perceive the GOP?

[Bo]

It isn't really surprising. Latino voters already thought that the GOP was against them and illegals before Arizona passed this law, so why would it make a huge difference in how Latinos perceive the GOP?

No, it actually signifies something rather important.  As was previously noted here, Reagan passing Amnesty in 1986 did almost nothing for the GOP among Hispanic voters (Bush Sr. won only about 27% in 88), despite the fact that they supported it.  Now, passing a tough-on-illegals bill has also done next-to-nothing (at least for now anyway).

I think this means that what's dragging the GOP's share among Hispanics down is not the tangible immigration policies that they produce, but rather the perception that they don't care and/or are racist.

I don't think there's much actual opposition to securing the borders among Hispanics, i just think the Democrats have been successful in turning the immigration question from secure/open borders to support/hate Hispanics, in the same way they portrayed tough-on-crime policies in LA and NYC as being Anti-black.

Wow, I totally agree. Bush actually fought for the Hispanic vote, and won 44%, without which Kerry would have been victorious for sure. I've always thought that if the Republicans really tried, they could win a majority of Hispanics and perhaps even a quarter of blacks over a half dozen election cycles or so.

Actually, the 44% intially given was later revised as being too high. The revised numbers is that Bush got about 39% or 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, which is only a 2% trend to the GOP relative to 2000.

http://faculty.washington.edu/mbarreto/papers/2004vote.pdf

[Bo]

The GOP should focus on winning the Hispanic, Asian, and maybe even the Arab vote.

The GOP won the Arab and Muslim vote until 2000. Arabs and Muslims were attracted to the GOP's humble foreign policy and socially conservative platforms. However, after 9/11, the Iraq War, and the Guantanamo debacle, I don't think the GOP would be winning the Arab or Muslim vote anytime soon. The GOP is also hurt by the fact that the current President is of partial Muslim descent.

As for Asians, ideally the GOP would need to move leftward on some social issues (and maybe a little on economics). However, moving left socially (at least too fast) will alienate the GOP's conservative base and thus this could hurt the GOP more than help them, at least in the short run.

For Latinos, I agree that the illegal immigration issue should be downplayed when addressing Latino voters. The GOP supported amnesty for illegals back in the 1980s, yet it didn't help them  very much with the Latino vote afterwards. I think Latinos voted for the Democrats since the 1930s, and I think the main reason is economics, since Republicans were the more socially liberal party up until the 1970s. Even though the GOP has been making a big deal out of social issues lately, that didn't help them win over too many additional Latino votes. Thus, I think the GOP is going to need to move leftward economically if they want to win a significantly larger share of the Latino vote, since "trickle-down economics" just doesn't sell very well to Latino (and black) voters.

[Bo]

The GOP should focus on winning the Hispanic, Asian, and maybe even the Arab vote.

For Latinos, I agree that the illegal immigration issue should be downplayed when addressing Latino voters. The GOP supported amnesty for illegals back in the 1980s, yet it didn't help them  very much with the Latino vote afterwards. I think Latinos voted for the Democrats since the 1930s, and I think the main reason is economics, since Republicans were the more socially liberal party up until the 1970s. Even though the GOP has been making a big deal out of social issues lately, that didn't help them win over too many additional Latino votes. Thus, I think the GOP is going to need to move leftward economically if they want to win a significantly larger share of the Latino vote, since "trickle-down economics" just doesn't sell very well to Latino (and black) voters.

I disagree with your proposed solution--the Biggest problem the GOP has with Hispanics is an image problem, not an issue problem.  If you break it down by issue, Hispanics are remarkably Fiscally Conservative; they supported things like Welfare reform in the 90s, and are highly entrepreneurial and self-relying.  The Problem is that the GOP can't seem to shake the notion that they're "Anti-Hispanic."

I agree with you that it's not really an immigration issue either.  Both the Reagan Amnesty and the Arizona bill had negligible impacts on GOP Hispanic support nationwide.  I think the best bet for the GOP is to do what so many are unwilling to--actually campaign for their votes.  Republicans have a lot to work off of in terms of mutual values and goals, and if they can break the carefully crafted Democratic meme that the Republican party is full of violent racists, electoral gains will follow.

