What Is The Republican Path To Victory?

[Saiwania]

That not the only option they have, just one of them, though keep in mind that what they're doing right now isn't helping them. Understanding the problems minorities face and not painting them as just people "who want stuff" is a good start.

It is true that non-Whites respond better to getting that "stuff" than not, it just can't be phrased that way. If stuff has to be given as part of the solution then that is what has to be done.

[Blasveck]

That not the only option they have, just one of them, though keep in mind that what they're doing right now isn't helping them. Understanding the problems minorities face and not painting them as just people "who want stuff" is a good start.

It is true that non-Whites respond better to getting that "stuff" than not, it just can't be phrased that way. If stuff has to be given as part of the solution then that is what has to be done.

Do I have to keep repeating this?

They vote Democrat, so they must like something about the Democratic party's platform. If it isn't entitlements, I don't know what else it can possibly be. The Republican message just will not work for these people, so it needs a new one. Hopefully it won't be just copying what the Democratic party is doing.

Well, I can't say I'm surprised that you fail to understand the plight of the people who receive welfare in the first place, who, may I remind you, consist mostly of people who are unable to work in the first place. (i.e. the disabled and elderly)

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkb ... ix-charts/

3) Three-quarters of entitlement benefits written into law in the United States go toward the elderly or disabled. That's according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And a big chunk of the rest goes to working households. Only about 9 percent of all entitlement benefits go toward non-elderly, non-disabled households without jobs (and much of that involves health care and unemployment insurance)

CBPP notes that this ratio doesn't change if you include low-income discretionary programs (such as rental assistance or the Women, Infants and Children program) that have to be renewed each year.

Which, to get back on topic, is another issue the GOP has. It has a false perception of who receives welfare.

Unfortunately, so does a good portion of the American public.

[The Emerald Dawn]

It is true that non-Whites respond better to getting that "stuff" than not, it just can't be phrased that way. If stuff has to be given as part of the solution then that is what has to be done.

Do I have to keep repeating this?

Well, I can't say I'm surprised that you fail to understand the plight of the people who receive welfare in the first place, who, may I remind you, consist mostly of people who are unable to work in the first place. (i.e. the disabled and elderly)

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkb ... ix-charts/



Which, to get back on topic, is another issue the GOP has. It has a false perception of who receives welfare.

Unfortunately, so does a good portion of the American public.

But don't you see? We disabled are "takers". Despite paying more in taxes than I receive in benefits.

[Saiwania]

Do I have to keep repeating this?

I'm not simply dismissing non-Whites as "people who want stuff" in my last post so much as just acknowledging the reality that non-Whites are currently voting for the party which gives them more "stuff" than the party which isn't giving them anything. I'm willing to bet that the GOP would have more short term success among non-Whites if they caved in and just allowed for stronger entitlements and social safety nets. In the long term however, Republicans will need a brand new platform and coalition.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Do I have to keep repeating this?

I'm not simply dismissing non-Whites as "people who want stuff" in my last post so much as just acknowledging the reality that non-Whites are currently voting for the party which gives them more "stuff" than the party which isn't giving them anything. I'm willing to bet that the GOP would have more short term success among non-Whites if they caved in and just allowed for stronger entitlements and social safety nets. In the long term however, Republicans will need a brand new platform and coalition.

You are aware that the elderly, by far the largest beneficiary of "stuff", vote en masse for Republicans, right?

Meaning that your point, or at least what you think your point is, is bullshit.

[Othelos]

Do I have to keep repeating this?

I'm not simply dismissing non-Whites as "people who want stuff" in my last post so much as just acknowledging the reality that non-Whites are currently voting for the party which gives them more "stuff" than the party which isn't giving them anything. I'm willing to bet that the GOP would have more short term success among non-Whites if they caved in and just allowed for stronger entitlements and social safety nets. In the long term however, Republicans will need a brand new platform and coalition.

Because minorities = the poor, right?

[Occupied Deutschland]

I'm not simply dismissing non-Whites as "people who want stuff" in my last post so much as just acknowledging the reality that non-Whites are currently voting for the party which gives them more "stuff" than the party which isn't giving them anything. I'm willing to bet that the GOP would have more short term success among non-Whites if they caved in and just allowed for stronger entitlements and social safety nets. In the long term however, Republicans will need a brand new platform and coalition.

