Lion of the Blogosphere

What the GOPe dreams about

A Washington Post article calls a Rubio nominee with Haley as VP a “fantasy dream ticket of young, brown or faintly tan Americans.”

Why is the GOPe so excited to have a ticket with no non-Hispanic whites when the Republican Party voters are overwhelmingly non-Hispanic white? What’s so exciting about having candidates who don’t have the same background as actual Republican voters?

The answer, of course, is that the GOPe is ashamed of their voters. They wish they could have “diverse” voters like Democrats and thereby not be considered evil racists by the cool people (such as MSM journalists, Hollywood actors, and CEOs of Silicon Valley companies). They care more about what the cool people think of them than they care about representing Republican voters, the people who actually put them in office.

This is why I have become a Donald Trump fan. Only Donald Trump has the courage to tell the mainstream to take their political correctness and stick it where the sun don’t shine. (Disclaimer: As far as I know, Trump himself never used that language.)

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 18, 2016 at 11:52 am

Posted in Politics

84 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The way the cucks join the left in engaging in casual anti-white bigotry is so distributing. From Rand Paul’s comments about “we can’t be so lilly white” to all the pundits repeating how beautiful Nikki Haley, Rubio, and Tim Scott all are. Can’t a mainstream conservative push back on this and say how distasteful it all is? Why are WNs the only people disgusted with this?

    Hepp

    February 18, 2016 at 11:56 am

  2. It goes without saying that anything the WaPo (or NYT) says about the GOP is not intended to help the GOP, and therefore the GOP should do the opposite of what they recommend.

    Tarl

    February 18, 2016 at 12:01 pm

  3. Sadly, they think this will bring them “young, brown or faintly tan” voters.

    Won’t happen.

    Mike Street Station

    February 18, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    • He critiques that the Rubio/Haley ticket is flawed because then the base wont turn out.

      But the base electorate isnt going to turn out for the NY Values vulgarian Trump. What are you going to do when actual GOP voters dont show up? lose

      Trump is like Snakes on a Plane or KONY2012. A web driven froth that people lose interest in before it actually happens.

      Lion of the Turambar

      February 18, 2016 at 7:06 pm

      • Trump losing means Hillary picks a liberal Supreme Court Justice to replace Scalia. Conservatives will turn out to vote against Hillary.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 18, 2016 at 8:00 pm

      • “But the base electorate isnt going to turn out for the NY Values vulgarian Trump. What are you going to do when actual GOP voters dont show up? lose”

        Well it’s not like the option is to pick a non-Trump and win. With any of the generic Republicans, it’s a sure loss just like with McCain and Romney. At least Trump has the opportunity to pull in some new voters and some non GOP working class voters.

        Mike Street Station

        February 18, 2016 at 8:05 pm

      • If Conservatives don’t want to turn out and hand the election to Hillary that’s fine with me. Doesn’t scare me at all.

        What’s important is that the American people actually get a choice between open borders/globalism and America first nationalism. If anybody but Trump wins the nomination then we get open borders for sure, at least with Trump we get to bring an alternative to open borders to the American people.

        So, Lion of the Turambar: go vote for Hillary. We don’t want your cuck vote. Enjoy living in Mexico Norte.

        Otis the Sweaty

        February 18, 2016 at 9:19 pm

      • “With any of the generic Republicans, it’s a sure loss just like with McCain and Romney.”

        Thats proving my point- you really didnt get the base to turn out for McCain or Romney.

        McCain was the NY Times favorite Republican, until it came to endorsing him.

        Lion of the Turambar

        February 19, 2016 at 8:37 am

  4. Even more importantly… people with actual long term vision in the republican party realize that betting the house on winning with white voters will eventually leave them permanently out of the white house.

    They are trying to establish themselves as more than the white people’s party, since white people will most likely not continue to be the majority of voters in a decade

    Marc KS

    February 18, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    • Maybe not. Here in CA, the share of the white population dipped below 50% sometime around 1998. There was a story in the LA Times not so long ago with all the usual hand-wringing and bed-wetting about how those evil white people will still be over-represented among registered voters, even into the 2030s.

