Posted on 06/15/2009 9:19:17 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
“And exactly how much of that Latino vote is presently illegal?”
Honestly, not much, none at all. These are legal Latinos in Texas, some here a few generations, added to more who are anchor babies.
“Texas falling to the Rats = Bush/McCain legacy. “
Nah, the voters now are the legalized citizens from the 1986 amnesty who are now about 13-15% of voters, ie a bigger minority than African-Americans. Since Bush/McCain never got amnesty you cant exactly blame them.
OTOH if Pelosi/Obama do the amnesty then we are sunk - another 20 million hispanic voters in the next 15 years, shifting the electorate in the Democrat direction by a net 10 million votes. In short, a permanent Democrat majority.
It might be the Obama legacy.
THERE IS A SIMPLE NON-EASY SOLUTION: Fight for every Hispanic vote you can. Fight to stop amnesty. Fight to have rational immigration law.
“The winner take all electoral system means we’ve probably seen the last Republican President for at least 40 years. The demographics for minorities and the fleeing of RATS from thier doomed states to the Red states means the END of Republican Presidents. The only chance is to change the winner take all system to a proportional one.”
Wrong, you have it backwards. The large states are Dem states, but electoral college favors small and medium state influence. go to ‘popular vote’ and just racking up vote totals in urban areas will make the Dems win.
The GOP can pick the lock by winning back more urban and minority voters.
we dont need a majority of blacks or hispanics, but losing blacks 10 to 1 and hispanics 2 to 1 makes the rest a steep hill to climb.
“Wrong, you have it backwards. The large states are Dem states, but electoral college favors small and medium state influence. go to ‘popular vote’ and just racking up vote totals in urban areas will make the Dems win.”
Complete nonsense. I never advocated a popular vote system but that also would give Repubs a greater chance than the winner take all system. Currently Repubs get NO ELECTORAL VOTES from the largest states. They start out with a huge disadvantage in Presidential elections. In the current system if the rats win a state’s pop vote with 55:45 ratio Repubs get NOTHING, in a proportional system the RATS would get 55% of the electoral vote and the Reps would get 45%. That would be a great benefit to the Reps and would make candidates have to campaign in all 50 states rather than just the close ones. If Texas goes RAT (as is the current trend) due to hispanic influence, migration of RATS from failed blue states and probable amnesty for illegals, the Reps have NO CHANCE of winning the Presidency. The migration of blue state voters to red states and changing them to blue is a huge problem. Turning a few minority voters (how would that be done anyway) wouldnt change a thing.
“THERE IS A SIMPLE NON-EASY SOLUTION: Fight for every Hispanic vote you can. Fight to stop amnesty. Fight to have rational immigration law.”
Unfortunately those seem to be mutually exclusive. If you support immigration reform/amnesty, millions of formerly hispanics get to vote, prob 70/30 RAT. If you vote against amnesty you get branded an anti-hispanic racist and lose the hispanic vote by a larger margin. The fallacy of your plan is evident just by looking at recent election results. Bush supported amnesty, spoke some spanish and even has some hispanic family members. Did he win the majority of hispanics? McCain, who also strongly supported amnesty, also lost the hispanic vote to a guy the hispanics reportedly didnt trust. There is no evidence that the repubs will win the hispanic vote no matter what they do.
There weren't many in the 2008 results. The 2004 CNN exit polls had religious breakdowns for almost every state and the results were fascinating (for example, Catholics only went 50% to 49% for Kerry in Massachusetts). I am having trouble pulling them up though. You might try playing around with google a bit.
“If you vote against amnesty you get branded an anti-hispanic racist and lose the hispanic vote by a larger margin. The fallacy of your plan is evident just by looking at recent election results. Bush supported amnesty, spoke some spanish and even has some hispanic family members. Did he win the majority of hispanics? McCain, who also strongly supported amnesty, also lost the hispanic vote to a guy the hispanics reportedly didnt trust. There is no evidence that the repubs will win the hispanic vote no matter what they do.”
South Texas is very DEMOCRATIC but is also very CONSERVATIVE. It’s thanks to Hispanic Democrats that some conservative and prolife legislation gets passed in the Texas House.
To put it another way, the whacko leftists are either blacks or whites, but often not hispanics.
You say ... “There is no evidence that the repubs will win the hispanic vote no matter what they do.”
... how hard have you tried? And maybe it has nothing to do with amnesty.
Bush in 1998 won the majority of hispanic vote running for Gov. By doing so, he managed to rack up a huge majority.
Go figure.
Rather than say it CANT be done. Note that #1 it HAS been done and ask the question: How can we do it AGAIN?
thanks forposting this. Very interesting
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.