The problem is that the GOP ins't fiscally conservative. If you look at the fiscal records of the last three GOP Presidents, they were just horrendous. Thus, if the GOP run as fiscal conservatives, Democrats could just point out that 80% of our national debt was accumulated under the last 3 GOP Presidents and that they only things Republicans do are make us more in debt to China. And GWB campaigned heavily for the Latino vote in 2004 and made a large effort to reach out to the Latino community. Even that didn't help much--Bush got 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, in contrast to 35% in 2000. However, keep in mind that the whole country swung 3% GOP in 2004 (relative to 2000), and thus the Latino vote only trended GOP by 2%, which isn't very much. Not to mention that Kerry was just a horrible candidate. I agree that the GOP needs to improve its image among Latinos as well, by a lot. But to be honest I don't think it will help the GOP that much. I mean, the perception of the GOP as racists only emerged in a large scale in the last decade, yet the Democrats have won the Latino vote by large margins ever since the 1930s, way before any perception of the GOP as racist came about (heck, back then the Democrats were perceived as the more racist party).

[Bo]

The GOP should focus on winning the Hispanic, Asian, and maybe even the Arab vote.

For Latinos, I agree that the illegal immigration issue should be downplayed when addressing Latino voters. The GOP supported amnesty for illegals back in the 1980s, yet it didn't help them  very much with the Latino vote afterwards. I think Latinos voted for the Democrats since the 1930s, and I think the main reason is economics, since Republicans were the more socially liberal party up until the 1970s. Even though the GOP has been making a big deal out of social issues lately, that didn't help them win over too many additional Latino votes. Thus, I think the GOP is going to need to move leftward economically if they want to win a significantly larger share of the Latino vote, since "trickle-down economics" just doesn't sell very well to Latino (and black) voters.

I disagree with your proposed solution--the Biggest problem the GOP has with Hispanics is an image problem, not an issue problem.  If you break it down by issue, Hispanics are remarkably Fiscally Conservative; they supported things like Welfare reform in the 90s, and are highly entrepreneurial and self-relying.  The Problem is that the GOP can't seem to shake the notion that they're "Anti-Hispanic."

I agree with you that it's not really an immigration issue either.  Both the Reagan Amnesty and the Arizona bill had negligible impacts on GOP Hispanic support nationwide.  I think the best bet for the GOP is to do what so many are unwilling to--actually campaign for their votes.  Republicans have a lot to work off of in terms of mutual values and goals, and if they can break the carefully crafted Democratic meme that the Republican party is full of violent racists, electoral gains will follow.

The problem is that the GOP ins't fiscally conservative. If you look at the fiscal records of the last three GOP Presidents, they were just horrendous. Thus, if the GOP run as fiscal conservatives, Democrats could just point out that 80% of our national debt was accumulated under the last 3 GOP Presidents and that they only things Republicans do are make us more in debt to China. And GWB campaigned heavily for the Latino vote in 2004 and made a large effort to reach out to the Latino community. Even that didn't help much--Bush got 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, in contrast to 35% in 2000. However, keep in mind that the whole country swung 3% GOP in 2004 (relative to 2000), and thus the Latino vote only trended GOP by 2%, which isn't very much. Not to mention that Kerry was just a horrible candidate. I agree that the GOP needs to improve its image among Latinos as well, by a lot. But to be honest I don't think it will help the GOP that much. I mean, the perception of the GOP as racists only emerged in a large scale in the last decade, yet the Democrats have won the Latino vote by large margins ever since the 1930s, way before any perception of the GOP as racist came about (heck, back then the Democrats were perceived as the more racist party).

Isn't freeing blacks from slavery and voting for the civil rights bill enough for you?

Apparently not for African-Americans. Even though I'm not black so I can't tell you for sure. Many blacks feel that the GOP doesn't care about them and only cares about rich people, and thus they vote Democratic in massive numbers.

[Bo]

The GOP should focus on winning the Hispanic, Asian, and maybe even the Arab vote.

For Latinos, I agree that the illegal immigration issue should be downplayed when addressing Latino voters. The GOP supported amnesty for illegals back in the 1980s, yet it didn't help them  very much with the Latino vote afterwards. I think Latinos voted for the Democrats since the 1930s, and I think the main reason is economics, since Republicans were the more socially liberal party up until the 1970s. Even though the GOP has been making a big deal out of social issues lately, that didn't help them win over too many additional Latino votes. Thus, I think the GOP is going to need to move leftward economically if they want to win a significantly larger share of the Latino vote, since "trickle-down economics" just doesn't sell very well to Latino (and black) voters.

