The Minority Vote - Game On
By GordonTaylor Posted in 2008 — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As we move beyond the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, a new contingent of voters are coming into play. History shows us that the minority vote has little effect on the Republican vote, but has a huge impact on the Democratic vote.
While the news will most likely be overshadowed on Jan. 19th by the South Carolina GOP primary, Nevada will be holding it's caucuses, which will be the first time a large Hispanic vote will come into play.
Race has always been a factor in both political parties for as long as they have existed. But, will that change now? Obama proved that white voters will vote for a black candidate, with is stunning upset of Hillary in the Iowa caucuses, running against tradition as it were.
The Great Depression brought us the "New Deal" and many blacks took up Roosevelt on his deal and switched parties. Now it seems tradition keeps most blacks from voting Republican or registering as Republicans, because they feel that the GOP left them at stranded long ago and most are reluctant to come back.
Eisenhower as a Republican was able to attract 39% of the minority vote in 1956, but since then it has all been downhill for the GOP. The change over to the working mans party began with the election of JFK and in the 1964 election the GOP dropped to only 6% of the minority vote. The Democrats were able to make people believe Goldwater was an extreme right wing lunatic, and that stigma resulted in the most lopsided Presidential election of all time. Kennedy was a Catholic and Hispanics identified with that and they too became members of the working mans party.
The first test of how loyal the Hispanic vote will be for the Dems in in Nevada. In 2004 President Bush was able to capture an amazing 44% of the Latino vote there. He won by over 20,000 votes and the Democrats realize this fact, and have been registering Latinos by the thousands. Their tables outside the federal court house have been picking up an average of 100 new citizens each of the first two Friday's of every month. Hispanic Democrat registrations have risen to 10% since 2004.
While it's not clear that Latinos will vote for an African-American candidate, the Obama team is counting on it heavily. The Clinton campaign has been hard at work in the huge Hispanic neighborhoods in Las Vegas, as they too know the importance of the Latino vote in Nevada.
So what does all of this mean for the GOP? It would appear that if Clinton is the nominee, the Dems can count on a heavy turnout from the Hispanic population. If Obama is the nominee, it may mean that they will stay away from the election. What is clear is that a GOP vs Obama contest will NOT pick up the minority Latino vote. Why? Because, they see the GOP attempts to build a fence and secure our borders as a direct attack upon their race.
The Pew Research Center says Hispanics are twice as likely to identify themselves as Democrat than Republican. For blacks, it's 10 1/2 times. If Obama is the nominee for the Democrats, the job of electing a Republican to the White House will be much harder then if Clinton is the nominee.
As Republicans, we can not effect the outcome of the Democratic nomination process. What we MUST do is to unite behind our nominee and fight like its for all the marbles, because it is!
African-Americans seem to favor diversity policies (not affirmative action---mandated diversity in hiring/selections) and top-down Federal solutions to problems. That's 180 degrees out from the ways that the GOP traditionally tries to solve problems.
Given that, how do we make ourselves more appealing to minorities, without changing who we are?
If only I knew the solution, we'd all be better off. Generations of thinking and acting they way a particular culture thinks and acts is difficult to change. I wish it were easy, it is not. Some have seen the light, but most have not.
From an AP article:
Albert Ambiz, a naturalized citizen born in Guadalajara, Mexico, is registered Republican. But this week, as he watched Clinton canvass his heavily Hispanic neighborhood on Las Vegas' East Side, he said though he was still leaning Republican, he wasn't sure which party he would caucus with on the 19th.
Why would Albert be thinking about what Clinton has to say to even entertain the notion of caucusing Democrat? Because, the Democrats pander to the needs and wants of the particular minority group they are targeting and it is much easier for an individual to "Let Uncle do it for me" then it is for him to help himself.
Those of us that know we are better off for helping ourselves, know that in the long run we will have more, more of everything, money, homes, a better education and job or business. Uncle will only help so much, just enough to keep your head above water, but never enough to let you step onto the beach.
How do we get that point across? It is very difficult, it's easy for Uncle to write a check, there is immediate gratification. The fruits of being independent of Uncle are not immediate, and now a days it's all about instant gratification.
The HinzSight Report
Managing Editor
I was really impressed by the way you used links and data to prove your vast knowledge of African America political behaviour.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Apparently my knowledge of the subject is not as vast as yours, hence your snarky reply. This is simply my opinion to be exact. I included a link to from The Pew Research Center for the data relavent to how the Hispanic minority identifies themselves, and how many blacks are likely to vote Democratic.
The older facts I mentioned are simple American History and the newer statements are based on the News. I was big news just a few months ago when Rush made a statement on how the Democrats attempt to register new citizens was going wongly.
The rest is my opinion, based on nothing more then my view of current events. As hard as I have tried, I have yet been unable to link my thoughts directly to my computer.
If you had been here more than 26 minutes when you choose to reply, you might have learned a few of those facts.....
The HinzSight Report
Managing Editor
The HinzSight Report
Managing Editor
Gordon's facts dovetail nicely with readily available information. So do your own research if you want to contradict them.
Also, this being a Republican site, we have elephantine memories, which are so much better than Democrat ones, i.e. "Shuckey darn, I just can't remember how those subpoenaed files found their way upstairs at the White House. Bill, do you know?"
The Democrats have morphed into something quite different than the "workingman's party". This began with the tumultuous 1968 Democratic convention and the subsequent McGovernization of the party. The robust patriotism and blue collar values of the old line industrial unions have been replaced by a collection of professional victims, disaffected academics, whining feminists, pro-abortion zealots and snotty upper class professionals.
The working man of 1960 would not recognize today's Democratic party.
The HinzSight Report
Managing Editor
As he plotted his campaign for the presidency, JFK and his team energetically cultivated the Dixie Democratic establishment, then of course lily white and largely segregationist. When this was accomplished and the deal sealed by the selection of LBJ as his running mate, JFK triangulated and reached out to the party's black constituency, most notably in a telephone call to the jailed Dr. Martin Luther King. Nixon did not make such a call, and JFK won a lot of vote-attracting publicity.
Once in office, it was business-as-usual. JFK did little about civil rights for the first two years, and introduced the landmark civil rights legislation of 1963 only after an explosion of racial unrest. After his assassination, it passed only because of Republican votes.
But then the "true conservatives" engineered the Goldwater nomination and the rest, as they say, is history.
[Hispanics] see the GOP attempts to build a fence and secure our borders as a direct attack upon their race.
Seems to me that securing the borders and dealing with illegal immigration is a core belief for most in the GOP. If this is a deal-breaker with Hispanics, how do we overcome that? How do we make our party more appealing to Hispanics, without driving away equally-large numbers of our current supporters?
As for reaching out to African-Americans (as I've said on this site many, many times before), many of them seem wedded to big government solutions and identity politics. I reject the oft-repeated saw that the GOP should be faulted for not reaching out to African-Americans. We have reached out---ask Ken Mehlman and Michael Steele. Many African-American voters (and virtually all of that voting bloc's most widely recognized public leaders) are indifferent or hostile to traditional GOP approaches to government. African-Americans seem to favor diversity policies (not affirmative action---mandated diversity in hiring/selections) and top-down Federal solutions to problems. That's 180 degrees out from the ways that the GOP traditionally tries to solve problems.
Given that, how do we make ourselves more appealing to minorities, without changing who we are?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)