Posted on 11/27/2012 6:35:10 AM PST by Kaslin
The Republican strategists who confidently predicted that their candidate, Mitt Romney, would win the 2012 election are already pontificating about what Republicans must do to win in 2016. After their disastrous defeat, strategy and policy mistakes and expensive super PAC advertising that failed to win votes, why should anybody take their advice again?
The elitists now tell us that amnesty for illegal aliens, aka "immigration reform," is the key to future Republican nirvana. That's wrong-headed advice.
Barack Obama sealed his victory in the battleground states: Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia and New Hampshire, but those states have very few Hispanics, and illegal immigration was not a significant issue. Obama won narrowly in Florida, another battleground state, but the Hispanic vote there is Cuban and Puerto Rican, and they don't care about immigration laws.
Most polls show that Romney's pro-enforcement policies were more popular than Obama's pro-amnesty views. Let's look at some numbers.
In regard to the entry of illegal aliens, a CBS poll in August found that 63 percent of voters believed that Arizona's immigration enforcement laws are either "about right" or "didn't go far enough." This was confirmed by a Breitbart News election-night poll reporting that 61 percent of voters favored Arizona-style immigration laws, including 63 percent of independents, 53 percent of blacks and even 40 percent of Democrats.
The notion that the main reason Hispanics vote Democratic is their support of amnesty for illegal aliens and their resentment against Republicans who oppose it is a big political lie. The reason Hispanics vote Democratic is that two-thirds of Mexican immigrant families, although they are hard workers, are in or near poverty, and 57 percent use at least one welfare program, which is twice the rate of native-born non-Hispanic households.
That's not a constituency for whom promises of amnesty for more poor immigrants would persuade them to vote for the party that is branded as supporting tax cuts for the rich, limited government and spending reductions. Nor does it mean that Hispanics are a voting bloc eager to vote for a white Cuban, Marco Rubio, instead of the party that is offering them cash, health care and other benefits.
The elitists are trying to wrap their fallacious argument in Ronald Reagan, but that won't wash. Reagan was persuaded to sign a major amnesty bill for the then-illegal aliens, but it's well known that the resultant amnesty was rife with fraud and did not produce Republican votes.
In Reagan's 1980 victory, he received 35 percent of the Latino vote, and in his landslide of 1984, he received 37 percent. After Reagan's generous 1986 amnesty, George H.W. Bush's 1988 victory produced only 30 percent of the Latino vote.
Another myth about Hispanic voters is the notion that social issues will get them to vote Republican because they are Christian and pro-family. The Hispanic illegitimacy birth rate is 53 percent, about twice that of whites, and a Pew Research Center poll now reports that the majority of Hispanics support gay marriage.
An American National Election Study asked a question about free market versus government solutions. Only 17.9 percent of Hispanics responded "the less government the better," and 83.3 percent said a strong government involvement is required to handle economic problems.
The pro-amnesty crowd waged an expensive campaign this year to defeat the famous Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, but he nevertheless won his reelection. He said he wants to talk "man to man" with Obama and explain that granting amnesty to illegal aliens is unfair to legal immigrants.
Policymakers should read the studies by Cuban exile scholar Jose Azel that probe into Hispanic attitudes and history. He concludes that the sociopolitical heritage from Spain and the post-colonial experience of Latin America have led Latinos to view government very differently from the principles of limited government enunciated and adopted by our Founding Fathers.
There isn't any real evidence of Mexican assimilation to parallel the Irish and Italian assimilation in the early 20th century. The assimilation of the Irish and Italians absolutely depended on stopping the entry of more new foreigners, which the United States did in the 1920s.
The voting bloc that Mitt Romney ignored, but which Republicans must recapture if they ever want to win again, is the blue-collar men without a college degree who had well-paid manufacturing jobs until the free traders shipped those jobs overseas. They used to be called Reagan Democrats, and they were an essential part of the big victories won by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Republicans need a new strategy to recapture those good middle class jobs. We don't need them merely for Republican votes; we need them also to restore our manufacturing capacity and jobs for economic, national security, and family-support reasons.
New immigrants will always always ALWAYS ALWAYS vote Democrat. Just as my Irish forebearers did when they got off the boat a century and a half ago. Just as all the Italians in our neighborhood did in the 1940’s.
The second or third generation tends to turn right after they’ve had some success and accumulated some wealth (which may never happen to Hispanics under Obama policies)
Common-sense-about-illegal-aliens PING
The only thing that will ever elect Republicans again to the Presidency are voter ID laws in all states to prevent cheating like we have seen in 2012. Anything else is just talk. It is not possible to have a representational republic without secure and authentic election results.
When is the treatment of American citizens in Mexico and their rights vs US treatment of Mexicans going to be an issue when we discuss amnesty ?
Ever hear of reciprocal aggrements ? These are arranged to protect the rights of American citizens working or living in other countries.
Why is it when it comes to citizens of other countries we are required to offer them the same privledges as we do to US citizens? But when it comes to US citizens who get in trouble or attempt to do business in other countries they do not get the same treatment their citizens get.
Americans can’t own coast land in Mexico. And get no title to it elsewhere. If they run out of cash they’ll get unceremoniously sent back or put in jail untill some relative comes up with the “fresh”. That’s just for starters as for granting them voting privledges yea let’s give Mexican citizens that right when American citizens vote in their elections
New immigrants will always always ALWAYS ALWAYS vote Democrat
___________________________________________
I think you mean new American citizens...
New immigrants are not eligible to vote...
Meanwhile new American citizerns DO NOT ALWAYS vote Democrat...