I disagree with your proposed solution--the Biggest problem the GOP has with Hispanics is an image problem, not an issue problem.  If you break it down by issue, Hispanics are remarkably Fiscally Conservative; they supported things like Welfare reform in the 90s, and are highly entrepreneurial and self-relying.  The Problem is that the GOP can't seem to shake the notion that they're "Anti-Hispanic."

I agree with you that it's not really an immigration issue either.  Both the Reagan Amnesty and the Arizona bill had negligible impacts on GOP Hispanic support nationwide.  I think the best bet for the GOP is to do what so many are unwilling to--actually campaign for their votes.  Republicans have a lot to work off of in terms of mutual values and goals, and if they can break the carefully crafted Democratic meme that the Republican party is full of violent racists, electoral gains will follow.

The problem is that the GOP ins't fiscally conservative. If you look at the fiscal records of the last three GOP Presidents, they were just horrendous. Thus, if the GOP run as fiscal conservatives, Democrats could just point out that 80% of our national debt was accumulated under the last 3 GOP Presidents and that they only things Republicans do are make us more in debt to China. And GWB campaigned heavily for the Latino vote in 2004 and made a large effort to reach out to the Latino community. Even that didn't help much--Bush got 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, in contrast to 35% in 2000. However, keep in mind that the whole country swung 3% GOP in 2004 (relative to 2000), and thus the Latino vote only trended GOP by 2%, which isn't very much. Not to mention that Kerry was just a horrible candidate. I agree that the GOP needs to improve its image among Latinos as well, by a lot. But to be honest I don't think it will help the GOP that much. I mean, the perception of the GOP as racists only emerged in a large scale in the last decade, yet the Democrats have won the Latino vote by large margins ever since the 1930s, way before any perception of the GOP as racist came about (heck, back then the Democrats were perceived as the more racist party).

Isn't freeing blacks from slavery and voting for the civil rights bill enough for you?

Blacks did vote GOP for decades after the end of slavery. Of course, FDR changed all that. The civil Rights Movement wasn't really a partisan affair. There were plenty of people in both parties  on both sides of the debate. Johnson's emphatic support for it certianly cemented blacks in the Dem camp however. Blacks voting for the Dems today isn't about Civil Rights. It's a rejection of the every man for himself attitude among the GOP.

And which direction has the crime rate gone in black communities since the Johnson administration? How many more babies do we have born out of wedlock? What has happened to the poverty rate among blacks? The black community is a perfect example of what the country would be like if everyone voted democrat.

And dirt-poor white areas in the rural South are the perfect example of what the country would look like if everyone voted GOP.

[Bo]

No, if the whole country voted GOP it would look more like Cherokee county GA.  Rich, Suburban, Pro-business, and Socially Conservative.

Exactly it's not like the poor whites in the south vote GOP anyway.

It depends where you go in many parts Virginia, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Kentucky vote Democratic.

Still, poor white areas in the South vote much more GOP than Democrat at the Presidential level right now.

[Bo]

Republicans have shown that they can win without any minorities, but that era is fading. Simply supporting affirmative action isn't going to cut it unfortunately. Call for "open borders" with guards who let people easily and amnesty. Also, alot of my conservative counterparts don't realize this but amnesty allows more foreigners to be tracked as opposed to now where the government doesn't know exactly who is who within the illegal community.

I have explained this 100 times. You don't concede, you fight. The pressure groups who control minority votes will never support Republicans. You have to break their grip on those votes. You have to prove to them that they are self serving and not looking out for their best interests.

I won't go into detail on the Amnesty thing (I just did recently). The people pushing amnesty know damn well that future illegal immigration will be encouraged and they will demand yet another amnesty. These groups have been hindering enforcement operations and demaning amnesty since the when the ink had barely dried on the Reagan Amnesty. You are naive or unaware of the history if you think that we won't be having this same arguement 15 years from now. It never changes, it has been their game since the 60's. They won't machine voters, not good policy. I'll be damned if I sign of a bill that only benefits these groups and big agribusiness. It will do nothing for the immigrant who came here legally, the next wave of illegals who will be exploited, the victim of ID theft, and most certainly not the country at-large. My view is the "compassionate" view not the open borders one.

Oh and I please don't hit me with that "you can't round them up crap" because  I already went through why that is not necessary two days ago. Go dig for it.

