Serious Q for Republicans

[RINO Tom]

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Hispanic and Asian vote.  I think it could be argued that Black Americans - for a variety of reasons - have been very adamant about NOT assimilating into "mainstream White America" (whatever that means), and they also vote Democratic for a variety of historical reasons, but groups like the Irish and Italians - once fiercely loyal to the Democratic Party for literally the exact same reasons that Hispanics would support them today (White WASP Republicans came off as anti-immigrant, and the Democrats' progressive economic policies - especially in cities - helped them out economically, which is what matters most to voters in dire situations) - are now Republican-leaning groups, because those people don't feel alienated from the majority.

However, the GOP of the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s took a decidedly more liberal tone on immigration, and I don't think Italian and Irish Americans warm up to them if they don't.  So, take note, 21st Century GOP.

[RINO Tom]

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes.

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

I'm sure your world is just as insulated as mine based off of all of these comments, but you act like there aren't just as many elitist conservatives as there are elitist liberals.  You're wrong.

[RINO Tom]

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes.

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

I'm sure your world is just as insulated as mine based off of all of these comments, but you act like there aren't just as many elitist conservatives as there are elitist liberals.  You're wrong.

-There are as many rich conservatives as there are rich liberals, but elitism isn't quite the same as wealth. Yes; conservative elitism still exists in the U.S.; the Mercers are a big example. Williamson TN and Delaware OH haven't gone Dem yet. But a whole lot of traditionally Republican elites really showed their true (liberal) colors when Trump appeared before them. Just look at East Grand Rapids.

Considering you can't put TRUE tolerance (not SJW crap) on a simple left-right scale, a lot of those people - in addition to being turned off by Trump's, err, less-than-sophisticated language toward certain Americans - opposed Trump on the grounds that he wasn't ENOUGH in line with conservative thinking on issues such as entitlements, trade and foreign policy, so that's just a load of shlt.  Your ideology and that of Trump's most loyal supporters might be in the right at the end of the day, but conservatism is not officially defined by whatever angry Whites are feeling, in fact quite the opposite.  White Southerners who felt left behind during the Great Depression weren't conservatives, period.  Non-college Whites who flocked to Trump, similarly, don't get to redefine an ideology to describe whatever the hell they think.

[RINO Tom]

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes.

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

I'm sure your world is just as insulated as mine based off of all of these comments, but you act like there aren't just as many elitist conservatives as there are elitist liberals.  You're wrong.

-There are as many rich conservatives as there are rich liberals, but elitism isn't quite the same as wealth. Yes; conservative elitism still exists in the U.S.; the Mercers are a big example. Williamson TN and Delaware OH haven't gone Dem yet. But a whole lot of traditionally Republican elites really showed their true (liberal) colors when Trump appeared before them. Just look at East Grand Rapids.

Considering you can't put TRUE tolerance (not SJW crap) on a simple left-right scale, a lot of those people - in addition to being turned off by Trump's, err, less-than-sophisticated language toward certain Americans - opposed Trump on the grounds that he wasn't ENOUGH in line with conservative thinking on issues such as entitlements, trade and foreign policy, so that's just a load of shlt.  Your ideology and that of Trump's most loyal supporters might be in the right at the end of the day, but conservatism is not officially defined by whatever angry Whites are feeling, in fact quite the opposite.  White Southerners who felt left behind during the Great Depression weren't conservatives, period.  Non-college Whites who flocked to Trump, similarly, don't get to redefine an ideology to describe whatever the hell they think.

RINO Tom, do you think my ideology is conservative?

Yes, EXTREMELY so.

[RINO Tom]

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes.

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

I'm sure your world is just as insulated as mine based off of all of these comments, but you act like there aren't just as many elitist conservatives as there are elitist liberals.  You're wrong.

-There are as many rich conservatives as there are rich liberals, but elitism isn't quite the same as wealth. Yes; conservative elitism still exists in the U.S.; the Mercers are a big example. Williamson TN and Delaware OH haven't gone Dem yet. But a whole lot of traditionally Republican elites really showed their true (liberal) colors when Trump appeared before them. Just look at East Grand Rapids.

