The Republican Path To Victory II

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The original thread, which died a natural death, was briefly revived, and then was locked for gravedigging despite once again inspiring a lively and informative conversation.

We're not just talking about the Senate race here, or the House. We're not just talking about the Presidency, either.

The fact is that despite things looking decent for the GOP in the Senate race (though perhaps not quite as rosy as Karl Rove would have us believe), the Republican Party is facing a major crisis. Shifting demographics show that the socially conservative anti-marriage equality message is getting practically no play among younger voters, and an increasing Latino population in the United States is somewhat cool to the hard line that many insist on taking when it comes to immigration.

Therefore, the question is this: while they look poised to pick up a few Senate seats this November, it's beginning to appear as if that's going to be it for a while. There have been no especially engaging or popular economic ideas coming from the GOP, none regarding education, none regarding healthcare. They can only ride Obama fatigue for so long before they're going to have to come up with some appealing ideas on their own, or they're going to become increasingly irrelevant as a political force with every passing election cycle.

So, the question is this: in the face of a society that is becoming increasingly pluralistic and tolerant, what is the best route for the GOP to take towards electoral victories and continued relevance in the future?

[Aberwich]

The original thread, which died a natural death, was briefly revived, and then was locked for gravedigging despite once again inspiring a lively and informative conversation.

We're not just talking about the Senate race here, or the House. We're not just talking about the Presidency, either.

The fact is that despite things looking decent for the GOP in the Senate race (though perhaps not quite as rosy as Karl Rove would have us believe), the Republican Party is facing a major crisis. Shifting demographics show that the socially conservative anti-marriage equality message is getting practically no play among younger voters, and an increasing Latino population in the United States is somewhat cool to the hard line that many insist on taking when it comes to immigration.

Therefore, the question is this: while they look poised to pick up a few Senate seats this November, it's beginning to appear as if that's going to be it for a while. There have been no especially engaging or popular economic ideas coming from the GOP, none regarding education, none regarding healthcare. They can only ride Obama fatigue for so long before they're going to have to come up with some appealing ideas on their own, or they're going to become increasingly irrelevant as a political force with every passing election cycle.

So, the question is this: in the face of a society that is becoming increasingly pluralistic and tolerant, what is the best route for the GOP to take towards electoral victories and continued relevance in the future?

Well, first off let me state that I think our system is corrupt beyond repair. I honestly believe at some point societies become so complex, that it is not possible to fix them unless you wish to introduce radical change.

That aside, assuming things stay "normal," the biggest piece of advice I would give to the GOP is to think with their head, not their heart. Once people in the GOP start to use objective reason to analyze problems, they will be able to sell policies much easier to people outside their far right, evangelical base. Some right wing policies are still very viable, they just need to be sold by people who actually know how to appeal to modern audiences.

Also, final point, America is not really becoming more tolerant, there is still a big degree of racial separateness in America (saying you believe in diversity and multiculturalism from the comfort of a largely white neighborhood is just not the same, and a lot of people are like that). Not to mention that only talks about *white* Americans. I mean, there is plenty of Black vs Latino violence to go around.

My two cents at any rate.

[Straughn]

Goram if this isn't ironic.
The GOP's best effort is to
STOP
BEING
THE
F*CKING
GOP.

The damage inflicted upon themselves by themselves is natural and predictable and WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY f*cking overdue. Fittest, they surely aren't.

[Grave_n_idle]

The original thread, which died a natural death, was briefly revived, and then was locked for gravedigging despite once again inspiring a lively and informative conversation.

We're not just talking about the Senate race here, or the House. We're not just talking about the Presidency, either.

The fact is that despite things looking decent for the GOP in the Senate race (though perhaps not quite as rosy as Karl Rove would have us believe), the Republican Party is facing a major crisis. Shifting demographics show that the socially conservative anti-marriage equality message is getting practically no play among younger voters, and an increasing Latino population in the United States is somewhat cool to the hard line that many insist on taking when it comes to immigration.

Therefore, the question is this: while they look poised to pick up a few Senate seats this November, it's beginning to appear as if that's going to be it for a while. There have been no especially engaging or popular economic ideas coming from the GOP, none regarding education, none regarding healthcare. They can only ride Obama fatigue for so long before they're going to have to come up with some appealing ideas on their own, or they're going to become increasingly irrelevant as a political force with every passing election cycle.