      Sgt. Joe Friday

      February 18, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    • You’re not taking how much everyone loves “white supremacy” into consideration. SJWs love to describe America as the land of “white supremacy” but ask them to name a single country that isn’t dominated by “white supremacy” where they’d prefer to raise a daughter and you’ll get a “wow, just wow.”

      Blatant white identity politics will turn off most minority voters. Subtle white identity politics won’t. Trump is doing subtle white identity politics and you’re going to see record numbers of minorities vote for him if he’s the nominee.

      Robert

      February 18, 2016 at 3:43 pm

    • Romney won 62% of no-college Whites, if he’d won 69% of them, he’d have won the election. He’d have needed even less if he could have increased their turnout from an abysmal 57%.

      Whereas Romney could have increased his share of hispanic vote by 40% and still lost. He could have increased his share of black vote by 25% and still lost.

      The GOP base is white and needs them to win. They will only cease to be the White party if they explicitly choose not to be.

      jackmcg

      February 18, 2016 at 4:11 pm

    • You could also reduce the number of non white voters by not allowing them to immigrate and paying those here to leave. Call it reparations for blacks.

      Lloyd Llewellyn

      February 18, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    • Also the category of “white” is fluid and, to a large degree, arbitrary. The term hispanic encompasses many people with 100% european ancestry and many many more with mixed or unknown ancestry that would be considered white if they didn’t have a hispanic background.

      Lloyd Llewellyn

      February 18, 2016 at 4:37 pm

      • Lloyd,

        The government knows exactly who is white and who is not.

        map

        February 18, 2016 at 6:36 pm

      • The census bureau counts the vast majority of hispanics as white which is why you always hear the term non-hispanic white. Different parts of the government may use different definitions but I’m not so sure what you mean.

        Lloyd Llewellyn

        February 18, 2016 at 6:57 pm

  5. I think this is right. IMO there are two things going on here.

    First, the Obama phenomenon — the desire among whites to see a minority become President — is not limited to Democrats. I think I have mentioned this to you in the past, but last night provided a pretty good example of it. Civil rights liberalism and white guilt are GENERATIONAL phenomena, shared by virtually everyone in the Boomer generation, Democrats and Republicans alike.

    (My perception is that later generations agree with the premises of civil rights liberalism, but don’t have a burning desire to see a NAM president. They’re not prejudiced and will vote for a NAM, sure, but they don’t feel a compelling need to “make history,” “right the wrongs of the past,” etc., only Boomers have a burning desire to do this things. Upper-class Gen-X’ers and Millenials still have a little white guilt, but it is something that most Boomers feel, and they feel it very strongly.)

    Second, the elites’ desire for Rubio reflects the fact that the elites are really out of touch. People who are fundamentally secure in their positions don’t mind throwing a bone to outsiders or up-and-comers every now and then. If it keeps the system functioning smoothly, why not? In general, this is a good thing. The system does work better if everyone has a little skin in the game. The problem is that these days, the middle and working classes do not have that mentality. The system is not functioning smoothly for us, and we don’t have any real desire to “share” a shrinking pie with hungry outsiders.

    On a related note, non-Boomer middle-class and working-class Americans believe very strongly in the idea of meritocracy and color-blindness. Voting for someone based on their skin color, without regard to their qualifications, strikes them as offensive. No one actually thinks that Rubio is the best qualified candidate. No one would have any qualms about electing him if he were a distinguished leader with a long record of accomplishments — i.e. if Rubio had actually earned the right to be a serious candidate for President. But his main “qualifications” are that (1) he’s not white; (2) he’s got a pretty face; and (3) he’s a good public speaker. Ted Cruz actually is qualified to be President, but Rubio? Come on. He’s just a pretty face.

    Again, elites don’t mind making a few moral compromises,like electing an unqualified candidate every now and then, if it makes NAM’s feel like they have a stake in the system. The important thing for them is to preserve the status quo. But you don’t want to ask people who are struggling to get by to start making moral compromises, like voting for a candidate who does not deserve to be President just because he’s Hispanic.

    Joe Schmoe

    February 18, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    • Well, you’re right about it being generational, but it’s not the boomers who are most over the moon for minorities. It’s very much like with computers. Boomers were the first generation to make careers with them, but the emotional attachment to them is much greater with x’rs and mils. Who are the whites wearing dreads? Not the boomers, right? Obviously there are exceptions, like that SPLC writer who was a cheerleader for black crime who got meld by two dindus in Oakland last December. We’re into the age of “intersectionality” now, which means explicit ranking of victimized status. The boomers never thought liberalism would get out of control like this, but the x’rd and mils seem perfectly comfortable with it, especially the women.

      various names

      February 18, 2016 at 3:40 pm

    • Civil rights liberalism and white guilt are GENERATIONAL phenomena, shared by virtually everyone in the Boomer generation, Democrats and Republicans alike.

      Nah, there are plenty of working class Boomers who utterly reject white guilt/privilege, etc. There are differences withing boomers, too. Particularly the ones born earlier in that cycle, who came of age in the Sixties, are more likely to buy into that horseshit. The Boomers born in the mid-50s-early-60s are more like Gen-Xers than their older Boomer compatriots. Also, America was far more white when they were growing up, so they could buy into theoretical equality without having first hand experience living around NAMs (most specifically Blacks.) Those that have had a belly full of experience with them, have long since been disabused of childish theoretical notions. Experience gainsays theory. It’s a common misconception that ‘virtually all Boomers’ bought into and still buy into egalitarian/white guilt nonsense. Even the ones who did buy it hook, line, and sinker were not old enough to set the rot in motion in the Sixties. They certainly did nothing to slow the rot, but they did not initiate it. Nor have subsequent generations for that matter.

      You’re mistaken to broadly categorize Boomers.

      JohnD

      February 18, 2016 at 11:55 pm

  6. Lion’s political commentary these past 6 months have been near-prophetic in their sharpness and prescience. Down with the GOPe rubes!

    Two in the Bush

    February 18, 2016 at 12:29 pm

  7. Steve Sailer made an obvious point a few months ago: the GOPe thought Jeb’s pandering to Hispanics would be a feature of his campaign rather than a bug, and that has really backfired. How long do they think they can go on with open borders billionaires controlling the country while the left runs wild with identity politics?

    They seem to think the Trump phenomenon is some little blip that will go away soon because his divisive message of hatred and fear is something that the vast majority of white Americans will reject before November. They genuinely don’t seem to realize that white people don’t enjoy being constantly denigrated and scapegoated for the social and economic failure of NAMs while their own quality of life vastly declines. I don’t see the left doing anything except doubling down on identity politics while the GOPe continues to try and shift the focus to things like entitlement reform and national defense. The GOPe is already dead, they just don’t know it yet.

    What I really, really can’t wait for is advances in genetics to prove what IQ tests have told us for the past 100 years. Charles Murray sounds confident that this will happen in the next few years. I was talking about this with a friend the other day, and she told me that the genetics of intelligence won’t ever matter. They’ll simply be ignored. I disagree. Just wait till someone files a disparate impact lawsuit against a high school over the demographics of kids who make it into advanced placement courses and a lawyer for the school district uses the genetics of intelligence as their defense.

    The next couple of decades should be lots of fun.

    Robert

    February 18, 2016 at 12:37 pm

    • “What I really, really can’t wait for is advances in genetics to prove what IQ tests have told us for the past 100 years. Charles Murray sounds confident that this will happen in the next few years.”

      Razib Khan also hinted that, within the last four months, a great breakthrough was made in matching genes with intelligence across different groups. The work has already been done, it’s just that it takes some time for results to get published.

      Charles Murray and Razib Khan are both very calm, sober-minded thinkers, so if they’re claiming this will be a game changer, then it must be a great breakthrough.

      It will be interesting to see what happens. A lot of people will try to ignore it, deranged SJWs will call it racist pseudoscience, but if the conditions are ripe, then it might be possible for those of us in the HBD camp to say, “You folks claim you love science. Look what the science is telling us in direct, inescapable terms.”

