As long as white voters form the largest voting block, it will be the practice of both political parties to target white voters.
Both parties will seek advantage by targeting sub-groups of the white votes, as a result, the white vote will be split.
Because there are no overriding "White" issues. So this group can rarely be expected to vary from a 55-45 split, a 60-40 split being rare and a 70-30 split a once in a century occurrence.

Take an issue like Social Security, the single most popular government program in history.
While a small minority of conservatives may propose the elimination of Social Security, the general position of the two parties breaks down to Democrats wanting a little more Social Security, and Republicans arguing for a little less Social Security. On Defense, Democrats generally prefer a little less, Republicans a little more, the divide is never as stark as complete disarmament vs total militarization. Issue by issue, the parties seek a broad enough base to carry their ticket to victory. At one time the GOP could afford to write off the black vote, for the advantage such policies gave it among whites, the GOP could split the Hispanic vote, by garnering a large majority of the Cuban portion of that group.
As the total population became less white, and the hispanic population became less Cuban, these past practices failed to garner the votes required to win. This is not a one time blip, these are ongoing demographic trends that will not be reversed anytime soon.
The peace and prosperity that the EU has brought to Europe means that the flow of white immigrants to the US is tiny, immigrants come from areas that are plagued by war and poverty. That's the major demographic trend in immigration, barring WWIII sweeping across Europe it will not change.
The other major trend is reproduction rate, and birth rates decline with prosperity, and the US white population in general is more prosperous than the US black and US hispanic populations, and so has a lower birth rate.

For the US to increase it's white demographic would require some combination of widespread poverty among the white populations, and major increases in prosperity among the worlds non-white populations.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

What the hell does courting white voters mean? How do you court white voters?

Is that an Arkansas thing?

__________________
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

-Thomas Jefferson

observe John Murtha

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

I find it interesting how – even people who feel they are neutral on a subject – use terminology that is an obvious tell. Two terms in your first sentence are such tells. “hot rhetoric”, and “undocumented people” give away your personal opinion. (Not that I am assuming you have any intention of appearing neutral.)

First, the “hot rhetoric” against legalizing 10 to 15 million illegal immigrants was a majority opinion, not rhetoric. By every poll taken, US voters of all parties do not support giving citizenship to people who entered this country illegally. Since when is voicing the opinion of the majority considered right-wing rhetoric?

That brings us to the “undocumented people” term – used in place of “illegal immigrants”. I ask anyone who uses that term to honestly answer one question. Which term is more likely to fool people, or give them the wrong idea of who we are talking about? “No, I did not steal that – I made an undocumented purchase.”

Yet, as I pointed out, in a recent poll 40% of the people in this country consider themselves conservative. So you are saying the conservatives, who did not even back McCain, frightened moderates away from voting for the moderate John McCain? Interesting theory. I cannot say you are wrong, even though my suspicion is that Bush fatigue doomed the McCain campaign – especially when he was another moderate republican like Bush (a.k.a. compassionate conservative)

Right. You just said it. Conservatism has nothing to do with GOP positions. Conservatism has absolutely nothing to do with party affiliation. Most telling, in the poll I mentioned earlier GALLOP POLL 22% of Democrats considers themselves conservative. Conservative values traditionally can be found within both party platforms.

I find it repugnant that Bush and McCain both supported legalizing people who had illegally entered this country for the obvious purpose of gaining the Hispanic voting block. If winning means throwing out personal principles and American tradition (the American tradition is LEGAL immigration), there is no point in winning. As Dennis Miller said, “We don’t mind people coming here, but at least sign the guest book on your way in!”

Dawson is a perfect example of the MSM double standard. Dawson was unaware that this club had a ‘whites-only’ policy in its 100-year-old bylaws – and immediately began working to change it when he found out. But the truth never matters once the race card is played. Anything that fits into the MSM story line – republicans are racist, bigoted, homophobes – makes front-page news. It is difficult to convince true believers that a myth is less than truth.

