So I threw my vote to aviod the best of two evils . . .

I too been dismayed and saddened about all the character jabs people have taken at Romney. Maybe I'm naive (and possibly too accepting of his professed Christianity), but many anecdotes about the man seem to indicate dignity and strength of personal character. I don't know anything about the people running the campaign; he may have let them loose without sufficient oversight and he may not have good fact-checkers preparing him for debates. But for people to call him a dirtbag, a liar, or a slimebag? Seems completely uncalled for to me.

Was he the best candidate the GOP could have put up? Probably not. I think he would have actually been a better GOP pick if he had stuck it out in the 2008 campaign; I think the national culture has shifted so much since that a guy like him would be irrelevant to most voters. I don't see any personal issues with his character, though.

 

It seems to me that he meets all the qualifications mandated by the constitution.

 

I disagree. It’s not that Republicans cannot win elections … they do! For example, Republican elected Governors number 29 out of 50. Republicans are as well successful in local, state and Congressional elections. Speaking of the ‘non-inclusive’ arguments; there are more elected Hispanics who are Republicans than there are Democrats. There are more elected Republican Hispanics, including mayors, women; Hispanic Governors and so forth, than there are Democrats. Such would not indicate a Latino bias –Republican and Hispanic are not mutually exclusive.

On the contrary … the problem with the Republican Party lays IMO with the RNC; not republicans and/or conservatives or the premise of demography. Recall that the RNC backed the likes of Charlie Crist in favor of Marco Rubio for US Senate. And once Crist was defeated by Rubio for the nomination in the Florida Republican Senate Primary … Crist become a staunch Obama supporter. The answer to the Republican Party’s future success is NOT the proposition that the RP become more Democrat-like as RNC establishments’ sorts (country club Republicans) –the likes of the Karl Rove/s, Charles Krauthammer/s, Bill Kristol/s, etc. will attempt to prop up /spin.

Returning to the Hispanic vote … Hispanics DID NOT vote (converse to democrat instigated propaganda) for Obama based upon immigration policy. No, most (70%) Hispanic voters voted democrat (Obama) for the same notion of increased redistribution of someone else’s wealth via increased taxation of the ‘wealthy’ (distorted definition of), e.g., funding the fictitious, fiscally unsustainable, so-called safety-net (cradle-to-grave) promoted issues (e.g., buying voting blocs with OPM).

Additionally: During the last election cycle … over 3-million Republicans just did not vote this go-round (that is not a demography issue; it is a RNC failure to get-the-vote-out number). As a side thought, and a HUGE political miscalculation IMO … The RNC made no effort/s (to my knowledge) to recruit for Romney a endorsement from Ron Paul or Tea Party spokesperson Sara Palin and the added political help their supporters could have supplied to the Romney/Ryan ticket. Neither (Paul nor Palin) was asked to speak at the 2012 RNC convention or formally campaign for Romney. It is my view … that too many of these voter blocs (to Romney’s demise) simply did not show-up … in effect added votes for Obama.

 

Not in the US House of Representatives. The upcoming Congress will have a record number of Hispanic representatives, with 28 total. But Democrats will outnumber Republicans by 23 to 5.

It's true that Hispanic Republicans will have the edge in the US Senate. But the numbers there are much smaller, with just two Republicans vs. one Democrat.

 

Where? Does this include local politicians beyond mayor? In CA, NM, TX? (In TX I'm thinking in part of places like Starr County. The entire county, in rural Texas, just voted 86.4% Obama, 13% Romney. The population is 97.5% Hispanic/Latino.)

 

Not in state legislatures.

After the November 2010 election, there were 246 Hispanics serving in state legislatures nationwide.

In lower chambers (state representatives), there were a total of 180 Hispanics, with Democrats outnumbering Republicans by 147 to 33.
In upper chambers (state senators), there were a total of 66 Hispanics, with Democrats outnumbering Republicans by 60 to 6.

Total for all state legislators: Democrats 207 (86.6%), Republicans 39 (13.4%)
The 2010 numbers were the most recent I could find, could be slightly different as of the 2012 elections.

 

It was the RNC's fault turnout far fewer than 100% of generic party supporters didn't turn out? Is this new? Is this particular to Republicans?

Also, these are people are not turning to vote not only for the national ticket or national Republican brand, but for every single congressional, state, county or city office or measure on their ballot. If this is a large number of Republicans not turning out and fault should be allocated, shouldn't some fault be allocated to all the other Republican candidates and campaigns failing to get the same people out to vote for them, rather than all being allocated to the RNC?

Incorrect for Ron Paul.

Libertarian Legion Stands Ready to Accept Torch From Paul (John Harwood, The New York Times, August 25, 2012)

One claim is incorrect for Sarah Palin. Apparently she wasn't asked to speak at the RNC. But she was invited to speak for the Romney campaign, and did, and it went out and was reported on. It was focused on GOTV, and Tea Party-friendly.

Governor Sarah Palin news! Just got the Governor Sarah Palin robo call transcript — click to see (Greta Van Susteren, Gretawire, November 4, 2012)

Also, I'm pretty sure she constantly spoke out against Obama and, once he was confirmed as the nominee, spoke in favor of Romney, on her own initiative.

Which swing states do you think Sarah Palin/Tea Party and Ron Paul loyalists who didn't come out for for Romney/Ryan, but would have if they'd heard more from Palin or Paul on behalf of Romney/Ryan, would have been decisive voting blocks in?

