Why the GOP Can't Win With Minorities (Excellent Column)

WSJ ^ | 3/16/09 | Shelby Steele

[calex59]

We can't win with minorities, I don't give a sh** what we use. Our message is wrong to them. They want a government that gives them everything, conservatives don't believe in that. The dems promise pie in the sky(actually on the ground)and the minorities lap it up. They only way we would ever win any minorities over the conservative way of thinking is through education, starting at a very young age.

This is what the communistic left wing has done in this country and until we can take back the schools we will never win minorities.

[maica]

I changed the status of the thread to locked.

%%%%%%

Thank you.

[Evoter]

This is not a fact, it’s your opinion.

The problem is, it’s an opinion that’s not even based in fact.

A majority of Blacks do not receive welfare. To suggest that a majority of Blacks vote Democrat due to wanting to keep their welfare is a logical fallacy.

A majority can’t be voting to keep something a don’t have.

Now, if you want to argue entitlement, role of government, past perceived injustice...ect ..ect that’s fine.

A majority of Blacks vote to keep welfare is too simple and does not speak to the challenges of the time. It’s a urban legend (pun intended) which has become self sustaining and ignores the broader topics

[driftless2]

"32 percent"

I had read an article a while back that claimed Nixon got fortyfive percent of the black vote and Goldwater only fifteen percent in 1964. I've been unable to verify that claim through research. Your total seems to be the one most cited by the articles I did find that mentioned the 1960 election. I can't find the database that lists the official numbers. But even if Republicans got only thirty-two percent of the vote today, most Dems wouldn't get elected dogcatcher.

[ansel12]

"In 1960, Nixon got forty-five percent of the Black vote. In 1964 Goldwater only got about twenty percent."

============================================================

Actually Nixon got 32% of the Black vote and Goldwater only got 6%.

[jveritas]

Entitlements and bigger role of the government are WELFARE.

[ansel12]

“I had read an article a while back that claimed Nixon got fortyfive percent of the black vote and Goldwater only fifteen percent in 1964. I’ve been unable to verify that claim through research. Your total seems to be the one most cited by the articles I did find that mentioned the 1960 election. I can’t find the database that lists the official numbers. But even if Republicans got only thirty-two percent of the vote today, most Dems wouldn’t get elected dogcatcher.”

---

Getting 25 or 30% of the black vote would make a huge difference and people forget that winning part of the black vote also means winning more of the white and Hispanic vote.

Many white voters vote against republicans because to them the tiny black vote is evidence that supports the medias message that republicans are anti black.

Black voter numbers like 25 and 30% would mean that the stereotype was being broken and that would mean percentage rises across all groups and races for the republican party.

[jveritas]

Many white voters vote against republicans because to them the tiny black vote is evidence that supports the medias message that republicans are anti black.

In fact the majority of white racists belong in the democrat party. Liberals are racists because they use the race card all the time and have been destroying the black families for the last 50 years by making them more and more dependent on the government in exchange for their vote. The union blue collar workers have a lot of racism and they vote democrat.

[ansel12]

Thanks for sharing that with me but I was pointing out that any successful campaign or strategy that succeeded in winning over large numbers of conservative blacks would at the same time be winning over some other minorities and some whites all at the same time.

[adorno]

Every election the Republicans won was without winning the minorities vote. In fact they won these elections despite the vast majority of the minorities voting against them.

When republicans can pull in some 40 to 45% of Hispanics, and 85% of blacks, we stand a very good chance of winning most elections.

When Hispanics vote 70% for democrats and blacks vote 90-95% for democrats, we can't win.

We can't win because, when whites are split pretty much down the middle when voting for democrats and republicans, the huge "minority" vote which almost exclusively votes democrat will, of course, swing the election to democrats. That 95% black vote in the last election pretty much decided the election. Thus, in a way, we have a "democracy" by minority rule.

[Hawk1976]

Yep, DC would be better off just terminating it’s public school program. There is no return on the investment, and the kids would learn more in the streets. That is the fault of the parents and the administrators.

[jveritas]

That 95% black vote in the last election pretty much decided the election.

A 95% of the black vote going democrat in 2008 versus a 91% in of the black vote going democrat 2004 makes less than 0.5% difference of the total votes as blacks only represent 13% of the electorate.

[adorno]

A 95% of the black vote going democrat in 2008 versus a 91% in of the black vote going democrat 2004 makes less than 0.5% difference of the total votes as blacks only represent 13% of the electorate.

Don't forget the huge Hispanic vote which I mentioned.

However, the black vote might be "just" 13% of the vote, but that still represents a huge chunk of the overall vote. So, what I said still stands... if whites vote in approximate equal numbers for democrats and republicans, the many millions of black votes will swing the election to the democrats. It's not just the small fraction which you mentioned.

[jveritas]

As I said 91% of black vote verus 95% for the democrats is equivalent to total shift of exactly 0.52% of the total vote based on the fact that blacks represents 13% of the electoral vote. That is not enough to sway the elections.

The White vote went from 58% in 2004 for Republican to 55% in 2008. In other word the democrats went from 16% deficit among White voters in 2004 to a 10% deficit. Based on 75% of the electorate being White this represent a 4.5% shift in the total vote in favor of the democrat.

[iopscusa]

AMPG, I agree with you, we need to effectively communicate that we are the party that cares enough to tell the truth and not to pander. we are the party of truth and consequences!

[iopscusa]

In the midst of our recent troubles, Conservatives have forgotten what a terrible candidate McCain was even with Palin and what huge advantage with the MSM/$$$/BDS which Obama had...McCain actually was a lot closer than I expected.
IMO, Obama will be a lot less formidable in 2012, assuming he is able to defeat Hillary again for the nomination.

[Cacique]

btt

[JWinNC]

Steele makes some good points, but I think his basic premise, that conservatism offers only discipline and the “invisible hand” is wrong.

True American conservatism offers more than this; read Russell Kirk for example. The whole idea of “Ordered Liberty” has to be vigorously maintained by the people, the law, and a limited but effective government.

There is more “hope and change” in an ounce of conservatism than there is in a pound of liberal/progressive/socialist hash.

jw

[Altura Ct.]

So does this mean that the “hip-hop makeover” isn’t working?

[stevio]

Good reply to Heartlandmom, as I was scrolling down I was thinking of a reply to her, but you did well.