I cannot simply stand by and allow this myth to continue being told. For the second time on this thread I must correct it. Barack Obama was the only one quoted saying, “They are going to say I have a funny name, and that I don’t look like other Presidents.” He frequently used that line during his campaign in a way to convince voters that his opposition was racist. The truth is, McCain did not allow anyone involved with his campaign to use Obama’s middle name. Think about that a second. McCain tried so hard to be a good guy, that he did not allow his opponents given name to be spoke in public, yet Obama still went on the trail accusing him of doing so. THAT should give you some kind of idea what the republicans are up against in the race wars.

I know you are thinking – “The McCain campaign may not have said it, but all those other conservatives were saying it.” Please tell me, who? I listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, and O’Reilly on a regular basis. They did not say it. Maybe some rogue hosts with no audience said it – but I never heard it. All the race baiting I heard came out of Barrack Obama’s mouth.

Fighting the myth only looks pathetically defensive. What the republicans need to do is court the 40% conservatives. With a little luck, intelligent moderates will eventually realize that the party who targets people by skin color are the true racists, not the party who ignores race.

__________________
The (almost)Great SupPackFan Quotes:
"The more times you drive over a cat - the flatter it gets!"
"Differentiating legal and illegal immigration is as critical as separating child adoption from child abduction."

Drive Bias

Unborn children are functionally parasites.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Courting white voters means lauding Sarah Palin on her intelligence and insight.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Conservative principles are color blind. Chasing racial constituencies is a Democrat game that the Republicans shouldn't get involved in - but they try and it's comical and pathetic to watch because it doesn't work unless you're promising handouts, and we're not supposed to be into that.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

You might think that Newt is a GOP "weirdo" to use your terminology, but for pure intellect, how does he stack up to uhhh.duhhh..stutter stutter stammer stammer Pelosi? That's laughable. I am a conservative. Maybe even VERY conservative. You might also think Glen Beck is a weirdo and I agree that he can be a bit strange, but isn't that like people everywhere? You may not like him, but I heard a letter being read from a man in AZ today on Beck's show. I have NEVER heard or read anything that so summed up how not only I feel, but many people in this country feel. It is not about party to us. In my opinion, the GOP completely let me down by allowing our country to sink so far in the hole financially. I remember when Bill Clinton balanced the budget. I was a Republican but marveled at his ability to do so. What was even better was the end result; one of the greatest jumps in wealth and financial prosperity this country has ever seen! My point is this; the GOP had their chance the last 8 years and spent our money like drunken sailors in a cat house. I dis-own them. Obama and the Democrats are doing nothing that was not expected. I, however, believe that what they are doing is exactly the wrong thing for America. Driving deficits up with no regard and no plan to pay it back. Now we learn that after rushing this bill through Congress, that 5 months later only 6% of the money has been spent and that many of these "projects" are nothing more than personal wish lists for assorted and sundry House and Senate Dems. Surprise, surprise. Like all politicians before them, they seem to forget that it is OUR money, not theirs!

What's really sad is this Jason, you will read this, attack me, attack my ideas, sneer at my conservative values, maybe even publicly or privately call me a fat, sick, old white guy. But Jason stop and think a second. Isn't that exactly what those in Washington want us to do? Look, if we (meaning those at opposite ends of ideology) are constantly bickering, than we will have a constant flow of the same old politics as usual. Sure. It might be Republicans for 8 years, then Democrats, on and on. This is job security! Look at history, Jason (and the rest of you for that matter), constant seesaw Dems, GOP, Dems, GOP. Dammit! When the hell does anybody say, "Enough is enough!"? Well, this letter (Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Glenn Beck: The Letter) says it all. Written by a 40 year registered Democrat turned Republican turned completely cynical, like me. We however, do not intend to do nothing. We intend to become activists. This is my very first posting on a political website. I intend to run for public office locally on the platform of the TRUTH! I intend to do everything I can to support candidates that espouse the basic principals of liberty and freedom for the individual. People that are NOT in it for themselves.