Its not going to be easy, its going to take courage and effort. Simply changing one position is not going to do it. Bush promised everything under the son and got to 44% of Hispanics, 1% more among African Americans (I will note we are still in the mid 30's among Hispanics about 10% better then Dole's performance in 1996) but it was unsustainable and the promises impossible. A different approach is needed.

Actually, the 44% intially given was later revised as being too high. The revised numbers is that Bush got about 39% or 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, which is only a 2% trend to the GOP relative to 2000.

http://faculty.washington.edu/mbarreto/papers/2004vote.pdf

And I agree that supporting affirmative action and amnesty isn't going to help Republicans much with the minority vote. Even if both parties support those two things, most minorities will still vote Democratic because they agree with the Democratic economic policy (more social programs, tax breaks for the middle class, etc.) much more. The GOP supported affirmative action under Nixon and Ford, and supported amnesty for illegals under Reagan. Neither of them helped the GOP much with the minority vote. What makes you think doing the same thing now will help the GOP with minorities? And nowadays, supporting affirmative action and amnesty for illegals will alienate a large part of the GOP base, and thus is much more likely to hurt the GOP than help them.

[Bo]

They're able to obtain jobs because they get paid minimum wage or less under the table. When suggesting amnesty and affirmative action I was saying more where I stand than where my party should stand. I happen to oppose the GOP on those issues. If it's not popular with my base, I can bring up how it would be easier to track them through the FBI that way.

If the GOP is going to support amnesty and AA, then it's going to alienate its base without gaining many minority votes, and thus it is going to hurt the GOP much more than it's going to help.

[Bo]

They should increase visas for Swedish women

lol

[Bo]

Yeah, that's a ridiculous claim. McCain won the white male vote only by about 57-41.

If whites voted as a bloc the way blacks do, they'd decide every election.

I really don't understand why you think the "Whites" would all vote for one candidate such as the GOP candidate.  So, 60% of the country should just vote for the GOP nominee because that person is also white?  Blacks voted for Obama because they hoped he would have an ear for their concerns and issues, not just because he was Black.  Its not about race or racism, its about trusting that person to listen to your voice.  So its ludicrous to think that Whites should not vote for Obama because he is Black or that he won't listen to Surburban white voters. 

In the past elections, there has been 2 white guys, and the White voters didn't have to vote as a bloc!  They actually could decide between 2 candidates not just based on skin color!

He talked about whites voting in a bloc because you said McCain won nearly 100% of the white male vote, which was completely inaccurate. And the GOP would fail if it tries to appeal to poor minorities, since those groups feel that the GOP doesn't care about them and have felt that way for decades. Thus, it is too late for the GOP to try changing their views. And a lot of blacks did vote for Obama (especially in the primaries) because he was black. If Obama was white, Hillary would have won 70+% of the black vote in the Democratic primaries and less blacks voters would have came out to vote in the general election.

[Bo]

Yeah, that's a ridiculous claim. McCain won the white male vote only by about 57-41.

If whites voted as a bloc the way blacks do, they'd decide every election.

I really don't understand why you think the "Whites" would all vote for one candidate such as the GOP candidate.  So, 60% of the country should just vote for the GOP nominee because that person is also white?  Blacks voted for Obama because they hoped he would have an ear for their concerns and issues, not just because he was Black.  Its not about race or racism, its about trusting that person to listen to your voice.  So its ludicrous to think that Whites should not vote for Obama because he is Black or that he won't listen to Surburban white voters. 

In the past elections, there has been 2 white guys, and the White voters didn't have to vote as a bloc!  They actually could decide between 2 candidates not just based on skin color!

He talked about whites voting in a bloc because you said McCain won nearly 100% of the white male vote, which was completely inaccurate. And the GOP would fail if it tries to appeal to poor minorities, since those groups feel that the GOP doesn't care about them and have felt that way for decades. Thus, it is too late for the GOP to try changing their views. And a lot of blacks did vote for Obama (especially in the primaries) because he was black. If Obama was white, Hillary would have won 70+% of the black vote in the Democratic primaries and less blacks voters would have came out to vote in the general election.

Exactly right. you can't tell me some 94% of the black voting public voted for Obama because of his legislative record.

So why did about 90% of Blacks vote for Kerry and Gore?

I was talking more about the primaries and Obama's race probably did give him several extra % of the black vote in the general election.