So, the question is this: in the face of a society that is becoming increasingly pluralistic and tolerant, what is the best route for the GOP to take towards electoral victories and continued relevance in the future?

The best thing that can happen for the long-term prospects of the GOP, would be for them to have a landslide failure this November. Unfortunately for the GOP, that's unlikely - and, as things stand, they'll likely make reasonable gains. And ultimately, that's bad news for the GOP - because their best chance for success in 2016 is to be the underdog, and their best chance to reshuffle their party away from trying to please only the far right and hoping some of the middle will follow - is to see the continued failure of ignoring the middleground.

[Mike the Progressive]

The Republican Party, contrary to semi-popular opinion on NSG, isn't dead. And it isn't even close to death.

I get amazed at the sheer arrogance that because there has been but one Republican president out of three presidents in the last 22 years (bearing in mind that 8 of those years was Bush), that somehow means the GOP is slowly losing it's appeal as a national party. By that logic, the Democrats should have been dead by the 90s, because between 1968 and 1992 there was but one Democrat (Carter) as president.

This isn't to praise the GOP, on the contrary, it's to make real the fact that they still pose a threat to progressivism in the US. When you have Republicans take control of the house in 2010 and probably will continue till at least 2016, they are not a dying party. When they look posed to either reduce the Democratic majority in the Senate, if not become the majority themselves there, they are not a dying party. When they hold the majority of governorships and state legislatures, again they are not a dying party. When they are able to win senate seats in Illinois, Massachusetts and possible New Hampshire, they are not a dying party.

Now as for the GOP changing, that's not going to happen. Stop being the GOP? Right, stop being what gave them a majority in the house in 2010, what gave them a majority of governorships and state legislatures. Seriously, the recommendation is by far the dumbest one I've yet heard.

If they want to win the presidency, they'll have to pick better candidates and hope that the Democrats will pick lousy ones. And at some point that will happen. Maybe not 2016 (hopefully not), but it will happen eventually. Obama won 2008 and 2012, because he was the better candidate. There's no special love here for the man whose ratings have been dropping since he first took office, there's little love for the healthcare law, his crowning achievement. He won because he was better than McCain and better than Romney.

That's it.

[Greed and Death]

Fill the television with sob stories of people who lost their insurance because of the aca. Of course the ads leave out the alternate courses of action available to these people but the counter factual nature of these ads is irrelevant to an election.

[Grave_n_idle]

The Republican Party, contrary to semi-popular opinion on NSG, isn't dead. And it isn't even close to death.

I get amazed at the sheer arrogance that because there has been but one Republican president out of three presidents in the last 22 years (bearing in mind that 8 of those years was Bush), that somehow means the GOP is slowly losing it's appeal as a national party. By that logic, the Democrats should have been dead by the 90s, because between 1968 and 1992 there was but one Democrat (Carter) as president.

Except that's not really the point. The point isn't that Republicans are a dead party because they've had x candidates in y elections - the point is that the Republican party of today is couldn't run Reagan as a candidate because he'd fail the party purity test, and they are still chasing the fringe vote.

[Gauthier]

Of course with David Jolly squeaking by with a victory in Florida, the GOP will feel justified in focusing on the "Only Black Men in the White House Should Be Butlers" platform and not bothering with actual minority outreach in hopes that the public will blame the lack of progress entirely on Obama and turn Congress wholly red again.

[Mike the Progressive]

The Republican Party, contrary to semi-popular opinion on NSG, isn't dead. And it isn't even close to death.

I get amazed at the sheer arrogance that because there has been but one Republican president out of three presidents in the last 22 years (bearing in mind that 8 of those years was Bush), that somehow means the GOP is slowly losing it's appeal as a national party. By that logic, the Democrats should have been dead by the 90s, because between 1968 and 1992 there was but one Democrat (Carter) as president.

Except that's not really the point. The point isn't that Republicans are a dead party because they've had x candidates in y elections - the point is that the Republican party of today is couldn't run Reagan as a candidate because he'd fail the party purity test, and they are still chasing the fringe vote.

So what? '90s pro-DOMA, pro-DADT Clinton wouldn't stand a chance in 2016 or 2012 or even 2008. People change, parties change. Selecting a guy from 20 years ago and comparing him to the "values" of the current electorate is stupid, irrelevant, and pointless.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The Republican Party, contrary to semi-popular opinion on NSG, isn't dead. And it isn't even close to death.

