Replies

I haven't ignored anything. I was replying to a post that implied that Bush's margin was much less than Reagan's in part because of Reagan's amnesty of illegal aliens. I then pointed out that might have played a part (since most of the illegals-turned-citzens probably vote Dem) but that another, bigger, reason is that Bush didn't do nearly as well with whites as Reagan. That's pretty simple. Do you understand, or do I need to find an even more simple way to put it? How about 64 > 58, is that better? Or are we not supposed to speak of the white vote? Is that what you're saying?

See, whites still make up almost 80% of the electorate, so you should be able to see that it takes a boost among Hispanics many times greater than among whites in order to be equivalent in impact. Its simple math.

As to the GOP share of the latino vote this time: Well even if the exit polling is accurate (and I'll assume so if you want since I used the same polls to get Bush's 58% among whites) then Bush benefitted nationally more from his boost among whites than he did from Hispanics. But the fact is that these exit polls are in doubt. Just look around and you'll find out why these results with Hispanics are somewhat hard to believe.

As to the latino vote trending higher for the GOP from election to election: How many elections are you speaking of? Reagan got 37% of Hispanics in 1984, and it was downhill from there for at least the next twenty years until last Tuesday, and again that is if the exit polls were right. But again, if Bush did do so much better then I think we should at least wait until 2008 to see if there truly is a trend.

As to Texas: I didn't call it "overrun" for starters, but again if Bush got 59% of the latino vote then great. But its easier to believe that he got over 70% of the white vote because it would go along with his and other Republicans recent performance with white Texans. And that is the reason why the GOP dominates the state now. Of course as the latino share of the electorate grows, then it will become harder to win based on the white vote alone, but lets not confuse the matter as of now and attribute GOP victories there to something that is not so. See, this is one of the points I am making; that the GOP should not lose sight of the white vote as it reaches out to latinos, blacks, Asians, etc. The GOP collapse in Calif has occured because of several reasons, but one is the liberalism of the whites in the state. If the GOP carried whites in Calif as they do in Texas, then they wouldn't be in such dire straights there. And it will be the conservatism of whites in Texas that will prevent the state from going Dem like Calif. If Hispanics there continue supporting Dems, then Texas may very well become a tossup or battleground state, but if the GOP can keep its hold on 70+ % of the white vote then a Calif-style collapse is unlikely.

As to my "racist fatalistic bullcrap": Nothing I said could be interpreted as racist by a reasonable person, especially by a conservative person. That you did leads me to conclude that you are either; (a) an idiot incapable of understanding simple language, or (b) infected with the Leftwing affliction that causes one to reflexively cast racist aspersions on anyone who dares not follow the PC line on discussions of race/ethnicity. I think the latter would be worse, because then you would be guilty of something you can control. You'd be guilty of poisoning the whole idea of rationale debate with bogus charges of racism; just like liberals do when they would rather not rely on facts and reason.

So tell me, what did I say that is "racist"? I have said nothing negative about Hispanics, other than to point out that they generally prefer Democrats in most elecions, and that is undeniable. Is it racist fatalism to point out facts? Is the truth no longer a defense?

If the GOP nominee against Hillary in 2008 is also said to improve upon the historical performance of Republicans with Hispanics, then we can start talking about a genuine trend and realignment.

Finally, with regards to fatalism specifically: I don't think anyone can say with much confidence what the political and electoral situation will be 12, 16, or 20 yrs from now, but IF current demographic trends persist (i.e. unending mass immigration plus projected birth rates among the various groups) and IF Hispanics do in fact continue to support Democrats by significant margins and IF the GOP can't make up for with other groups, then yes I'll say it -- that bodes ill for the GOP. But I have not said that will happen. I do in fact think there is a good chance of it, but who knows really? I hope the exit polls are right and it portends a genuine and significant move of Hispanics towards the GOP, but I'm not going to suspend my disbelief because of one set of rather extraordinary exit polls.