What's Next for the Republican Party?

[Stavros]

I will admit that I have not watched all of the Republican Party nominees debate that took place in Ohio -the 'top ten- and not being an American or living there I don't get some of the nuances or references, I don't know who Rosie O'Donnell is though it appears Mr Trump doesn't like her. Jeb Bush to me came across as the most reasonable of the candidates, adopting the least extreme positions, compared to Mike Huckabee whose definition of a person must rank as one of the greatest innovations in human biology. Whatever. What strikes me about these candidates is that I wonder if anyone has sat them down and told them what the USA in 2015 looks like, and what most Americans think are the key issues that are shaping their lives, because I suspect that issues like jobs, housing, education and health are vastly more important than gay marriage, political correctness or abortion, although that latter is a serious issue. I came across a study of Latinos in California and how the Republican party since the Reagan era has lost this important source of votes in the state, mostly because of Proposition 187. I know that illegal immigration is as hot a topic there as it is right now in the UK, but I do wonder why Republicans seem unable, or unwilling to address such an important constituency without being offensive at the same time -as if there were no other solution than building walls on the border.

I also wonder if this issue is different in California than it is in Florida where, for example, an issue like Cuba may be more relevant than immigration from Mexico -?

The article linked below looks in depth at how the Republicans lost the Latino vote in California, stating in its intro-
According to polling data from the California Field Poll, after winning the presidential election in 1980, former California Governor Ronald Reagan raised his share of the Latino vote from 35% to 45% in 1984 while carrying 59% of the entire state. Republicans went on to win the Golden state again in 1988. Since that election, three significant changes have reshaped California politics in a manner that has made the Republican Party nearly irrelevant:

1. The Latino share of the total California electorate has dramatically increased.
2. California Republicans embarked on an anti-immigrant agenda that alienated Latino voters and drove them into the open arms of the Democratic Party.
3. Republicans are unable to compete for California’s 55 Electoral College votes, which amounts to 20% of the total 270 necessary to win a presidential election.
As the Latino voter population grows across other states, and a rigorous debate unfolds about immigration reform, we take this opportunity to revisit lessons learned from California. How did California go from a Republican stronghold to a Democratic lock? The answer is clear – anti-immigrant policy and a frustrated and mobilized Latino vote. In a comprehensive review of academic research published in political science journals and public opinion polling and surveys from 1994 to 2013, Latino Decisions senior analysts Dr. David Damore and Dr. Adrian Pantoja, detail what they call “The Prop 187 Effect.

It is now well established in both the political science research community and real world campaign politics that the mid-1990s Pete Wilson era of California Republicanism was a historic turning point in the state’s politics. Prop. 187, the infamous anti-immigrant ballot measure, which was championed by then Governor Pete Wilson in his re-election bid, resulted in significant backlash and political mobilization among California Latino voters. Following Prop. 187 were additional anti-immigrant measures such as Prop. 209 and Prop. 227 that proposed to outlaw affirmative action and bilingual education. Since 1996 when Latinos first comprised more than 10% of the state electorate, Latino partisanship has grown to over 70% Democratic. In light of these dynamics, it is little wonder that California has become an easy win for the Democrats?

(*I think that last part should be 'is it any wonder...')
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/...prop187effect/

[broncofan]

Interesting write up Stavros. I agree with you that housing, education, and employment should get more coverage. The Republican party has focused on other issues though because they are better at whipping up the base. It does work to an extent. I also agree that Jeb Bush is the most reasonable of the candidates, so hopefully he gets the nomination and Trump's popularity fades.

Edit: I was in middle school and high school when prop 187 was proposed, passed, and then held unconstitutional by federal courts. It was an ugly time...people who supported it knew that it was offensive to Mexican-Americans because it allowed them to be treated as suspects. I don't blame latinos for not forgetting.

I remember some hispanic kids were wearing badges that said "suspect under 187" to indicate that if it passed they would be treated as suspects. Some other kids decided it would be funny to wear badges that said "187 on suspect". 187 is police code for murder. So tensions were high..

[buttslinger]

It's hilarious to me that Fox news isn't even pretending it cares about what grass root republicans are concerned with anymore, they're showing their true colors of being 100% concerned with big business only. They're using Barbie doll Megyn Kelly to do their dirty work- get that fool Trump off the stage while they throw BushIII softball questions.
There are actually more Hispanics in California now than Whites.
Rush Limbaugh was actually trashing Fox news the other day.
I'm loving this!!!

[broncofan]

I'll admit Fox News did appear to ask Trump combative and difficult questions. The questions weren't unfair on their own but every question was aimed at challenging his record and past statements rather than asking him about his policy positions. But people on the left have said for years that Fox News is not a place one should expect to find impartiality or fairness.

[buttslinger]

.....But people on the left have said for years that Fox News is not a place one should expect to find impartiality or fairness.

The real question is will people on the RIGHT doubt Fox as fair and balanced!!??????!!!
It's not what the O'Reilly factor says, it's what the loonytoons factor say in the polls this week. Will the yahoos side with the Donald after he said Fox Darling Megyn Kelly had blood shooting out of her.......whatever....
He already got away with insulting John McCain's war record.

[broncofan]

I really can't make a prediction I am so befuddled by what's going on right now. I think if I were a Republican I'd want Trump to just go away. A third party run would be a disaster for Republicans, but they also think he would be a loose canon as the nominee. I read some of the comments on the message boards and I have never seen such internal dissension and confusion. Carly Fiorina said trumps comments were unacceptable and a bunch of twitter people are calling her a RINO (republican in name only)...because being concerned about misogyny means one can't be a Republican apparently.

I also am not sure if Trump was referring to menstruation with his comment. He may have been or he may have just been saying she was so angry she had blood coming out of her eyes and then could not think of how to complete the thought. It doesn't matter because the Republicans really have to figure out who they are. They don't want another milquetoast candidate but do they want a raving moron.

[Stavros]

The focus on Donald Trump's offensive remarks about women in general and Megyn Kelly in particular ought not to allow the other candidates to get away without being scrutinised when it comes to their attitude to women. Abortion has always has been a difficult issue in the USA, but the other candidates have taken positions which either remove from women the right to make their own decisions about what happens to their bodies, or have apparently even lost the right to life themselves -Scott Walker has taken the position that an abortion ought not to be carried out even if it threatens the life of the woman carrying the foetus -he has said there are now ways of preventing that happening, but does not say how medicine can always prevent a woman dying from an ectopic pregnancy, to give just one example. Marco Rubio has said abortion should not be allowed even in cases of rape or incest, while Jeb Bush is just one of the candidates who when he was Governor of Florida removed state funding of Planned Parenthood, although I am not sure how key an issue this is for Americans generally. But these issues affected women directly, and none of the candidates seemed to have a sensitive way of talking about the issues, it was as if women were some 'other species' and not one half of humanity. I don't believe the candidates offered proof that women have told them what they want to base their policies on solid evidence.

The GOP seems to have a problem with women, or it has failed to find a way to appeal to women as natural 'conservatives' on the economy or education; or to put it another way, it does not seem to have learned any lessons in the last 8 years about what the Party stands for and who it is appealing to for votes, and yet it continues to dominate Congress.

Does this mean that if there is a 'backlash' against Republicans on these issues it will motivate women to vote for Hillary Clinton if she becomes the Democrat nominee?

[yodajazz]

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/08/da...rning-mode-its

I think David Brooks has it right, here.

[buttslinger]

When it comes to women and blacks, there are both Republicans and Democrats who wish them all the best, but they don't want them in seats of Power. They've both got lots of coiled resentment down there, that might taint clear logic.

[broncofan]

Does this mean that if there is a 'backlash' against Republicans on these issues it will motivate women to vote for Hillary Clinton if she becomes the Democrat nominee?

This is one of the groups where they have taken positions that are not absolutely necessary to conservative dogma and which erode their base. And they not only alienate women but have done a lot to alienate Gay Americans, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Muslim-Americans. Because they have become the party that opposes liberal political correctness they reject any civil rights question as a liberal issue, any issue relating to fairness or autonomy for women as liberal...as Yoda's article indicates they are a party defined by protest, by what they dislike. When Mitt Romney was asked about fair pay for women in the 2012 race, it was as though he had never contemplated the issue and ended up making the memorable "binders full of women" statement that was really an attempt to sound concerned but ended up sounding detached and confused.

I don't know what kind of backlash, if any, there will be. They have had a certain immunity to their mistakes in certain parts of the country, and they never seem to lose as much support as I expect.....perhaps I engage in wishful thinking.