Once again, Republican contenders decide to have something else to do instead of appear before an audience of non-white people. This time, it's Tavis Smiley's All-American Presidential Forum to which Giuliani, Romney, and McCain have sent their very deepest, most sincere regrets. Let's not forget that there's a clear and obvious pattern of GOP candidates not wanting to make their pitch to non-whites:
What’s worse, in the eyes of national Hispanic leaders and progressives who are keeping count, this is the third time in recent months that Republican presidential candidates have dissed the fastest-growing part of the electorate by passing up chances to address Latinos’ concerns about the Iraq war, health care, the economy and immigration.
The major Republican candidates also refused invitations to address NCLR, the National Council of La Raza, at its annual conference in July. In June, the only Republican to show up at the convention of the National Association of Latino Elected & Appointed Officials was California Rep. Duncan Hunter, the patron of the border fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.
And, of course, the GOP couldn't push Larry Craig out of the Senate and back into the closet fast enough, thus sating the “cast-the-first-stone” wing of its base.
Every one of these snubs and disassociations represents a choice, and a cost-benefit analysis: Having felt the sting of an angry nativist base, Republicans don't want to even be associated with anything remotely “immigrant-y”, and that means jettisoning Latino votes like so much unwanted ballast. They don't want to be associated with teh gay evildoers, so Craig goes — even while they show remarkable patience with David Vitter's hetero-alleycatting. And African-Americans … well, around 1980 (if not sooner ) 1964, Republicans decided they were OK without them.
Well, at some point, you have to wonder who's left over for them to appeal to. One of Karl Rove's better insights was to notice that if you peeled off just a few more percentage points from populations you're supposed to “lose”, like African-Americans or Hispanics, you're more likely to get to 51%. It's actually one of the more hopeful, coalition-based strategies he brought to politics. Remember that Bush increased his share of the Latino vote from 2000 to 2004 by 9%, losing them to Kerry by only 53-44%. But after the immigration fracas this year, and the nativist takeover of the GOP base, apparently even talking to Latinos is toxic for GOP presidential contenders. Well, that feeling is likely to be mutual.
So hey, if the GOP doesn't want to use that page of the Rove playbook anymore, fine by me. We'll take the votes.
While the GOP could afford to take African American votes for granted since blacks make up 12% of the total population, and the states they do have a significant amount of population in are either blue without them (the Northeast, MidAtlantic, West Coast, and the northern midwest) or red with them (the South). But Hispanics have consistently proven to be apt swing voters, while Kerry still carried a bigger chunk of the vote the chunk of Hispanics that did vote for Bush provided his crucial margin of victory in several swing states in 2004 including NM, AZ, CO, NV, OH, and of course Florida.
With all the GOP frontrunners (with the exception of Rudy) moving to the right on immigration it seems very likely that Hispanics might be inclined to move to the Dems, a gain that could be cemented if the Dems make an articulate pro-immigration stand, with the local bounce from the Denver convention, and a Latino on the ticket (BILL FOR VP!). With an increase even as little as 5% nationally and 1-2% locally the Dems could swing NM, AZ, CO, NV, and OH solidly in their camp. Florida is trending more and more GOP and with two Dem frontrunners siding against the Cuban embargo (Edwards and Obama) it might be a lost cause amongst that Hispanic body. That said xenophobia and nativism have historically all been lost causes as a welcoming America has consistently assimilated its immigrants so that all is citizens are truly its native sons.
they're not distributed uniformly. Writing them off could cost far more than 12%. From the presidential perspective, notice that: [ranked by percentage]
6. Maryland 1,468,243 5,296,486 27.72%
8. North Carolina 1,734,154 8,049,313 21.54%
9. Virginia 1,384,008 7,078,515 19.55%
10. Delaware 148,823 783,600 18.99%
13. Arkansas 417,881 2,673,400 15.63%
15. Florida 2,312,105 15,982,378 14.47%
16. Michigan 1,401,723 9,938,444 14.10%
17. New Jersey 1,127,266 8,414,350 13.40%
19. Ohio 1,288,359 11,353,140 11.35%
20. Missouri 622,087 5,595,211 11.12%
21. Pennsylvania 1,211,669 12,281,054 9.87%
These are all states that the GOP has flirted with winning [or won] in recent POTUS elections, but not states taht they can take for granted going in to the 2008 election, expedially in conjunction with hispanic voters [in NC, VA, etc].