 

I don’t really understand this talk about the National Republican Party needing to cater to folks by becoming more liberal. I am a conservative that does normally vote Republican, but have voted for conservative Democrats and Independents - with all else being equal. I know it’s been a while since a conservative Democrat has been spotted in a national election, but there are some in our local races.

Texas consistently votes 55-60% Republican in presidential races, and has a diverse population. Some Texas demographics from the 2010 census: Non-Hispanic White 45.3%; Hispanic or Latino (any race, but majority Mexican decent) 37.6%; Black or African American 11.8%; and All Other 5.3%.

Texas just elected Ted Cruz (Cuban-Tea Party Republican) to join Republican John Cornyn in the US senate. No Democrats have held statewide office since G.W. Bush was governor, plus 23 of the 32 U.S. congressional districts were held by Republicans this year. So tell me again why the losing party needs to change their anti-illegal immigrant position?

As I see it, the main reason that the president was re-elected was failure of about 5 million center-right and conservatives in the swing states to vote for the lesser of two evils!

 

Because it might make sense for the losing party to look at Texas as an example.

It's true that the Republican Party in Texas has been relatively successful at attracting Hispanic support. However, it's also true that Texas Republicans are considered relatively "friendly" to illegal immigrants, at least by national Republican standards.

For example, Rick Perry is noted for his "liberal" position on the issue of college education for children of illegal immigrants. But it obviously hurt him during the GOP debates:

The idea is that maybe the GOP would do better with Latinos on a national basis by supporting the Texas approach, instead of booing it. In other words, if the party wants to attract Hispanic voters, than maybe Perry had the right idea on this issue, and maybe it was Santorum, Bachmann, and Romney who were wrong.

 

CalDog - It’s true that Texas pioneered giving in-state tuition to illegal immigrants who meet some form of Texas residency requirements, and in original form required conditional pledging to apply for permanent residency if/when possible, but I’m not sure the last part is enforceable. Perry also favors work visas for current illegal immigrants.

It’s all a matter of dealing with the situation on the ground in a border state, but he also endorses closing the door to more illegal immigrants. Few conservatives are anti-immigration, but many are anti-illegal immigration.

 

That's a nice distinction -- in theory.

But it does it work equally well in practice? Or do harsh laws targeting illegal immigrants also cause collateral damage to legal Americans of Hispanic descent?

Rightly or wrongly, the perception in the legal, entitled-to-vote Hispanic-American community is that they are unfairly targeted. And the perception in the political community is that their votes reflect this.

 

Illegal immigration is a big problem for all legal Americans. Not all illegal immigrants are hispanic too. There are Europeans and others who overstay student visas and they need to get the boot as well.

 

True. I know several illegal Eastern European immigrants in the Chicago area. They overstayed their visas and just faded into their own ethnic communities here. I have even met a few illegal Irish immigrants when I was on the East Coast. They got either a tourist or a student visa and just never left.

 

CalDog – you are correct again. Some ding-a-ling candidates, some wrong-headed country club Republican party leaders, and opposition fueled – but deserved - perception can do wonders.

Republicans did not sell the pragmatic conservative principles and may pay the price for years. Meantime conservatives may have to coalesce around the Texas Tea Party conservative principles, or similar.

 

Another possible model for the GOP is the Conservative Party of Canada, which is doing quite well -- in a more liberal country than the US. The Canadian Conservatives (or "Tories") do get support from immigrants and minorities:

 

Republican/Conservative principles can be framed in ways that make it VERY appealing to the general population, including minority groups like Blacks and Hispanics. The problem with the recent expression of those principles has been there overall negative/exclusionary tone.

We have seen it in this very thread with the whole makers vs takers mindset. the perspective that a majority of the country are merely freeloading off of a minority of productive Americans is not going to win elections, and it is not going to inspire people.

I remember a different expression of conservatism in which government policies could be shifted to encourage entrepreneurship, homeownership and further involvement in one's community. This would not only lead to a lifting of individuals from the bondage of government dependency to a lifestyle of increased productivity, independence, and pride, it would also create levels of economic growth within our nation not seen in generations.

Today's expression of conservatism seems to HEAVILY focus on ME ME ME. Instead of seeing someone struggling and thinking "What policies can we implement that will spur entrepreneurship and the behaviors necessary for this person to get out of poverty", the conversation is now "How can prevent as much of my money as possible from going to help this leach."

I remember another form of conservatism. I remember when Jack Kemp was preaching the gospel of conservative policies to help heal the inner cities. Have a problem with rampant crime and poverty in the inner city? Don't create more dependency by increasing welfare/public assistance. INSTEAD develop programs that stimulate homeownership amongst low and moderate income families (homeownership has an amazingly stabilizing effect on communities). Create tax breaks that encourage businesses to to come into the inner cities and hire people. Does anyone remember Enterprise Zones?

Remember the push for Charter Schools and holding teachers accountable for the success of their students? Those were REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE ideas. You come into inner cities and low/moderate income communities with plans to increase homeownership, spur business growth, and give parents more CHOICE over how there children are educated, and you have a winning platform.

What happened to those conservatives?

 

I am not sure about the home ownership push. That idea fueled the housing bubble by lowering qualifications for borrowers to achieve socially desirable outcomes. It backfired and hurt more than it helped.

 

Poll: Cuban-American Vote Moving Democratic (CBS Miami, miami.cbslocal.com, November 9, 2012)