I get amazed at the sheer arrogance that because there has been but one Republican president out of three presidents in the last 22 years (bearing in mind that 8 of those years was Bush), that somehow means the GOP is slowly losing it's appeal as a national party. By that logic, the Democrats should have been dead by the 90s, because between 1968 and 1992 there was but one Democrat (Carter) as president.

This isn't to praise the GOP, on the contrary, it's to make real the fact that they still pose a threat to progressivism in the US. When you have Republicans take control of the house in 2010 and probably will continue till at least 2016, they are not a dying party. When they look posed to either reduce the Democratic majority in the Senate, if not become the majority themselves there, they are not a dying party. When they hold the majority of governorships and state legislatures, again they are not a dying party. When they are able to win senate seats in Illinois, Massachusetts and possible New Hampshire, they are not a dying party.

Now as for the GOP changing, that's not going to happen. Stop being the GOP? Right, stop being what gave them a majority in the house in 2010, what gave them a majority of governorships and state legislatures. Seriously, the recommendation is by far the dumbest one I've yet heard.

If they want to win the presidency, they'll have to pick better candidates and hope that the Democrats will pick lousy ones. And at some point that will happen. Maybe not 2016 (hopefully not), but it will happen eventually. Obama won 2008 and 2012, because he was the better candidate. There's no special love here for the man whose ratings have been dropping since he first took office, there's little love for the healthcare law, his crowning achievement. He won because he was better than McCain and better than Romney.

That's it.

You're missing some basic underlying points, here.

First, this isn't so much about past election cycles as it is about current demographic trends. The vast majority of young people in America support marriage equality, including those who self-identify as Republican. While this probably isn't a top priority for the younger Republicans, if they stick to their guns on this issue, they're going to alienate independents and other swing voters, especially those with "out" LGBT friends, family, and co-workers...which is eventually going to be just about everyone.

Similarly, Latino population numbers are skyrocketing, and whites will likely no longer be a majority in the U.S. by 2043. And this isn't the socially conservative crowd that Republicans were counting on. Much like their counterparts across racial lines, young Hispanics tend to lean liberal on social issues.

The Tea Party has peaked as a force. Gerrymandering will ensure that the GOP will keep the House for a while, but as their message speaks to fewer and fewer new voters, exactly how can they remain relevant?

[Straughn]

Of course with David Jolly squeaking by with a victory in Florida, the GOP will feel justified in focusing on the "Only Black Men in the White House Should Be Butlers" platform and not bothering with actual minority outreach in hopes that the public will blame the lack of progress entirely on Obama and turn Congress wholly red again.

ZaZING

[The Scientific States]

I say, just let the GOP fall apart. It's a party that's too reactionary for Americans, which is saying something.

[Angleter]

This isn't to praise the GOP, on the contrary, it's to make real the fact that they still pose a threat to progressivism in the US. When you have Republicans take control of the house in 2010 and probably will continue till at least 2016, they are not a dying party. When they look posed to either reduce the Democratic majority in the Senate, if not become the majority themselves there, they are not a dying party. When they hold the majority of governorships and state legislatures, again they are not a dying party. When they are able to win senate seats in Illinois, Massachusetts and possible New Hampshire, they are not a dying party.

Hmm. It's worth remembering that between 1933 and 1995, the GOP controlled the House for just 2 years, and the Senate for 10 - only the Presidency was up for grabs relatively often, and usually because of the candidates more than anything. Compared to that, they're in a remarkably healthy state. And considering that their current coalition essentially started with Goldwater in '64, and only got to control both houses and the Presidency in 2001, they'd be nuts to burn everything down and start again.

[Grave_n_idle]

Except that's not really the point. The point isn't that Republicans are a dead party because they've had x candidates in y elections - the point is that the Republican party of today is couldn't run Reagan as a candidate because he'd fail the party purity test, and they are still chasing the fringe vote.

So what? '90s pro-DOMA, pro-DADT Clinton wouldn't stand a chance in 2016 or 2012 or even 2008. People change, parties change. Selecting a guy from 20 years ago and comparing him to the "values" of the current electorate is stupid, irrelevant, and pointless.

The difference - which I feel is perhaps too obvious - is that the left wing isn't simultaneously calling for the party to cater to the fringe, and to re-invent Clinton, somehow.

