We don’t have to cede social conservatism. We just have to sell it gently, and that’s exactly how it was sold in the 2008 election. McCain was just the wrong guy overall. But the way he handled social issues was not too shabby. Huckabee, on the other hand, is far too in-your-face about it. He may be correct, but that ain’t the way to sell it to a mixed bag population.

Bush left many vacancies on the federal bench and in the appellate courts, due to Democrat refusal to consider his nominees. These vacancies will now be filled by Obama. One thing you can be sure of is that none of his appointments will lift a finger to address Roe v Wade. If we are lucky, we will retain our current conservatives on the Supreme Court, plus Kennedy. But any vacancies will also be filled by pro-choice nominees, and Kennedy has not shown any inclination to address the original Roe ruling. The practical effect is that Roe will not reach a point where it can be reconsidered for at least 20 years.

We are already over 30 years since Roe was decided. At that point it will have been over 50 years, and the concept of Stare Decicis (settled law) will be firmly entrenched into the court’s judgement. The practical effect is that Roe v Wade will never be overturned, and that limitations imposed on abortion on demand may be eroded. There is not a majority of the electorate interested in making abortion illegal, proven by the resounding rejection the South Dakota voters gave to a statewide limitation that was on the 2008 ballot.

This puts us in an awkward position with regard to our candidates. The Pro-life litmus test is now a judgement of the character of our candidates, not a campaign promise of action that they will take. There is no action they can take to advance the pro-life position.

I know Virginia has been innundated by legal and illegal hispanic immigrants. For whatever reason, they vote with the Dems, I guess mainly on immigration. We have maybe one or two elections to take immigration on or the issue will become mute. We can get our word out to hispanics, but I am not sure how much a deal that will make.

People need to come to conservatism on their own, not as a group, it is about the individual and is joined by individuals. Let the Dems play skin color and victimhood. If it is too late to build a majority, than we must be the strongest minority in history.

But anyway, so do you believe that had McCain kept Bush’s 38-40% of the Hispanic vote, yet lost the three points with whites (as well as what he lost with everyone else), then he would have won?

I seriously doubt that any analysis will support that.

I realize that there were many Hispanics who voted for Bush but who did not vote for McCain (even though McCain is every bit the leftwinger on immigration that Bush is). But don’t you get that there were many whites who voted for Bush but who did not vote for McCain? My major point is that the loss of 3 points among whites was more decisive than the loss of 6-9 points among latinos.

In a state like North Carolina, where it was so close, then one could make the argument that any group was decisive, and the group chosen is usually indicative of some sort of agenda being pushed by the person making the claim. Those who point to Hispanics usually fall into two camps; (1) those saying that it proves Republicans must become enthusiastic supporters of unending mass immigration to win over the growing tide of Hispanics, or (2) those who are saying that its already over and its too late for the GOP; this position can be expressed from a doom-and-gloom conservative (which I admit to being at times) or a gloating leftie.

But to return to North Carolina; yes, the Hispanic population has grown greatly there, but as with all other places, they lag behind in their share of the electorate. Its probably the case that had McCain done as well with whites in NC as Bush did, he would have carried the state. It was increased turnout from and an even higher showing with black voters for Obama, and a worse showing with whites that cost McCain in NC, not the Hispanic vote.

Not that Republicans shouldn’t be pro life but talking about it all the time only loses the additional voters we need.

The politicians aren’t the ones doing it. For Republicans, the establishment media makes it the highlight of their coverage and interview questions.

The GOP should definitly point out that while Obama talks like a centrist on abortion, marriage, and guns, the truth is that his judges would impose abortion on demand, strike down every traditional marriage law in the country and impose gay marriage in their place, and would gut the Second Amendment of any real meaning.

As I remember it, McCain only made one half-hearted attempt at this in one of the debates, but he limited it to abortion. Pointing out the conflict between the moderate talk of Democrat politicians versus the far-left views their judges would impose on a whole host of issues should be a priority for the GOP.

Any dissent from support for a pathway to citizenship for illegals and for support for unending mass legal immigration will result in being called anti-whatever.

Guess what it will take to be deemed as ‘inclusive’? — You got it; support for amnesty for illegals and for unending mass legal immigration!

So there are really only two options; (1) we surrender to this and engage in a futile attempt to out-pander the Democrats for the loyalty of latinos, or (2) Put forth an articulate champion for conservative immigration reform, someone who can effectively deflect the bogus charges of anti-whatever and racism and xenophobia that will be thrown at such a person.

Your ten year prediction is interesting, because I think that may be enough time to turn Texas into a battleground state. And if that happens, it will not be because the GOP failed to continue the pandering of Bush (who never won a majority of the Hispanic vote in Texas in any of his four victories in the state), but rather it will be an inevitable result of an immigration policy that admitted hundreds of thousands of people every year who were always going to favor the Democrats.

The only group that split fairly evenly where whites. So I guess whites are the least racist. Again I do not get your point, hispanics who voted for Bush did not vote for McCain. Yet McCain has been the long term Senator of a state with a large hispanic population.

I am tired of talking race and ethnicity. We do not need to “reach out” to anyone. Our ideas are universal. Who ever says we must reach out to whites? What we need to do is joine the PTA, focuse on local government etc. The left is destroying this country from the inside. We can’t come up with some Golden Boy to throw a Hail Mary.

Bush and McCain saw that Republicans do well with a minority group. About 40% of the vote. (Talk about fuzzy math. I thought you needed over 50% to win an election.) Bush and McCain though that was a good reason to import a million illegal Mexicans a year. Not the Republican voting ones. The poor ones who will probably need public assistance and vote Democrat. Republicans puhed this. Bush and McCain, again, idiots.

