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.
_Abyssinia said:
Question is why did they stay at home?
Click to expand...
I don’t know for sure, but I think a certain lack of enthusiasm for Romney was a big part of it. To conservatives, Romney had appeal as a businessman; a person likely to understand that you can’t “borrow yourself rich”. He had appeal (still little known) as a personal philanthropist. But among a lot of conservatives, that was about it; that and his being the “non-Obama”. He wasn’t as prolife as Santorum.

I would dispute an earlier post that maintained the Repub party is the party of the well to do and the male. Cultural factors mean a lot. The area in which i live is massively Republican, regardless of economic or social class or gender. Go a little south into NW Ark, and it’s the same. Pretty much all of Ok and north Tx are the same. But there are cultural differences between, say, that general region and, say, the Great Lakes area or even St. Louis. Very major differences. I realize some will hoot at this, but Sarah Palin drew huge crowds of women here, from every socioeconomic class. Why? It was because she is a tough and standup woman, with sharp elbows, who made her own way but could still have heart enough for a downs child. And that’s what kind of women this area is full of.

As to Hispanics, I would first say there are lots of differences among them. A Mexican-American is not a Puerto-Rican is not a Salvadoran is not a Guatemalan. Ronald Reagan said of Mexicans that they are Republicans, but they just don’t know it yet. Knowing a fair number of them as I do, I am inclined to agree with that assessment. They’re more “free enterprise” than the great majority of Anglos, and they disdain the government, by and large. It is my firm belief that when it comes to Mexican-Americans, at least, they’ll bolt the Dem candidates as soon as the government starts cutting bigger chunks out of their paychecks than they’re getting from government, which is only a matter of time as they ascend the economic scale. GW Bush had some insight into that, I think. But I really don’t think Romney did, and a lot of Repubs and Dems don’t either.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I don’t know for sure, but I think a certain lack of enthusiasm for Romney was a big part of it. To conservatives, Romney had appeal as a businessman; a person likely to understand that you can’t “borrow yourself rich”. He had appeal (still little known) as a personal philanthropist. But among a lot of conservatives, that was about it; that and his being the “non-Obama”. He wasn’t as prolife as Santorum.

I would dispute an earlier post that maintained the Repub party is the party of the well to do and the male. Cultural factors mean a lot. The area in which i live is massively Republican, regardless of economic or social class or gender. Go a little south into NW Ark, and it’s the same. Pretty much all of Ok and north Tx are the same. But there are cultural differences between, say, that general region and, say, the Great Lakes area or even St. Louis. Very major differences. I realize some will hoot at this, but Sarah Palin drew huge crowds of women here, from every socioeconomic class. Why? It was because she is a tough and standup woman, with sharp elbows, who made her own way but could still have heart enough for a downs child. And that’s what kind of women this area is full of.

As to Hispanics, I would first say there are lots of differences among them. A Mexican-American is not a Puerto-Rican is not a Salvadoran is not a Guatemalan. Ronald Reagan said of Mexicans that they are Republicans, but they just don’t know it yet. Knowing a fair number of them as I do, I am inclined to agree with that assessment. They’re more “free enterprise” than the great majority of Anglos, and they disdain the government, by and large. It is my firm belief that when it comes to Mexican-Americans, at least, they’ll bolt the Dem candidates as soon as the government starts cutting bigger chunks out of their paychecks than they’re getting from government, which is only a matter of time as they ascend the economic scale. GW Bush had some insight into that, I think. But I really don’t think Romney did, and a lot of Repubs and Dems don’t either.
Click to expand...
Some of this are your personal views but against statistics:
I spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”
Click to expand...
And a strong reason for that support for big government is that so many Hispanics use government programs. U.S.-born Hispanic households in California use welfare programs at twice the rate of native-born non-Hispanic households. And that is because nearly one-quarter of all Hispanics are poor in California, compared to a little over one-tenth of non-Hispanics. Nearly seven in ten poor children in the state are Hispanic, and one in three Hispanic children is poor, compared to less than one in six non-Hispanic children. One can see that disparity in classrooms across the state, which are chock full of social workers and teachers’ aides trying to boost Hispanic educational performance.
Click to expand...
nationalreview.com/corner/332916/why-hispanics-dont-vote-republicans-heather-mac-donald#
 
BroomWagon said:
Some of this are your personal views but against statistics:

nationalreview.com/corner/332916/why-hispanics-dont-vote-republicans-heather-mac-donald#
Click to expand...
In no way do the quotes you cited contradict what I said. I admitted up front that most of the Hispanic-Americans I know are of Mexican origin. They are very different from even Salvadorans or Guatemalans.

They are very good at accessing whatever anybody wants to give away for free. I never said they weren’t, and I don’t know that I would blame them a whole lot for it. If we’re dumb enough to hand out free stuff, how much dumber would they have to be to turn it down, particularly when a lot of them think “Anglos” are naive and the government even dumber?

But if you ever do business with Mexican-Americans (and I have, a lot) you learn very quickly that they have more money than you might think, often a lot more, and are mighty slow to give it up. And you learn (if you discuss it with them) that they resent taxes more than we do. I live in a high work-ethic part of the country, but even the locals don’t match that of a 30-year-old Mexican American out to “make his”.

It might well take a generation, but ultimately I believe their hatred of taxes and very serious aversion to supporting indolence will make our own “free marketers” blush.

Having said that, it’s possible that things are different in Southern California.
 
SuperLuigi said:
I think the idea is that the less religious you are, the more likely you are to vote democrat.
Click to expand...
That makes sense - the Democrat party is controlled by the secular left. The goals of the secular left are the goals of the Democrat party. The Democrat convention was an example of that on display. Abortion on demand, gay rights, government as daddy/nanny. The left’s hope for the future - Cory Brooker - thinks its the job of government to feed children - not parents. He spoke at campaign rallies with Planned Parenthood for abortion rights - he’s part of the NARAL/Planned Parenthood lobby. No Catholic should consider supporting such a party or a leader as Brooker.