      Sid

      February 18, 2016 at 5:38 pm

      • Only proving what we already know has been proved. Don’t think it will change anything. The scientists who write the paper will be called Nazis and racists and put in prison for hate speech.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 18, 2016 at 6:18 pm

      • @Sid and @Robert:

        Won’t this just make the technocratic elite push for policy that deport prole or dumb whites out of the country and open up big time immigration for the upper cognitive elite in east or south asia (while a smaller percentage could still be massive numbers due to sheer population size)?

        uatu

        February 18, 2016 at 7:24 pm

      • Wouldn’t it be something if President Trump gave a Rose Garden speech, endorsing the published article?

        Sid

        February 18, 2016 at 8:51 pm

      • “Only proving what we already know has been proved. ”

        How has it been proved? Research in the social sciences is always really sketchy and subject to assumptions. For example, how do you know that IQ isn’t just effected by the cultural knowledge that some races have more power within society or perform better academically. There’s no way to control for that. With actual genetics, we could show that specific genes which are associated with IQ differences within race also explain differences between races.

        “Don’t think it will change anything. The scientists who write the paper will be called Nazis and racists and put in prison for hate speech.”

        There is a good chance that the work will be done in China. How much things change in the west is hard to predict. To be honest, I’m more afraid that it will lead to a massive swing to the right, an “overcorrection” if you will. Charles Murray has expressed the same fears.

        Alex2

        February 18, 2016 at 11:31 pm

      • @uatu I think that’s the position Bryan Caplan has come around to after reading Garett Jones’ Hive Mind.

        Robert

        February 19, 2016 at 1:05 pm

    • They genuinely don’t seem to realize that white people don’t enjoy being constantly denigrated and scapegoated for the social and economic failure of NAMs while their own quality of life vastly declines.

      The fact is many white people do like it. Also many white people who support those positions aren’t talking about themselves or their friends but other white people they already dislike on a gut level.

      Lloyd Llewellyn

      February 18, 2016 at 7:21 pm

  8. OT: Trump just released this awesome statement about the Pope:

    In response to the Pope:

    If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened. ISIS would have been eradicated unlike what is happening now with our all talk, no action politicians.

    The Mexican government and its leadership has made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope, because they want to continue to rip off the United States, both on trade and at the border, and they understand I am totally wise to them. The Pope only heard one side of the story – he didn’t see the crime, the drug trafficking and the negative economic impact the current policies have on the United States. He doesn’t see how Mexican leadership is outsmarting President Obama and our leadership in every aspect of negotiation.

    For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith. They are using the Pope as a pawn and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, especially when so many lives are involved and when illegal immigration is so rampant.

    Donald J. Trump

    Robert

    February 18, 2016 at 12:42 pm

  9. You’re right, but Rubio/Haley is also a fantasy dream ticket of two malleable puppets for the billionaire donor class. Or perhaps we are saying the same thing. It just goes to show that GOPe is a malign, evil force.

    I still think they are going to try to steal it from Trump, by assigning all the delegates from the below threshold candidates to Rubio, or to Cruz. They ain’t giving up w/o a fight.

    gothamette

    February 18, 2016 at 12:46 pm

  10. I personally enjoy watching GOPe flail about in desperation. It’s like watching the last dying gasps of a particularly stupid animal, succumbing to the realities of evolution. Good riddance.

    But on the other hand, Mickey Kaus predicted that if large #s of Dems came into the GOP, the latter would have to accommodate the former’s non-conservative economics. That indeed is happening. Kaus is great on immigration but terrible on worker’s rights.

    gothamette

    February 18, 2016 at 12:55 pm

  11. A little OT, but Trump has a) said he would be neutral on Israel/Palestine and b) said Pope Francis is “disgraceful” for saying that people who believe in walls are “un-Christian.” I am delighted by both statements, but esp. the second. For all the groveling before Israel, American pols grovel even more before the Catholic Church.

    gothamette

    February 18, 2016 at 1:19 pm

    • I put my comment before I saw Robert’s, which reproduced Trump’s response to the Pope. It is blistering and brilliant. In fact, I wonder if Coulter is helping him on the sly? (Actually I disagree w/some of it, I don’t think that the Pope is anyone’s puppet, but that is a minor nitpick.)

      gothamette

      February 18, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    • I don’t think Trump actually said that about Israel/Palestine. He was just saying that he would be a good negotiator in the peace process because he is CAPABLE of being neutral in those sorts of conditions. He has previously used his standard over-the-top rhetoric to describe his feelings for Israel (“yuuge fan” etc.) Never heard him say anything like that about Palestinians. In fact, I think we know pretty clearly his feelings on Muslims.