I believe that black voters will help force the GOP to spend money holding on to VA and NC, are a key part of the Dems holding on to Michigan and Pennsylvania, are a wildcard for both OH and FL, and might help the Dems get AK and MO back into competitive or Dem columns.
The GOP is forgoing on their votes. Will Democrats be able to motivate them to the polls? If so, it could easily become a difference maker [along with the hispanic vote] in more than a half dozen states totatling over 100 EVs. If it happens, it will be significant.
I did not leave the Democratic Party the Democratic Party left me….The Democrats having a debate in Spanish was one of the most revolting things I have ever seen. This is United States of America, right?
It’s no surprise as all of them support “a path to Citizenship” for Illegal Aliens. You know Amnesty.
You act as if all “Hispanics” as you put it are pro Illegal Immigration(shockingly you left out the word “Illegal”). Ever hear of the group “You don’t speak for Me?” http://www.dontspeak…
If anything the Republicans NOT accepting the invitation of Univision to have a debate in Spanish will get them a huge number of new votes!
Please stop with the non-sense that if you support securing the borders and enforcing immigration laws that person is a racist, bigot or the infamous “anti-immigrant.”
The talking points of the open border, Illegal Alien, Globalist, anti-American crowd will not fly with American Citizens. I.E. the Bush-Kennedy Amnesty Bill going down in flames Twice this past summer.
Ask the average working American walking on the street how they feel about it. Guaranteed the majority are not happy about it regardless of political party.
Don't get me wrong the GOP is no picnic but I have zero faith in the Democratic candidates and it seems I disagree with their stance on issues more everyday.
People can’t speak Spanish now because you don’t like it? So much for free speech and the first amendment.
Looking at demographics, I am of the opinion that the largest blocs of hispanic voters whoare LEGALLY entitled to vote are confined to just a few states. Those states votes overwhelmingly democrat except for texas. It's like a business, you invest your money where it has the greatest return. Texas for whatever reason seems t remain a bit more republican even though the state has a significant hispanic population.
It would not surprise me whatsoever if California again failed fiscally and goes into receivership. Then we'll see where those dominoes fall.
The massive financial giveaways and entitlements have to come to end soon before we all are in the poor house and you get those stupid expressions of, “how did this happen?”
TC
except for texas.
And New Mexico.
And Arizona.
And Florida.
You misspelled one of America's two large political parties, and you forgot about three states worth a total of 42 electoral votes.
…it has occurred to me that people with Hispanic surnames are too fragmented to be considered a voting bloc.
<
p>
South FL seems to be apparently refugees from Cuba after Castro ousted the dictator Batista and set up his own dictatorship. And they tend to vote Republican, in large part because they want the US to help them get their former properties in Cuba back, and they believe that the Republicans are more likely to help do that than Democrats.
<
p>
Hispanics in other parts of the US, most notably the US southwest, apparently are economic refugees, and they are more likely to vote Democrat. One can argue whether the Democratic coalition is more likely to help them economically, but that appears to be the reason that they vote Democrat more often.
One reason non-[Cuban first wave] Hispanics tend to vote Democratic is because they tend to be more liberal on social issues. I'm not referring to gay marriage or even abortion in particular, but rather to social justice issues — labor, poverty, and public education issues. Maybe this stems from Catholic religious roots, or maybe it's something else.
The Hispanic voting population is quite complex, and to suggest that they vote for Dems only based on economic reasons is an awfully fiscal Republican way of looking at thigns, completely overlooking the notions that any given Hispanic — or a collection of them sharing a particular culture — might be interested in a political party and a nation that was more respectful of women, immigrants, dark-skinned people, the poor, blue collar workers, labor unions, consumer protection, the environment, public K-12 and higher ed, and so on.
And to cast the legal voting Hispanics in the US Southwest as economic refugees is just plain wrong. Sure, some were/are, but many [most?!] aren't. Heck, many of them are Americans because America took political control over the land their forefathers have lived on for generations. Many of them are American because they were born on American soil; they aren't immigrants/refugees at all.
…I was trying to simplify, using a couple of examples to illustrate the fact that persons with historically hispanic surnames are not a monolithic voting block.
Do you know how many black people belong to evangelical and conservative religious groups like Seventh Day Adventist? Or how many have become fed up with failed welfare state policies they can see with thier own eyes? There are many black conservatives, and they tend to vote Reublican, if not Libertarian or Constitution party.
