Religion, marriage and the GOP's demographic challenge brought to the fore by 2012 election

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The GOP’s demographics really haven’t changed a lot over the last 150 years. Business, upper-middle class whites who are married and conservative, older men, religious, etc. They have never been “friendly” to immigrants or other minorities in terms of getting their votes. The thing that is concerning is that people can’t seem to figure out or they don’t care how secular the Democratic Party is becoming, regardless of whether or not they like the GOP on non-life issues.
 
Swiss_Guy said:
The GOP’s demographics really haven’t changed a lot over the last 150 years. Business, upper-middle class whites who are married and conservative, older men, religious, etc. They have never been “friendly” to immigrants or other minorities in terms of getting their votes. The thing that is concerning is that people can’t seem to figure out or they don’t care how secular the Democratic Party is becoming, regardless of whether or not they like the GOP on non-life issues.
Click to expand...
Seems at some point either party would discover that people are more in the middle than left, or right.

The immigrant issue is something that is the GOP needs review. Hispanics have become a large bloc of voters to contend with, and it’s only going to get bigger.
 
Swiss_Guy said:
The GOP’s demographics really haven’t changed a lot over the last 150 years. Business, upper-middle class whites who are married and conservative, older men, religious, etc. They have never been “friendly” to immigrants or other minorities in terms of getting their votes. The thing that is concerning is that people can’t seem to figure out or they don’t care how secular the Democratic Party is becoming, regardless of whether or not they like the GOP on non-life issues.
Click to expand...
The Republican party has reached out to females and minorities lots of times. For example, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Alan Keyes, Bobby Jindal, etc.
 
livingwordunity said:
The Republican party has reached out to females and minorities lots of times. For example, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Alan Keyes, Bobby Jindal, etc.
Click to expand...
The anti-imigrant tone of the primary really hurt Rs with hispanics. A more nuanced approach is needed.
 
livingwordunity said:
The Republican party has reached out to females and minorities lots of times. For example, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Alan Keyes, Bobby Jindal, etc.
Click to expand...
How are the voting demographics though?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Seems at some point either party would discover that people are more in the middle than left, or right.

The immigrant issue is something that is the GOP needs review. Hispanics have become a large bloc of voters to contend with, and it’s only going to get bigger.
Click to expand...
Probably not. As our country gets more secular religious values will become more “right wing”, even if we really aren’t that conservative.

Yep.
 
Demographics are way more important than most realize. I saw two breakdowns that were eyeopeners for me. First that Romney carried roughly 60% of the white catholic vote. Hispanic Catholics voted for Obama. So the split was not about whether one tended orthodox or not. Secondly, that if you add up the black vote, latino vote, single female vote and youth vote, Obama had enough votes to win without any of the rest of us! Since black republicans are not acceptable to blacks, and female republicans are not acceptable to feminists, I am not sure how the republicans could have fielded an acceptable candidate at this particular time in history.
 
drmcf said:
Demographics are way more important than most realize. I saw two breakdowns that were eyeopeners for me. First that Romney carried roughly 60% of the white catholic vote. Hispanic Catholics voted for Obama. So the split was not about whether one tended orthodox or not. Secondly, that if you add up the black vote, latino vote, single female vote and youth vote, Obama had enough votes to win without any of the rest of us! Since black republicans are not acceptable to blacks, and female republicans are not acceptable to feminists, I am not sure how the republicans could have fielded an acceptable candidate at this particular time in history.
Click to expand...
Well, Rubio on the ticket might have helped with hispanics (though as a cuban american, I’m not sure how water he carries with mexican americans).
 
George Bush learned Spanish and reached out to Latinoes and he got 44% of the vote. Marco Rubio was pursuing a bipartison DREAM act before Obama passed his temporary executive order, republicans could start by getting behind that. Maybe Romney came across too vague on immigration

Most Americans are against illegal immigration but it is about tone, and the tone in the republican primary from Romney regarding immigration was likely a factor in Latinos not voting for him. Marco Rubio said republicans need to be known more for what they are for in regards to legal immigration than what they are against. Susana Martinez is hard line on illegal immigration but last time I looked she had a 60% plus approval rating with Latinoes in NM. Latinos are a natural republican constituency and the republican party has learned the price of not doing enough to reach out to them on what I think is a range of issues, not just immigration. Hope now they will reach out more and having people like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Susana Martinez, Ted Cruz, Booby Jindal, Tim Scott etc will help with demographics
 
Swiss_Guy said:
How are the voting demographics though?
Click to expand...
Demographics include those people who want the government (as O’Reilly says) to give them “stuff”: free access across our southern border, ss and medicaid for illegals, government funded abortion and contraceptives, education for the children of illegals and on and on. This country was built on immigration of people from other countries and cultures who came legally and who have contributed mightily to this country. They came to work and to boost themselves and their families into success. That is no longer true.
 
Romney got 59% of weekly churchgoers.
Obmama got 56% of those who attend church rarely, and 63% of those who never attend church.

Perhaps the party demographics are breaking between the churchgoers and the non churchgoers.

If the country keeps becoming more secular, Democrats win.
If it becomes more religious, Republicans win.

I do think that the GOP threw away the Latino vote for no good reason. Immigration is a positive, not a negative, for economic growth and demographics.
 
_Abyssinia said:
George Bush learned Spanish and reached out to Latinoes and he got 44% of the vote. Marco Rubio was pursuing a bipartison DREAM act before Obama passed his temporary executive order, republicans could start by getting behind that. Maybe Romney came across too vague on immigration

Most Americans are against illegal immigration but it is about tone, and the tone in the republican primary from Romney regarding immigration was likely a factor in Latinos not voting for him. Marco Rubio said republicans need to be known more for what they are for in regards to legal immigration than what they are against. Susana Martinez is hard line on illegal immigration but last time I looked she had a 60% plus approval rating with Latinoes in NM. Latinos are a natural republican constituency and the republican party has learned the price of not doing enough to reach out to them on what I think is a range of issues, not just immigration. Hope now they will reach out more and having people like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Susana Martinez, Ted Cruz, Booby Jindal, Tim Scott etc will help with demographics
Click to expand...
I said from the beginning that Rubio should have been Romney’s VP, things might have been very different today. However, for Rubio this might be the best thing, he has a clear path to 2016 that isn’t tied to a losing candidate.
 
JimG said:
I do think that the GOP threw away the Latino vote for no good reason. Immigration is a positive, not a negative, for economic growth and demographics.
Click to expand...
Legal immigration, yes. ** Illegals **do nothing for us
 
Seeker1961 said:
Actually, they do a LOT for us in terms of working for lousy wages so that we can pay less for fruits and vegetables.
Click to expand...
For myself, I’m no expert on immigration, legal or illegal. I think it ought to be a whole lot easier to immigrate than it is. And I tend to agree that without those migrant workers, legal or illegal, those fruit and vegetable farms might simply move to Mexico. How would that help the U.S.?
 
JimG said:
For myself, I’m no expert on immigration, legal or illegal. I think it ought to be a whole lot easier to immigrate than it is. And I tend to agree that without those migrant workers, legal or illegal, those fruit and vegetable farms might simply move to Mexico. How would that help the U.S.?
Click to expand...
You can’t move the ground or the climate or, most importantly, the water.😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top