And abortion as an issue causes many people to yawn. Not that Republicans shouldn’t be pro life but talking about it all the time only loses the additional voters we need. It also takes time away from discussing what many undecided voters consider really important leaving those issues to be discussed by the Democrats. They shut up about the issue and appoint the judges that can do something about it after the election.

Why is the obvious so hard to admit to? McCain’s poorer showing with whites cost him many more votes than did the poorer showing with latinos. Are we not supposed to say this?

Now it may be true that had McCain retained Bush’s 58% of the white vote, but fell with everyone else to where he actually did, then he would not have won because of the lesser share of the electorate made up of by whites. But its also true that to make up for the lost 3 points with whites, he’d have to have won a share of the Hispanic vote that no Republican has ever gotten. Are you so sure that there were not enough white Bush voters in Va, NC, and other states who became Obama voters (or non-voters) to make the difference?

The GOP should of course try harder with Hispanics, but it should do the same with all groups, including whites, even if we are called racists for it. A better showing with whites could mean holding on to Southwestern states a little while longer, and actually flipping blue states like Pennsylvania and Minnesota. You may say that winning those blue states is unrealistic, and you may be right, but I’d reply that it is no more unrealistic than the idea that we win over Hispanics while immigration levels remain high.

There are other mechanics that come into play. The visual comparison of Obama v. McCain is similar to Bill Clinton v. Bush 41 & Dole. We need to consistently oppose & publicize wrong & failure by the Dems. I believe the MSM will continue to lose market share & influence, especially with the all-out effort to elect Obama.

The basis for victory & for moving the country in the right direction is getting back to the core conservatism & regaining the mantle of fiscal responsibility & limited government, while keeping the other legs of the stool intact.

I consider Hispanics to be “fake” conservatives or at best, “fake” Catholics. Like another poster said, they live as conservatives but they vote as Democrats because (I think) they know the Democrats are the party of the minority/poor and will give them handouts.

Hispanics claim to be pro-life and church going but there numbers have to be going down overall. I know I don’t see them near as much as I used to, and that was early ’90s when immigration wasn’t even an issue.

They get a lot of credit for going to church and wearing “Mary the Virgin” shirts, crosses, etc. but its all for show. Most of them are Christmas/Easter Catholics just like a lot of people. They are also known to cohabitate which would be breaking a direct commandment so it isn’t all rosy as one may believe.

With that said, Catholics in general disappoint me. Most are not conservative yet pro-life is preached in many churches along with abstainence, and traditional marriage only.

There is no reason that Catholics should not vote Republican in masse, as they could be the Southern Baptists of the North (as it is largly a Northern US concentration).

The reason I see that Catholics vote Democratic aside from largely always doing it, was back when they came to America they were persecuted as having a different religion outside that of Protestantism that this country was majority founded upon. The Democratic party machine as a whole, welcomed all minorities in regardless of religion, or national origin.

However many are Democratic in PA for example. I remember a stat like 65% voted for Obama. Pelosi, Reid, and Biden are all Catholics along with VT Senator Patrick Leahy, CT Senator Chris Dodd, and MA Senator Kerry.

The Catholics I know were split at best, but most of them were voting for Obama-a Pro-abortion candidate. This is a declining issue (nationwide even though its a big deal for me personally) and Roe will never be overturned much like a Federal Marriage Amendment will never be passed as the time for that has passed the electorate by. Its all about the economy.

You say Republicans and conservatives must “reach out”? How exactly do you propose such a thing? I want details, not banal platitudes.

Unlike liberalism, that looks at everyone as a minority, whether that be skin pigment, sexual orientation, or sex, we conservatives treat everyone as individuals. They get their unalienable rights from God, and this country allows them to prosper according to ability and effort. Now how exactly must we reach out to Hispanics? And for that matter, must we “reach out” to left handed people too?

Hispanics live as Republicans, they live as conservatives, but more and more they vote as deadbeats, as liberals, as a group of victims. It is a sad legacy, I don’t think they live that way, but they vote that way.

You are damn right they made the difference in North Carolina, Virginia, New Mexico etc. These are facts, you want to argue them?

I know white liberals outnumber hispanics. But if every minority group joins the left, then we as a party are through. Minorities have greater fertility, at least until they become Republicans. Ask Western Europe about this issue. As the Brits why more go to Mosque than Church on Sunday.

The fact of the matter is if hispanics do not wake up and vote the way they live their lives, we as a party are in for it. And the majority of hispanics that respect hard work, will find they wasted their votes and created a greater wellfare state that THEY will have to pay for.

Now there is no question that Hispanic are an increasing presence in political spectrum and 10 years many states may show whites to actually be in the minority (like CA is already) the party must look to the future and realize that if this continues on this path many states may fall to Dems cause they have a coalition that is growing

The Party would be very smart to work on this!

Following from that, McCain most likely got as much as 32% of the Hispanic vote, so we are looking at a decline of somewhere between 6-9 points. McCain’s share of the white vote fell from 58% to about 55%, and that 3 point drop with whites cost McCain many more votes than did the larger drop with Hispanics simply because of those two groups respective share of the electorate. Of course with the electoral college, location matters, but it’s probably a safe bet that McCain’s poorer showing with whites hurt him much more than his poorer showing with non-whites, especially in North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, and Ohio. If McCain had lost Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, and Florida by just a few votes, then it could be argued that latinos were decisive (but then so too could the same argument be made for any group if it is very close), but Obama wound up winning those easily.

Cut spending by eliminating entire departments. DoE (both of them), DoA, HUD for starters.

Moe

PS: Normally I wouldn’t bother, but what the heck: if you can’t even tell the difference between the two sites you’d just screw up by the numbers some other way. Why wait?