Do you have anything that shows that this is how they actually vote, as opposed to how you would like them to vote? This just seems to be your view that they shouldn't vote for Republicans since Republicans are racists.

As recently as 8 years ago, Bush got 40% of the hispanic vote. I don't think the Republicans have become more racist since then, but immigration has become a bigger issue and thus affects more voters (I believe most polls show that immigration has become a bigger voting issue for hispanics). Other polls show that a large percent of hispanics stating that they would be more likely to support Republicans if they changed their stance of immigration.

As much as you might prefer that hispanics would never vote Republicans due to "racism" I have not seen any evidence that the hispanic vote has been permanently lost to Republicans (or even that they couldn't do much better in 2016).

man, bush did really well with hispanics, 35% his first time, 40% his second. Ended up beating reagan's 37% (only a 2 percentage point gain over his first run)

Yeah because "hard work" is a Republican value while not working is a Democratic value?

And you wonder why you lose. Bahbahmickey, I hope you enjoyed voting for Bush in 2004 if you were old enough. You are never going to vote for the winner of a Presidential candidate again in your life.

As I have said before if your hope is you will adopt some Democrat policies and that will cause a voting block to vote for you instead of those Democrats who created the policies (such as amnesty) then you are pinning your hopes on the most illogical assumption ever.

Arent Republicans meant to be the party that believes that welfare incentivises people not to work? What do you think caving to the opposition to win over a voting block incentivises?

Remember when Bush tried immigration reform in 2006? What caused that to break down?

Bush WON Muslims in 2000. What do you project for the foreseeable future on that count?

A party called the "Republican Party" could return to getting Bush levels of support, but that Party cannot court Sheriff Joe. You can't add Latinos to the current Republican base without antagonizing members of that base. Those members of the base will go on television and say really offensive **** about Latinos, which damages the brand. Bush literally tried exactly this plan, it isn't hypothetical.

If the 47% comment shows anything it is that Republicans dont care about people who work hard.

Latinos tend to be poorer and they are not white. Those are two of the strongest indicators of voting Democrat.

Rs just need more "How to talk to women and minorities" training sessions and then they'll be golden

The GOP has spent the last 4 years aggressively defining itself as the party of old white people, you can't reverse that branding with one grudging acceptance of Democratic immigration policy or with a token convention speaker. You need to make wholesale changes to rhetoric.

Basically, voting blocs get traded for one another. You can't just steal one by agreeing with your opponent.

DVaut made this exact point regarding Obamacare for the Democrats. If you suddenly start agreeing with the other side, you're A. Admitting you were idiots before and B. Voters aren't going to forget whose idea it was first.

Especially more of them sessions taking place on Virginia plantations, and being led by old white guys.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...egal-abortion/

This isn't true. Voters have short memories and don't care whose idea it originally was. The average voter barely knows the parties position on more than a handful of issues, much less who originated the idea. You aren't going to win many voters by claiming that our positions are the same, but I got there first, so vote for me.

Shifting positison might hurt Republicans in the short term, but long term no one will care (and I think if they shift now, and run someone like Rubio in 2016, they could dramatically improve with hispanics).

It depends. The individual mandate was a republican idea 20 years ago. Nobody remembers or cares.

But **** like civil rights, the huge.stuff...people remember.

Remindes me of a thread we had here not long ago where an astonishing # of posters who insisted Herman Cain would get >50% of the black vote over a generic white Democratic candidate.

People really do think tokenism wins hearts and minds, and it's going to take a while for them to get that Marco Rubio is not a magic bullet for the R's.

It's funny because I was just thinking along along same lines, before I saw this thread. I'll repost the point I just made in the Benghazi thread:

I have to admit there's a part of me that would almost rather see a moderate Republican win in 2016, than Hillary. The Republican base is pretty much losing their cookies already - talking about assault rifles and canned goods. If Hillary got elected, I worry about the fallout from heretofore unseen levels of butthurt that would ensue. I got my Obamacare, that was the biggie for me.

