What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-tea-party-20130602,0,423149.column#tugs_story_display

The "tea party" is back and is brewing trouble for the Republican establishment.

After the GOP debacle in the 2012 election, when Republicans not only failed to win the presidency but blew a chance to take over the Senate, party leaders paused to consider what had gone wrong.

The Republican National Committee issued a scathing report warning that the party was in "an ideological cul-de-sac" and resolved to act friendlier toward women, minorities and low-income voters. Strategist Karl Rove said the lesson was to nominate more moderate candidates and set about raising money to do just that

But tea party and other conservative leaders, undaunted, drew the opposite conclusion.

"It was not conservatives" who lost those Senate races, 19 of them wrote in a joint attack against Rove's efforts. "Not one moderate challenger won." The solution, they argued, was to swing further right, not toward the center.

The tea party is as fired up as ever, even though the movement is smaller now than in its heyday of 2010. In one recent poll, only 22% of American voters said they considered themselves tea party supporters, down from 30% three years ago.

But the grass-roots small-government movement has proved remarkably resilient. According to Harvard political scientist Theda Skocpol, more than 350 tea party organizations are still operating; that's roughly two-thirds of the number that sprang up in 2009 and 2010. And they have been recently reenergized by the outbreak of scandals and quasi-scandals in the Obama administration, including one that amounts to a political windfall: the discovery that the Internal Revenue Service targeted tea party groups' applications for tax-exempt status for extra scrutiny.

The approach of congressional primary elections makes the tea party a major force too. The groups have a track record of turning out in force for low-participation primaries, and adherents are an essential source for donations and volunteers in Republican campaigns.

"Tea party supporters are responsible for almost all of the total campaign activity performed by party supporters on the Republican side," a team of political scientists led by Ronald B. Rapoport of the College of William & Mary reported in a recent study. "Tea party supporters are not just a faction within the Republican Party; they are a majority faction."

The problem, of course, is that this majority faction inside the party holds views often at odds not only with a majority of all voters but with the rest of the GOP.

According to polling that Rapoport and his colleagues oversaw, 63% of tea party Republicans want to limit immigration; only 48% of non-tea party Republicans agree. Among tea party adherents, 76% want to abolish the U.S. Department of Education; only 10% of non-tea party Republicans agree.

Most strikingly, when asked whether it was more important to cut the deficit or create jobs, 63% of tea party supporters opted to cut the deficit first. Among non-tea party Republicans, the priority was reversed, with 53% putting jobs first.

That polarization already spells trouble in the House, where tea party members recently balked at "reform conservative" proposals offered by their own majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), beginning with a bill to increase funding for high-risk health insurance pools as an alternative to Obamacare. (Spending was spending, the conservatives objected; they opted for another vote to repeal Obamacare instead.)

It spells trouble in the Senate, where the tea party's newest star, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), has brought old-guard GOP leaders to the edge of rage by publicly criticizing them as "a bunch of squishes." He and other tea party senators have succeeded in blocking House-Senate budget negotiations, charging that talks might lead to a deal to raise the federal debt ceiling, which they oppose.

"I don't trust the Republicans, and I don't trust the Democrats," Cruz said.

And he's not wrong: Some Republicans do want to compromise with President Obama over the debt ceiling. In the short run, GOP leaders don't want to be blamed by the White House for touching off a financial crisis that might interrupt the economy's recovery. And in the long run, many in the GOP establishment — including House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) — worry about being branded the party of austerity.

"That's the label President Obama is trying to put on us," said David Winston, a pollster and political strategist who has advised Boehner. "But if we become the party of austerity, then President Obama and the Democrats become the party of economic growth."

Instead of standing solely for spending cuts, Winston argued, the GOP needs to present a clearer plan for economic growth if it is to make headway in the 2014 elections. "Let's have a real discussion of what you would get with a Senate Republican majority," he told me last week. "We have to define a choice."

But tea party members aren't as worried about winning elections. According to another Rapoport survey, roughly three-fourths of tea party activists say they would prefer a strongly conservative candidate who's likely to lose over a relatively moderate candidate who's likely to win.

On paper, 2014 should be a good election for the GOP. It's the sixth year of the Obama presidency, a time when opposition parties historically do well. Democrats face an uphill battle to hold on to their 55-seat majority in the Senate. Midterm voter turnout is usually lower, so they can't count on the surge of young and minority voters who helped Obama win reelection.

But they have at least one asset: the civil war within the GOP. Once again, Democrats may prove lucky in their opponents.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
According to another Rapoport survey, roughly three-fourths of tea party activists say they would prefer a strongly conservative candidate who's likely to lose over a relatively moderate candidate who's likely to win.

Really this is all you need to know.

 
The immediate issue that they can do huge damage in is immigration reform. If they manage to kill that bill, as threatened, it will destroy any chance for the Republican party long term to be a national force.

After that, if they refuse to raise the debt ceiling again, we are headed for yet another financial crisis. Oh happy day!

 
According to another Rapoport survey, roughly three-fourths of tea party activists say they would prefer a strongly conservative candidate who's likely to lose over a relatively moderate candidate who's likely to win.

Really this is all you need to know.
Yep, and it is pathetic. And it is like they are oblivious to the harm they are causing within their own party.

 
If Obama were good at this politics thing he'd float a proposal through his back-channels to FOX and Rush suggesting that conservatives may not be eligible for full SS benefits until they turn 80, and that white Americans will be thrown off Medicare so that Mexicans can enjoy the full benefits of being in the US.

Moar Tea Party = good for Dems.

 
Pretty sure Republicans would have a majority in the Senate right now and Harry Reid would be spending more time with his family if it wasn't for the Tea Party.

 
The tea party is meaningless boogeyman. These people exist with or without whether some party. It is how they think and always will. The obsession that this unorganized party dictates anything is amusing. It is not FoxNew which dictates their thoughts. It is not the tea party. It is their thinking.

 
The tea party is meaningless boogeyman. These people exist with or without whether some party. It is how they think and always will. The obsession that this unorganized party dictates anything is amusing. It is not FoxNew which dictates their thoughts. It is not the tea party. It is their thinking.
Actually I think you're right about this. The Tea Party is simply a name, relatively new, to describe a movement which has always been there.

But there is IMO a crucial difference: in the past the "grass roots" elements of the GOP has mostly devoted itself to social issues: gays, guns, abortion, school prayer, etc. etc. Sometimes they would make noise on immigration, but usually all economic concerns were left to the establishment, moderate wing. Everyone in the GOP agrees on more limited government, but how to achieve that goal beyond simply lowering taxes usually bored most grass roots types.

Not anymore. Ever since TARP, and then the stimulus and most of all Obamacare, the Republican base have become obsessed with economics. And since they are a base and thus populist by nature, they bring with them simplistic solutions: no new spending, across the board cuts, don't raise the debt ceiling, etc. And this is disastrous for the GOP.

 
If Obama were good at this politics thing he'd float a proposal through his back-channels to FOX and Rush suggesting that conservatives may not be eligible for full SS benefits until they turn 80, and that white Americans will be thrown off Medicare so that Mexicans can enjoy the full benefits of being in the US.

More Tea Party = good for Dems.
It may be good for the Democratic leadership. But it's not good for the country, and that includes most Democrats. Just as it's not good for us if the Occupy Wall Street folks come to dominate the Democratic Party. Our two party system is in serious danger whenever extremists threaten to gain a majority.

 
The tea party is meaningless boogeyman. These people exist with or without whether some party. It is how they think and always will. The obsession that this unorganized party dictates anything is amusing. It is not FoxNew which dictates their thoughts. It is not the tea party. It is their thinking.
Actually I think you're right about this. The Tea Party is simply a name, relatively new, to describe a movement which has always been there.

But there is IMO a crucial difference: in the past the "grass roots" elements of the GOP has mostly devoted itself to social issues: gays, guns, abortion, school prayer, etc. etc. Sometimes they would make noise on immigration, but usually all economic concerns were left to the establishment, moderate wing. Everyone in the GOP agrees on more limited government, but how to achieve that goal beyond simply lowering taxes usually bored most grass roots types.

Not anymore. Ever since TARP, and then the stimulus and most of all Obamacare, the Republican base have become obsessed with economics. And since they are a base and thus populist by nature, they bring with them simplistic solutions: no new spending, across the board cuts, don't raise the debt ceiling, etc. And this is disastrous for the GOP.
Nothing wrong with 'simplistic' solutions. In fact it is how you win elections. Not raising the debt ceiling is unrealistic, but across the board cuts is a place to start. Freezing spending growth, finding some places to cut. Being skeptical of new spending. These are necessary steps in getting the budget under control and hoping growth takes care of the rest.

 
The tea party is meaningless boogeyman. These people exist with or without whether some party. It is how they think and always will. The obsession that this unorganized party dictates anything is amusing. It is not FoxNew which dictates their thoughts. It is not the tea party. It is their thinking.
Whole true to a degree, the fact is you have an energized, focused and very well organized faction with the tea party that absolutely sways elections... How that's meaningless I don't know. Perhaps for a national race, maybe even some senate races. However, the tea party continues to dictate the tone of the conversation, leaving the traditional GOP base and leadership in a reactive and defensive mode. As noted in the articles, it is very difficult to get GOP candidates that have support from moderates and who can pull some dem votes.When you get to the local level, the tea party presents even bigger issues. I can't speak for your regions, but long island's politics in certain towns have been put a bit in a swirl because of the presence and organization of the tea party and their ability to get out the vote - not to mention the very impact ful presence they have as the organized group that comes to speak at local board meetings. Unfortunately, the tea party itself, at least at this local level, seems to attract not just ideological small government people, but a good bit of right wing fringe... The UN and New World Order conspiracy theorists... By they organize and have a voice, and vote and therefore have a presence in the political spectrum that, in my opinion, is greater than their numbers - at least at a local level.The fact that they continue to shed a more negative, close minded, anti-immigrant (and racist) and non forward thinking on the GOP as a whole, fair or not (and it's a but of both IMO) absolutely hurts the GOP, at all levels of politics and unfortunate (also IMO) hurts the genuine political discourse and the ability for balanced governance especially at a local level.How this doesn't matter I do not know. It does. It's clear. There's evidence of it at every level and Ivan hit it on the head.
 
The tea party is meaningless boogeyman. These people exist with or without whether some party. It is how they think and always will. The obsession that this unorganized party dictates anything is amusing. It is not FoxNew which dictates their thoughts. It is not the tea party. It is their thinking.
Whole true to a degree, the fact is you have an energized, focused and very well organized faction with the tea party that absolutely sways elections... How that's meaningless I don't know. Perhaps for a national race, maybe even some senate races. However, the tea party continues to dictate the tone of the conversation, leaving the traditional GOP base and leadership in a reactive and defensive mode. As noted in the articles, it is very difficult to get GOP candidates that have support from moderates and who can pull some dem votes.When you get to the local level, the tea party presents even bigger issues. I can't speak for your regions, but long island's politics in certain towns have been put a bit in a swirl because of the presence and organization of the tea party and their ability to get out the vote - not to mention the very impact ful presence they have as the organized group that comes to speak at local board meetings. Unfortunately, the tea party itself, at least at this local level, seems to attract not just ideological small government people, but a good bit of right wing fringe... The UN and New World Order conspiracy theorists... By they organize and have a voice, and vote and therefore have a presence in the political spectrum that, in my opinion, is greater than their numbers - at least at a local level.

The fact that they continue to shed a more negative, close minded, anti-immigrant (and racist) and non forward thinking on the GOP as a whole, fair or not (and it's a but of both IMO) absolutely hurts the GOP, at all levels of politics and unfortunate (also IMO) hurts the genuine political discourse and the ability for balanced governance especially at a local level.

How this doesn't matter I do not know. It does. It's clear. There's evidence of it at every level and Ivan hit it on the head.

