What Should the GOP Do To Appeal To Minorities?

[Mechaman]

May I remind people that there was once a time when Irish Catholics voted 80-95% Democratic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_American#Irish_in_politics_and_government

Anything is possible.

[Mechaman]

In a few words?  Grow a pair.  The GOP writes off so many minority voters they should be targeting, because the strategists that run the party elections consider them to be "unwinnable".  When is the last time you heard of a state-wide Republican candidate campaigning in McAllen or Tuskegee?

There are swaths of minority voters that run small businesses, believe in tough-on-crime laws, and regularly attend church, but vote Blue for no other reason than the Democrats keep telling them that the GOP is full of Evil Racists.  And the GOP just lets them do that, using the circular logic that they are just going to vote democrat anyway.

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

And besides, it's not like those votes will always be "unwinnable" for the GOP.
Irish Catholics anyone?

[Mechaman]

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.

Actually I would go back further than FDR to 1928 when Hoover implemented the first GOP "Southern Strategy":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover#Southern_strategy

[Mechaman]

Have you guys even bothered to read my wikipedia link?:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If there is anybody the Republicans should blame for costing them the black vote it's themselves.  Sure, FDR supporting welfare might've put them over to the Democrats permanently, but it was Hoover's hardon for the vote of White Southern Protestant businessmen (thus why he also campaigned on Prohibition and anti-catholicism.  Because black rights don't mean a damn as long as he kept those catholic micks out of office (yes believe or not the immortal "pro-civil rights" Republican party was full of bigots back then, whether you like it or not).

[Mechaman]

Have you guys even bothered to read my wikipedia link?:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If there is anybody the Republicans should blame for costing them the black vote it's themselves.  Sure, FDR supporting welfare might've put them over to the Democrats permanently, but it was Hoover's hardon for the vote of White Southern Protestant businessmen (thus why he also campaigned on Prohibition and anti-catholicism.  Because black rights don't mean a damn as long as he kept those catholic micks out of office (yes believe or not the immortal "pro-civil rights" Republican party was full of bigots back then, whether you like it or not).

Indeed. So that must be why FDR was the first Democrat to carry the black vote.

Yes.  I am not saying that Hoover lost the black vote (hell, the Democratic Party wasn't any more sympathetic to them) but he definitely wasn't doing them any favors by trying to win over Southern Whites.
Sorry guys, but racism and bigotry were quite prevalent in both parties back in the day.  It is only more recently that society has become somewhat more accepting of people as people and not by their ethnicity.  We still have problems as a society in being colorblind in our analyses, but it is certainly alot better than it was in the first half of the 20th century.

[Mechaman]

I think that the GOP should just stay on its current course and let the Democrats remain as the pander party. But, if you insist, I think nominating more minority candidates would do the trick, and they have plenty. And if they were really desperate, they could use someone like Condi, Michael Steele, or J.C. Watts, although I think that is very unlikely.

Hey if Southern Oklahoma could elect a southern black conservative Republican to Congress, might as well give it a shot.

[Mechaman]

How the hell is that racism?

It's racist because because you said that they were voting for someone based on their race.

Some of them (let's remember about 90% of blacks vote for the democrat regardless of race) were voting just to get the first black president. If the first black nominee was Republican, I am guessing he would have got about 25-30% of the black vote.

Actually, he probably would have gotten a strong majority of the black vote if he was perceived to have a chance at victory. Remember, as soon as Obama won Iowa, at least 75% of blacks voted for him in SC, and then over 80% voted for him then on.

Which, BTW, I wouldn't look down on them for doing. The symbolism is a big deal.

Most blacks agreed with Obama on economics, though, while most blacks would probably not agree with the economic policies of a black GOP nominee.

Agreed.

I doubt that a Republican like JC Watts would get a majority of the black vote against someone like John Kerry (even if he is VERY uninspiring).  It is just that strong.