As long as we don't get a Bible thumper, teabagger, or idiot neocon in there – I can live with it. The Republican base is so clueless, a moderate Republican could do the exact same thing centrist Democrat would we do and they'd be fine with it. They'd be fine with 95% of everything Obama has done – if it had been done by a Republican.

The problem is there are way too many people who are socially ******ed. My aunt literally believes the earth is 6000 years old. You're never going to win her over with fiscally conservative (which she doesn't really care about) policies without the wingnuttery.

Sure, right now the Elephant is tripping on the crazy sauce, but the Elephant isn't going away. Short term the Donkey is too much of... well a donkey, and won't be able to take advantage of the situation.

In the long run our winner take all election system will necessarily generate a two party system. Even if one of them became truly dominate, a loyal opposition party would still necessary be generated.

And except in some exceptional circumstances, as a matter of branding, it will always be cheaper for any minor party to infiltrate and effectively become the Donkey or Elephant than to literally replace one of them as a major party.

Only 3.5% of Americans of Hispanic and Latino race are of Cuban heritage.

The Latino and Hispanic group is no more a unified voting block about as often as rural whites and city whites. People are heavily heavily over-estimating the power of Rubio on the ticket.

Has it ever occurred to you that the average American might just agree with Democrats more on a wide range of policy issues? Asians are not a specifically-courted demographic. Asians don't really have a single major political issue tied to their race. Republicans don't have anything mean to say about them specifically (at least about the Christian ones). Historically, the last major act of racism against Asians in America, the Japanese internment, was perpetrated by a Democrat! Asians vote Democratic in large numbers.

It's not racist to suggest that immigration is an important issue to many Latinos. It's pretty racist to suggest that all Republicans need to do to win their hearts and minds is to agree with Democrats on it.

In another thread not too long ago it was shown that two other indicators of voting democrat were being less educated and less knowledgeable about general politics.

I would take the bet that Herman Cain would get over 50% of the African-American vote if he ran against a white male in the next 2 elections. And no, not just because he is African-American.

I agree with you, but people forgetting that the mandate was a Republican idea didn't happen just because Democrats started championing it. They forgot because Republicans started fighting it tooth and nail. Had the great Obamacare debate been Boehner saying, "Oh, you guys warmed up to that Heritage Foundation ****? Sounds good to us. We've been trying to get that for years!" then, no, the Democrats would not get as much credit from the public for health care reform as they do now.

On immigration, if the Republicans start saying that the DREAM Act sounds like a good idea, and that jus soli is the law of the land, and that we don't need a giant electified fence with a moat and alligators and sniper towers, Democrats aren't going to fight them tooth and nail Were they to, then yeah, maybe some Latinos would flip. But the Dems would be like "Glad to have you on board, bros. Welcome to the 21st century. Thanks for finally coming around to our ideas." That doesn't score the GOP any points with anyone except those people who agree with the GOP platform plank for plank but are single issue voters on immigration. There aren't a lot of those people.

youtube... that you watch over the internet that was developed with government funding. If you were really true to your ideals you wouldn't use the internet either.

This post, and the edit text, perfectly encapsulates Fly's thesis that conservatives have no idea what racism is, they just think there are some words you can't say. Bahbah, this post is 100% racist, and it doesn't matter what word for a person of African descent you use. I will book this wager with you for any amount of money.

So, in your estimation, all those Fox News viewers who systematically are showed, study after study, to be not only misinformed, but also more sure that they're right about the stuff they're wrong about, those guys are all democrats?

And also lol at ignoring how democrats are also the most educated voters as well.

Standard cherry-picking and ignoring reality. Nothing new to see here.

No way you think Herman Cain would get over 50% of the black vote against a white man. The guy was completely hated by the black community during his book tour/presidential run.

I am pretty sure it is bordering on racism to even suggest he would, there just is no evidence there to suggest it and it must merely stem from the notion black people are too stupid to evaluate policies beyond skin colour.