Jason. Your post indicates some standard of intellect and education. If you and I were to sit down and talk like two rational human beings and be respectful of each other's feelings, we might find that we have much more in common than not. This is what the career politicians fear more than anything; an American populace, both left and right, that are informed as to the politicians wrong doing and are fed up up with it! Do you REALLY believe that Obama and the Congress are there to look out for you and your family? Do I believe in Missouri that Roy Blunt is going to change things in the Senate when elected? I know him personally rather well and my answer is a resounding NO! We ALL need to wake up! Washington is totally out of control on both sides of the aisle. It is all about power and money (not mutually exclusive) and greed and narcissism. It is obvious. All you have to do is open your eyes!

I like to discuss the strategy of politics in addition to sometimes my personal sentiments on an issue. The science and strategy of the topic has its own intellectual interests to me in discussion.

And it's true that I naturally, like all people, have my own sentiments and perceptions on an issue that may or may not play a role in those perceptions. After all, it's pretty much impossible to form a strategic opinion without observation and sentiments of having seen a direction taken. That's mostly both from subjective and objective observations and sentiments.

The hot rhetoric was the large conveyances of several things observed as explained, not just the legalisation process (English Only Amendments, various angst over the large introduction over them concerning jobs, culture, student instructions, other comments hinting at resentments against immigrants, especially Hispanic ones) from many quarters of the right.

And whilst the majority, if asked as a principle, whether they favour 'rewarding' illegal entry, as an abstract principle, they don't. Even most immigrants, legal or otherwise, would likely agree. That said, to gauge sentiments, the subject is more complicated than that for reasons I will explain. In fact, it's a common to ask questions and cite polls--and the left and right do it--that do not and/or select segments in a manner out of full context to get away with many things that a much larger segment would not agree on the whole as an accurate portrayal. I'm not saying you have such intents, but I will explain why I feel banking on that statistic isn't the whole story in my next reply post.

Moreover, simply because sentiments exist does not mean they do not come at a key cost. Here, it's the Hispanics and immigrants that favour such reforms and waivers for reason I'll explain and the expressed rejections of those desires have adversely affected insofar as GOP courtship. If it's acceptable to enough of the GOP to pay that cost because it's an issue that is so important, then it is, but then it's a cost they must pay. So, it's an issue it needs to decide: is the issue worth the candle? And it's not IMO a subject that is mutually exclusive with compromise and fairness, which I will explain.

I'll grant you that the terms 'illegal' versus 'undocumented' are commonly used in this debate depending on what side a person falls, much like it is in abortion, etc.

I do believe the term 'undocumented' is more factually accurate in describing than illegal, which is not actually accurate in all cases as the laws view them. Status is often just a civil issue. For example, being sued in court for something not deemed kosher having happened is not considered in every case to have done something illegal. Some have violated criminal laws regarding their status or work here, but to explain the difference and in which kinds of cases is going to take a long time and it's complicated subject matter on how the entire immigration law exists, is classified, and how and for what.

I used 'undocumented' to indicate those persons who do not have documents presently authorising their presence because they crossed without inspection and admission or they overstayed their visas which are now expired, or in cases of working without authorisation, they lack it whether otherwise authorised to be in the country or not.

But in retrospect, I'd probably say 'unauthorised' would be the best capturing of the two terms that are commonly used in the public. It suggests that the presence and/or employment is not kosher under the laws, but does not suggest illegality, a criminal act. It would also reduce the spin that many use with the terms you and me used, but I think there is fat chance of that in the formal political arenas. But, it's not my intention to spin you, just have a friendly and interesting conversation on the subject between two Average Joes on the street.

And it's that 'stealing' aspect that again I'll explain on how this is hurting the GOP below.

