Beyond Rand: The GOP Can Win Black Votes

The Daily Beast ^ | June 1, 2015 | Keli Goff

[Oliviaforever]

Great chart. The GOP started to gain traction with Blacks in 1952 and 1956 but it all went away in 1964 with Goldwater.

[stormhill]

I always get suspicious about the intentions of anyone whose premise is based on a lie. It's curious how ignorant of history some authors have become.

...the voters who haven’t ever voted Republican

It's common knowledge that until well into the 20th century the black vote was solidly Republican so it raises a red flag for this writer to help perpetuate the myth that blacks never voted that way. If the GOP can't untangle the web of lies, blood libels and slander that won the black vote over to the party of the KKK, they simply should move on and let blacks figure it out on their own.

[dp0622]

wow. great analysis. I hope they are thinking like you.

[Pollster1]

I also don’t agree with most of this. The GOP should work to get more “minority” votes by articulating our position better. The Irish, Germans, and Italians all used to be minorities. Now they are just Americans. We need to work actively against the divisive “diversity” agenda of liberals and help today’s minorities to see that their best interests are served by the freedom and opportunity that are supposed to be the centerpiece of the conservative agenda.

[Jane Long]

The GOP started to gain traction with Blacks in 1952 and 1956 but it all went away in 1964 with Goldwater.

---

Quite a hefty blame to place solely on Goldwater.

What happened in ‘64, that could’ve been, perhaps, more of the reason(s)? Hmmm, oh yes, The Civil Rights Act of 1964...along with the War on Poverty (aka Welfare expansion).

Goldwater did vote against that CR Act, unlike others before it. Why? Because he felt it intruded into states’ rights...and, was therefore Un-Constitutional.

Here’s a bit more info, about that:

...In the 1964 civil rights act Republicans in the house voted 138 for and 34 against; Democrats voted 152 for and 96 against. In the Senate, the Republicans voted 27 for and 6 against; the Democrats voted 46 for and 21 against. Clearly, from these numbers there was no apparent anti-Civil Rights movement in the GOP as Roland Martin, and others, suggest.

As a matter of fact, as one of the six voting against the 1964 Civil rights act, Senator Goldwater, on principle, disagreed with the idea of Federal government intervention regarding this matter. “His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose.”[3]...

...He supported the integration of the Arizona National guard and Phoenix public schools.[4] Goldwater was, also, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League

http://www.freedomsjournal.net/2011/10/09/urban-legend-goldwater-against-civil-rights/

http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/310/since-the-war-on-poverty-began-in-1964-welfare-spending-has-skyrocketed

---

Goldwater isn’t the reason the GOP “lost traction” with black voters.

It has more to do with who swayed the black voters with more *benefits*. Benefits which have, we now see, forced dependence on Government, rather than self and have taken the place of fathers as breadwinners/supporters of the family, as well as a general work ethic.

[Din Maker]

The only black votes I’m concerned about are the ones we don’t have to pander for.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I agree cripplecreek, candidates and activists who pander are political whores. However, having said that, dealing with issues that are important to the Black Communities and the entire nation, is NOT pandering. Young, Black adults need to be looked in the eye and told the truth about how the Poverty Pimps like Al Sharpton have kept them in the Ghetto for decades. Somebody needs to have the balls to go into Black Communities and say: “I’m hear to tell you the truth if you can handle it.” That’s BALLS! Not pandering.

[cripplecreek]

Dealing with issues that are important to the Black Communities and the entire nation, is NOT pandering.

Agreed. In Detroit a smart republican could hold public round table meetings with local businessmen and the police chief and cover a whole lot of ground. They could concentrate on how to make neighborhoods safe for business while taking and discussing questions from an audience. Localize the election and encourage the people to feel like their vote is wanted and that it counts.

Talk about the need to create an environment where jobs are created so people have a chance to get out of those minimum wage jobs and become upwardly mobile on their own. Point to the success of the GOP led push for school choice. Praise Detroiters for the things they're doing right.

As always, look to Reagan's 1980 nomination acceptance speech for the right tone.

Ronald Reagan Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speech - 7/17/1980

[Din Maker]

A lot of Blacks in MS voted for Thad Cochran.

[Din Maker]

JLS: Re: Your Post #19: Thank you for a sensible, workable suggestion, even if your advice is not heeded by the GOP. Thanks, most of all, for posting something on here other the same old, regurgitated, defeatist crap I’ve been reading in this thread today. With the attitude of most people on here, no wonder we’ve had our ass handed to us in 4 of the last 6 Presidential Elections.

[JLS]

Thanks, I also think the 4 out of 6 elections stuff is sort of BS too.

The last 3 presidents have served 2 terms. If you start counting from a Dim, that makes them look better.

The last time a party won more than 2 consecutive presidential elections was the GOP when they won 3 in a row from 1980, 1984 and 1988. The last time the Dims won more than 2 presidential elections in a row was 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1948. So while the Dims have won 4 out of the last 6 presidential elections, the GOP has won 7 of the last 12 elections meaning the choice of six means people are ignoring 6 election of which the GOP candidate won 5.

I also find the idea that the Dims have an electoral advantage laughable. It is the GOP who for the most part win the small states in the mountain west. These are states that have a disproportional amount of electoral votes. It was after all a GOP candidate that won the electoral college in 2000 when the popular vote split pretty evenly or maybe even a majority voted Dim. (We really won’t ever know since various states do not count every last vote when their electoral votes are determined.)

The real difference is the Dims compete hard in Florida, Ohio etc and other even more GOP states. Obama even managed to win them and Va and IN and NC once. On the other hand the GOP concedes really close Dim states like WI and PA and does not even compete in places like MI.

[Din Maker]

Thanks. Very interesting analysis. I might add this: I do not think that Hillary will get near the Black vote that Obama got in either of his election victories. The new has worn off, the novelty is gone; they’ve had their Black President. I’m thinking that the Black vote for Hillary will be at least 5% less than it was for Obama. What say you?

[JLS]

I agree that the black vote is unlikely to turn out in the numbers for any other Dim as for Obama. I would guess the black turnout will be down a percentage point or 2 in the next election.