What Should the GOP Do To Appeal To Minorities?

[Derek]

What about the GOP is racist?

[Dgov]

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

[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?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Stop toting Ronald Reagan as the Patron Saint of the GOP.

[Dgov]

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.

[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?

[Vepres]

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.

[Derek]

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.

About a year before the election, I thought that Bush would win the Latino vote. I guess the Latinos really don't care about Miguel Estrada.

[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

[Ameriplan]

End slavery and pass the Civil Rights Act.

Oh wait...

[Del Tachi]

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

Asians are Arabs are "model minorities" and much more easily to attract to the Republican Party because they tend to not be economically deprieved like other minority groups, so the GOP's economic policies aren't going to affect them that much.  However, they tend to be socially moderate-to-liberal so the GOP would have some work to do in that area. 

I think when talking about Hispanic politics the issue of immigration is way overplayed.  The GOP needs to start talking to Hispanics that live outside the Southwest, there are lagre Hispanic populations in Florida, Georgia, New York, Illinois, etc.  About 50% of these Hispanics tend to be college educated and have white collar jobs.  Most of the Hispanics living in the Southwest tend to be stuck in service-oriented or manafacturing-related jobs, naturally making them more likley to vote Democrat.  However, most of them tend to be Socially Conservative.  So, maybe the GOP needs to start nominating Populist, Hispanic politicians for posistions in the Southwest.


In general though, the GOP cannot expect to run a minority candidate at the national level and expect to win the minority vote.  They need to start laying the foundation for a "redding" of the minority voters by nominating more non-White candidates to posistions in state government and a few congressional seats.

[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.

[Dgov]

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.

[Derek]

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.

I agree with you. They're fiscally and socially conservative. Republicans just need to address that to them stronger.

[milhouse24]

I know plenty of minority Males that are republican.  So the GOP just needs to re-enforce low taxes, pro-small business owner, and small govt to win Male voters.  Besides, minority voters aren't as important as rich donors and the Swing states are more voters that are hispanic and Cubans are strongly REpublican, but Mexicans swing democrat. 

[Derek]

End slavery and pass the Civil Rights Act.

Oh wait...

After that ^ close this thread. Well said PA, well said.

[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).

[Derek]

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?

[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.

[memphis]

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.

[Derek]

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.

[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.

[Derek]

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.

What's their crime rate? Wedlock births? That's a bad example anyways.

[Dgov]

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

[Derek]

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.