Because minorities = the poor, right?

In general it is true.

Especially on a relative basis. I think Asians might be on average outside of that group, but I'm not sure.

But other than that yes, a large portion of the poor is made up of minority groups.

[Marshill]

Erase everyone's memory of the years 2001 through 2008 inclusive. In my particular case, erase my memory of opening my October 2008 investment statement to find two-fifths of our net worth on paper vanished. Good luck with that.

[New Ander]

Some recent polls both in November 2013

Chris Christie 43% Sample size 2545 Margin of error 1.9%
Hillary Clinton 42% Sample size 2545 Margin of error 1.9%

Chris Christie 39% Sample Size 1000 Marigin of error 3%
Joe Biden 34% Sample Size 1000 Margin of error 3%

[Marshill]

... a large portion of the poor is made up of minority groups.

The largest racial group among the poor in the U.S., accounting for two of every five individuals in poverty, is white non-hispanics.

[Occupied Deutschland]

... a large portion of the poor is made up of minority groups.

The largest racial group among the poor in the U.S., accounting for two of every five individuals in poverty, is white non-hispanics.

'large portion'.

Besides which one must account for the population differences of those respective groups for a comparison to be made.

[Othelos]

Because minorities = the poor, right?

In general it is true.

Especially on a relative basis. I think Asians might be on average outside of that group, but I'm not sure.

But other than that yes, a large portion of the poor is made up of minority groups.

I know that a large portion of the poor are minorities.

My point was that the poster above was implying that the vast majority of minorities are welfare beneficiaries, which isn't true.

[Nigerian Kenya]

... a large portion of the poor is made up of minority groups.

The largest racial group among the poor in the U.S., accounting for two of every five individuals in poverty, is white non-hispanics.

However, if you add up the hispanic, black, and asian columns, essentially the "minority columns", you get ~69%. That's way larger than 41 percent for white non-hispanics. The point was that the majority of the poor is composed of minorities - that's true, the stat for that is ~69%.

[The Tundra]

The largest racial group among the poor in the U.S., accounting for two of every five individuals in poverty, is white non-hispanics.

However, if you add up the hispanic, black, and asian columns, essentially the "minority columns", you get ~69%. That's way larger than 41 percent for white non-hispanics. The point was that the majority of the poor is composed of minorities - that's true, the stat for that is ~69%.

if we go back to what he said, he stated that if a minority is present, its relative to assume he/she is poor. which is wrong, and pretty racist.

[Mavorpen]

Do I have to keep repeating this?

I'm not simply dismissing non-Whites as "people who want stuff" in my last post so much as just acknowledging the reality that non-Whites are currently voting for the party which gives them more "stuff" than the party which isn't giving them anything. I'm willing to bet that the GOP would have more short term success among non-Whites if they caved in and just allowed for stronger entitlements and social safety nets. In the long term however, Republicans will need a brand new platform and coalition.

Promising entitlements and social safety nets would do jack shit if they repeatedly make racist comments and endorse racist actions against minorities.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I'm not simply dismissing non-Whites as "people who want stuff" in my last post so much as just acknowledging the reality that non-Whites are currently voting for the party which gives them more "stuff" than the party which isn't giving them anything. I'm willing to bet that the GOP would have more short term success among non-Whites if they caved in and just allowed for stronger entitlements and social safety nets. In the long term however, Republicans will need a brand new platform and coalition.

Promising entitlements and social safety nets would do jack shit if they repeatedly make racist comments and endorse racist actions against minorities.

Or, even better, do so with an obvious air of "White Man's Burden".

[Saiwania]

Promising entitlements and social safety nets would do jack shit if they repeatedly make racist comments and endorse racist actions against minorities.

What racist actions are those? I mean, asides from support for voter ID laws and being against immigration reform? Most of the problems I can discern stem from fundamental ideology disagreements. There is just no path to victory which doesn't involve the Republicans becoming far less conservative as a political party. The Hispanics must want to be able to bring in their extended family from Mexico. That is where the demand for immigration reform is coming from.

[Salandriagado]

Promising entitlements and social safety nets would do jack shit if they repeatedly make racist comments and endorse racist actions against minorities.