      Shep

      February 18, 2016 at 2:21 pm

      • Joe Scarborough was very clearly trolling him on that question, if you watch the interview. He’s a former Congressman and a media member, he knew exactly what he was doing when he said “So whose fault is the conflict, Israelis or Palestinians?”.

        Joe likes Trump so I don’t think he was trying to trap or bait him into a gaffe, it was just pure friendly trolling.

        Trump’s answer is reasonable since he’s playing the long game and clearly does hope to get some kind of peace deal. Guys like Rubio or Cruz who heap on Israel praise at every moment have no chance at being a credible mediator, but they’re playing a different game. Trump wants to give a shot at peace talks, the others have no interest in that, they just want donor money, and evangelical votes.

        A peace agreement that isn’t quickly broken by both sides seems pretty much impossible, but you have to give Trump credit for wanting to give it a shot.

        jackmcg

        February 18, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    • I don’t have any problems with Trump’s comments on Israel. He’s already made it clear he thinks Muslims are incompatible with Western Christian civilization, and given his personal and professional life, he clearly doesn’t think that about Jews.

      gothamette

      February 18, 2016 at 4:51 pm

      • I remember Trump saying that he would resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in 6 months. This is one of the few stupid things that he had said.

        Yakov

        February 18, 2016 at 5:17 pm

      • Most Jews have embraced secularism, and thus are adaptable in Western Civilization. The same does not apply to Haredim/Hasidic Jews.

        JS

        February 18, 2016 at 5:28 pm

      • I remember Trump saying that he would resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in 6 months. This is one of the few stupid things that he had said.

        Actually, Trump has said that although Israel/Palestine is the deal of all deals (but meaning lasting peace) he acknowledges frankly that there may not be a deal to make in this instance. A strikingly honest and perceptive understanding of the situation. He said this a couple months ago when he was speaking before that group of Republican Jewish businessmen and he said it again in the MSNBC townhall last night.

        Andrew E.

        February 18, 2016 at 7:07 pm

      • @ Andrew E.

        I’m glad he backtracked.

        Yakov

        February 18, 2016 at 11:05 pm

      • Muslims have only ever had one simple request — that infidels stop breathing. Until Israelis decide to compromise on this, I don’t see where a deal can be made.

        destructure

        February 18, 2016 at 11:20 pm

  12. Lion, you talked about CBSN offering free TV via the net. I also thought this was the only free option online. Here’s links to free live feeds: CNN, FOX, MSNBC:

    http://www.hulkusc.com/watch-fox-news-live-streaming/
    http://www.hulkusc.com/watch-msnbc-live-streaming/
    http://www.hulkusc.com/cnn-news-live-streaming/

    Steven J.

    February 18, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    • Awesome, thanks!

      It’s a low quality stream and the aspect ratio is messed up, but it’s better than not having CNN at all. And it doesn’t really matter if Wolf Blitzer’s head is fuzzy and stretched horizontally if all you want to know is what the MSM is talking about.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 18, 2016 at 1:58 pm

      • Having CNN is better than not having CNN? I beg to differ.

        destructure

        February 18, 2016 at 2:46 pm

  13. Look, this is the difficult reality:

    1) the GOP is not turning out enough white voters to win the White House.
    2) a lot of whites are liberals who find the GOP unattractive because they perceive it as too racist/bigoted/etc.

    This being the reality, the GOP can either try to be less overtly racist/bigoted through stunts like minority candidates, or they can just try to be more liberal on other issues, in the hopes that there is a sizable block of voters who DON’T dislike the GOP for its perceived bigotry but DO dislike the GOP for its right-wing orthodoxy on other stuff.

    Trump seems to be trying the latter strategy, though in a general election context I wouldn’t put it past him to start some heavy ethnic pandering too. But I think the jury is out as to whether his strategy of being less conservative is any better than a strategy of overt virtue-signaling on the diversity stuff would be.