 
The tea party is meaningless boogeyman. These people exist with or without whether some party. It is how they think and always will. The obsession that this unorganized party dictates anything is amusing. It is not FoxNew which dictates their thoughts. It is not the tea party. It is their thinking.
Actually I think you're right about this. The Tea Party is simply a name, relatively new, to describe a movement which has always been there.

But there is IMO a crucial difference: in the past the "grass roots" elements of the GOP has mostly devoted itself to social issues: gays, guns, abortion, school prayer, etc. etc. Sometimes they would make noise on immigration, but usually all economic concerns were left to the establishment, moderate wing. Everyone in the GOP agrees on more limited government, but how to achieve that goal beyond simply lowering taxes usually bored most grass roots types.

Not anymore. Ever since TARP, and then the stimulus and most of all Obamacare, the Republican base have become obsessed with economics. And since they are a base and thus populist by nature, they bring with them simplistic solutions: no new spending, across the board cuts, don't raise the debt ceiling, etc. And this is disastrous for the GOP.
Nothing wrong with 'simplistic' solutions. In fact it is how you win elections. Not raising the debt ceiling is unrealistic, but across the board cuts is a place to start. Freezing spending growth, finding some places to cut. Being skeptical of new spending. These are necessary steps in getting the budget under control and hoping growth takes care of the rest.
Strongly disagree with the bolded (as you probably know.)

 
According to another Rapoport survey, roughly three-fourths of tea party activists say they would prefer a strongly conservative candidate who's likely to lose over a relatively moderate candidate who's likely to win. Really this is all you need to know.
No, the bolded is all you need to know and it is incorrect; see McCain, John; Romney, Mitt.
 
According to another Rapoport survey, roughly three-fourths of tea party activists say they would prefer a strongly conservative candidate who's likely to lose over a relatively moderate candidate who's likely to win. Really this is all you need to know.
No, the bolded is all you need to know and it is incorrect; see McCain, John; Romney, Mitt.
Tea Party types hated both those guys; they won the nomination because the base could not unite behind a single candidate. No guarantee this will happen next time around.

 
According to another Rapoport survey, roughly three-fourths of tea party activists say they would prefer a strongly conservative candidate who's likely to lose over a relatively moderate candidate who's likely to win. Really this is all you need to know.
No, the bolded is all you need to know and it is incorrect; see McCain, John; Romney, Mitt.
You must be kidding me. Do you really think McCain and Romney would have been the R candidates if the Tea Party could have hand-picked someone?

 
According to another Rapoport survey, roughly three-fourths of tea party activists say they would prefer a strongly conservative candidate who's likely to lose over a relatively moderate candidate who's likely to win. Really this is all you need to know.
No, the bolded is all you need to know and it is incorrect; see McCain, John; Romney, Mitt.
Tea Party types hated both those guys; they won the nomination because the base could not unite behind a single candidate. No guarantee this will happen next time around.
I think the purpose is to win the Presidency; 3 million registered Republicans stayed home on election night because they would not vote for that crazy Massachusetts Right-Winger and Tea-Party favorite Mitt Romney.
 
According to another Rapoport survey, roughly three-fourths of tea party activists say they would prefer a strongly conservative candidate who's likely to lose over a relatively moderate candidate who's likely to win. Really this is all you need to know.
No, the bolded is all you need to know and it is incorrect; see McCain, John; Romney, Mitt.
You must be kidding me. Do you really think McCain and Romney would have been the R candidates if the Tea Party could have hand-picked someone?
??My point is that these candidates did not have the support of the Tea-Party and more conservative factions, and they lost.
 
According to another Rapoport survey, roughly three-fourths of tea party activists say they would prefer a strongly conservative candidate who's likely to lose over a relatively moderate candidate who's likely to win. Really this is all you need to know.
No, the bolded is all you need to know and it is incorrect; see McCain, John; Romney, Mitt.
You must be kidding me. Do you really think McCain and Romney would have been the R candidates if the Tea Party could have hand-picked someone?
??My point is that these candidates did not have the support of the Tea-Party and more conservative factions, and they lost.
Perhaps you should have just said that rather than trying to be cute with tim's post.

 
Riversco said:
Rubio is a real wildcard. 40% of people still don't even know who he is. If he runs for president, and that number drops into the teens, the percentage of latinos that support him could spike and he could defeat the democrat easily. Or it might not move at all and he could lose badly. The GOP nominating a latino is uncharted waters so its all speculation.
If you reverse the Romney-Obama splits on the Hispanic votes Romney still loses; that would mean that even with 70% of the Hispanics going for Romney he still loses. The highest Hispanic vote (recent times) for a Republican is George Bush with 44%. The Hispanic vote is not the answer.
 
According to another Rapoport survey, roughly three-fourths of tea party activists say they would prefer a strongly conservative candidate who's likely to lose over a relatively moderate candidate who's likely to win. Really this is all you need to know.
No, the bolded is all you need to know and it is incorrect; see McCain, John; Romney, Mitt.
You must be kidding me. Do you really think McCain and Romney would have been the R candidates if the Tea Party could have hand-picked someone?
??My point is that these candidates did not have the support of the Tea-Party and more conservative factions, and they lost.
Perhaps you should have just said that rather than trying to be cute with tim's post.
Sorry Christo, I will keep to the facts. I was trying to show Tim that there is another way to look at his quote.
 
Riversco said:
Rubio is a real wildcard. 40% of people still don't even know who he is. If he runs for president, and that number drops into the teens, the percentage of latinos that support him could spike and he could defeat the democrat easily. Or it might not move at all and he could lose badly. The GOP nominating a latino is uncharted waters so its all speculation.
If you reverse the Romney-Obama splits on the Hispanic votes Romney still loses; that would mean that even with 70% of the Hispanics going for Romney he still loses. The highest Hispanic vote (recent times) for a Republican is George Bush with 44%. The Hispanic vote is not the answer.
You're missing the point. Republicans don't need Hispanics to win more electoral votes. They need Hispanics to win the states they already own. I'm talking about Arizona and Texas. Without Hispanic support those states are going to eventually go blue. And then the GOP is ####ed.