Considering you can't put TRUE tolerance (not SJW crap) on a simple left-right scale, a lot of those people - in addition to being turned off by Trump's, err, less-than-sophisticated language toward certain Americans - opposed Trump on the grounds that he wasn't ENOUGH in line with conservative thinking on issues such as entitlements, trade and foreign policy, so that's just a load of shlt.  Your ideology and that of Trump's most loyal supporters might be in the right at the end of the day, but conservatism is not officially defined by whatever angry Whites are feeling, in fact quite the opposite.  White Southerners who felt left behind during the Great Depression weren't conservatives, period.  Non-college Whites who flocked to Trump, similarly, don't get to redefine an ideology to describe whatever the hell they think.

-RINO, people like you did not vote for HRC because she was an avatar of conservatism. Look at your political matrix score. Now look at mine. These people were merely Carter-hating low-tax liberals. I'm not a fan. As for the True Conservatives, every single county in Indiana that went for Cruz in the primary trended towards Trump in the general. And every county that trended against Trump in Indiana had a Kasich vote share above that of Indiana as a whole. It wasn't conservative Republicans that crossed party lines this year to vote for HRC. It was the least conservative portion of the party. Just compare Kasich and Cruz's congressional voting records.

People like me, specifically, voted for Hillary because they thought Trump was quite literally unfit for office, beyond politics.  Hardly a comment on my political ideology.

Conservatism comes in many forms, and different voters prioritize different parts.  My sister's best friend's dad, who lives in Zionsville, IN (a suburb of Indy) and owns his own business is extremely conservative but doesn't think cultural things being legislated through the government is a worthwhile fight; he is just as conservative (I'd argue more) than some culturally conservative guy who rails against elites, wants to limit free trade and thinks, "yeah, ya know what?  The Democrats WERE right about taxing those evil millionaires a little bit more!"

A "low-tax liberal," as you describe such a person, is more conservative than a xenophobic liberal who shouts conservative as loud as they can, which is what this mythical "Working Class White" voter you fetishize about is.

[RINO Tom]

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes.

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

I'm sure your world is just as insulated as mine based off of all of these comments, but you act like there aren't just as many elitist conservatives as there are elitist liberals.  You're wrong.

-There are as many rich conservatives as there are rich liberals, but elitism isn't quite the same as wealth. Yes; conservative elitism still exists in the U.S.; the Mercers are a big example. Williamson TN and Delaware OH haven't gone Dem yet. But a whole lot of traditionally Republican elites really showed their true (liberal) colors when Trump appeared before them. Just look at East Grand Rapids.

Considering you can't put TRUE tolerance (not SJW crap) on a simple left-right scale, a lot of those people - in addition to being turned off by Trump's, err, less-than-sophisticated language toward certain Americans - opposed Trump on the grounds that he wasn't ENOUGH in line with conservative thinking on issues such as entitlements, trade and foreign policy, so that's just a load of shlt.  Your ideology and that of Trump's most loyal supporters might be in the right at the end of the day, but conservatism is not officially defined by whatever angry Whites are feeling, in fact quite the opposite.  White Southerners who felt left behind during the Great Depression weren't conservatives, period.  Non-college Whites who flocked to Trump, similarly, don't get to redefine an ideology to describe whatever the hell they think.

-RINO, people like you did not vote for HRC because she was an avatar of conservatism. Look at your political matrix score. Now look at mine. These people were merely Carter-hating low-tax liberals. I'm not a fan. As for the True Conservatives, every single county in Indiana that went for Cruz in the primary trended towards Trump in the general. And every county that trended against Trump in Indiana had a Kasich vote share above that of Indiana as a whole. It wasn't conservative Republicans that crossed party lines this year to vote for HRC. It was the least conservative portion of the party. Just compare Kasich and Cruz's congressional voting records.

People like me, specifically, voted for Hillary because they thought Trump was quite literally unfit for office, beyond politics.  Hardly a comment on my political ideology.

Conservatism comes in many forms, and different voters prioritize different parts.  My sister's best friend's dad, who lives in Zionsville, IN (a suburb of Indy) and owns his own business is extremely conservative but doesn't think cultural things being legislated through the government is a worthwhile fight; he is just as conservative (I'd argue more) than some culturally conservative guy who rails against elites, wants to limit free trade and thinks, "yeah, ya know what?  The Democrats WERE right about taxing those evil millionaires a little bit more!"

A "low-tax liberal," as you describe such a person, is more conservative than a xenophobic liberal who shouts conservative as loud as they can, which is what this mythical "Working Class White" voter you fetishize about is.

Why don't we all just be across-the-board conservatives on both the economy and social/cultural issues?  

Because actual Trumpists (not counting the tons of people that voted for him, not endorsing his "movement" but to stop Hillary) aren't conservatives; they share nothing in common with the tradition of the Republican Party.  They just want an outlet for their anger over cultural change and what they see as an inadequate America, compared to some romanticized golden age.  Some had legitimate concerns, some are just intolerant.  Either way, they don't get to start being the RINO police, as they're all at LEAST as "not sufficiently conservative" as people like John Kasich or Marco Rubio.

[RINO Tom]

If Kasich and Rubio don't count as "conservative" by your definition, clearly your definition is very narrow...

And wrong, LOL.

Anywho, I won't get into why I think being a protectionist in Coolidge's age is completely different than being one today (and, using Coolidge's own pro-business rhetoric on the issue, arguably closer to being for free trade today ... motive is ALWAYS more important than method, period), as I have discussed it so many times here.  Bottom line is that people like Eharding (and, ironically, Non Swing Voter on the other side of the aisle) are absolutely adamant that affluent Republicans - some of the voters who have been with the party the longest, LOL - will eventually just become straight-ticket Democrats, and the idea is ridiculous for a number of reasons that they aren't willing to listen to (two particularly funny ones are that this BS "college degree" correlation has a hell of a lot more to do with the AGE of the White voters in question than some magical political change that happens if you go to college and also that the exact types of people they think are going to be exiting the GOP HAVEN'T EXITED THE GOP AND ARE VERY INTENT ON STAYING, haha), but that is not the narrative either of those groups (Trumpist populists and self-deluded liberal hacks) want to push; neither furthers the grand battle they perceive themselves to be fighting.

[RINO Tom]

EHarding, you keep mentioning Williamson County, TN as an example of an upper-income place that voted against Trump in the primary and then refer to these types of places as places that will eventually be Democratic strongholds.  Do you really expect Williamson County- which The Daily Caller ranks as the most conservative place in America- to become Democratic territory?

It is certainly what he wants to happen, but it obviously won't.  WWC voters will become Democrats before Williamson County types, easily.

[RINO Tom]

EHarding, you keep mentioning Williamson County, TN as an example of an upper-income place that voted against Trump in the primary and then refer to these types of places as places that will eventually be Democratic strongholds.  Do you really expect Williamson County- which The Daily Caller ranks as the most conservative place in America- to become Democratic territory?

It is certainly what he wants to happen, but it obviously won't.  WWC voters will become Democrats before Williamson County types, easily.

-WWC were always the swing vote. The last time they were more Dem than college-educated Whites was the 1996 presidential election. I think the education gap will only intensify in the coming two decades.

Because millennials are very Democratic and more have college degrees, not because of a long term shift in how affluent Whites vote.  Really pretty simple: as having a college degree has become less exclusive, that share of the electorate has gotten more Democratic (not to mention a heavily Democratic generation of New Deal folks, VERY few of which had a college degree, ceasing to be part of the electorate).

It is SO far from a sure thing that Trumpism defines the GOP going forward.  It's equally likely this is a fluke.

[RINO Tom]

LIBRULLL ELEATS.

[RINO Tom]

In any case, I repeat my question: which Republican candidates on a statewide level have actually won the Hispanic vote without winning the liberal elitist vote?

The problem with this question is that only one of those demographics exists.

[RINO Tom]

In any case, I repeat my question: which Republican candidates on a statewide level have actually won the Hispanic vote without winning the liberal elitist vote?

John McCain has won as much as 65% of the hispanic vote in his Arizona Senate campaigns. Not exactly sure if there are that many liberal elitists in Arizona, much less how they feel about Sen. McCain, but the Trumpie populists and the Alt-Right crowd sure do despise him. anywhere in the United States, at least not more than conservative elitists.

FTFY.

[RINO Tom]

Working class Whites, by how you both defined them, will not be a significant part of the GOP in 20 years.  The future of minority outreach is getting affluent minorities to appreciate conservatism that would benefit them.

[RINO Tom]

Tartarus, you are half-right and half-wrong. What you must remember is there are ALWAYS more people than elites. That's how Trump won.

Will you stop acting like Clinton voters were "elites"?

[RINO Tom]

Tartarus, you are half-right and half-wrong. What you must remember is there are ALWAYS more people than elites. That's how Trump won.

Will you stop acting like Clinton voters were "elites"?

-Romney-Clinton voters were mostly elites.

That's the point: White people with college degrees aren't "elite," they're very mainstream.