    Shep

    February 18, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    • This is true but there are ways to do that without getting into a futile pandering-bidding war with D’s.

      First and foremost, follow the Sailer strategy of relentlessly pressuring Left organizations and front groups like academia and media to integrate in proportions relative to the electoral support their ideology receives from NAMs (i.e. a hard 40% quota).

      Turn them all into the Washington DC Metro, Greyhound, the USPS, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. The competent SWPLs will get alienated fast and jump ship, while the virtue-signaling SWPLs will start getting squeezed and either go Shaun King/Dolezal or start fighting each other.

      Fiddlesticks

      February 18, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    • No, the solution is to win. People are attracted to leftism because they admire those with power, and leftism (being the lust for power) is usually more powerful. If we start with Trump and then elect ever more rightward presidents it won’t be long until today’s liberals are demanding walls, deportations, etc… Capitulation is not a viable strategy.

      T

      February 18, 2016 at 4:29 pm

      • Trump would be a step backwards, rightward-wise. That was my point. He might be more of a hardliner on the illegal immigration file, but that alone doesn’t make him a member of the hard right.

        Shep

        February 19, 2016 at 12:14 am

  14. I don’t think the GOPe are “ashamed of their voters”. I think they despise their voters. They also think the middle and working class peasants should shut up and do what they’re told i.e. divine right of kings.

    destructure

    February 18, 2016 at 2:30 pm

  15. Aren’t Rubio and Haley both white anyway? Trump should pick a black woman as his running mate to confound the dems.

    Calogero

    February 18, 2016 at 3:13 pm

  16. Naturally, I think this analysis is mistaken. Never use shame to explain something that can just as easily be explained with cynicism.

    They don’t necessarily want feel good candidates; they want to win. They’re under the impression that optics matters, and having dark-skinned figureheads will have give them competitive advantage. They may believe Rubio-Haley keeps their base because Republicans do not actually care about identity (just ideas), while also bringing in minorities who ONLY care about race.

    Vince

    February 18, 2016 at 4:36 pm

    • That would be mistaken. The only idea most minority voters care about is the idea of welfare. Scapegoating whitey for NAM dysfunction is the excuse they use to justify said wealth distribution. Until the GOPe can master those two ideas they won’t get the minority vote.

      destructure

      February 18, 2016 at 10:40 pm

      • ^^This.

        Curle

        February 19, 2016 at 12:05 am

      • This will be a good time to actually test your beliefs (if you dare). What data can you cite showing most minority voters care about welfare?

        Until the GOPe can master those two ideas they won’t get the minority vote.

        A Republican only needs to improve their position among minority voters. They do not have to “get” the minority vote.

        Vince

        February 19, 2016 at 12:53 am

      • “This will be a good time to actually test your beliefs (if you dare). What data can you cite showing most minority voters care about welfare?”

        http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332916/why-hispanics-dont-vote-republicans-heather-mac-donald

        destructure

        February 19, 2016 at 4:07 am

      • That National Review article cites evidence that Latino voters dislike the GOP more for its economic policies — which they perceive as favoring the rich — than their immigration policies. So that suggests a candidate like Trump would have been smart to moderate his economic policies to offset his extreme immigration policies. But he did not — his tax plan is radically pro-rich, which minorities will hate as usual.

        Shep

        February 19, 2016 at 10:08 am

      • Trump’s tax plan is incredibly stupid and I doubt he personally wrote it. Probably, some “TrueCon” staffer wrote it.

        Somehow he is going to have to back away from it without looking like a flip-flopper.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 19, 2016 at 10:11 am

      • http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332916/why-hispanics-dont-vote-republicans-heather-mac-donald

        Weak. First, you said that the reason minority *voters* favor Democrats is because they only care about welfare. So how do you explain why Hispanic support for Republican Presidential candidates has been dropping? Is it because in the past fifteen years the parties have had very different views on *welfare*? Is it because Hispanic voters suddenly perceive Democrats as being much better on welfare? No, it’s because Bush favored comprehensive immigration reform, but since 2004 the Republican party has hardened in its opposition to immigrants. Also, Hispanics /= Hispanic *Voters* and California Hispanics /= minority voters.