 
Riversco said:
Rubio is a real wildcard. 40% of people still don't even know who he is. If he runs for president, and that number drops into the teens, the percentage of latinos that support him could spike and he could defeat the democrat easily. Or it might not move at all and he could lose badly. The GOP nominating a latino is uncharted waters so its all speculation.
If you reverse the Romney-Obama splits on the Hispanic votes Romney still loses; that would mean that even with 70% of the Hispanics going for Romney he still loses. The highest Hispanic vote (recent times) for a Republican is George Bush with 44%. The Hispanic vote is not the answer.
This. I really don't understand this line of thinking. I haven't done much research on this, but common sense tells me that due to the electoral college, putting so much emphasis on a single race doesn't make any sense.

For example... Ohio is a crucial state to win. Ohio's population has probably about a 3% Hispanic make up. And this past election, if every single Hispanic person voted and voted for Romney, he still would have lost Ohio.

Then you look at states where the majority of Hispanics live (California, Texas, etc.). Those states are so heavily aligned with a specific party, the Hispanic vote doesn't even matter. I think Texas has a population of over 30% Hispanics. Is all of a sudden Texas going to turn blue? They haven't yet. And trotting out a Latino candidate would basically only increase the margin of the win by the Rs. And it is absurd to think that the Rs could ever win CA and they barely try.

It just doesn't make logical sense to me that the Hispanic vote really matters all that much. Because of the electoral college, and the way demographics usually are in the swing states (predominantly white), it seems like this is not something that should be focused on.

Florida may be the only state where any of this applies. But I don't think you can win the election if you get Florida if you don't get PA, OH, MI, etc.

I think the women vote is the real area of focus and the gap seems to be getting wider and wider as time goes on and the Rs are going to have a hard time winning unless they change their brand in this area. IMHO

 
According to another Rapoport survey, roughly three-fourths of tea party activists say they would prefer a strongly conservative candidate who's likely to lose over a relatively moderate candidate who's likely to win. Really this is all you need to know.
No, the bolded is all you need to know and it is incorrect; see McCain, John; Romney, Mitt.
You must be kidding me. Do you really think McCain and Romney would have been the R candidates if the Tea Party could have hand-picked someone?
??My point is that these candidates did not have the support of the Tea-Party and more conservative factions, and they lost.
Perhaps you should have just said that rather than trying to be cute with tim's post.
Sorry Christo, I will keep to the facts. I was trying to show Tim that there is another way to look at his quote.
Now I see your point here. It's an interesting argument, but in order to prove it, you'd have to demonstrate that it was the lack of Tea Party voting in the swing states that shifted them to Obama. I suspect that is not the case, and that the lack of conservative voting took place in the states already firmly red. If 50,000 conservatives in Alabama stayed home in this election because they didn't like Romney, it makes no difference to the result at all. If they stayed home in Ohio, then of course it makes a difference. But I suspect that in most swing states moderates and independents had much more of an impact than either progressives or conservatives.

 
Riversco said:
Rubio is a real wildcard. 40% of people still don't even know who he is. If he runs for president, and that number drops into the teens, the percentage of latinos that support him could spike and he could defeat the democrat easily. Or it might not move at all and he could lose badly. The GOP nominating a latino is uncharted waters so its all speculation.
If you reverse the Romney-Obama splits on the Hispanic votes Romney still loses; that would mean that even with 70% of the Hispanics going for Romney he still loses. The highest Hispanic vote (recent times) for a Republican is George Bush with 44%. The Hispanic vote is not the answer.
This. I really don't understand this line of thinking. I haven't done much research on this, but common sense tells me that due to the electoral college, putting so much emphasis on a single race doesn't make any sense.

For example... Ohio is a crucial state to win. Ohio's population has probably about a 3% Hispanic make up. And this past election, if every single Hispanic person voted and voted for Romney, he still would have lost Ohio.

Then you look at states where the majority of Hispanics live (California, Texas, etc.). Those states are so heavily aligned with a specific party, the Hispanic vote doesn't even matter. I think Texas has a population of over 30% Hispanics. Is all of a sudden Texas going to turn blue? They haven't yet. And trotting out a Latino candidate would basically only increase the margin of the win by the Rs. And it is absurd to think that the Rs could ever win CA and they barely try.

It just doesn't make logical sense to me that the Hispanic vote really matters all that much. Because of the electoral college, and the way demographics usually are in the swing states (predominantly white), it seems like this is not something that should be focused on.

Florida may be the only state where any of this applies. But I don't think you can win the election if you get Florida if you don't get PA, OH, MI, etc.

I think the women vote is the real area of focus and the gap seems to be getting wider and wider as time goes on and the Rs are going to have a hard time winning unless they change their brand in this area. IMHO
If you look at demographic changes, eventually Texas will turn blue. So will Arizona. The GOP ignores the Hispanic vote at its peril.

 
According to another Rapoport survey, roughly three-fourths of tea party activists say they would prefer a strongly conservative candidate who's likely to lose over a relatively moderate candidate who's likely to win. Really this is all you need to know.
No, the bolded is all you need to know and it is incorrect; see McCain, John; Romney, Mitt.
You must be kidding me. Do you really think McCain and Romney would have been the R candidates if the Tea Party could have hand-picked someone?
??My point is that these candidates did not have the support of the Tea-Party and more conservative factions, and they lost.
Perhaps you should have just said that rather than trying to be cute with tim's post.
Sorry Christo, I will keep to the facts. I was trying to show Tim that there is another way to look at his quote.
Now I see your point here. It's an interesting argument, but in order to prove it, you'd have to demonstrate that it was the lack of Tea Party voting in the swing states that shifted them to Obama. I suspect that is not the case, and that the lack of conservative voting took place in the states already firmly red. If 50,000 conservatives in Alabama stayed home in this election because they didn't like Romney, it makes no difference to the result at all. If they stayed home in Ohio, then of course it makes a difference. But I suspect that in most swing states moderates and independents had much more of an impact than either progressives or conservatives.
I can't imagine that is the case. The Tea Party was out in full force in the swing states.

 
Besides, Ohio may be 3% Hispanic right now, but that number is surely growing. Even a 10% Hispanic population, if solidly behind one political party, could have a dramatic impact in a swing state like Ohio.

 
Riversco said:
Rubio is a real wildcard. 40% of people still don't even know who he is. If he runs for president, and that number drops into the teens, the percentage of latinos that support him could spike and he could defeat the democrat easily. Or it might not move at all and he could lose badly. The GOP nominating a latino is uncharted waters so its all speculation.
If you reverse the Romney-Obama splits on the Hispanic votes Romney still loses; that would mean that even with 70% of the Hispanics going for Romney he still loses. The highest Hispanic vote (recent times) for a Republican is George Bush with 44%. The Hispanic vote is not the answer.
This. I really don't understand this line of thinking. I haven't done much research on this, but common sense tells me that due to the electoral college, putting so much emphasis on a single race doesn't make any sense.

For example... Ohio is a crucial state to win. Ohio's population has probably about a 3% Hispanic make up. And this past election, if every single Hispanic person voted and voted for Romney, he still would have lost Ohio.

Then you look at states where the majority of Hispanics live (California, Texas, etc.). Those states are so heavily aligned with a specific party, the Hispanic vote doesn't even matter. I think Texas has a population of over 30% Hispanics. Is all of a sudden Texas going to turn blue? They haven't yet. And trotting out a Latino candidate would basically only increase the margin of the win by the Rs. And it is absurd to think that the Rs could ever win CA and they barely try.

It just doesn't make logical sense to me that the Hispanic vote really matters all that much. Because of the electoral college, and the way demographics usually are in the swing states (predominantly white), it seems like this is not something that should be focused on.

Florida may be the only state where any of this applies. But I don't think you can win the election if you get Florida if you don't get PA, OH, MI, etc.

I think the women vote is the real area of focus and the gap seems to be getting wider and wider as time goes on and the Rs are going to have a hard time winning unless they change their brand in this area. IMHO
If you look at demographic changes, eventually Texas will turn blue. So will Arizona. The GOP ignores the Hispanic vote at its peril.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around that. It would be sorta funny. I just can't see it happening unless the Hispanic population continues to grow to the point that they approach 50%.

 
Riversco said:
Rubio is a real wildcard. 40% of people still don't even know who he is. If he runs for president, and that number drops into the teens, the percentage of latinos that support him could spike and he could defeat the democrat easily. Or it might not move at all and he could lose badly. The GOP nominating a latino is uncharted waters so its all speculation.
If you reverse the Romney-Obama splits on the Hispanic votes Romney still loses; that would mean that even with 70% of the Hispanics going for Romney he still loses. The highest Hispanic vote (recent times) for a Republican is George Bush with 44%. The Hispanic vote is not the answer.
This. I really don't understand this line of thinking. I haven't done much research on this, but common sense tells me that due to the electoral college, putting so much emphasis on a single race doesn't make any sense. For example... Ohio is a crucial state to win. Ohio's population has probably about a 3% Hispanic make up. And this past election, if every single Hispanic person voted and voted for Romney, he still would have lost Ohio. Then you look at states where the majority of Hispanics live (California, Texas, etc.). Those states are so heavily aligned with a specific party, the Hispanic vote doesn't even matter. I think Texas has a population of over 30% Hispanics. Is all of a sudden Texas going to turn blue? They haven't yet. And trotting out a Latino candidate would basically only increase the margin of the win by the Rs. And it is absurd to think that the Rs could ever win CA and they barely try. It just doesn't make logical sense to me that the Hispanic vote really matters all that much. Because of the electoral college, and the way demographics usually are in the swing states (predominantly white), it seems like this is not something that should be focused on. Florida may be the only state where any of this applies. But I don't think you can win the election if you get Florida if you don't get PA, OH, MI, etc. I think the women vote is the real area of focus and the gap seems to be getting wider and wider as time goes on and the Rs are going to have a hard time winning unless they change their brand in this area. IMHO
If you look at demographic changes, eventually Texas will turn blue. So will Arizona. The GOP ignores the Hispanic vote at its peril.
Do senate seats and congressional races not matter? So California will go dem either way. Texas will go R - for a while at least. But how about Nassau County, Long Island. Traditionally a win for the republicans, however recently I believe dems have taken over the republicans in terms of registered voters - although that is offset by the higher turnout in all elections ( more or less) for the republicans.As the Hispanic/Latino vote grows - its the fastest growing cohort as is true generally nationwide - that impacts everything from senate races to Peter kings eventual replacement etc.Has to be a similar situation in areas of Jersey that have and still are republican wins but strongholds become contested and slim but reliable wins are now potential losses. The change of demo might not affect the presidential electoral college but you better beleve it affects the political landscape. And that's not good for this GOP in whatever crazy condition it is now. Too far right, viewed as anti immigrant, cowtowing to extrnists at least in regard to the message and a splintered party at that.Of course this can all change in a matter of one or two election cycles ( not long ago the Dems were the splintered too far to the left mess)... But what inclination do we have that the GOP is ready for such a sea change?
 
Riversco said:
Rubio is a real wildcard. 40% of people still don't even know who he is. If he runs for president, and that number drops into the teens, the percentage of latinos that support him could spike and he could defeat the democrat easily. Or it might not move at all and he could lose badly. The GOP nominating a latino is uncharted waters so its all speculation.
If you reverse the Romney-Obama splits on the Hispanic votes Romney still loses; that would mean that even with 70% of the Hispanics going for Romney he still loses. The highest Hispanic vote (recent times) for a Republican is George Bush with 44%. The Hispanic vote is not the answer.
This. I really don't understand this line of thinking. I haven't done much research on this, but common sense tells me that due to the electoral college, putting so much emphasis on a single race doesn't make any sense.

For example... Ohio is a crucial state to win. Ohio's population has probably about a 3% Hispanic make up. And this past election, if every single Hispanic person voted and voted for Romney, he still would have lost Ohio.

Then you look at states where the majority of Hispanics live (California, Texas, etc.). Those states are so heavily aligned with a specific party, the Hispanic vote doesn't even matter. I think Texas has a population of over 30% Hispanics. Is all of a sudden Texas going to turn blue? They haven't yet. And trotting out a Latino candidate would basically only increase the margin of the win by the Rs. And it is absurd to think that the Rs could ever win CA and they barely try.

It just doesn't make logical sense to me that the Hispanic vote really matters all that much. Because of the electoral college, and the way demographics usually are in the swing states (predominantly white), it seems like this is not something that should be focused on.

Florida may be the only state where any of this applies. But I don't think you can win the election if you get Florida if you don't get PA, OH, MI, etc.

I think the women vote is the real area of focus and the gap seems to be getting wider and wider as time goes on and the Rs are going to have a hard time winning unless they change their brand in this area. IMHO
If you look at demographic changes, eventually Texas will turn blue. So will Arizona. The GOP ignores the Hispanic vote at its peril.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around that. It would be sorta funny. I just can't see it happening unless the Hispanic population continues to grow to the point that they approach 50%.
It also just assumes Hispanics are a mindless voting block.

 
Besides, Ohio may be 3% Hispanic right now, but that number is surely growing. Even a 10% Hispanic population, if solidly behind one political party, could have a dramatic impact in a swing state like Ohio.
I don't know and I don't know where you live. But we really don't have many people migrating here from other places. (I've lived in Ohio for about a year). If anything, people are leaving. I'm from NJ/Philadelphia area and we just really don't have many Hispanics. I think they tend to settle in places where there is a lot of farm-type employment and places that are actually farther south and closer to where they originated from.

I could be completely off base, but I barely see any minorities anywhere around here and I really don't sense that the minority population is expanding. Likewise, when I lived in Philly, there really weren't a lot of Hispanics around at all. I think the phenomenon is really isolated to certain areas of the country.

Unless we are talking about long term demographic shifts that will take place over the next 50-100 years. If that's the case anything can really happen. In the short term I just don't see any of these drastic changes.

 
Riversco said:
Rubio is a real wildcard. 40% of people still don't even know who he is. If he runs for president, and that number drops into the teens, the percentage of latinos that support him could spike and he could defeat the democrat easily. Or it might not move at all and he could lose badly. The GOP nominating a latino is uncharted waters so its all speculation.
If you reverse the Romney-Obama splits on the Hispanic votes Romney still loses; that would mean that even with 70% of the Hispanics going for Romney he still loses. The highest Hispanic vote (recent times) for a Republican is George Bush with 44%. The Hispanic vote is not the answer.
This. I really don't understand this line of thinking. I haven't done much research on this, but common sense tells me that due to the electoral college, putting so much emphasis on a single race doesn't make any sense.

For example... Ohio is a crucial state to win. Ohio's population has probably about a 3% Hispanic make up. And this past election, if every single Hispanic person voted and voted for Romney, he still would have lost Ohio.

Then you look at states where the majority of Hispanics live (California, Texas, etc.). Those states are so heavily aligned with a specific party, the Hispanic vote doesn't even matter. I think Texas has a population of over 30% Hispanics. Is all of a sudden Texas going to turn blue? They haven't yet. And trotting out a Latino candidate would basically only increase the margin of the win by the Rs. And it is absurd to think that the Rs could ever win CA and they barely try.

It just doesn't make logical sense to me that the Hispanic vote really matters all that much. Because of the electoral college, and the way demographics usually are in the swing states (predominantly white), it seems like this is not something that should be focused on.

Florida may be the only state where any of this applies. But I don't think you can win the election if you get Florida if you don't get PA, OH, MI, etc.

I think the women vote is the real area of focus and the gap seems to be getting wider and wider as time goes on and the Rs are going to have a hard time winning unless they change their brand in this area. IMHO
If you look at demographic changes, eventually Texas will turn blue. So will Arizona. The GOP ignores the Hispanic vote at its peril.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around that. It would be sorta funny. I just can't see it happening unless the Hispanic population continues to grow to the point that they approach 50%.
It also just assumes Hispanics are a mindless voting block.
That is also true.

 
Just sat on bench next to Reince Priebus at Ultra Zone Laser Tag in Arlington. He was going on and on about how Al Punto has more viewers on many weeks than Meet the Press. "That tells you where it's going," he said.

That's all I got (and my kid sucks at laser tag).

 
Besides, Ohio may be 3% Hispanic right now, but that number is surely growing. Even a 10% Hispanic population, if solidly behind one political party, could have a dramatic impact in a swing state like Ohio.
I don't know and I don't know where you live. But we really don't have many people migrating here from other places. (I've lived in Ohio for about a year). If anything, people are leaving. I'm from NJ/Philadelphia area and we just really don't have many Hispanics. I think they tend to settle in places where there is a lot of farm-type employment and places that are actually farther south and closer to where they originated from. I could be completely off base, but I barely see any minorities anywhere around here and I really don't sense that the minority population is expanding. Likewise, when I lived in Philly, there really weren't a lot of Hispanics around at all. I think the phenomenon is really isolated to certain areas of the country. Unless we are talking about long term demographic shifts that will take place over the next 50-100 years. If that's the case anything can really happen. In the short term I just don't see any of these drastic changes.
Are you saying that there aren't many Hispanics / Latinos in NJ? ( or just Ohio)Hispanic/Latinos account for 18% of NJs population, the eighth highest percentage in the nation. It's close to NY has existing communities and will likely draw more moving forward, proportionately.
 
Florida may be the only state where any of this applies. But I don't think you can win the election if you get Florida if you don't get PA, OH, MI, etc.
Florida is also complicated by the fact that there really isn't a "Hispanic vote" and Florida has multiple large Hispanic populations of different backgrounds with different priorities and issues.
 
Riversco said:
Rubio is a real wildcard. 40% of people still don't even know who he is. If he runs for president, and that number drops into the teens, the percentage of latinos that support him could spike and he could defeat the democrat easily. Or it might not move at all and he could lose badly. The GOP nominating a latino is uncharted waters so its all speculation.
If you reverse the Romney-Obama splits on the Hispanic votes Romney still loses; that would mean that even with 70% of the Hispanics going for Romney he still loses. The highest Hispanic vote (recent times) for a Republican is George Bush with 44%. The Hispanic vote is not the answer.
This. I really don't understand this line of thinking. I haven't done much research on this, but common sense tells me that due to the electoral college, putting so much emphasis on a single race doesn't make any sense.

For example... Ohio is a crucial state to win. Ohio's population has probably about a 3% Hispanic make up. And this past election, if every single Hispanic person voted and voted for Romney, he still would have lost Ohio.

Then you look at states where the majority of Hispanics live (California, Texas, etc.). Those states are so heavily aligned with a specific party, the Hispanic vote doesn't even matter. I think Texas has a population of over 30% Hispanics. Is all of a sudden Texas going to turn blue? They haven't yet. And trotting out a Latino candidate would basically only increase the margin of the win by the Rs. And it is absurd to think that the Rs could ever win CA and they barely try.

It just doesn't make logical sense to me that the Hispanic vote really matters all that much. Because of the electoral college, and the way demographics usually are in the swing states (predominantly white), it seems like this is not something that should be focused on.

Florida may be the only state where any of this applies. But I don't think you can win the election if you get Florida if you don't get PA, OH, MI, etc.

I think the women vote is the real area of focus and the gap seems to be getting wider and wider as time goes on and the Rs are going to have a hard time winning unless they change their brand in this area. IMHO
If you look at demographic changes, eventually Texas will turn blue. So will Arizona. The GOP ignores the Hispanic vote at its peril.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around that. It would be sorta funny. I just can't see it happening unless the Hispanic population continues to grow to the point that they approach 50%.
They will be the majority in the border states in short order.

 
Besides, Ohio may be 3% Hispanic right now, but that number is surely growing. Even a 10% Hispanic population, if solidly behind one political party, could have a dramatic impact in a swing state like Ohio.
I don't know and I don't know where you live. But we really don't have many people migrating here from other places. (I've lived in Ohio for about a year). If anything, people are leaving. I'm from NJ/Philadelphia area and we just really don't have many Hispanics. I think they tend to settle in places where there is a lot of farm-type employment and places that are actually farther south and closer to where they originated from. I could be completely off base, but I barely see any minorities anywhere around here and I really don't sense that the minority population is expanding. Likewise, when I lived in Philly, there really weren't a lot of Hispanics around at all. I think the phenomenon is really isolated to certain areas of the country. Unless we are talking about long term demographic shifts that will take place over the next 50-100 years. If that's the case anything can really happen. In the short term I just don't see any of these drastic changes.
Are you saying that there aren't many Hispanics / Latinos in NJ? ( or just Ohio)Hispanic/Latinos account for 18% of NJs population, the eighth highest percentage in the nation. It's close to NY has existing communities and will likely draw more moving forward, proportionately.
No. Sorry. I was talking about Ohio. I know there are a lot of latinos in NJ. But NJ is another one of those states that will probably never swing to the Rs in a presidential election. I grew up in NJ that's why I mentioned it.

NJ/NY has all kinds of people from all different races.

 
I blame the Koch brothers. Prior to their investing into the movement, the movement was a natural voicing of people's individually experienced frustrations with government and politics in general. Whether one was inclined to be conservative, liberal or moderate, it was a platform for all.

But with Koch money the movement became agenda based activisim. Which is why liberal and moderate minded people have walked away from it.

 
Nikki2200 said:
Koya said:
Nikki2200 said:
timschochet said:
Besides, Ohio may be 3% Hispanic right now, but that number is surely growing. Even a 10% Hispanic population, if solidly behind one political party, could have a dramatic impact in a swing state like Ohio.
I don't know and I don't know where you live. But we really don't have many people migrating here from other places. (I've lived in Ohio for about a year). If anything, people are leaving. I'm from NJ/Philadelphia area and we just really don't have many Hispanics. I think they tend to settle in places where there is a lot of farm-type employment and places that are actually farther south and closer to where they originated from. I could be completely off base, but I barely see any minorities anywhere around here and I really don't sense that the minority population is expanding. Likewise, when I lived in Philly, there really weren't a lot of Hispanics around at all. I think the phenomenon is really isolated to certain areas of the country. Unless we are talking about long term demographic shifts that will take place over the next 50-100 years. If that's the case anything can really happen. In the short term I just don't see any of these drastic changes.
Are you saying that there aren't many Hispanics / Latinos in NJ? ( or just Ohio)Hispanic/Latinos account for 18% of NJs population, the eighth highest percentage in the nation. It's close to NY has existing communities and will likely draw more moving forward, proportionately.
No. Sorry. I was talking about Ohio. I know there are a lot of latinos in NJ. But NJ is another one of those states that will probably never swing to the Rs in a presidential election. I grew up in NJ that's why I mentioned it. NJ/NY has all kinds of people from all different races.
To my first point though, I think we are focusing too much on national elections. Both NJ and NY have historically strong rep strongholds - those are important for local, regional and state politics and can be the swing voting areas for senate seats - not to mention congressional races. Those rep strongholds, especially those in more densely populated / closer to the city areas are seeing significant growth in the Latino population that certainly has national implications. Woudlnt surprise me that these dynamics exist elsewhere in the country which provide a huge impact on control of Senate and Congress.
 
timschochet said:
Besides, Ohio may be 3% Hispanic right now, but that number is surely growing. Even a 10% Hispanic population, if solidly behind one political party, could have a dramatic impact in a swing state like Ohio.
not when more Hispanics vote Democrat.
 