That's not a partisan assessment - it's simple observation. Count the number of times Reagan and Clinton are mentioned by their respective parties. For there to be an effective parallel, the Democrats would have to be as far to the left as the GOP is to the right.

I think you're missing the point - and that may be my fault... why did I mention Reagan? Because he's the avatar of a GOP landslide. He's what a GOP candidate had to look like to get that election result - and HE couldn't get elected in today's party that panders increasingly to the fringe.

[Mike the Progressive]

The Republican Party, contrary to semi-popular opinion on NSG, isn't dead. And it isn't even close to death.

I get amazed at the sheer arrogance that because there has been but one Republican president out of three presidents in the last 22 years (bearing in mind that 8 of those years was Bush), that somehow means the GOP is slowly losing it's appeal as a national party. By that logic, the Democrats should have been dead by the 90s, because between 1968 and 1992 there was but one Democrat (Carter) as president.

This isn't to praise the GOP, on the contrary, it's to make real the fact that they still pose a threat to progressivism in the US. When you have Republicans take control of the house in 2010 and probably will continue till at least 2016, they are not a dying party. When they look posed to either reduce the Democratic majority in the Senate, if not become the majority themselves there, they are not a dying party. When they hold the majority of governorships and state legislatures, again they are not a dying party. When they are able to win senate seats in Illinois, Massachusetts and possible New Hampshire, they are not a dying party.

Now as for the GOP changing, that's not going to happen. Stop being the GOP? Right, stop being what gave them a majority in the house in 2010, what gave them a majority of governorships and state legislatures. Seriously, the recommendation is by far the dumbest one I've yet heard.

If they want to win the presidency, they'll have to pick better candidates and hope that the Democrats will pick lousy ones. And at some point that will happen. Maybe not 2016 (hopefully not), but it will happen eventually. Obama won 2008 and 2012, because he was the better candidate. There's no special love here for the man whose ratings have been dropping since he first took office, there's little love for the healthcare law, his crowning achievement. He won because he was better than McCain and better than Romney.

That's it.

You're missing some basic underlying points, here.

First, this isn't so much about past election cycles as it is about current demographic trends. The vast majority of young people in America support marriage equality, including those who self-identify as Republican. While this probably isn't a top priority for the younger Republicans, if they stick to their guns on this issue, they're going to alienate independents and other swing voters, especially those with "out" LGBT friends, family, and co-workers...which is eventually going to be just about everyone.

Similarly, Latino population numbers are skyrocketing, and whites will likely no longer be a majority in the U.S. by 2043. And this isn't the socially conservative crowd that Republicans were counting on. Much like their counterparts across racial lines, young Hispanics tend to lean liberal on social issues.

The Tea Party has peaked as a force. Gerrymandering will ensure that the GOP will keep the House for a while, but as their message speaks to fewer and fewer new voters, exactly how can they remain relevant?

Concerning gay marriage, yes, I think the GOP will have to change their position from favoring a ban on the federal level to it's a states' issue. Already some Republicans believe that (Rand Paul). But as you said, for some time it probably won't be the main issue.

As for Hispanics. I'd say it depends. Yes, they give the Democrats their current political edge. But the GOP has done fine in places like New Mexico and continues to do well in places like Texas. But again, their current position will undoubtedly change when they eventually do find a leader of the party who favors that change.

It still goes back to my earlier point of finding a better candidate or at least preferred by most of America (willing to vote that is) over whomever the Democrats nominate.

As for gerrymandering the House, it's why I also mentioned governorships, state legislatures (though, that could be applied here), and senators from a handful of what should have been "safe" Democrat states. It's also why I mentioned the senate possibly being taken over by the GOP.

[The Black Forrest]

So what? '90s pro-DOMA, pro-DADT Clinton wouldn't stand a chance in 2016 or 2012 or even 2008. People change, parties change. Selecting a guy from 20 years ago and comparing him to the "values" of the current electorate is stupid, irrelevant, and pointless.

Oh I think ol Slick Willy would do quite well today. Even when considering the electorate is parts of the country is rather stupid.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You're missing some basic underlying points, here.

First, this isn't so much about past election cycles as it is about current demographic trends. The vast majority of young people in America support marriage equality, including those who self-identify as Republican. While this probably isn't a top priority for the younger Republicans, if they stick to their guns on this issue, they're going to alienate independents and other swing voters, especially those with "out" LGBT friends, family, and co-workers...which is eventually going to be just about everyone.