Conservatives clearly did back Bush and McCain. Tepid votes count just as much as enthusiastic ones. McCain got his over 45% of the national vote from the conservative GOP base. And Bush won twice. McCain lost the moderate votes and that lost him the election.

IMO, McCain lost for many reasons. Yes, most definitely, the negative winds flowing from the Bush years put McCain sailing into the winds. But Bush made bad headwinds for himself in his first term too and yet won re-election because he ran an effective re-election campaign and Kerry did not. This time the opposite was true between Obama and McCain. Still, McCain got up to neck-and-neck with Obama and even a bit in the lead by September--when the economic crash and his poor responses (previous admissions he didn't understand the economy well, his September 15 "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" huge error, his appearing like a deer in the woods about what to do about it when appearing in Congress, etc) in conjunction with other things I'll explain below, put him beyond any chance of winning.

Here are many reason why I feel he lost besides the Bush winds.

1) An absolutely horrible campaign strategy and communication. It started with his total failure to accumulate good will and courtings during the ongoing Dem primary by meeting, speaking and outreaching to voters. Given he won the GOP primary early, he willingly gave up a huge amount of available time to garner support whilst HRC and Obama were focused on beating each other until the very end of their primary. Then, he kickoffed after a strong and healing-minded DNC with the 'green backdrop' empty hotel bland speech, etc. It continued with poor theme disciplines that repudiated and flipped each week, such as starting off with 'Experience' being his theme and then repudiating it with picking Palin, and then changing it to 'Reform' but letting Palin make blatantly false statements such as with the Bridge to Nowhere claims from the git-go that undermined it, switching his claims from fiscal discipline to promising to spending more money than Obama in populism each week of September forward that left no clue where he stood on issues. His reactions to the September fiasco were really telling of an Achilles Heel in his knowledge as well as foresight as to what to do about it. Moreover, he failed to challenge Obama on social issues, especially shockingly never once raising any difference on gun issues (I'm a 2A supporter, gun and CC licence holder for example) as a point of principle for him, and many other aspects that just showed horrible campaign strategising and execution that left no clue what he would do differently or better.

2) Palin. She is very attractive, a woman, and charismatic in a populist way. But, clearly she was not prepared at this time to take a VP slot. Even Obama--who I felt was premature himself at the time--waited longer and prepared intensely before he entered the race. She jumped at the opportunity right from oblivion and without having prepared herself at all for the big national and international issues she would have needed to get up ASAP. And it showed. Badly. And especially so in the few interviews she did give that confirmed she wasn't ready. They even had to hide her from the media in an attempt to conceal that she was not ready for the job. Basically, she was a heartbeat away from the POTUS of a very elderly man. That was extremely concerning, and just not a risk many wanted to take.

Also, her spins in the very first week of introduction regarding the Bridge to Nowhere did huge damage to the new theme of Reform as well, which came on top of the repudiation of the Experience theme in the selection of her. First impressions are key, and those were exactly what set them. Again, this is all part of the thematic chaos and self-defeating aspects of the whole campaign.

Myself, I gave McCain all due serious considerations during that election. I voted for HRC in the primary and was very open to persuasion from there. I was especially concerned that Obama, whilst I felt he was intelligent and charismatic, was too 'green' experience wise for my liking. And as swing voter with mixed left/right/moderate positions on many things, I shared issue agreements with either Obama or McCain depending on the subject. But gradually during the campaign, Obama worked hard to alleviate as much of my concerns about him as he could, whilst McCain served to deepen them about him, leaving me with no idea where he really stood on things and what he would do, and even with what he really knew on key areas like economics. I know from speaking with so many others and observing everything that I was not alone in these perceptions that caused undue angst about selecting him.

So, my thoughts on the whole topic are obviously subjectual from my own experience in it, but also from what I observed with others too who had to make or break come November. I was far from alone in my evaluations.

continued...