The RNC Chair IS a Hispanic – Mel Martinez – who travels the country adressing Hispanic interest groups in their own language. Ironically, his stiffest competition for the RNC Chairmanship was Michael Steele, a black man from Maryland.
And you have….Howard Dean. Who called the GOP a 'white, Christian party' while the chair was Ken Mehlman, who is Jewish.
Tell me more about Democratic diversity.
You mean English, right?
Every hispanic person must know how to speak Spanish. And everyone who speaks with a hispanic accent must be an illegal immigrant, too.
<
p>
My friend, who is a fair-skinned black woman, is often thought to be hispanic. People of all ethnicities, but mostly White, approach her and try to initiate conversation in Spanish to the point it gets quite irritating. It’s a thing of beauty to see this woman go from sweet and happy to an angry retort of “Oh, so you think you can tell what languages I speak based on the color of my skin? What other psychic abilities do you have, Nostradamus (or Miss Cleo, etc)”.
That's true if you think that 5-10% of 12% of 300 million people is “many”.
Why do I lowball black conservatives? Well, after all, you didn't clarify with the word voting and there's no question that incarceration rates combined with voter eligibility laws strip young black men of their voting rights — a demographic that most certainly does not bring up the percentage of black conservatives.
And just when Jesse Helms whistlin' Dixie in elevators in D.C. is almost forgotten, Katrina reminds black Americans just how reliable the GOP is in not addressing the needs of black communities. Add that to the GOP ignoring NAACP events, tax cuts for the [very rarely black] rich, constantly linking dark skin color and crime in political advertisements [Kerry Healey et al], and what do blacks and the GOP have in common?
The only thing I can think of is homophobia/bigotry toward gays, particularly amongst regular churchgoers in both groups. For blacks, it seems that just isn't enough for the GOP to win their votes.
Not to mention, PP’s argument is severely undermined by:
<
p>
A.) Everything Charley said, especially about the PBS debate.
<
p>
B.) Only one Republican, Tom Tancredo, showed up to July’s NAACP Presidential Forum, whereas each of the Democrats showed up for their NAACP forum.
<
p>
C.) George Bush recently said, “The Blacks didn’t come out for me like the Hispanics did so they’re not going to see much help from me.”
<
p>
D.) It is no a coincidence that the members of bigoted anti-Immigrant & White Supremacist groups vote Republican. I’ll admit these radical hate groups are just as fringe as certain extremely out-of-touch WTC conspiracy-theory lefty types, but I’m proud to say I have more in common with the conspiracy theory loons than the White Power movement or loons like this.
You today:
Us today:
You four years ago:
Us four years ago:
This is an argument you're going to win. Yeah.
Of course there are a handful of black conservatives, but Peter, come on: can you really defend losing the Af-Am vote by 80-some points every election? I'm also aware that your fave candidate and others find little use in addressing a predominantly black or Latino audience. I'm not making that up, I'm not making that decision for them.
If you think it's so outrageous that Dean would say such a thing, then tell your party to adopt policies that attract more than 10-12% of the Af-Am vote; a majority of the Latino vote; more than 30% of the Jewish vote; and on and on.
Democratic diversity doesn't need to be proven; it just is. The votes say so.
PS: Mel Martinez is Cuban-American, so his being Republican is typical.
…has David’s question about Mitt’s pre-1978 position on the fact that Black men and the LDS priesthood (priesthood is not per se clergy, it’s more like confirmation) ever been answered?
George Romney was railroaded out of HUD by Nixon for integrating suburban affordable housing developments! Mitt said that when he heard on the radio that the policy had changed, he pulled over and thanked GOD!
The Romney family has a very strong history on civil rights.
Tell me – was Kery precluded from running for President by the irresponsible position taken by his church in the 1970's on pedophilia?
…pre-1978 about the policy?
…did that “pulled over to the side of the road and thanked God” story first appear?
Now answer MY question – should Kerry have had to answer for the positions of the Roman Catholic church and its priesthood scandal? Why didn't he distance himself?
If the bigotry thing won't fly, wanna bring the great-grandfather story back?
…I have no reason to believe that this politically convenient story is true. Another Mitt lie.
<
p>
Since you seem to know, what did John Kerry say about the Catholic church child rape cases when asked?
And that is my point. If there is no on-the-record public statement in a neutral medium from Mitt, then he's a liar and approved.
Why would that not hold true for Kerry and the 1970's as well? At least Kerry WAS a politicl figure at that time, and 'should' have made a statement.
If so, what did he say?