Similarly, Latino population numbers are skyrocketing, and whites will likely no longer be a majority in the U.S. by 2043. And this isn't the socially conservative crowd that Republicans were counting on. Much like their counterparts across racial lines, young Hispanics tend to lean liberal on social issues.

The Tea Party has peaked as a force. Gerrymandering will ensure that the GOP will keep the House for a while, but as their message speaks to fewer and fewer new voters, exactly how can they remain relevant?

Concerning gay marriage, yes, I think the GOP will have to change their position from favoring a ban on the federal level to it's a states' issue. Already some Republicans believe that (Rand Paul). But as you said, for some time it probably won't be the main issue.

As for Hispanics. I'd say it depends. Yes, they give the Democrats their current political edge. But the GOP has done fine in places like New Mexico and continues to do well in places like Texas. But again, their current position will undoubtedly change when they eventually do find a leader of the party who favors that change.

It still goes back to my earlier point of finding a better candidate or at least preferred by most of America (willing to vote that is) over whomever the Democrats nominate.

As for gerrymandering the House, it's why I also mentioned governorships, state legislatures (though, that could be applied here), and senators from a handful of what should have been "safe" Democrat states. It's also why I mentioned the senate possibly being taken over by the GOP.

I don't see that happening with the Senate, though seats will certainly be lost. And which governorships and legislatures should have been safe?

[Gauthier]

I think you're missing the point - and that may be my fault... why did I mention Reagan? Because he's the avatar of a GOP landslide. He's what a GOP candidate had to look like to get that election result - and HE couldn't get elected in today's party that panders increasingly to the fringe.

Reagan has been essentially Disneyfied by the Tea Party to where if a young Ronald Reagan was an upcoming Governor he'd be shot down as too liberal and not living up to REAGAN'S standards.

[Mike the Progressive]

So what? '90s pro-DOMA, pro-DADT Clinton wouldn't stand a chance in 2016 or 2012 or even 2008. People change, parties change. Selecting a guy from 20 years ago and comparing him to the "values" of the current electorate is stupid, irrelevant, and pointless.

The difference - which I feel is perhaps too obvious - is that the left wing isn't simultaneously calling for the party to cater to the fringe, and to re-invent Clinton, somehow.

That's not a partisan assessment - it's simple observation. Count the number of times Reagan and Clinton are mentioned by their respective parties. For there to be an effective parallel, the Democrats would have to be as far to the left as the GOP is to the right.

I think you're missing the point - and that may be my fault... why did I mention Reagan? Because he's the avatar of a GOP landslide. He's what a GOP candidate had to look like to get that election result - and HE couldn't get elected in today's party that panders increasingly to the fringe.

Well there was a large desire by many Democrats in 2008 for Bill Clinton, so I'm uncertain how true that is. And had Hillary not acted as if she deserved the nomination, she would have won, largely as the result of Clinton nostalgia of bipartisanship, peace and surplus. Even though that sentiment, like the one the Republican base has for Reagan, is fictitious at best.

So I'm uncertain if I agree with your assessment.

[Mike the Progressive]

Concerning gay marriage, yes, I think the GOP will have to change their position from favoring a ban on the federal level to it's a states' issue. Already some Republicans believe that (Rand Paul). But as you said, for some time it probably won't be the main issue.

As for Hispanics. I'd say it depends. Yes, they give the Democrats their current political edge. But the GOP has done fine in places like New Mexico and continues to do well in places like Texas. But again, their current position will undoubtedly change when they eventually do find a leader of the party who favors that change.

It still goes back to my earlier point of finding a better candidate or at least preferred by most of America (willing to vote that is) over whomever the Democrats nominate.

As for gerrymandering the House, it's why I also mentioned governorships, state legislatures (though, that could be applied here), and senators from a handful of what should have been "safe" Democrat states. It's also why I mentioned the senate possibly being taken over by the GOP.

I don't see that happening with the Senate, though seats will certainly be lost. And which governorships and legislatures should have been safe?

Was referring to senate seats that should have gone Democrat (MA, IL), apologies if I wasn't clear.

[The Black Forrest]

Concerning gay marriage, yes, I think the GOP will have to change their position from favoring a ban on the federal level to it's a states' issue. Already some Republicans believe that (Rand Paul). But as you said, for some time it probably won't be the main issue.

