I’ve read the above theory advanced by several political commentators, although right now I don’t have a handy link. First, I don’t think Trump has a chance at the GOP nomination. His most recent attack against McCain, claiming that McCain is not a hero, appears to be the beginning of the end. As far as Trump’s comments regarding immigrants from Mexico, yes, they will hurt the GOP in trying to reach out to Hispanic voters. I feel the reason for that, however, is not because of Trump, bit because of his supporters. I again don’t have a link, but the impression I get is that a significant number of the people who began supporting Trump after his comments on immigrants did so because he was speaking to how they personally feel about the matter. Why would a person of Hispanic descent want to support a party where a significant minority of the party is motivated by racism? I’m not saying that most Republicans are racist. I will venture to guess, however, that the vast majority of racists are Republican, especially when dealing with the type of racist who harbors hatred towards minorities rather than the type of racist who may have some unfounded beliefs about minorities but doesn’t harbor hatred toward them.
All that being said, I feel that if a Republican candidate wants to gain support from the Hispanic population or even the African American population, instead of denouncing Trump, they need to denounce the motivations of this segment of the party, and clearly state it has no place in the Republican party or in the USA as a whole. In specific, I imagine a scenario where say, Jeb Bush comes out and states openly that the Republican party does not support racism, and if you are a racist I don’t want your vote. Would this be a good strategy for a Republican candidate? How about for the party as a whole?
It might be a good strategy for the general election, but it would almost certainly result in defeat for the primary election.
A recent FOX poll asked the question:
“Recently, presidential candidate Donald Trump called for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. He said Mexico is quote, ‘sending people that have lots of problems…. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.’ Setting aside how Trump worded his comments, do you think he’s basically right on this, or not?”
70% of Republican respondents said he was basically right on this. So yeah, the GOP’s met the enemy, and it’s in their mirror.
Both sides have their loonies.
Renouncing this segment of their voters would probably help the party, ten years or more down the line, if they stay on that message consistently for that time. In the meanwhile, though, it would be a disaster for them electorally. And nobody bases political decisions on a span of ten years.
EDIT:
Well, of course. But are the Democrats’ loonies 70% of the party?
That is true. However, when it comes to the general election, the Latino voters may decide that the party in which Trump polled the highest numbers for weeks is not the one to support.
Trump will not be the GOP nominee, but his popularity within the GOP is liable to cost that party votes.
Denouncing supporters is stupid. Not just because it’s a bad strategy, but because we live in a democracy and it’s not politicians’ jobs to denounce voters. It’s their job to appeal to them.
What Jeb Bush should actually do is say, “I support a path to legalization. We cannot deport 11 million illegals. But here’s why you should still vote for me: I’ll enforce the law. I’ll improve border security. I’ll make sure that immigrants have to learn English to become citizens. My Democratic opponent will not improve border security and supports sanctuary cities.”
The problem for many Latinos, myself included, is that speaking like that sounds like a dog whistle designed to appeal to racist White people. The reason it sounds like a dog whistle coming from Bush or any other Republican is because of the perception that most racists of the White supremacist variety are Republican. The most recent example of this is the Dylan Roof shooting and the Confederate flag debate. Think about it this way. If Hillary Clinton or Martin O’Malley said racism has no place in America and I don’t want the support of any racists, no one would bat an eyelash. But if Jeb Bush or Scott Walker said that, it would probably bring on the wrath of their base.
You are trying to appeal to racist white people, you just do it by addressing their concerns in a non-racist manner. The hypothetical Jeb statement I made is a complete endorsement of the immigration reform bill that passed the Senate and that the President has urged Republicans to support. So what he’s doing is explaining to racists why they should like the same immigration reform bill that Latinos overwhelmingly like.
I think the point is that politicians shouldn’t be trying to appeal to racist white people. And trying to do so is a mark against them – one of the big reasons for why my opinion of Jim Webb has gone way down.
Precisely. You don’t need to appeal to these voters as racists at all. Just appeal to them on other issues. It’s not they’re going to vote Democratic if they are anti-liberal, for example.
Your opinion of Jim Webb is down because he’s appealing to racist white people in a way that you find in itself racist: by defending the Confederate flag.
A candidate endorsing immigration reform that’s exactly what President Obama supports is not appealing to racists in a racist way. It’s a huge difference.
Denouncing voters, even a small slice of voters, is generally not a good idea. I disagree that Hillary Clinton could say, “I don’t want the votes of racists”, because in a close enough election she needs those votes too. Not all racists are one issue voters. I’m sure there are plenty of old racists that don’t want SS privatized, but if Clinton doesn’t want their votes…
Then there’s the trouble of defining racists. I’d bet 75% or more of racists don’t think they are racists. There’s also the fact that some liberals define certain policies as racist and by extension, those who support them are racist. Democrats would win precisely zero elections if they told everyone who supported three strikes laws, voter ID, less immigration, and opposed affirmative action that they didn’t want their votes.
I would prefer politicians not appeal to racists of any sort… and if you think it’s just white people who are anti-immigrant, or anti-Mexican, you haven’t heard some of my very non-white neighbors mouthing off about the issue.
Granted, as a whole white bigots still have more power and resources to cause damage to others.
Meanwhile, Clinton is polling at 64% of the Latino vote.
The GOP has made rabble-rousing, rather than responsible adult policymaking, its core principle. This is the result. It is not good for the nation, not at all.
Speaking of appealing to the racist, ugly side of human nature, what of the Democratic ads that appeared in the final days of 2014 in an attempt to motivate black and Latino voters?
That’s appealing against the racist, ugly side of human nature, by pointing out that it exists.
Yes, I know, saying that racism exists is racist. :rolleyes:
What did Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, or Lindsey Graham have to say over the weekend? Or during the last week?
The LSM (Lame Stream Media) has decided to focus their primary efforts (and your (aka the public’s) attention) on the words of Donald Trump.
It’s a simple call to fight back on a race war that was declared on the black population. Fighting violence with ballots is nothing to be ashamed of. The Republicans use gerrymandering, voting hours, voter ID, and voter purges in order to disenfranchise black voters. Using those tactics as motivation for voting is quite justified.
Democrats did and still do precisely that, starting back with FDR and continuing with Kennedy and Johnson back in the 60s, and all the way to Obama today. If Nixon hadn’t used his Southern strategy, I doubt that the White supremacist racists would be solidly Republican today. So the Republican party as a whole will eventually have to make a decision. Do they want to continue to appeal to the racist elements in their party, or do they truly want a big tent? It may not happen in 2016, bit I think some time in the next 20 years or so, Republican candidates for president will have to explicitly repudiate that element of the party rather if they want to win a national election.
If the Democrats weren’t trying to keep those ads out of white peoples’ sight, it wouldn’t have been so bad. They made their appeals on the downlow because they knew their ads were racist.
Saying that racism exists is not racist. Saying that Ferguson happened because the police force is white is racist.