JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,767
- Thread starter
- #181
These are the three interesting points from rdean's posts
3. Latinos in Nevada have been consistently moving away from the Republican party. Recall that in the 2010 general election when Republican Sharon Angle embraced an anti-immigrant platform for her campaign she won only 8% of the Latino vote, to 90% for Harry Reid. In a detailed analysis of the demographics and political profile of Latinos in Nevada Brookings Mountain West summed it up this way:
In sum, based upon analysis of survey data from the 2012 election it appears that within Nevada’s Latino community there are few if any sub‐populations where the Republican Party has much traction. Much of the Republican Party’s struggles with Latino voters in Nevada stems from the inconsistency between the GOP’s policy agenda and the preferences of most Latino voters in the state and the perceived insensitivity of the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, towards the state’s Latino community.4. Just looking at Latino participation in the Democratic and Republican caucuses, there were an estimated 16,500 Latinos who participated in the Democratic caucus and cast a Democratic ballot. On the Republican side it was about 6,000 and Trump came away with an estimated 2,600 Latino votes, or only 11% of all Latinos participants in the caucuses.
5. In a poll of Latino voters in general election battleground states (which included Nevada), impreMedia and Latino Decisions found that 80% of Latino voters said Trump’s statements about Mexicans and immigrants gave them a less favorable opinion of the GOP overall. This has been corroborated by Gallup’s monthly tracker and NBC polling, and reported by CNN in their headline “Latinos see Donald Trump as hurting GOP brand“and most recently by Political Science professor Lynn Vavreck writing for the New York Times Upshot who called him “damager-in-chief to the party reputation” among Latinos.
Every immigrant ethnic group that has migrated to this country began its first couple of generations as Democrat constituencies.
Why? Because that is the Tamany Hall ward politics methodology. The Democrats have been doing this for over 200 years, and they are damned good at it along with advancing the interests of farmers.
What have the Republicans been good at? Offering good policies that defend the interests of the Middle Class in this country and the business leaders. Those two groups had largely the same interests for the longest time, up until FDR won election and that was because the urban population had become the largest and even middle class people wanted some safety network as they lost their ties to extended family in rural areas who could take them in and give them room and board during a bad spell. It was not an uncommon thing previously, to have families suddenly take in an aunt or uncle that was elderly and no longer able to take care of themselves. Democrats offered help for that kind of problem. By 1960, even though Eisenhower had won two terms, the Democrats were looking like they would run American politics in Congress for decades more (they did) and they dominated national politics.
But then another change came to US politics with Nixon and his reaction to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He developed his 'Southern Strategy' and focused on winning whites in the South and destroyed the old yellow dog Democrat South and he won a landslide victory against McGovern in 1972 as the Democrat lurched to the far left.
Since that time the Democrats have been steadily losing support from the integrated Middle Class, and so they have fought to keep new immigrants from assimilating as much as possible. They have advanced 'Identity Politics' and demonized whites in every way imaginable from the mean old bidnessman to the poaching red neck to the old racist cracka to now the Trumpians who the Dems say want to run all the Hispanics out of the country.
But minorities see through this bullshit for the most part now. That W Bush was able to win 40% of the Hispanic vote in Texas in 2004, not because he pandered to them, but because of 911 and the patriotism of Hispanic voters led them to favor the current commander in chief.
Hispanics are not the pile of stupid ass voters that Democrats make them out to be. They will not vote against their own economic interests, and they dont identify with the illegal Julio who lives down the street and who is part of the reason that American born Hispanics are seeing more antipathy from other Americans now. No, he will vote for jobs, and Trump is going to get him those jobs. And if that gets Trump 40% of the Hispanic vote, great, but it is not nearly so important to the Republicans than it is to get the 45% of voters who self identify as conservative to be motivated to go vote for him at the polls, which they didnt do for Romney because the knew Romney for the Vulture Capitalist he is.
So the issue really is not how does Trump pander to Hispanics to get their votes. His challenge is how to get Hispanic votes with issues that also appeal to the Republican middle class conservative base as well.
And I would bet he is able to do it come this November, just like he has manipulated the media into 'financing' his campaign with free air time, just like he has dominated the polls against professional politicians from the day he announced for President.
The political pros said Trump could not be competitive with Hispanics and that the GOP had to nominate a Hispanic to head the ticket, but Trump has proven that to be complete bullshit too. And when the general election campaign kicks off, and he focuses on winning that election, you will see a shift in Trumps rhetoric and his style to appeal to minority voters. And that is why he will get 30ish% of Hispanics and 10ish% from blacks.