__________________

Agreed. And it's still seems clear to me that 'conservative' on an issue is disputed. For example, the Religious Right and libertarians are worlds apart on many issues and even antagonistic to each other, yet each considers themselves 'the real conservatives.'

Not necessarily. Here is the key from my perspective as a person of an immigrant background with family and friends heavily in contacts with others.

I agree, and most immigrants I know agree, that disregarding immigration laws and borders is not kosher. That said, a big issue is the overall reason and scheme why that is so.

It is absolutely no secret to immigrants that the US government ginned the immigration game. Basically, getting into the US has been badly curtailed and obstacles were thrown in the way to lawful entries. Take Ireland for example. Our allotted numbers were cut to a ridiculous trickle and now trying to get even close relatives takes years--I mean over a decade--in 'processing' and 'allotment' which still isn't guaranteed. Of many who do get in legally, large number of the legal ones came through with marriage games (even to get out of unauthorised status), with others unfortunately doing shady ways like bride ordering. But there is one other big non-accident too: the borders have been left wide open to immigrate either by easily crossing the open borders or coming in on easily issued visitor's visas. It's never been hard to come in that way with red carpets shown.

This dual game has had only one self-evident purpose: the US changed its policy to make immigration a large underworld of labour exploitation. How does the US get people to pick crops, do construction and landscaping, dishwashing, nannying, housecleaning, etc, on the cheap? Hire all the undocumented aliens who need the work bad enough to come in and do the work, but who in turn cannot ever get beyond that status.

Immigrants know that and aren't for one instance fooled by claims to the contrary meant to cover it up because they have seen and/or lived it. And it's no accident all this has long been the status quo and intent. So, when it is claimed that they have 'stolen' their way in, it is treated by a huge number of immigrants, lawful or otherwise, as chutzpah. They were invited in with the most open border wink and nods but the clear understanding that their lives meant the kitchen, the lawn, the hammer, etc, for poor pay and no benefits.

From the POV of loads of immigrants, it's a cynical game of exploiting and manipulating the whole immigration subject and then fobbing off the blames on the immigrants themselves. So, the argument IMO would stand up if the US has had clean hands on the topic, but it doesn't.

Now, there are many people who also wish that 'all sides' to the above get punished, but again, there really isn't anyone innocent on the subject. Down to costs of goods and other benefits gained in society either directly or indirectly like infrastructure improvements, US society has gotten the benefit of it all. Moreover, US society is collectively responsible for who they elect and how the government operates, who lets what happen, etc.

This counterview of all those with a stake in the situation from the other side won't change unless and until the US gets clean hands on the topic, and that means fair treatment of those let in and let working under these conditions, allowing a fair system of immigration again, and then closing the borders and tightening regulations to those who won't play by fair--as opposed to unfair--rules.

And here is where it really hurts the GOP--the huge number of legal Hispanics and others who, by way of being the most recent immigrants--have the closest connections to those who are here unauthorised. They even have family and friends with a stake. And it's the same with other immigrants and others who have connections with them. And when this topic gets added to the other kinds of things I said earlier on the subject of immigration that appear aimed at them, it means lost votes--loads of them.

There is no MSM--that is a right wing talking point that is a combination strawman/conspiracy theory that has gotten traction from repetition with those on the right wing, and one made by the 'right wing media' as the left wing would call it, another talking point of them in reverse. The media is a huge industry of all sorts of style and sources, and biases too. But nobody owns it.

And the report on Dawson was a fact. It's fair game for any news source to cite a fact. Dawson made that fact. If it's unflattering for someone or some side, so be it--don't make unflattering facts then.

And it's up to the public to decide upon facts. For me, I don't credit one iota of his explanation. He is a member of a private golf club that has had no black members for over 100 years. Not only do memberships discuss the membership and requirements and preferences amongst themselves in such clubs (been a club member of many things in my life), but that kind of a restriction is about as damn self-evident as it gets. It's not an accident that absolutely no blacks are seen and have never been seen as members, that none are ever proposed or accepted, etc.

