Demographic death spiral

[birdog1960]

that's what lindsay graham had to say about republican prospects if immigration reform isn't passed. isn't it about time all you extreme cons label him a rino?

[keepthefaith]

Republicans will not gain votes by passing immigration reform nor will they lose votes by not passing it. Mark these words. Immigrants who are mostly on the bottom of the economic ladder will continue to vote for the party that offers benefits.

[birdog1960]

Republicans will not gain votes by passing immigration reform nor will they lose votes by not passing it. Mark these words. Immigrants who are mostly on the bottom of the economic ladder will continue to vote for the party that offers benefits.

then by graham's reasoning it won't matter who runs for pres on the republican ticket. he can't win due to the demographics. agreed?

[TakeYouToTasker]

http://www.anncoulte...2013-06-12.html

 

As journalist Steve Sailer recently pointed out, the Hispanic vote terrifying Republicans isn't that big. It actually declined in 2012. The Census Bureau finally released the real voter turnout numbers from the last election, and the Hispanic vote came in at only 8.4 percent of the electorate -- not the 10 percent claimed by the pro-amnesty crowd.

 

The sleeping giant of the last election wasn't Hispanics; it was elderly black women, terrified of media claims that Republicans were trying to suppress the black vote and determined to keep the first African-American president in the White House.

 

Contrary to everyone's expectations, 10 percent more blacks voted in 2012 compared to 2008, even beating white voters, the usual turnout champions. Eligible black voters turned out at rate of 66.2 percent, compared to 64.1 percent of eligible white voters. Only 48 percent of all eligible Hispanic voters went to the polls.

 

No one saw this coming, which is probably why Gallup had Romney up by 5 points before Hurricane Sandy hit, and up by 1 point in its last pre-election poll after the hurricane.

Only two groups voted in larger numbers in 2012 compared to 2008: blacks aged 45-64, and blacks over the age of 65 -- mostly elderly black women.

 

In raw numbers, nearly twice as many blacks voted as Hispanics, and nine times as many whites voted as Hispanics. (Ninety-eight million whites, 18 million blacks and 11 million Hispanics.)

 

 

So, naturally, the Republican Party's entire battle plan going forward is to win slightly more votes from 8.4 percent of the electorate by giving them something they don't want.

 

As Byron York has shown, even if Mitt Romney had won 70 percent of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost. No Republican presidential candidate in at least 50 years has won even half of the Hispanic vote.

 

In the presidential election immediately after Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986, the Republican share of the Hispanic vote actually declined from 37 percent to 30 percent -- and that was in a landslide election for the GOP. Combined, the two Bush presidents averaged 32.5 percent of the Hispanic vote -- and they have Hispanics in their family Christmas cards.

 

John McCain, the nation's leading amnesty proponent, won only 31 percent of the Hispanic vote, not much more than anti-amnesty Romney's 27 percent.

[B-Man]

that's what lindsay graham had to say about republican prospects if immigration reform isn't passed. isn't it about time all you extreme cons label him a rino?

 

How little you really know about Republican politics.....................................

 

 

Label Sen. Graham a RINO ?

 

He has always been a Republican eager to please the DC establishment...........have you observed nothing over the past 10 years.

 

 

As to his latest "death spiral" silliness, he is one of the authors of a controversal bill that he is trying hard to get passed, quoting him here as some type of important GOP statement only proves how little you know..................................lol

 

 

 

Added: Regardless if the legislator is Dem or GOP.........

 

Anyone who bases their decisions and votes on identity politics is unfit to serve.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

Edited June 17, 2013 by B-Man

[birdog1960]

What a buffoon you are...........................how little you really know about Republican politics......

 

 

Label Sen. Graham a RINO ?

 

He has always been a Republican eager to please the DC establishment...........have you observed nothing over the past 10 years.

 

 

As to his latest "death spiral" silliness, he is one of the authors of a controversal bill that he is trying hard to get passed, quoting him here as some type of important GOP statement only proves how little you know..................................lol

 

 

 

Added: Regardless if the legislator is Dem or GOP.........

