Redstate

It depends who is moving into the states and at what rate. If you assume that Democratic-leaning voters from the Northeast and Midwest are moving to these Sun Belt states, then Republicans will benefit in the short term in the winner-take-all electoral college system, but it will eventually hurt them once Democrats begin to "pass the post."

Neil Malhotra
Department of Political Science
Stanford University

They don't typically vote (R) either.

www.scottbomb.com

These trends will be good for the GOP only as long as their share of the white vote remains high enough to carry the day.

'Cause what I read is a pretty blatant insinuation that only 'whites' vote Republican. Further, you infer that Republicans do this for racist reasons.

If you had another intention, you might want to spell it out.

First of all, let me try and be clear about your statements, particularly the second sentence. Since the people 'doing' something in the first sentence are whites, and what they are doing is voting Republican, am I correct to assume that you meant to say "Futher, you infer that whites do this for racist reasons." ???

If so, then let me emphatically reply NO, I do not think that whites vote Republican for racist reasons. That is absurd. The only people who believe that are leftists; the New Republican ran an article not long ago that basically says the GOP controls the South because of racism. As a white Southerner who votes Republican for non-racist reasons, I take particular exception to this bogus claim. Its a claim made by liberals and Democrats to make themselves feel morally superior, and to discredit GOP victories.

As to the rest; No, I'm not saying that 'only' whites vote Republican. I am saying, however, that the vast majority of Republican votes are cast by whites. I am saying that the reason the South realigned to the GOP is because the conservative white populations slowly but surely realized that the national Democratic party had come to embrace an agenda that is completely hostile to their values. Part of this is due to explicity racial issues like forced busing and racial preferences, but opposition to those things is not only reasonable, its very mainstream, and is hardly limited to the South as evidenced by the passage of anti-preferences initiatives in blue states like California, Washington, and Michigan. You will see claims that racist motives were at play in those states as well, but not as much, because many of those whites who voted against preferences in those states turn around and vote for Democrats (the pro-preferences party), while in the South they'd be much more likely to vote Republican.

I can't imagine any objection to what I've said so far, especially from a conservative, but here comes the less agreeable part: I am also saying that its unrealistic to expect the GOP to make significant gains with non-white voters any time soon. So to more clearly spell out my intent, I think that the GOP's hold on the South will weaken as the population becomes more and more non-white. That's not an argument against outreach, but I think it has limits to what it can accomplish. Yeah, the GOP does better with latinos than blacks, but we still routinely lose the Hispanic vote by double digit margins, and I expect that to continue. I don't think it will ever dramatically improve on any sort of long-term basis so long as immigration levels remain high. So what I expect to happen is for immigrant communities in the South to do what they do in every other part of the nation -- vote Democrat! It may not be 90-10 as it is with blacks, but 60-40 or 70-30 will be enough to someday tip the balance in the South back to the Democrats...if current trends persist.

In other words, as the South becomes less white, it will become less Republican, just as it is for every other region outside of the Northeast.

I mis-interpreted your statement as one that would be written by someone (liberal) attempting to paint RS as 'your typical, bigoted right-wing blog' by planting misleading posts.

Your (elaborated) reasoning is quite sound, and unfortunately may be a harbinger of things to come.

I guess the question then becomes WHY are non-whites drawn to the democrats as opposed to the Republicans? Surely, it has nothing to do with skin pigmentation....

The blue states (particularly WRT urban areas) have a demographic advantage on the Red states. In Virginia, we just saw the double edged nature of blue state immigration into a Red state. I am seeing ALOT of people moving in from NJ, CT, NY into our area, and frankly it is changing for the worse. Many (but not all) come here with the intention of bringing what they left behind with them and making it more like 'home' (e.g. like big, greeen lawns in AZ!). We see it in the traffic etiquette as well as what the local food stores now carry.
While importing thier lifestyle, they also bring thier politics. It's really quite insane when you think about it. It is thier liberal politics that caused the social degradation and rampant taxes they are fleeing!
I guess you could call it political entropy.

The biggest problem we have here in Arizona is the immigration of your fellow Californians. I want a fence built on the AZ/CA border with claymores on the AZ side. Californians are the prime reason we have a D governor and the reason why increased population in both AZ and NV may not work out so well for Republicans.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Growth comes from three things: state-to-state migration, immigration, and birth-to-death ratios. The above posters are positing that state-to-state and immigration may tilt a state in a different political direction. It is also important to note that differences in fertility rates also affect growth patterns. So UT's high fertility rate and VT's low one are important as well.

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth