McCalifornia

The Wall Street Journal ^ | 2/11/2008

[Menehune56]

Now that John McCain is close to wrapping up the GOP Presidential nod, the same people who endorsed his opponents are saying he needs to become more restrictionist on immigration for the general election. We'd direct readers to last week's California primary exit poll, which offers better advice.

[puroresu]

Why did Bush lose the Hispanic vote in both 2000 and 2004? He was the ideal candidate to win the Hispanic vote for the GOP from the WSJ perspective. He spoke Spanish. He has Latino family members. He’s courted the Hispanic vote his entire career. He supports all of their issues and supports amnesty. Yet, Hispanics preferred the patrician New Englander John Kerry.

[The South Texan]

“Why did Bush lose the Hispanic vote in both 2000 and 2004? He was the ideal candidate to win the Hispanic vote for the GOP from the WSJ perspective. He spoke Spanish. He has Latino family members. He’s courted the Hispanic vote his entire career. He supports all of their issues and supports amnesty. Yet, Hispanics preferred the patrician New Englander John Kerry.”

He got 40% of it in 2004, which was a record for the GOP. It was probably in 20% to 30% range in the 80’s and 90’s If we would have recieved 25% of the Black vote, we’d be hooting and hollering that we made in-roads in that community. Correct?????

[puroresu]

Here’s the problem you’re not facing up to. No one doubts that a Republican who goes out of his way to appeal to Hispanics will do better with them than one who doesn’t. That’s common sense. However, it also appears that no matter how much the Republicans try to win the Hispanic vote, we can’t win a majority. We either win 30% when we don’t cater to them, or 40% when we do.

Now, it might make political sense to cater to the Hispanic community under those circumstances if the Hispanic population wasn’t growing. But it is growing. And not only is it growing, but it’s growing rapidly via migration into the United States. Often illegal migration.

Thus, if one of the ways we can win 40% of the Hispanic vote, as opposed to 30%, is to agree to give citizenship (and thus the vote) to tens of millions of additional Hispanics, you can do the math and see the inherent problem in that. We’d be better off losing the votes of “X” number of Hispanics 70-30, than losing the votes of “3X” number of Hispanics 60-40.

The only way any of this would make political sense would be if we could win a majority of the Hispanic vote, which we can’t. The Hispanics who vote for the GOP are largely white. They’re the Cubans who fled from Castro. It was the white upper class in Cuba which fled when Fidel seized power. Or they’re long-established residents of the U.S. whose roots in Texas or New Mexico go back to the early days of statehood.

The Mexicans who are now migrating in are largely the type of voters who support Mexico’s leftist parties, and there’s no reason to believe they’ll vote Republican. They certainly don’t do so at the local level. If you’re from South Texas, then I would ask you which party dominates your area. Is there any chance in the world of Brownsville sending Republicans, let alone conservative Republicans, to the state legislature or to Congress?

And it isn’t as if the GOP could win Brownsville if they would just stop opposing illegal immigration. They’d still lose Brownsville because of a variety of other issues, such as affirmative action, welfare, food stamps, national health care, housing subsidies, and so forth.

[NavVet]

I invite the WSJ and the rest of the “we love to exploit desperate poor people for cheap labor crowd” to look at the national polls on amnesty and border enforcement.

[raybbr]

If Arizonans had a problem with McCain they wouldn’t keep reelecting him.

Watch how McCain and his handlers deal with problem Arizonans.

Watch McCain show his utter disdain for people from home state when they ask about illegals.

Watch his handler threaten a woman asking about illegals raping children.