What racist actions are those? I mean, asides from support for voter ID laws and being against immigration reform? Most of the problems I can discern stem from fundamental ideology disagreements. There is just no path to victory which doesn't involve the Republicans becoming far less conservative as a political party. The Hispanics must want to be able to bring in their extended family from Mexico. That is where the demand for immigration reform is coming from.

Open race-baiting in your political adverts and speeches tends to hurt your popularity with minorities. News at 11.

[Mavorpen]

Promising entitlements and social safety nets would do jack shit if they repeatedly make racist comments and endorse racist actions against minorities.

What racist actions are those? I mean, asides from support for voter ID laws and being against immigration reform? Most of the problems I can discern stem from fundamental ideology disagreements. There is just no path to victory which doesn't involve the Republicans becoming far less conservative as a political party. The Hispanics must want to be able to bring in their extended family from Mexico. That is where the demand for immigration reform is coming from.

Why don't you, I don't know, read a post that explains this thoroughly?

What torment is that? Is the protection for minorities of which you speak affirmative action and other government programs that will do them favors? If the Republicans gave non-Whites everything they possibly wanted in their platform and switched to scapegoating White people instead, I don't think any of that would be enough to win them over.

If there will be more non-Whites than Whites as a share of the electorate indefinitely, than I agree that the mathematics dictate that the White vote should be jettisoned in favor of only catering to non-White interests.

There are Republicans who support the idea that we should roll back the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and allow businesses to refuse to serve minorities, and that we should allow discrimination in housing and employment. Then, too, many conservatives cheer when some gun owner exercises his 2nd Amendment rights and blows some poor black person or Latino away for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, just because the presence of said person "scared" them.

Then there are the disparities in arrest and sentencing; the Pauls (Ron and Rand) remain virtually alone among Republicans in having acknowledged that, all other things being equal, you're more likely to be arrested, charged with a crime, and convicted if you're black or Latino; and when you are sentenced, all other things being equal, you'll be given more time in jail and face stiffer societal sanctions as a black or Latino than you would if you were white.

Hell, it's even been noted on television: At the very top of the social heap, the penalties are worse just for being black. Congressman Trey Radel got caught with cocaine, and he's looking at probation and treatment; Mayor Marion Barry got six months in prison for getting caught with cocaine. Same crime, different time.

And when white convicts get out of prison, they enjoy better employment chances than blacks with clean records. What possible justification can there be for that?!?

Telling minorities that they are ENTIRELY responsible for whether they sink or swim in a global economy where it's hard for EVERYBODY to tread water is essentially the same as telling them that you don't give a damn what happens to them. It's not necessary for the GOP to embrace affirmative action to see that as wrong, denounce it as wrong, and try to think of someway of dealing with it.

But that's the problem, Saiwania: You refuse to even TRY to come up with a solution, other than "Y'all are on your own, suckers." Surely if the tables were reversed, you'd find SOMETHING to propose to help "your people" out.

But neither you nor the GOP will even BOTHER. And THAT is why you fail with these voters.

[Alien Space Bats]

Okay, so what the Republican party needs is its own equivalent of the Night of the Long Knives in order to begin to fix their problems? The TEA party needs to be forcibly ejected from the party and the RNC chairman needs replacing, and most importantly it needs to completely ignore what the pundits on Fox News such as Karl Rove and talk radio's Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh say- in favor of ironing out a new platform with the help of consultants from minority communities in urban areas?

You're starting to get there, yes.

Rience Priebus DOES need to be fired. Compare his record to that of Michael Steele, whom he stabbed in the back to take the job: Steele presided over the biggest GOP wave election in 16 years (i.e., the "Red Wave" election of 2010); in contrast, Priebus' performance as an RNC chairman was miserable. I mean, as the GOP, how in the Hell do you manage to have fewer people in the field canvassing for votes Nationwide than the Democrats have in Ohio ALONE? And how in the Hell do you manage to raise more money than the Democrats and yet end up with fewer overall minutes of on-air advertisement, even as you manage to get completely outhustled on the ground?

And then there's the perennial wit and wisdom of Chairman Priebus, which ranges from imbecilic to puerile, and back again. Compare again to Michael Steele, who was better ON A BAD DAY that Priebus could ever hope to be. I've seen more ham-handed, embarrassing comments from R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-Reince P-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-riebus than I can remember from all of his predecessors put together. I mean, the man would do better by just shutting up than talking.