The GOP may have its flaws, but opposing Catholic teaching on life issues is not one of them.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
The more you vote Democrat, the less you are paying attention to your religion (if its a Christian religion).

Ishii
Click to expand...
What if you live somewhere where the only way to make a difference is to try to elect a prolife Democrat in the primaries? In places like Rhode Island and Massachusetts it’s probably the only way to make a difference. Might as well be Democratic then. 🤷
 
trapper1 said:
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).
Click to expand...
It wouldn’t have made a difference since Democrats still would have won by cheating.
 
PaulinVA said:
You need to look at other demographics. College graduates went for Obama - Fairfax has one of the highest percentages of college graduates (58%) in the nation.
Click to expand...
It’s also loaded with people who work in DC who don’t want to live in the city or Martin O’Malley’s Maryland. :rolleyes:
 
Swiss_Guy said:
What if you live somewhere where the only way to make a difference is to try to elect a prolife Democrat in the primaries? In places like Rhode Island and Massachusetts it’s probably the only way to make a difference. Might as well be Democratic then. 🤷
Click to expand...
SwissGuy:

I think it’s important for Catholics to vote their conscience. Voting your conscience means voting for the right reasons, that means being unselfish and not necessarily putting your favorite subsidy or bragging rights in the faculty lounge or watercooler first.

I’ve vote for pro-life democrats in the primaries before. I think that we need to start moving both parties back to conservative social values.

I’m just not fully convinced by any means that is what goes on here in every case and I think that even voting for purist Third Party is not the only good, heavenly choice.

In morality, it really boils down to intention. But in the real world, good intentions do not always make men free.

When voting democrat, consider that you also should keep in mind that some of the people you elect also vote for who will be speaker of the house or senate majority leader and that some democrats who are pro-marriage and pro-life may find their arms twisted in more ways than one to comply.

It can be a lot of pressure for them. I think someone even told Bart Stupak of rural MI he should vote for the AHA because he’s going to lose either way. And just look at Ben Nelson and Mary Landreiux.

In the case of the great state of Minnesota, people who live in CD-7 and CD-8 should consider that before voting for Collin Peterson and Rick Nolan.
 
The GOP Turnout Myth
Because what ought to scare the GOP is this: Even with higher GOP turnout in key states, even with Mr. Obama shedding voters, Democrats still won. Mr. Obama accomplished this by tapping new minority voters in numbers that beat even Mr. Romney’s better turnout.
Click to expand...
In Florida, 238,000 more Hispanics voted than in 2008, and Mr. Obama got 60% of Hispanic voters. His total margin of victory in Florida was 78,000 votes, so that demographic alone won it for him. Or consider Ohio, where Mr. Romney won independents by 10 points. The lead mattered little, though, given that black turnout increased by 178,000 votes, and the president won 96% of the black vote. Mr. Obama’s margin of victory there was 103,000.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This is the demographic argument that is getting so much attention, and properly so. The Republican Party can hope that a future Democratic candidate won’t equal Mr. Obama’s magnetism for minority voters. But the GOP would do far better by fighting aggressively for a piece of the minority electorate.
Click to expand...
And that, for the record, was the GOP’s real 2012 turnout disaster. Elections are about the candidate and the message, yes, but also about the ground game. Republicans right now are fretting about Mr. Romney’s failures and the party’s immigration platform—that’s fair enough. But equally important has been the party’s mind-boggling failure to institute a competitive Hispanic ground game. The GOP doesn’t campaign in those communities, doesn’t register voters there, doesn’t knock on doors. So while pre-election polling showed that Hispanics were worried about Obama policies, in the end the only campaign that these voters heard from—by email, at their door, on the phone—was the president’s.
Click to expand...
My emphases

Analysis: Hispanic vote not decisive in Obama victory
 
SuperLuigi said:
SwissGuy:

I think it’s important for Catholics to vote their conscience. Voting your conscience means voting for the right reasons, that means being unselfish and not necessarily putting your favorite subsidy or bragging rights in the faculty lounge or watercooler first.

I’ve vote for pro-life democrats in the primaries before. I think that we need to start moving both parties back to conservative social values.

I’m just not fully convinced by any means that is what goes on here in every case and I think that even voting for purist Third Party is not the only good, heavenly choice.

In morality, it really boils down to intention. But in the real world, good intentions do not always make men free.

When voting democrat, consider that you also should keep in mind that some of the people you elect also vote for who will be speaker of the house or senate majority leader and that some democrats who are pro-marriage and pro-life may find their arms twisted in more ways than one to comply.

It can be a lot of pressure for them. I think someone even told Bart Stupak of rural MI he should vote for the AHA because he’s going to lose either way. And just look at Ben Nelson and Mary Landreiux.

In the case of the great state of Minnesota, people who live in CD-7 and CD-8 should consider that before voting for Collin Peterson and Rick Nolan.
Click to expand...
First off I would like to say the bold is a complete joke; Wisconsin is the promise land. 😃

But anyway, I think you make a good point, and I would say it is almost never ok to vote for a Democrat today. But if a person is in a state like Massachusetts where even the Republicans are prochoice, not to mention Republicans never win on a local level, it makes more sense to be a Democrat to have at least some influence in trying to elect the most prolife person to office. In very conservative states I would make the same case for the local level that getting prolife representatives from both parties would make a bigger impact.

On the national level, I can’t see how a prudent person could vote for a Democrat because of incidents like what happened to Stupak. Unless of course the Republican is openly prochoice. Then I’d take my chances with the prolife Democrat since they at least claim to be prolife.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top