I never heard this myth until AFTER I had voted for Reagan in 1980 when an appalled Democrat who had immgrated 20 years before me told me that I was supposed to have voted for the Democrat since I was an immigrant...
Say HUH ???
11/13/2012 9:13:00 AM
What now, conservatives? Relax, we’re winning the war
Richard Moore
Investigative Reporter
Not too long ago I wrote a column about how dynamic and vigorous the conservative movement in this country was and how quickly it was morphing into the most potent American political force of the young century.
The conservative wave of the future, I called it.
At first blush, looking at last Tuesday’s election results, it looks as if my prognosis was just a hair off, having missed the mark by about a century. On Wednesday, the conservative movement lay seemingly battered on the shore, looking less like a tidal wave than a wrecked ship run aground by a tsunami.
That’s exactly what the mainstream media called it in the wake of President Obama’s re-election. The president’s expansive electoral army of 2008, they intoned, was not a one-time deal after all but a durable coalition capable of dominating American politics for a generation or more.
To hear the tale, the Republican Party has lost everyone in the country except old, white men. Minorities, women, the young, environmentalists, urban liberals – this is the alliance of victory and of the future.
I beg to differ. The election results notwithstanding, this analysis is deeply blinkered. Indeed, a close look at the returns indicates big trouble looming for the Democratic Party, not for the GOP.
No, I am not out in Colorado smoking newly legal weed. Consider this: Mr. Obama’s durable coalition was considerably weaker this time around. As of Nov. 8, for example, the president had received about nine-million fewer votes than he did in 2008. Not all the ballots had been counted, and that number will shrink, but he clearly will receive substantially fewer votes than his remarkable 2008 total.
On the other side of the coin, the Democrats have their own growing racial problem – their inability to attract white voters. Winning only 39 percent of 72 percent of the electorate gives the opposition 42 percent of the total vote from the get-go. That should give Democratic Party leaders pause because, given population trend lines, the proportion of white voters is likely to remain above 60 percent for at least the next 20 years.
None of this is to say the GOP doesn’t have a minority conundrum. Any time you get less than 25 percent of the nonwhite vote, it’s a problem, and a growing one if the GOP can’t make inroads into those constituencies.
So both parties have voting-bloc impediments beyond their respective foundations, but this begs the question, which is more likely to hold and enlarge its base?
That quite clearly would be the Republican Party. Let’s take a look at why the mainstream media consensus is biased.
First, the voting blocs are mischaracterized. The Republican base is defined as a mass of old, white voters, while the Democratic Party is depicted as a broad and sweeping coalition. On Election night, for example, after exit polls were reviewed, ABC News blared out: “Obama’s winning coalition of women and nonwhites.”
Look again, though, and there is no ‘and’ in the mix. Mr. Obama’s base is nonwhite voters and, as a practical matter, nonwhite voters only. Sure, radical white feminists, white urban liberals, young white college students and white environmentalists are there, but those activist pods represent a miniscule share of the voting population.
http://lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=10&SubSectionID=68&ArticleID=16315&TM=35274.06
The “representational republic” is apparently an idea much in disfavor these days. Ben Franklin advised early on, that our form of government was, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
From time to time, we have managed to lose sight of this principle, slathering over that singular belief in a misplaced devotion to “democracy”, a most invidious and treacherous form of government that ends up devouring its own substance.
We are experiencing a moment of history in which there has been way too much “democracy”, and it is about to reduce us to a long-term period of servitude, whether voluntary or involuntary.
One of the things that preserved the original Republic of the United States of America for so long, was the limitation of the vote franchise to those who actually understood the issues and had a stake in the its well-being.
This was, for much of our history, a requirement that the voter be literate, and that some degree of responsibility had been demonstrated, as achieving ownership of property, and not having actively flouted the law.
Over time, these restrictions on who could exercise the franchise of voting were lifted, by reducing the literacy requirements to the lowest, slowest, and dumbest common denominator, by lowering the standards of what constituted “property”, and by allowing those who had committed crimes, even as a felon, to have full rights to vote restored by legislative fiat.
Plus it has become ever much more difficult to define that the person is really who they SAY they are.
One of the main drivers for a voter to elect a new President is when things are bad enough for the majority of voters and they want “change”.
This past election was about those who wanted free stuff bad enough to cheat to get it, but were ignorant about where the money will come from to continue it infinitum.
I don’t think we’ll ever elect another conservative until the coffers run dry enough to deny the entitlement class their freebies.
One of the main conservative planks is to “reform entitlements”...the obamites don’t want it reformed, and will do whatever it takes (the end justifies the means) to keep those checks rolling in.
Voter ID, abolishment of early voting, motor voting and same day registration are just a few of the steps that need to be taken.
If we maintain status quo, the Feds will never do any of that, so it will fall to the state level...specifically the Governors and the Secretaries of state.
I don’t really know if this past election was the last election, but I do know that unfair elections have brought us to this point.
If the elections go by the wayside, or become “ceremonial” only, the only way left to decide our leadership is by dictatorial means...leadership by coup.
We, the people, aren’t powerful enough, individually, to fight the battle, but the states can be. I think our impetus for 2016 should be on the state races, as I don’t look for obama to step down gracefully unless he finds a kindred spirit - like Hillary - to step in and continue his quest for Socialism/Marxism and the demise of the United States of America, and her Constitution.
/opinion
Somebody should tell Boehner and our other "leaders."
I’ll stay home. I’ve voted over 30 years but i will stay home.
Boehner & Co sold us out.
Stopped reading. No sale.
Phyllis Schafley has a much more realistic take on that topic.
That reply was for Key Largo, sorry.
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.