 

Anyone who bases their decisions and votes on identity politics is unfit to serve.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

everyone does this to some degree. what do you think political strategists and campaign managers do (did anyone change their stance more than romney to appeal to the "base"?) and yes, romney couldn't have won with the latino vote. that's supposed to advance your argument that the demographics don't matter? no, it shows how far away the far right part of the repub party is from pulling of a pres election win. but keep deluding yoursaelf and we liberals will keep laughing right on into the white house again and again.

Edited June 17, 2013 by birdog1960

[Rob's House]

 

everyone does this to some degree. what do you think political strategists and campaign managers do (did anyone change their stance more than romney to appeal to the "base"?) and yes, romney couldn't have won with the latino vote. that's supposed to advance your argument that the demographics don't matter? no, it shows how far away the far right part of the repub party is from pulling of a pres election win. but keep deluding yoursaelf and we liberals will keep laughing right on into the white house again and again.

How's that working out for you?

[birdog1960]

much better than if a far right con (or somone forced to play to the far right) had won. lot's of room for improvement, however.

[KD in CA]

much better than if a far right con (or somone forced to play to the far right) had won. lot's of room for improvement, however.

 

Really? 'much better'? How so?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Really? 'much better'? How so?

Because if a Republican were in office, the American population would be in two wars, Gitmo would still be open, we would be approaching a war in Syria, domestic spying would have been expanded, health care prices would be rising to nearly double, the economy would be stagnant, Federal agencies would be being used as ideological hitmen, Islamic countries and their extermist actors would dislike us and would seek to harm us, government would be corrupt and completely opaque, etc.

 

Isn't this clear to you?

Edited June 17, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[IDBillzFan]

Really? 'much better'? How so?

 

Because now birdog gets his birth control for free.

[birdog1960]

Because if a Republican were in office, the American population would be in two wars, Gitmo would still be open, we would be approaching a war in Syria, domestic spying would have been expanded, health care prices would be rising to nearly double, the economy would be stagnant, Federal agencies would be being used as ideological hitmen, Islamic countries and their extermist actors would dislike us and would seek to harm us, government would be corupt and completely opaque, etc.

 

Isn't this clear to you?

from a foreign policy perspective, i doubt we'd have seen much difference. the damage of the two wars was preordained long ago and a tidy ending was never likely once the genie was out of the bottle. the middle east would still be the middle east - a dangerous and unpredictable powder keg. domestically, i think things would likely be quite different. the aca could possibly have been repealed. btw, medicare spending is down since the beginning of implementation and the programs expected viability extended significantly. we'd likely have seen massive spending cuts (mostly on social programs) without tax increases to the wealthy and thus even further and more rapidly growing wealth disparity and quite possible even slower recovery or worse. and then there are all the social issues that could have gone very differently and likely would have but i must admit, it would have been interesting to see a far right pres response to massacres and a public outcry for gun control. outcome would have been the same, however.

[TakeYouToTasker]

from a foreign policy perspective, i doubt we'd have seen much difference. the damage of the two wars was preordained long ago and a tidy ending was never likely once the genie was out of the bottle. the middle east would still be the middle east - a dangerous and unpredictable powder keg. domestically, i think things would likely be quite different. the aca could possibly have been repealed. btw, medicare spending is down since the beginning of implementation and the programs expected viability extended significantly. we'd likely have seen massive spending cuts (mostly on social programs) without tax increases to the wealthy and thus even further and more rapidly growing wealth disparity and quite possible even slower recovery or worse. and then there are all the social issues that could have gone very differently and likely would have but i must admit, it would have been interesting to see a far right pres response to massacres and a public outcry for gun control. outcome would have been the same, however.

See, the spending cuts are nessecary. If you taxed the top 5% of all earners at 100%, you wouldn't dent the annual budget shortfall. The problem is the perpetual expansion of spending. We need drastic budget cuts across every aspect of government.

 

Also, at what point will you admit that the ACA is going to destroy healthcare access for the poor in this country?

