What Should the GOP Do To Appeal To Minorities?

[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.

I'm against promising handouts. That does seem to be the mentality that alot of minorities have fallen under. What are your disagreements with affirmative action though? I'm against the way that the University of Michigan did it but other than that I'm a supporter.

I am mixed on Affirmative Action. I think most of it should be shifted from just race based to race+poverty. The arguement is that minorities have been hampered economically through because of discrimnation so it would make sense to just focus on poor minorities instead of all minorities.

How about making AA just based on financial status? That way, wealthy minorities can be excluded and poor white people can be included.

[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.

I'm against promising handouts. That does seem to be the mentality that alot of minorities have fallen under. What are your disagreements with affirmative action though? I'm against the way that the University of Michigan did it but other than that I'm a supporter.

I am mixed on Affirmative Action. I think most of it should be shifted from just race based to race+poverty. The arguement is that minorities have been hampered economically through because of discrimnation so it would make sense to just focus on poor minorities instead of all minorities.

How about making AA just based on financial status? That way, wealthy minorities can be excluded and poor white people can be included.

Thats a possibility.

That way, affirmative action will actually become fairer. Even though racial discrimination created large income gaps in the past (which still exist today), many minorities nowadays are pretty wealthy and many white people are still poor. Thus, if race has any focus in affirmative action, many poor white people with good grades/academic records could get rejected from a certain college or job just so that wealthy minorities with worse grades/academic records could take those jobs. That's called reverse discrimination. The only way I would support affirmative action is if it was based entirely on financial status and 0% on race.

[Bo]

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.

[Bo]

What Should the GOP Do To Appeal To Minorities?


Reinvent the party.

How?