The Jebus faction kind of really nailed them on that one. The ban won't work. They will at least offer it, maybe get it so the can tell the jebus club "See we stopped the fags from taking over!!!!"

As for Hispanics. I'd say it depends. Yes, they give the Democrats their current political edge. But the GOP has done fine in places like New Mexico and continues to do well in places like Texas. But again, their current position will undoubtedly change when they eventually do find a leader of the party who favors that change.

And yet they do badly in most others. They keep praying the Hispanic community will fall in line but it's kind of hard to do that with the policy of "those wetbacks are wasting health care! We need to ship them back. *Coughs* of our philosophies are the same vote for us!"

It still goes back to my earlier point of finding a better candidate or at least preferred by most of America (willing to vote that is) over whomever the Democrats nominate.

And who would they nominate? They can't really get anybody "level heading" with the batch of followers. The jebus squad and the tea party won't allow for that.

As for gerrymandering the House, it's why I also mentioned governorships, state legislatures (though, that could be applied here), and senators from a handful of what should have been "safe" Democrat states. It's also why I mentioned the senate possibly being taken over by the GOP.

Gop taking over the Senate as well. That's a scary thought. Thinking if that was in place during the foreclosure crisis; the economy would have been in a depression for 20 years.

[The Black Forrest]

I think you're missing the point - and that may be my fault... why did I mention Reagan? Because he's the avatar of a GOP landslide. He's what a GOP candidate had to look like to get that election result - and HE couldn't get elected in today's party that panders increasingly to the fringe.

Indeed. Saint Ronny would probably have a hard time today since the loon squad readily violates one of his main tenants about openly criticizing other Republicans.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I don't see that happening with the Senate, though seats will certainly be lost. And which governorships and legislatures should have been safe?

Was referring to senate seats that should have gone Democrat (MA, IL), apologies if I wasn't clear.

Yeah, but there we're likely looking at specific campaign failures--and those were doozies--rather than issues with the underlying message.

[Oil exporting People]

Who Needs Hispanic Votes?

Imagine you’re a CEO. First of all, congratulations! Second, whether or not you can keep this job now depends on biennial shareholder votes. The day you take the job, there are 100 shareholders, and 60 of them support you. But on your second day, you get a proposal that would expand the shareholder pool over time, and you know that two out of three of the new additions would vote to remove you. Because you’re not an idiot, you deposit this plan in the circular file.

Now do you understand the plight of the Republican members of Congress? Immigration reform has been dumped in front of their doors like a USA Today in a midpriced family hotel. Most of them have no political reason to support it, and never will.

Until now the conversation about the bill’s congressional prospects has been a Lindsey Graham monologue with occasional Ted Cruz footnotes, as if the House didn’t have its own priorities and math.

This is the math.

Republicans currently control 234 of the House’s 435 voting districts. In 210 of these districts—eight short of the votes you need to elect a speaker—the Hispanic share of the vote is below 25 percent. Of the other 24 districts where Hispanic voters might be problematic for a Republican who attacks the immigration bill, 12 went for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama. So, if House Republicans held every one of their current seats that only have a tiny fraction of Hispanics, and the dozen with solid Hispanic votes but Republican tendencies, they’d have the majority with four votes to spare. “Nonwhite voters are a threat to Republican White House chances in 2016, but hardly a threat to the House Republican majority,” says David Wasserman, House race editor of the Cook Political Report.

It’s clear just how skeptical House Republicans are of immigration reform when you consider that one of those 24 sent to Washington from the mixed, white/Hispanic districts is Texas Rep. Lamar Smith (Hispanic vote in his district: 27 percent), who was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee until this year, and who still gets a committee vote on a possible immigration bill. Before Thursday’s vote Smith tweeted that “the #Senate #immigration bill ignores the will of the #American people & puts the interests of illegal immigrants & foreign workers first.”

Smith isn’t worried about any backlash to a vote against the immigration bill. Neither are most of his colleagues. The 2010 round of congressional redistricting ensured that two out of three Hispanic voters now live in Democratic districts.

Pro-reform scolds have known that for a while. “If people are only looking at their own little backyards, yes, there are a lot of Republicans who can afford to vote no with no immediate repercussions,” says Florida-based GOP strategist Ana Navarro. “Sure, if you’re in the middle of Iowa, you’ll be fine, but I’d like to think there are enough responsible adults in the Republican Party to pass a bill.”

But the Republican skeptics think they’re being responsible, too. Any “comprehensive” reform they support will, by nature and design, allow more people to compete legally for jobs. That’s never going to be popular in their districts. While the opposition to immigration reform has been milder and quieter than it was in 2006–2007, there are still hints of white backlash. We saw a tremor of that this month; Republicans noticed that the Senate’s bill gave employers a small incentive to hire guest workers, because doing so would duck Obamacare’s requirements to provide health benefits.

So, what’s easier for Republicans? To give in and pass a bill that might add Hispanic voters to your districts, whom you then have to win over; or blocking the bill and upping your share of the white vote? That’s hardly a dilemma at all, and explains why the Senate bill faces such a hard road in the House. As they contemplate 2014 and 2016, Republicans are looking at elections where the white share of the vote may increase compared with 2012. They compare elections when Barack Obama was on the ballot against elections when he wasn’t. The white shares of the vote in 2008, 2010, and 2012 were, respectively, 74 percent, 77 percent, and 72 percent.

“I don't look at Obama completely as stunt casting,” says Florida-based GOP strategist Rick Wilson, “but the fact that he was the first minority president moved a lot of minority voters. And right now the group of possible Democratic nominees for 2016 looks like a meeting of the Robert Byrd fan club. It's the white boy coalition. None of these guys will light a fire for black voters.”

But Republicans, increasingly, light a fire with whites. From 2008 to 2012, Barack Obama’s share of the white vote fell from 43 percent to 39 percent. Right after the election, the fact that Obama scored a smaller white vote than Michael Dukakis was cited as proof that the GOP needed to change. Flip the logic. If Republicans can build on the white trend but Democrats can’t build on the nonwhite trends, Republicans will be safe, for a while. If Republicans get back to the 66 percent white vote won by Ronald Reagan in 1984, they’re golden.

Democrats don’t see that happening. “How the hell can they do better among whites than they did in 2012?” asks Paul Begala, a former Bill Clinton strategist who worked for the pro-Obama 2012 super PAC Priorities USA. “Can they really ever get 66 percent of the white vote again? No way. First, because their white voters are old: Romney got 61 percent of whites over age 65, but only 51 percent of whites 18 to 29. What the demographers euphemistically call ‘cohort replacement’ is working against the GOP. Other white subgroups, like college-educated women, gave Romney just 52 percent.”

Speaking of women! “If Hillary runs in 2016,” says Begala, “she has a good shot at building on Obama's dominance among younger whites and his strength among white college grads, and perhaps even outperform him among white working-class voters.”

Perhaps, but we have a better idea of what a huge white vote looks like than a post-Obama non-white/-millennial supergroup looks like. Immigration reformers have to convince House Republicans to embrace the uncertainty, and fear the familiar.

An interesting piece from Slate (Which is a leftist news site), which does show that the GOP can remain nationally relevant even in the face of changing demographics. While I do believe we Republicans need to start a significant outreach program to minorities in order to bring them into our ranks, this article does show that everything is not as bad for our future as we are lead to think.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Who Needs Hispanic Votes?

Imagine you’re a CEO. First of all, congratulations! Second, whether or not you can keep this job now depends on biennial shareholder votes. The day you take the job, there are 100 shareholders, and 60 of them support you. But on your second day, you get a proposal that would expand the shareholder pool over time, and you know that two out of three of the new additions would vote to remove you. Because you’re not an idiot, you deposit this plan in the circular file.

Now do you understand the plight of the Republican members of Congress? Immigration reform has been dumped in front of their doors like a USA Today in a midpriced family hotel. Most of them have no political reason to support it, and never will.

Until now the conversation about the bill’s congressional prospects has been a Lindsey Graham monologue with occasional Ted Cruz footnotes, as if the House didn’t have its own priorities and math.

This is the math.

Republicans currently control 234 of the House’s 435 voting districts. In 210 of these districts—eight short of the votes you need to elect a speaker—the Hispanic share of the vote is below 25 percent. Of the other 24 districts where Hispanic voters might be problematic for a Republican who attacks the immigration bill, 12 went for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama. So, if House Republicans held every one of their current seats that only have a tiny fraction of Hispanics, and the dozen with solid Hispanic votes but Republican tendencies, they’d have the majority with four votes to spare. “Nonwhite voters are a threat to Republican White House chances in 2016, but hardly a threat to the House Republican majority,” says David Wasserman, House race editor of the Cook Political Report.