[B-Man]

Before we get too far off track:

 

 

After passing immigration amnesty, Republicans should go on an overseas apology tour

 

 

If Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and others in the Republican Party want to reward adults who broke the immigration laws with citizenship, they should have the guts to announce it as such.

 

And then go on an overseas apology tour to apologize to the millions if not tens of millions of people waiting patiently in Africa, Asia and South America who respected our immigration laws.

 

Have the guts to tell the law-abiders they were fools, that they should have just come here on a tourist visa and never left, or jumped the ship or border fence, because they would have been better off. They would have been able to establish lives and families here, and then not only had the threat of deportation removed but also been able to live here legally while waiting for citizenship.

 

But don’t tell me we have to do amnesty to help with electoral demographics. That’s a highly doubtful proposition to begin with, and is just fear masquerading as strategy and policy.

 

Bad policy almost always results in bad outcomes, and citizenship for adults who broke our immigration laws is bad policy, it rewards law-breakers and makes a mockery of law-abiders.

[3rdnlng]

from a foreign policy perspective, i doubt we'd have seen much difference. the damage of the two wars was preordained long ago and a tidy ending was never likely once the genie was out of the bottle. the middle east would still be the middle east - a dangerous and unpredictable powder keg. domestically, i think things would likely be quite different. the aca could possibly have been repealed. btw, medicare spending is down since the beginning of implementation and the programs expected viability extended significantly. we'd likely have seen massive spending cuts (mostly on social programs) without tax increases to the wealthy and thus even further and more rapidly growing wealth disparity and quite possible even slower recovery or worse. and then there are all the social issues that could have gone very differently and likely would have but i must admit, it would have been interesting to see a far right pres response to massacres and a public outcry for gun control. outcome would have been the same, however.

 

What possible difference does a growing wealth disparity have to do with the poor having a more prosperous life? Why do you insist on some artificial equality?

 

What public outcry for gun control? Obama's staged speeches with little kids in the background reciting spoon fed garbage?

[Rob's House]

 

 

What possible difference does a growing wealth disparity have to do with the poor having a more prosperous life? Why do you insist on some artificial equality?

What public outcry for gun control? Obama's staged speeches with little kids in the background reciting spoon fed garbage?

I got a chuckle out of that one too. It reminded me of my Marxist friend from Chapel Hill (a place where Dennis Kucinich could come off as moderately conservative) saying that the public has roundly rejected fracking. The public he's exposed to had.

[birdog1960]

What possible difference does a growing wealth disparity have to do with the poor having a more prosperous life? Why do you insist on some artificial equality?

 

What public outcry for gun control? Obama's staged speeches with little kids in the background reciting spoon fed garbage?

mars;venus. yup, as i said, things woulda been different under a far right pres.

[TakeYouToTasker]

What possible difference does a growing wealth disparity have to do with the poor having a more prosperous life? Why do you insist on some artificial equality?

Dipship believes that wealth is static, and therefore if someone is aquiring more, then someone else must have less.

 

And I'll just paraphrase a little gem about that position: If you believe when the rich get richer the poor get poorer, you must also believe that the end result of wealth creation is poverty. And that makes you an idiot.

Edited June 17, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[3rdnlng]

mars;venus. yup, as i said, things woulda been different under a far right pres.

 

Who would have been this far right president? You and your labels. Today an icon of the Democrat Party, JFK would be considered far right.

[birdog1960]

Before we get too far off track:

 

 

have you ever asked yourself how small the republican party would be if you eliminated everyone that the far right considers rinos? but keep it up. the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

Dipship believes that wealth is static, and therefore if someone is aquireing more, than someone else must have less.

 

And I'll just paraphrase a little gem about that position: If you believe when the rich get richer the poor get poorer, you must also believe that the end result of wealth creation is poverty. And that makes you an idiot.

and how difficult is it to realize that all resources are finite. if they're divided 60/40 with the 60 going to the 1%, the 99 are going to do worse than oif it were divided 40/60. why is that so hard to see? assume some increase in available resources over time and it remains as stated.

Edited June 17, 2013 by birdog1960