Some explanations are just too incredible to believe, and they just are what they are and aren't going to have a favourable judgement in the political arena for one side or the other on such people. For example, Jefferson is going to be making his claims the 90K in his freezer wasn't the product of illegality, Blago is going to claim he wasn't trying to sell Obama's seat and do other corrupt things, etc, but it is what is is when looking at all the facts in the face of the explanation.

It happened, and happened way too much. Heck, one didn't even have to leave this website to see such claims made against him and they still are from some. And I'll agree that McCain himself did not allow the rhetoric, but he didn't go out of his way to dispel it, because it was seen as working for him until it got really out of hand.

I even saw it myself at a McCain rally in my town. I had trouble getting into the arena where he, Palin and Lieberman appeared, but I saw and heard some of the most foul rhetoric against Obama whilst there from lots of supporters who showed up to cheer them (the black takeover, Muslim, terrorist, etc). And it was allowed to go on. Only in the end where it boiled over so much did McCain finally realise that it was now way out of hand counterproductively. And regardless, it was those portions of the base that drove away those who were alarmed or resentful of what they saw, especially when they saw the kinds of internal abuse from GOP quarters against McCain himself on the same kinds of subject matter that was harsher and accusing of McCain as being a RINO on the issues. It became personal to assure that such people would never prevail with their own hand at the ballot box.

In every election, either the GOP or Dem is going to get at least 40%, and that always comes from their solid conservative or liberal supporters. Even Reagan won in 1984 with just less than 60%. Mondale got all the key supporters: solid liberals, unions, blacks...and nobody else. A win needs to win the electoral college. That means taking into account the demographics of how to corner that win. 40% will never do that. And the GOP is standing to lose in all the areas where the immigration issue hurts them most--Florida, the Southwest and Rocky Mountain areas. It has already lost the Northeast and West Coast.

And the GOP definitely does not ignore race--it has been a big offender on it going right back to the Southern Strategy. If people felt otherwise, they would not witness what has been happening lately with the losses of group after group.

__________________

And yet, only a Republican presidents have actuall granted millions of illegal immigrants citizenship and one broad sweep. That's why it's so important to keep Republicans out of power, so that sweeping amnesty isn't given to illegal immigrants.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Bear one thing in mind, OSB: The BIG payoff is not for the current generation of adults. Yea, sure they will always be dishwashers and day laborers. BUT their children, the NEXT generation, will be able to grab the brass ring.

And as a a parent I can tell you that we will do a lot of things to secure the future of our children even if it means we will never be able to share that future.

__________________

I think the 0 will take care of driving white voters right.

__________________

Courting blacks and browns is a disasterous idea for republicans. They need to worry about being conservative and not spending like druken demonrats next time they have power, that will do more than anything for them. Blacks vote en masse for one party, they always have. First the republicans and now the demonrats. There is nothing that can be done about this except wait a few more genterations for them to culturally mature to a place where they are more politically sophisiticated. Browns will come to republicans only if they see them as a viable alternative to the left. But republicans should more than anthing embrace whites, who make up the lions share of their voters. Doing things for and to help whites would be excellent since we are under attack from the left. Kevin McDonald wrote an excellent piece for the Occidental Observer on this issue here it is....http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...publicans.html

__________________
Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again.
Jefferson Davis

Oh, yeh, the Occidental Observer, neat play there, hey Victor, how ya doin?

Y'know, here's what I can't figure, if the Jews really ARE smart enough to evolve this "group survival strategy" then doesn't that mean they really ARE superior, and how can you resent superior people for being superior, esp when they spend a lot of their time trying to help the downtrodden?

Here's my take on it, the goddam Nazi pigs realize that THEY'RE the really inferior ones and they hate Jews out of pure jealousy, nothing else.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips