AP: GOP Basic Strategy For 2016 Looks Deeply Unsettled

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republican Party's road map for winning presidential elections looks hazier than ever as GOP lawmakers and others reject what many considered obvious lessons from Mitt Romney's loss last year.

House Republicans are rebelling against the key recommendation of a party-sanctioned post-mortem: embrace "comprehensive immigration reform" or suffer crippling losses among Hispanic voters in 2016 and beyond.

Widespread rejection of warnings from establishment Republicans goes beyond that, however. Many activists say the party simply needs to articulate its conservative principles more skillfully, without modifying any policies, even after losing the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections.

Graham is wrong headed or is out there lying.

According to a highly touted study by Rush, Hannity, et al, that even with 70% of the Hispanic vote, Romney would have still lost. The Hispanic vote made up only about 7% of the 2012 electorate.

So 70% of 7% is little of little.

According to a highly touted study by Rush, Hannity, et al, that even with 70% of the Hispanic vote, Romney would have still lost. The Hispanic vote made up only about 7% of the 2012 electorate.

Disagree with that analysis, just mathematically speaking. If as you say, the Hispanic vote was 7% of the electorate (I've heard 8 or 9% mentioned elsewhere), if Romney got 70% of that 7%, that would give him 4.9 percentage points of the national popular vote from Hispanics. In reality, he supposedly got something like 27% of the Hispanic vote, or about 2 percent of the national popular vote from Hispanics. That would mean that if Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote, he'd be getting 3 more percentage points of the national popular vote, and by the same token, Obama would have gotten approximately 3 percentage points less of the total national vote. So it would be net swing of six points in Romney's favor, more than enough to push him past Obama in the national popular vote. The effect of these shifts on the electoral vote can't be determined.

Of course, we can't factor in the massive fraud and cheating in this analysis, disguised by pro-Obama commentators as "a good ground game" or a superb job in getting out the vote. The view here is that cheating and fraud, targeted to swing states, probably made the difference between Obama "winning" and losing.

You can read Rush's take or analysis here and in the link.. Gotta go now. :-)

-snip-

" "(Under that scenario, Romney would have won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College...) According to the Times' calculator, Romney would have had to win 73% of the Hispanic vote to prevail in 2012."

-snip-

"So the party's doing that. They've got this new pathway to citizenship immigration bill. They're saying all the right things. But, again, remember, the percentage of the electorate that was Hispanic in 2012 was 7%. Obama got 71% of it; Romney got 27%. And if you reverse that, Romney gets 70%, he still loses. The highest percentage of the Hispanic vote any Republican president's ever got was Bush at 44. So the point of saying that even if Romney gets 70% he would still lose, it tells you that the Republican Party's problem is not the Hispanic vote.

It goes far deeper or is far more diversified than that. No doubt about it. How else would you read this? If you give Romney 70% of the Hispanic vote and he still loses, with everything else in 2012 being the same, then what are they doing? They're following the advice of their consultant class. They're following what the media's telling them.

They're following what the Democrats are telling them, what the conventional wisdom"

-end snip-

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/05/03/the_hispanic_vote_isn_t_why_romney_lost

I wouldn't trust New York Slimes exit polls (run by the gay lefty Nate Silver) for accurately reflecting the racial and ethnic breakdown of the national presidential vote, nor the state by state vote. They base their data on interviews of people exiting after just having voted, I presume. There has to be a bias built in to their selection (They will pick percentagewise more 'Rats to interview than there exist in the exiting population they are sampling.), plus a bias introduced into the potential interviewees who will cooperate with them (Who do you think is more likely to yuk it up with an interviewer who says "I'm from the New York Slimes"? If someone approached me after voting and ID'd himself or herself as being from that organization, I'd run away quickly.) And what about their choice of such a small percentage of precincts that they actually can and do sample? Does this accurately reflect the voting patterns of an entire state or nation, and for each demographic group? I doubt it.

Then they go out on a limb to extrapolate and speculate what the vote would have been in each state had each demographic group voted a certain way? Hell, I don't buy it. It's garbage in and garbage out, too many mere assumptions based on raw interview data that is too inaccurate to begin with.

Byron York shouldn't be buying the Slimes' statistical gymnastics. Republicans should instead be using their own pollsters and not rely on the Slimes pro-'Rat techniques.

Then Rush comes along and buys Byron York's analysis from the Slimes polls. Yes, the numbers suit his argument well, but the accuracy of the original Slimes data is highly questionable from the get-go.

I, for one, am for immigration reform. … That being said, I’m worried that the bill before us won’t pass.... [Rand Paul: I hate to say it, but the immigration bill is a little bit like ObamaCare right now ]
[Paul open to voting for Senate immigration bill]
[Rand Paul: I'm Open to Voting for Immigration Bill]
Latinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers... [Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reform]
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said. [Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance]
One day after announcing on his radio show that he is "truly considering" running in 2014 for the U.S. Senate seat now held by New Jersey's Frank Lautenberg, Rivera amped up his message today in a television interview and a column on the Fox News Latino website... a moderate Republican who is fiscally conservative but also supports gay marriage and Roe v. Wade... [Geraldo Rivera declares himself a 'moderate Republican' as he eyes U.S. Senate run]

Democrats said in 2000 that Texas would be “a swing state by 2008”.

Which raises the question: Why are Hispanics in Texas more attracted to the Republicans than Hispanics in many other states? Do they differ significantly in some demographic measurement? Or is the Republican message better articulated to them by state Republicans than elsewhere in the country?

Well I’m not sure, everyone in Texas is more conservative.

In the North Hispanic voters mainly live in major urban areas and vote just like Black and most White people in those urban areas vote, heavily rat, the GOP has no traction with most city voters regardless of race. And unfortunately when city dwellers move to the burbs they take their voting habits with them.

In Texas there have always been Tejano and Gringo Patriots. It was that way from the time of the Republic of Texas.

Tejano Texas businessmen and women generally hate Leftist Statitst Thieves. Low information voters and useful idiots run the ComDem Party in Texas. They are no friend of Patriots.

Illegals also compete with native Tejanos for jobs and Tejanos are the targets of identity theft by illegals. If you want to talke to someone who hates illegals, it is a Hispanic Texan who has had his identy stolen by an illegal alien.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.