The (Finally) Emerging Republican Majority

The Weekly Standard ^ | 10/27/03 | Fred Barnes

[only1percent]

California gerrymandering protected all incumbents. By many measures, Republican incumbents were BETTER protected than were Democratic incumbents. Not one Republican seat was lost in the 2002 post-redistricting seat was lost. The one seat California gained through reapportionment was carved out as a Democratic Latino seat, a loss, but one which coincidentally made a number of Republican districts more safely Republican.

A less gerrymandered system could make Republican gains possible, but in a good year for the Democrats could result in the Republicans falling even farther down than they already have. As dangerous as this is for the Congressional delegation, the real danger would be in allowing the Republicans in the Assembly or State Senate to fall below one-third of the seats, allowing Democrats to pass taxes and spending without any Republican votes.

[AZGOPer]

The Coming Democratic Majority ? or Why FRED BARNES is WRONG !!!
________________________________

I know that i'm a little bit late for this discussion. But this is too important an issue to forget and FRED BARNES is WRONG and also being awfully selective in his choice of information. Let's look at the partisan trends since 1988 to present. The red states have gotten more Democratic, and the Blue states have gotten more Democratic (with the exception of MN). Lets look at the once solid GOP state of AZ. Bush carried it 51% - 44%, 51%-47% if you include Naders vote with Gore. What ever happened to AZ being a Republican stronghold? Unfortunately, this trend has been cemented in California and Illinois and is now occuring elsewhere in AZ, NV, NM, and FL.

Now, can one imagine that if this trend continues what it would do to the GOP. Are we in danger of becoming extinct and not paying any attention to it ?

Unfortunately, we are unless we do something really soon. Bush will probably win in 2004, but Hispanics in general tend to vote their economic interests, Asians are overwhelmingly Democratic in their voting preference, and Blacks continue to shun the GOP due to effective progpaganda and racial witch hunts conducted by left-wing Democrats. White women are marrying less and staying single more. So what then is the GOP to do ?

Remember, if the trends i discussed earlier continues as it has since 1988, we will be DOOMED. Therefore, to win we must
STOP the trend in its tracks. To do that requires two things,

(1) Draft Dr. Condoleeza Rice for President in 2008.
There is simply no way we can win with a Bill Frist, Bill Owens, or Jeb Bush. The total "minority" vote will be significantly higher and will strongly favor the appeal of Mrs. Clinton, single white women will overwhelmingly flock to her, and Clinton has enough time to moderate her postions to pick up many moderates voting after 8 years of Bush. What Condi Rice would do is bring larger numbers moderates, women, and "minorities" who would otherwise stick to the notion of the GOP as racist and vote for Clinton.

(2) Purchase a copy of David Horowitz's dynamic duo How to Beat the Democrats and Art of Politcal War.
Republicans need to fight Politics as if they were fighting a war in order to be competitive with the Democrats message. Attacks on GOPers on race, Social Security, etc.. needs to be weakened and counterattacked effectively. Basically, the GOP needs to stop conducting politcs as a "problem solving" management issue and instead as a WAR.

This is a serious problem for the GOP and needs to be dealt with immediately before demographics doom the GOP into extinction. We can't keep winning elections based on white voters.
I will be interested in hearing refutals of this arguement of this arguement about demographics and voting trends.

[raloxk]

why are some people so supportive of Condy Rice for Pres in 2008. She would be a horrible candiate. She comes across poorly on TV and couldnt stand up too the attack machine. She is an academic who's best role is as an advisor.

[Porterville]

Once the Dems are gone- the party of Jackson the Cherokee murderer- then a third party stronger to the right can emerge.

[raloxk]

BTW you happen to be right about voting trends. If the demographic groups vote in the future like they did in 1988, the last election the GOP will win will be 2004.

But here is why this wont happen:

1. as the country becomes less white, more whites will vote GOP

2. DEM/LIB policies dont work, just look at California


It is very wrong to assume that simply putting a minority on the ticket will help the GOP win the minority vote. Using your logic every GOP candidate for Pres after 2004, will have to be either Black or Hispanic

[Porterville]

Republicans are treading softly....

As for the dems, a bunch of screaming chickens are loud and smelly, but in the end, they are still chickens.

[AZGOPer]

1) "..as the country becomes less white, more whites will
vote GOP...."

How so? Bush I got 59% of the white vote. Bush II got about 54% of the white vote. Fewer white women are married today than in 1988 and are entering the workforce. Public schools and universities that indoctrinate whites and everyone else for that matter will hardly produce people who lean towards Republicans.


2. "...DEM/LIB policies dont work, just look at California...."
California is an isolated incident. Arnold is not percieved as being a Christian conservative and is not one either, having liberal positions on the environment and social issues, having celebrity fame and millions of movie fans. Republicans virtually hold nothing else in CA, Boxer is shown to be leading her opponent Bill Jones by big margins.
Besides, do we really want to wait long enough till the Democrats screw things up to elect a Republican. That will very lead to a very different country, with Gay Marriage, a leftist activist Supreme Court, and g*d knows what else.

[AZGOPer]

"...It is very wrong to assume that simply putting a minority on the ticket will help the GOP win the minority vote. Using your logic every GOP candidate for Pres after 2004, will have to be either Black or Hispanic..."

You are partially right. But an important part of politics is symbolism. Putting an African-American and a woman, the first for each, on the Presidential ticket will be a landmark event that will prove once and for all in a major way that the GOP is inclusive and compassionate. It will help us capture key constituencies (mainly Asian, Hispanic, Urban whites, women proffessionals, and to an extent African Americans) who otherwise won't vote for us on the grounds of percieving us to be racially hostile and anti-immigrant. These constituencies are key to Democratic victories and breaking off their support for Democrats gaining will be key to breaking the trend. That doesn't mean every President has to be non-white. It just means that a symbolic event has to occur to break the trend and putting a Colin Powell or Condi Rice is perfect for that and will send a message to many Americans about the GOP. Also, a Clinton vs. Rice race would be hardly be short on excitement.

[raloxk]

"How so? Bush I got 59% of the white vote. Bush II got about 54% of the white vote."

As the nation becomes visibly more non-white, whites will begin to feel threatened, tribalism is the strongest emotion there is in people.

[AZGOPer]

Hasn't happened in CA, the largest majority minority state there is excluding HI. As CA grew less white, white's grew more Democratic. Nope, no tribalism there.

Realize there are white's who vote Democratic largely on social issues (single women, widowed women, white's with post-doctorate degrees, and other socially liberal minded whites). These white's have shunned the GOP because of prolife and guns and although they are wealthy, cultural issues trump any desire for lower taxes.

It is a dangerous strategy to try to win on building massive white support and also one that is not feasible because of reasons cited above.

[raloxk]

"Hasn't happened in CA, the largest majority minority state there is excluding HI. As CA grew less white, white's grew more Democratic. Nope, no tribalism there."

that is because over 1 million whites left the state in the 1990s. Once they have no where else to flee, youll see a big racial shift in politics

Question is when will there be enough non-whites in CA that they no longer have use for white libeals such as Feinstein and Boxer. They can elect their own