A very naive thing to say considering the OP.
I checked every election back to 1972. In every one of them, the majority of Hispanics voted Democrat. In 2012, 70% of Hispanic voted Democrat. So why exactly are you counted on the Hispanic vote in the near future?
The last time a majority of women voted for Republicans was 1988. So why exactly are you counted on the women’s vote in the near future?
The last time the Jewish vote went Republican was back in the 1920’s. So why exactly are you counted on the Jewish vote in the near future? Or even the distant future?
Good news on the Asians though. Sure they’ve been voting Democrat too but here the trend only goes back to 2000. So maybe you guys can still turn this one around.
But hey, some day if the Republicans ever get a majority of any of these groups, feel free to come back and say you told me so.
Again, I only said it was possible, not that it would happen. Although with Latinos, Democrats and the media will just move the goalposts, saying, “Yeah, Republicans are winning the WHITE Hispanic vote, but still losing the real Hispanic vote” or something along those lines.
Black votes were winnable for the GOP at one point. Trends do change, but it’s hard to see any progress here.
They’re consistently losing 90% of the black vote in presidential elections.
But this is a strawman anyway: I assume you want to limit this discussion to active, overt hatred, but that’s not the only way a party can alienate people. You can find some of that amidst the reasons black people don’t vote for Republican presidential candidates, but you can also find a lack of outreach, insults, stereotyping, a dearth of policies that appeal to that group, and so on.
Because that’s the one Republicans have decided they need. They don’t need it enough to muster enthusiasm for immigration reform or raising minimum wage or eliminating some of their grotesque anti-immigration rhetoric (Steve King thinks he can be president), but, they really want it and Hispanics should definitely come on in to the big tent.
But those don’t amount to racism. The original contention in this thread was that the GOP is racist. And while even a racist party will have some adherents among the people they hate, they won’t win 30-35% of the targets of their hatred.
Republicans can’t win the Hispanic vote that way though, because Democrats can always outbid them. Many republicans have this view that they can appeal to Latinos on social conservative grounds if they just get immigration out of the way. But that’s not likely either, and as someone who leans towards the libertarian side of the Republican fence, I don’t want anymore adherents of that ideology in the party. We have enough of those types to put up with already.
What we need is more rich Latinos, and thus more Republican Latinos. And of course what I’ve said in several other threads, just govern well. Govern well, and a lot of these problems take care of themselves. Tailoring your message and policies to specific interest groups is shortsighted.
No, they’re saying that Ted Cruz’s pasty white Canadian-Cubano face won’t appeal to most Hispanics. True, but the real problem is his ideas. Which don’t appeal to most people. Except the racist Tea Partiers.
So, what about the OP? Are you just agreeing that the GOP boycott of the anniversary means that the party cares more for the White Racist vote than the Black vote? Since you keep trying to change the subject, I guess so…
Thanks for the warm welcome.
It wasn’t a boycott. Tim Scott, the only black Senator, wasn’t even invited. It’s not as if Republicans haven’t tried to reach out, but the hand gets slapped away.
As for Ted Cruz, he got 40% of the Latino vote in 2012. If Republicans win 40% of the Latino vote nationally, they win the election every time.
Dude. :rolleyes:
You could at least pretend, yanno.
It certainly is.
And even if you’re right, that wouldn’t make them racist.
Only by using a completely ad hoc definition of the word, one that by definition excludes anything the party that holds your absolute loyalty is doing.
Don’t be shocked at the laughter you hear.
So, the Republicans aren’t really racist, because they treat different races differently, and it’s only one race they consider worthless? I don’t think you’re arguing the point you think you’re arguing, adaher.
And you also still haven’t answered the question of why not one single prominent Republican (“prominent” here meaning any Senator, US Representative, Governor, former President or Vice President, or former candidate for President or Vice President) accepted the invitation to attend the MLK anniversary.
Probably because Tim Scott was specifically not invited. Selling out black conservatives is not in the cards.
[Darth Vader]The right wing bubble of information is strong with this one.[/DV]
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/tim-scott-declined-invite-to-attend-march-as-spectator/
Just as I pointed out on your reliance of very biased (and racist) information in the ICE case, you are **never **learning that you are **constantly **being misled by very conservative sources of “information”.
Back in 2006, the only black Senator would have not just been invited to speak, but would have had the most prominent speaking slot.
Fast forward to 2013, the only black Senator gets invited as a spectator. That’s more insulting than not inviting him at all. Now I blame the Republicans even less. If Republicans slighted a prominent black Democrat that way at some event, Democrats would blow the event off too.
And BTW, if Democrats are so much better on race than Republicans, why are there more minorities holding statewide offices in the Republican Party? Why do Democrats relegate 99% of their minority politicians to representing majority-minority House districts?
:rolleyes:
Read it again, the speaker slots depended on the ones confirming the invitation. Decline the invitation, no speaker spot for you. This is simple logic that does not depend on partisan convictions, a case would had been made only if after accepting the invitation then no speaking time was offered.
You are only tap dancing, you were wrong on the invitation item, deal with your sorry sources of information.
He was never invited to speak, so it’s moot. Given his position, he should have been lobbied heavily to be there. They would have moved heaven and earth to get Senator Obama a prime speaking slot.
:rolleyes:
You even have problems with conditional logic huh? 
The point stands, you were misled by others and you will **never **learn to stop relying on those sources, regardless if they are wrong or racist like in the other thread.
Of course he wasn’t invited to speak. Why would you invite someone to speak after they’ve already told you they’re not going to be there? Only a Republican would do something like that.