I’m curious, what % of minorities would the GOP have to win for you to change your assessment?
ETA: Or are you basing your assessment on some other criteria than voter demographics?
It ties into rhetoric and history, but I’d at least start to reconsider under a few circumstances – for example, if the Republican party leadership overwhelmingly rejected those like Steve King (and Trump, for that matter) who have routinely spouted bigoted rhetoric and things like birtherism, along with accepting and totally rejecting that they used the Southern Strategy to purposefully attract racist white voters for several decades after the Civil Rights movement. Alternately, I’d start to reconsider if at least a third or so of every significant group of non-white American voters voted for Republican candidates, nationally, for a few elections in a row – I’d assume that I’m probably missing the boat on some sort of advancement that was made (if I didn’t already realize it).
IMO, the rhetoric and the numbers reinforce each other. I’m not positive that I’m right on this issue (i.e. discrimination and bigotry) – I try to take my cues from non-white Americans at large. If I find my conclusions about discrimination and bigotry are butting against the opinions of any significant number of non-white Americans, I’ll be very concerned that I’m strongly misunderstanding something. Based on our history, I think non-white Americans understand discrimination against non-white Americans far, far better than white Americans.
In every step of our history, if you looked at the assertions of prominent non-white Americans about discrimination, they were almost always right, while the assertions of prominent white Americans were very often wrong. Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, and other prominent (and not so prominent – even various freed-slave letters reveal the same sentiment) black Americans were much, much more accurate and morally correct about discrimination and bigotry than their contemporary white writers and speakers, on average. Same goes for every decade since. I see no reason to believe that this has changed. Most black Americans supported the Civil Rights movement in the 60s – far fewer white Americans did. Now, most black Americans support Black Lives Matter – far fewer white Americans do. On issues related to discrimination and bigotry, most black Americans support the Democratic party and progressives – far fewer white Americans do. So on these issues, which I see as, by far, the most important issues in America, I tend to trust the groups that have been historically most accurate and morally correct. It’s not blind trust – when I don’t think I understand something, I try to delve in and learn. And much or most of the time, I find my earlier understanding was wrong.
Thanks for your answer.
And what if the GOP started to grow more diverse despite not changing all that much? What if the GOP managed to win say, 50% of blacks and 50% of Asians?
If the Republicans could consistently do better with the black vote, it would be a whole different ball game. But when one bigoted statement from one otherwise insignificant officeholder can undo in a minute months or years of outreach work, it’s not going to happen.
I addressed that in my post – I’d seriously reevaluate my opinions and beliefs on the subject.
You’re going to have to tell us how that would happen if you want to discuss it seriously.
From what I read of your post, the GOP would have to change. And to address Elvis AND you on this subject, it’s entirely possible that a two party system based primarily on racial politics would end up being pretty hateful on both ends, which could drive minority groups not in charge of a major political party to reassess their allegiances. It’s not as if Latinos treat African-Americans and better than whites do, and one reason Trump did better among African-Americans than recent Republicans was the immigration issue. Asians, especially in California, have been fighting attempts to bring affirmative action back:
I find that highly, highly unlikely. People who think racism is absolutely terrible are a pretty huge group, and it’d be nuts if both parties decided they weren’t interested in that group of tens of millions of voters any more.
Right now the Republicans, which appeared to be moving (slowly and unsteadily) away from racism from the 80s to the 00s, are now unsteadily moving back towards it (with Trump and the likes of Steve King and others). That will drive the Democrats even further against racism, since it’s such a good vote-driver.
Funny thing about racism. Groups that have grievances don’t think they are being racist.
This isn’t a “both sides” thing.
Sent from my KFAUWI using Tapatalk
I don’t think Hillary really campaigned in California. She fundraised in California. Maine’s second congressional district is probably not a very lucrative place.
In this age of mass media I’m not really convinced that it makes a major difference where the candidate actually goes. What really makes a difference, in terms of particular states, is local campaign organization, and to a lesser extent local media. I really don’t think Hillary would have won Wisconsin if only a speech she gave in Los Angeles was given in Milwaukee instead.
I can attest to the fact that a prominent Democratic member of Michigan’s House delegation was telling the Hillary campaign: “You need to pay more attention to what’s going on here.”
Of course, there is a possibility that this election was like the one in the old joke by LBJ and that either candidate campaigning in a given state would be just as likely to drive up the numbers for the opposition as for themselves.