It’s clear just how skeptical House Republicans are of immigration reform when you consider that one of those 24 sent to Washington from the mixed, white/Hispanic districts is Texas Rep. Lamar Smith (Hispanic vote in his district: 27 percent), who was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee until this year, and who still gets a committee vote on a possible immigration bill. Before Thursday’s vote Smith tweeted that “the #Senate #immigration bill ignores the will of the #American people & puts the interests of illegal immigrants & foreign workers first.”

Smith isn’t worried about any backlash to a vote against the immigration bill. Neither are most of his colleagues. The 2010 round of congressional redistricting ensured that two out of three Hispanic voters now live in Democratic districts.

Pro-reform scolds have known that for a while. “If people are only looking at their own little backyards, yes, there are a lot of Republicans who can afford to vote no with no immediate repercussions,” says Florida-based GOP strategist Ana Navarro. “Sure, if you’re in the middle of Iowa, you’ll be fine, but I’d like to think there are enough responsible adults in the Republican Party to pass a bill.”

But the Republican skeptics think they’re being responsible, too. Any “comprehensive” reform they support will, by nature and design, allow more people to compete legally for jobs. That’s never going to be popular in their districts. While the opposition to immigration reform has been milder and quieter than it was in 2006–2007, there are still hints of white backlash. We saw a tremor of that this month; Republicans noticed that the Senate’s bill gave employers a small incentive to hire guest workers, because doing so would duck Obamacare’s requirements to provide health benefits.

So, what’s easier for Republicans? To give in and pass a bill that might add Hispanic voters to your districts, whom you then have to win over; or blocking the bill and upping your share of the white vote? That’s hardly a dilemma at all, and explains why the Senate bill faces such a hard road in the House. As they contemplate 2014 and 2016, Republicans are looking at elections where the white share of the vote may increase compared with 2012. They compare elections when Barack Obama was on the ballot against elections when he wasn’t. The white shares of the vote in 2008, 2010, and 2012 were, respectively, 74 percent, 77 percent, and 72 percent.

“I don't look at Obama completely as stunt casting,” says Florida-based GOP strategist Rick Wilson, “but the fact that he was the first minority president moved a lot of minority voters. And right now the group of possible Democratic nominees for 2016 looks like a meeting of the Robert Byrd fan club. It's the white boy coalition. None of these guys will light a fire for black voters.”

But Republicans, increasingly, light a fire with whites. From 2008 to 2012, Barack Obama’s share of the white vote fell from 43 percent to 39 percent. Right after the election, the fact that Obama scored a smaller white vote than Michael Dukakis was cited as proof that the GOP needed to change. Flip the logic. If Republicans can build on the white trend but Democrats can’t build on the nonwhite trends, Republicans will be safe, for a while. If Republicans get back to the 66 percent white vote won by Ronald Reagan in 1984, they’re golden.

Democrats don’t see that happening. “How the hell can they do better among whites than they did in 2012?” asks Paul Begala, a former Bill Clinton strategist who worked for the pro-Obama 2012 super PAC Priorities USA. “Can they really ever get 66 percent of the white vote again? No way. First, because their white voters are old: Romney got 61 percent of whites over age 65, but only 51 percent of whites 18 to 29. What the demographers euphemistically call ‘cohort replacement’ is working against the GOP. Other white subgroups, like college-educated women, gave Romney just 52 percent.”

Speaking of women! “If Hillary runs in 2016,” says Begala, “she has a good shot at building on Obama's dominance among younger whites and his strength among white college grads, and perhaps even outperform him among white working-class voters.”

Perhaps, but we have a better idea of what a huge white vote looks like than a post-Obama non-white/-millennial supergroup looks like. Immigration reformers have to convince House Republicans to embrace the uncertainty, and fear the familiar.

An interesting piece from Slate (Which is a leftist news site), which does show that the GOP can remain nationally relevant even in the face of changing demographics. While I do believe we Republicans need to start a significant outreach program to minorities in order to bring them into our ranks, this article does show that everything is not as bad for our future as we are lead to think.

No, that doesn't show it remaining relevant.

It shows it keeping the House due to gerrymandering.

However, even this is a holding pattern. It won't get them the Senate, it won't get them the Presidency, and it won't get them governorships. This means that if they're going to do anything but block legislation, if they're going to be relevant enough to make policy, then something needs to change.