timschochet said:
Nikki2200 said:
pittstownkiller said:
Riversco said:
Rubio is a real wildcard. 40% of people still don't even know who he is. If he runs for president, and that number drops into the teens, the percentage of latinos that support him could spike and he could defeat the democrat easily. Or it might not move at all and he could lose badly. The GOP nominating a latino is uncharted waters so its all speculation.
If you reverse the Romney-Obama splits on the Hispanic votes Romney still loses; that would mean that even with 70% of the Hispanics going for Romney he still loses. The highest Hispanic vote (recent times) for a Republican is George Bush with 44%. The Hispanic vote is not the answer.
This. I really don't understand this line of thinking. I haven't done much research on this, but common sense tells me that due to the electoral college, putting so much emphasis on a single race doesn't make any sense. For example... Ohio is a crucial state to win. Ohio's population has probably about a 3% Hispanic make up. And this past election, if every single Hispanic person voted and voted for Romney, he still would have lost Ohio. Then you look at states where the majority of Hispanics live (California, Texas, etc.). Those states are so heavily aligned with a specific party, the Hispanic vote doesn't even matter. I think Texas has a population of over 30% Hispanics. Is all of a sudden Texas going to turn blue? They haven't yet. And trotting out a Latino candidate would basically only increase the margin of the win by the Rs. And it is absurd to think that the Rs could ever win CA and they barely try. It just doesn't make logical sense to me that the Hispanic vote really matters all that much. Because of the electoral college, and the way demographics usually are in the swing states (predominantly white), it seems like this is not something that should be focused on. Florida may be the only state where any of this applies. But I don't think you can win the election if you get Florida if you don't get PA, OH, MI, etc. I think the women vote is the real area of focus and the gap seems to be getting wider and wider as time goes on and the Rs are going to have a hard time winning unless they change their brand in this area. IMHO
If you look at demographic changes, eventually Texas will turn blue. So will Arizona. The GOP ignores the Hispanic vote at its peril.
:lmao:Come on Tim, at least make a pertinent argument. Yes, you are correct, if the GOP loses the states it is currently wins they will not win elections; not truly earth-shattering stuff here. Now try this: they are winning those states and still losing; it isn't the Hispanics.
 
Koya said:
Nikki2200 said:
timschochet said:
Besides, Ohio may be 3% Hispanic right now, but that number is surely growing. Even a 10% Hispanic population, if solidly behind one political party, could have a dramatic impact in a swing state like Ohio.
I don't know and I don't know where you live. But we really don't have many people migrating here from other places. (I've lived in Ohio for about a year). If anything, people are leaving. I'm from NJ/Philadelphia area and we just really don't have many Hispanics. I think they tend to settle in places where there is a lot of farm-type employment and places that are actually farther south and closer to where they originated from. I could be completely off base, but I barely see any minorities anywhere around here and I really don't sense that the minority population is expanding. Likewise, when I lived in Philly, there really weren't a lot of Hispanics around at all. I think the phenomenon is really isolated to certain areas of the country. Unless we are talking about long term demographic shifts that will take place over the next 50-100 years. If that's the case anything can really happen. In the short term I just don't see any of these drastic changes.
Are you saying that there aren't many Hispanics / Latinos in NJ? ( or just Ohio)Hispanic/Latinos account for 18% of NJs population, the eighth highest percentage in the nation. It's close to NY has existing communities and will likely draw more moving forward, proportionately.
What is the percentage of Hispanics that can actually vote in NJ; not to mention a Republican isn't going to probably win NJ (save Christie) so the point is rather moot.
 
Is this another thread where the resident liberals get to tell us what's good for the GOP? :lol:
Yes, this is where they tell us we need to run much more moderate candidates so they can still vote for the Democratic nominee; this doesn't apply to Tim, who hates every principle of the conservative platforms, while loving the principles and participants on the left, yet he votes Republican - :lmao:
 
Nikki2200 said:
Koya said:
Nikki2200 said:
timschochet said:
Besides, Ohio may be 3% Hispanic right now, but that number is surely growing. Even a 10% Hispanic population, if solidly behind one political party, could have a dramatic impact in a swing state like Ohio.
I don't know and I don't know where you live. But we really don't have many people migrating here from other places. (I've lived in Ohio for about a year). If anything, people are leaving. I'm from NJ/Philadelphia area and we just really don't have many Hispanics. I think they tend to settle in places where there is a lot of farm-type employment and places that are actually farther south and closer to where they originated from. I could be completely off base, but I barely see any minorities anywhere around here and I really don't sense that the minority population is expanding. Likewise, when I lived in Philly, there really weren't a lot of Hispanics around at all. I think the phenomenon is really isolated to certain areas of the country. Unless we are talking about long term demographic shifts that will take place over the next 50-100 years. If that's the case anything can really happen. In the short term I just don't see any of these drastic changes.
Are you saying that there aren't many Hispanics / Latinos in NJ? ( or just Ohio)Hispanic/Latinos account for 18% of NJs population, the eighth highest percentage in the nation. It's close to NY has existing communities and will likely draw more moving forward, proportionately.
No. Sorry. I was talking about Ohio. I know there are a lot of latinos in NJ. But NJ is another one of those states that will probably never swing to the Rs in a presidential election. I grew up in NJ that's why I mentioned it. NJ/NY has all kinds of people from all different races.
To my first point though, I think we are focusing too much on national elections. Both NJ and NY have historically strong rep strongholds - those are important for local, regional and state politics and can be the swing voting areas for senate seats - not to mention congressional races. Those rep strongholds, especially those in more densely populated / closer to the city areas are seeing significant growth in the Latino population that certainly has national implications. Woudlnt surprise me that these dynamics exist elsewhere in the country which provide a huge impact on control of Senate and Congress.
NY will be Democratic for the foreseeable future; too many people in NYC even if the rest of the counties in the State turn red.
 
Is this another thread where the resident liberals get to tell us what's good for the GOP?
Yes, this is where they tell us we need to run much more moderate candidates so they can still vote for the Democratic nominee; this doesn't apply to Tim, who hates every principle of the conservative platforms, while loving the principles and participants on the left, yet he votes Republican -
Meh....simplified way of looking at it. My advice to the Tea Party and Republicans would be to not run a Christine O'Donnell when a Mike Castle does the job just fine. What plays in The Deep South and Mountain States doesn't play in the Mid Atlantic and Pacific Coast....so nominiate and run people on the coasts who CAN win (i.e. Mike Castles) and save the crazies for Flyover Country.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top