        The fact is the Republican party has been alienating non-whites for awhile. A majority of Arab-Americans voted for Bush in 2000. Welfare isn’t the reason they left. Asians used to vote Republican, but now support Democrats in higher percentage terms than Lah-tinos.

        Vince

        February 19, 2016 at 3:49 pm

      • vince — I didn’t say all minorities vote for the same reasons. And my comment specifically referenced NAM’s. You may find the article “weak” but I find it compelling. If you disagree then more power to you. But lose the attitude.

        destructure

        February 21, 2016 at 4:25 am

  17. Why is the GOPe so excited to have a ticket with no non-Hispanic whites when the Republican Party voters are overwhelmingly non-Hispanic white? What’s so exciting about having candidates who don’t have the same background as actual Republican voters?

    The answer, of course, is that the GOPe is ashamed of their voters.

    Which is another reason why Trump should pick Scott Brown as VP and not Suzanne Martinez or any other pc symbol.

    Brown is an ultra White man. Handsome, ex-military. What better way to irritate the Democrats? Esp if it’s Hillary and Gay Castro as the Dem ticket.

    Rifleman

    February 18, 2016 at 5:47 pm

    • When Trump wins the nom he is going to campaign for the general electorate, not Republican primary voters. Martinez absolutely helps with Hispanic/Mexican American voters because her heritage takes the edge off of the “Trump is anti Latino” thing. It also helps with moderate white voters and Martinez’s social conservatism is appealing to stupid Christians. She also would make the GOPe happy whereas Scott Brown wouldn’t.

      Even if Martinez doesn’t get Trump a single latino vote, and I think she will; her mere presence on the ticket makes Trump seem less hostile to Latinos and will serve as a demotivator for Latinos to come out and vote against him.

      Otis the Sweaty

      February 18, 2016 at 6:53 pm

      • That’s just makes him look guilty and makes him appear to be pandering.

        He would be admitting he is ashamed of what he has said. This is the typical White guy/establishment thing to do.

        Rifleman

        February 18, 2016 at 7:48 pm

      • If Trump is a mensch he picks the guy who would be the next best President after him, any other choice would be a loser move. Trump Cruz 2016… although I would prefer Cruz Trump 2016 as Trump has been a complete pansy on the drafting women issue and Cruz has stepped up like someone who cares about this country

        Rubio 2024

        February 18, 2016 at 11:47 pm

  18. WTF is a non-hispanic White? Just say White.

    Hadrian

    February 18, 2016 at 6:16 pm

    • As you well know, “Hispanic” is considered an ethnicity and not a race. We don’t actually have an official race classification for Mestizos.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 18, 2016 at 6:20 pm

      • There is an American (as in Americas) Indian one but I don’t think very many Hispanics check that box.

        Lloyd Llewellyn

        February 18, 2016 at 7:03 pm

      • The official classification is “wetback”.

        B.T.D.T.

        February 18, 2016 at 10:04 pm

    • You also lots of hispanics who have 100% european ancestry and lots more who wouldn’t get looked at twice if they identified as such. It’s a horrible horrible category that takes people that could easily assimilate into the country and conform to healthy, productive, and mainstream identity but instead makes them dysfunctional and bitter and poisons our politics.

      Lloyd Llewellyn

      February 18, 2016 at 7:03 pm

  19. Both high profile, Mestizo and “White” Hispanics are found equally among the Republican and Democratic parties. The same cannot be said of blacks, Asians and Jews, who tread mostly Democrat, and White Ethnic groups like Italians, tread mostly Republican.

    JS

    February 18, 2016 at 6:28 pm

  20. Most racial minority “groups” don’t really identify with one another. GOPe surely isn’t creating much cohesion by promoting soft “I’m not white” while “I don’t really care to associate with blacks” is going on too. On top of that, mestizo women want to be like blonde white women. They will gravitate towards Hillary. If the GOPe actually realized this they would understand why their current strategy isn’t working.

    marco rubio is a smooth brown skinned gay

    February 18, 2016 at 7:20 pm

    • “On top of that, mestizo women want to be like blonde white women. They will gravitate towards Hillary.”

      More likely they’ll gravitate to Trump and his wife. Think about that for a minute.