Yes, it should be shouted from the rooftops: RIENCE PRIEBUS IS BAD AT HIS JOB AND NEEDS TO BE FUCKING FIRED. Yesterday, if at all possible. The longer he remains at the head of the RNC, the more deeply mire the GOP becomes. GET RID OF HIM!!!!

As for the various talking heads (like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, et al.), Republicans need to understand that these people are NOT their friends. As I have stated elsewhere (as well as in this thread), the Great Gasbags of the Airwaves™ do NOT have the GOP's best interests at heart.

Consider Rush Limbaugh, and ask yourself this: Do Limbaugh's ratings (and thus, his market value to the radio stations that carry his show) depend on Republican electoral success? Does Limbaugh have a financial interest in seeing the Republican Party win?

No, he does NOT. He does not because he is infinitely more popular as an unelected opposition backbencher screaming about how horrible the world is with the Democrats in power than he could EVER be as a cheerleader for a Republican Administration. Take away the Democrats, and it would be harder for Limbaugh to find a big enough target to attack that any of his listeners would actually care enough about to listen to him vent. Limbaugh NEEDS for the Democrats to be in power so that he can bitch about them; if they're not, he's got to go punching WAY below his weight, and that's just not as lucrative.

It's a simple fact: Limbaugh's incentives do not align with those of the GOP. Rush wants ratings and attention; these things do not automatically or naturally rise and fall with GOP success at the polls. Indeed, it's likely that they move in the opposite direction: If Republicans lose, that's GOOD for Rush Limbaugh; the more they lose, the BETTER.

Consequently, Rush has ZERO incentive to moderate or craft his message in such a way as to maximize Republican electoral success; he has ZERO incentive to avoid saying things that are going to get the Republicans in trouble, or doubling down on stupid things Republicans say. His response to Mitt Romney's infamous 47% remark is a perfect example: Every political analyst who heard it flinched and then declared it to be a real problem for the former Massachusetts Governor.

Limbaugh said that it was right on the money and that he was glad Romney had uttered it, because it "focused" the election on what "needed to be addressed": The vast number of Americans who had effectively become moochers and needed to be weaned from the government teat (those aren't his words, but they're close enough in spirit to his reaction as to hit the spot).

As it result, it became impossible for Romney to back off the remark, recover, and try to re-spin his political faux pas in terms that would lead to less overall political damage. Worse, rank and file Republicans rallied around the remark and embraced it as a meme. Now it's part of the permanent landscape, the gift that keeps giving: Republicans think that anybody who gets anything from the government are thieving slime.

As a Democrat, I thank Rush for that gift; I assure you that it will keep giving for many elections to come.

It doesn't help Republicans to have these self-important, bloviating morons cheering on every stupid verbal blunder their candidates make. They wonder aloud why American women object to being slut shamed, why gays don't like being branded as pedophiles, why Latinos don't like being called "wetbacks" or being likened to leeches, or why blacks object to being stereotyped as drug-addicted gangbangers and promiscuous welfare queens. They irritate the Hell out of everyone, and it all sticks to the GOP like so much grime. I realize the Republican Party can't shut them up, but if it had a lick of sense, it would privately beg them to stop "helping".

As for the Tea Party, it's probably much too late for them to be shut down; yet Republican leaders could at least TRY to challenge them to come up with some sort of meaningful urban policy, or at least try and get Republican candidates to campaign once or twice in urban settings:

AS CITIES HAVE recovered, and poor people are increasingly settling outside of them, the GOP's suburban strategy has stopped working.

"A city is no longer a collection of pathologies," says Stephen Goldsmith, a former Republican mayor of Indianapolis who's now a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "I think if we don’t better articulate the hope that comes from conservative ideas, that’s going to be a problem."

So far, Republicans have failed to recognize this. The economic plank of their party platform, crafted entirely by exurbanites, practically labels cities a liberal creation. While conservative pundits like Peggy Noonan pleaded for the Romney campaign to hold a rally in Brooklyn, and Paul Ryan wanted to campaign in cities on an anti-poverty message of economic empowerment, Romney advisors nixed the idea, saying those issues didn't test well for them. Instead of reaching out to urban voters, the GOP chair in Ohio's Franklin county tried to keep them away from the polls, arguing that the state shouldn't "contort the voting process to accommodate the urban—read African-American—voter-turnout machine" in Columbus.

But it's an odd kind of defeatism: Cities are centers of innovation and entrepreneurship, competition and the creation of wealth. "That's something that the Republican party should be looking to as a model, not running from," says Harvard professor Ed Glaeser. As a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, Glaeser has laid out a libertarian agenda for cities that includes breaking down teachers unions' opposition to charter schools, freedom from zoning regulations that constrain growth, an end to federal subsidies for highways that just prompt people to drive, and a move away from the culture-war tropes that have dominated GOP rhetoric in the past.

There are already successful test cases for Republicans in cities. Last year, Al Schmidt won a seat on the deeply Democratic Philadelphia City Commission by campaigning for a viable two-party system, along with honest and efficient government. In Queens, Republican Bob Turner won the special election to replace Rep. Anthony Weiner by reaching out to Orthodox Jews and Russian immigrants, who'd never been engaged before.

"It was almost as if the Russians in Brooklyn were waiting for someone to take them seriously," says Turner consultant William O'Reilly, who’s been in the business of winning over New York voters for Republicans since the 1980s. His rule of thumb: You have to get at least 30 percent of the city to win statewide, which former Governor George Pataki did by opening offices in neighborhoods like Dominican-dominated Washington Heights.

"They weren’t afraid of him," O'Reilly says. "He was willing to try and be there, and there was nothing angry about him."

While searching their souls about what went wrong this election cycle, Republicans would do well to remember that. Making inroads in cities begins with showing up.

— Lydia Depillis, "The GOP Can’t Afford to Ignore Cities Anymore", The New Republic, November 12th, 2012

Again, you seem to act as though it would be some great crime, some horrible betrayal, for the GOP to even try to address the concerns of cities or the minorities who live there. The thing is, in politics if you can't even be bothered to make the faintest effort, you're never going to get somebody's vote.

It's almost as if you're PROUD that the GOP does so poorly among urban minorities, and indeed you wish Republicans could somehow manage to get NO SUPPORT AT ALL among them, because at least that would make Republicans "pure"...

[Alien Space Bats]

I'm not simply dismissing non-Whites as "people who want stuff" in my last post so much as just acknowledging the reality that non-Whites are currently voting for the party which gives them more "stuff" than the party which isn't giving them anything.

Jumping Jesus Christ, it is NOT about "stuff".

Get that into your head.

It's about wanting your government to actually LISTEN to your concerns and address your needs.

<pause>

Or do you consider having police officers show up in my neighborhood when I need them to be "getting stuff"? Do you consider having roads that are free of snow, garbage, potholes, and runoff "getting stuff"? Do you consider having public schools that work "getting stuff"? Do you consider having streetlights that work "getting stuff"? Do you consider having stores and jobs in your neighborhood "getting stuff"? Do you consider having the right to vote without being hassled "getting stuff"? Do you consider not getting shot while standing on a street corner or being gunned down by some scared gun owner for the heinous crime of being in his or her line of vision and thus "scaring" him or her "getting stuff"?

Your idea of a perfect world seems to be a lot like Ted Kaczynski's: You seem to want to like on some forested ridge in Montana with your gun and your spread, hunt and kill small animals for a living, and otherwise never see anybody on your land. And anything other than that apparently constitutes "getting stuff" from the government.

A great many of us like urban life; we like living someplace where there's more to do than listen to the wind, the rain, and the crickets. We like the night life; we like socializing; we like living in communities. Maintaining such communities requires a delicate web of interactions between business, consumers, workers, commuters, and government; to date, nobody has ever managed to devise a way of running cities without HAVING government. We even use a word for the operation of government — civics — which is derived from the Latin word civis ("citizen"), which in turn implies a relationship between people and government. This is the great failing of the GOP: They have become a Party defined by their near-total opposition to government, which necessarily entails opposition to the very existence of cities, society, and even civilization itself. They have no ideology beyond nihilism and — whether they know it or not — an a set of beliefs that, in their ultimate form, collapse into medieval manorialism.

[Mavorpen]

I'm not simply dismissing non-Whites as "people who want stuff" in my last post so much as just acknowledging the reality that non-Whites are currently voting for the party which gives them more "stuff" than the party which isn't giving them anything.

Jumping Jesus Christ, it is NOT about "stuff".

Get that into your head.

It's about wanting your government to actually LISTEN to your concerns and address your needs.

<pause>

Or do you consider having police officers show up in my neighborhood when I need them to be "getting stuff"? Do you consider having roads that are free of snow, garbage, potholes, and runoff "getting stuff"? Do you consider having public schools that work "getting stuff"? Do you consider having streetlights that work "getting stuff"? Do you consider having stores and jobs in your neighborhood "getting stuff"? Do you consider having the right to vote without being hassled "getting stuff"? Do you consider not getting shot while standing on a street corner or being gunned down by some scared gun owner for the heinous crime of being in his or her line of vision and thus "scaring" him or her "getting stuff"?

Your idea of a perfect world seems to be a lot like Ted Kaczynski's: You seem to want to like on some forested ridge in Montana with your gun and your spread, hunt and kill small animals for a living, and otherwise never see anybody on your land. And anything other than that apparently constitutes "getting stuff" from the government.

A great many of us like urban life; we like living someplace where there's more to do than listen to the wind, the rain, and the crickets. We like the night life; we like socializing; we like living in communities. Maintaining such communities requires a delicate web of interactions between business, consumers, workers, commuters, and government; to date, nobody has ever managed to devise a way of running cities without HAVING government. We even use a word for the operation of government — civics — which is derived from the Latin word civis ("citizen"), which in turn implies a relationship between people and government. This is the great failing of the GOP: They have become a Party defined by their near-total opposition to government, which necessarily entails opposition to the very existence of cities, society, and even civilization itself. They have no ideology beyond nihilism and — whether they know it or not — an a set of beliefs that, in their ultimate form, collapse into medieval manorialism.

You mean Obama isn't going to come to my house and throw money around while stripping and dancing to "I'm Sexy And I Know It" simply because I'm black?

Dammit.

[ALMF]

What, people with more melanin?

Despite numerous good faith efforts on the part of people to explain to you exactly what "they" want, you persist in having no clue whatsoever. Why, then, are you continuing to waste our time with this question?

None of the explanations offered so far have satisfactorily explained why the current Republican platform can't work in an urban setting which is where minority voters will be more likely to be located. It takes a ton of money to build the infrastructure up but why does it get trashed in the first place? What is causing the blight which necessitates urban renewal? I get that Detroit went to crap after American domination of the automobile industry ended, but what about other big cities?

There are 3 reasons "the current Republican platform can't work in an urban setting which is where minority voters will be more likely to be located."

1) Whereas minorities are more personally conservative than others (analogous to republicans), they are as hostel as democrats to social conservative legislation.

2) Minorities are more likely to disagree with "people who make monies earned it." in favor of "wealth and merit are independent." (and reduces less by income)

3) Minorities tend to vue markets as immoral as opposed to amoral.

As to urban blight, markets tend to undermine discriminated agenst groups (such as minorities, atheists, and gays). Urban blight exists because, minorities exists in urban settings, discrimination agenst minorities exists, and markets have as much power as they have.

[ALMF]

That is, quite frankly, the most factually incorrect statement on the issues the GOP faces today that I've seen.....all week.

To put it simply, Messaging is not the issue when your policies are still shit.

Ronald Reagan was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and the GOP needs to wake up, smell the roses, and realize that they aren't getting another one or one similar to him.

I think it's too early to call for the death of the Republican Party. Most Americans i believe are center-right compared to say.. Europe. I think the Republican Party still has a good chance of getting a man in the white house under the right circumstances. in any case, the death of the Republican Party would be negative for America, the idea of any party having homogenous power or perpetual superiority over the other is horrendous.

Problem, the Democratic Partiy is 'center-right compared to say.. Europe."

[ALMF]

Yeah, um, my post literally had nothing to do with the death of the GOP.
I'm just saying that messaging is not the issue.

I mean, why do you think people like Rubio, who the GOP hopes can appeal (i.e. Spin the right message to minorities) to Hispanics actually has no extra appeal?

Why do you think that people like Romney ultimately failed when they had to appeal to the far-right, and their message was clear as day from that point forward?

If the democrats can 'spin the right message to minorities' (i.e. 'appeal' to minorities') so can the Republicans. I think Obama has exacerbated partisan feelings in the Republican Party and America for that matter with his extremist policies.

So center-right is extremist now?