      Vincent

      February 18, 2016 at 9:14 pm

  21. Rubio is getting too close to second…

    Anything the Donald can unleash on him the day before South Carolina’s primary – be they youthful indiscretions as a male ‘escort’, indictments currently under court-seal, drug dealing – would be appreciated.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    February 18, 2016 at 8:11 pm

  22. A Washington Post article calls a Rubio nominee with Haley as VP a “fantasy dream ticket of young, brown or faintly tan Americans.”

    It’s the new USA, we are conditioned to have to see everything as a pre-arranged rainbow panel with blacks and browns dispersed evenly. Anything featuring strictly whites gets put under an immediate suspicion cloud of “non-inclusiveness” and the burden is on the whites to prove that they’re not racist.

    Did anyone see when “The View” showed footage of the guests at the royal wedding between Kate and William?

    Sherri Shepherd started to immediately scream “Where’s da Black people!!”

    And no one stood forth to explain that the English evolved to be ethnically white, all the panel members (including Joy Behar) all just stood there bewildered and making dumb comments. It was quite bizarre, but not at all surprising.

    Camlost

    February 19, 2016 at 12:28 am

    • It’s the new USA, we are conditioned to have to see everything as a pre-arranged rainbow panel with blacks and browns dispersed evenly.

      Anything featuring strictly whites gets put under an immediate suspicion cloud of “non-inclusiveness” and the burden is on the whites to prove that they’re not racist.

      http://www.unz.com/isteve/front-and-center-on-washingtonpost-com/

      Rifleman

      February 19, 2016 at 1:28 am

      • wow, just wow

        Camlost

        February 19, 2016 at 9:54 am

      • How do you expect the diversity mantra to go away, when all liberal cities, and just about every city, employs a large contingent of racial minorities for menial and low skill work? Their children would expect equality measures, previously afforded, only to Whites.

        JS

        February 19, 2016 at 3:57 pm

  23. Trump should pick a general as VP.

    As for the criticism that generals are not politicians….au contraire. He should pick someone knowledgeable about the M-I-L, who knows where all the Congressional skeletons are buried, has lots of classified information to blackmail people with, handsome, well-spoken, and who loathes Obama with a passion.

    There are many to choose from. Just key in “former security general obama criticizes” in google and you get half a dozen immediately.

    gothamette

    February 19, 2016 at 10:01 am

    • My #1 choice: General Mattis

      You just described him to the letter, and he’s a legend in the armed forces. Trump would get 100% of the military and veteran vote.

      jackmcg

      February 19, 2016 at 11:18 am

      • I just looked him up. Sounds like a great guy but there are two problems. One, I doubt he’d be anyone’s second banana. Two, never married, no kids. I am NOT making any gay hints here, I think that’s 100% unlikely. Just saying people don’t trust monkish types. Mattis for SecDef. Since Ike is dead, I like Gen. Flynn, who unloaded on Bam for lying about Isis to get re-elected.

        In fact, if (and I stress if) Trump gets the nom, he should assemble a bunch of Obama hating former generals to tour the country and campaign on his behalf. Sort of like “The Expendables” in real life.

        More to the point, I think Trump should run against Obama in the general. Running against Bush is smart as long as Jeb and the cucks are the obstacles but once he’s in the general the enemy is Obama. Every time I think about the destruction Obama has caused I’m dumbfounded.

        gothamette

        February 19, 2016 at 3:07 pm

      • A while back on a thread, I suggested General T. James Conway, the former commandant of the marine corps. Conway is married & has three children (all Marines-oriented as adults) I love the idea of Trump creating a team of pissed off old military men to barnstorm for him.

        Greg Pandatshang

        February 21, 2016 at 7:36 pm

  24. Further to the above, let’s not focus solely on this election. Obama is young. He has the potential to be a pest for the next 35 years. I mean the business about blackmail seriously. The next administration should be made up of people who can neutralize Bam with the threat of exposure. Most pols are to p-word to do this, but President Trump would not be. I want Obama to go back to Chicago, or Hawaii, or whereever, and live out his life in obscurity.

    gothamette

    February 19, 2016 at 10:04 am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: