Jump to content


Brit Hume: The GOP only needs white votes to win


137 replies to this topic

#1 D. R. Tucker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1131 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 04:59 PM

That's just beyond the pale! ;)



#2 Traveler

    Rambling Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13678 posts
  • LocationPhilly Area

Posted 08 July 2013 - 05:04 PM

Fascinating analysis!
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."-- Winston Churchill
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices" Voltaire

#3 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36301 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 08 July 2013 - 05:19 PM

And as more and more of the right-wing continue to say out loud that they don't have to worry about anybody other than white voters, they'll make the hill they have to climb back up steeper and steeper. Good job. Excellent long-term planning. Almost as good as the GW / GOP Congress years were for long-term planning for our nation.
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#4 Zen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 05:40 PM

Well, isn't it technically true? Whites are technically 60-65% of the population, right? If every single white voted for the Republicans, I guess they could win. Good luck getting 100% of the white vote, though.

This is a big meme amongst the racialist groups; "we just need to get all the white vote, we can get elected, and then we can stop immigration and everything will be fine". It's probably not that easy.

#5 AnBr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15287 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:28 PM

Even assuming the ridiculous notion that every every white voter in the blue states would vote for for the Republicans. the Rs seem to be bent on alienating a little over half of the white population with the big push at misogynistic laws. In fact, if they keep at it, it may be one of the best hopes in the near term of overcoming the rigged game due to gerrymandering, at least in some places.
“Trump’s a stupid man’s idea of a smart person, a poor man’s idea of a rich person & a weak man’s idea of a strong man.”

— Fran Lebowitz


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

— Carl Sagan


Pray for Trump: Psalm 109:8

"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time - when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers arc in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

— Carl Sagan
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
1995


“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

— H.L. Mencken
On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe


“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

— Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Second inaugural address January, 1937

#6 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9554 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 08:58 AM

Trende has been been beating this drum over at RCP for some time. The obvious problem all these analysis share is that the electoral math is dead set against them. Who cares if they can turn out a bunch of poor white people in the NE or west coast? It doesn't help them. Can they run the table on the so-called swing states and win one more presidential election? Maybe. But for the long haul, it's a ridiculous, self-destructive strategy to pursue, not that that will stop them.

#7 D. C. Sessions

    I don't have to pretend to be an adult any more

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11829 posts
  • LocationCentral New Mexico

Posted 09 July 2013 - 09:26 AM

View PostAnBr, on 08 July 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

In fact, if they keep at it, it may be one of the best hopes in the near term of overcoming the rigged game due to gerrymandering, at least in some places.

Not really. They just need to draw the lines very carefully to create all-women districts.
The way a lot of catastrophes happen is that X doesn't occur because there are safeguards in place, therefore people assume X isn't a worry and they remove the safeguards. Then X happens.
— Nate Silver
"Robots aren't the problem. Capitalism is." -- Last words of Stephen Hawking.
These days, "libertarian" is just a euphemism for a Nazi who's afraid to commit.
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." -- Heather Heyer
"I'd rather have my child, but by golly, if I gotta give her up, we're gonna make it count." -- Her mother
"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events." -- some RINO

#8 D. C. Sessions

    I don't have to pretend to be an adult any more

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11829 posts
  • LocationCentral New Mexico

Posted 09 July 2013 - 09:28 AM

View Postindy, on 09 July 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

The obvious problem all these analysis share is that the electoral math is dead set against them.

You missed the big message of 2011: The Republican Party recognized that math (and arithmetic in particular) has a liberal bias and have since rejected it as ideologically unreliable.
The way a lot of catastrophes happen is that X doesn't occur because there are safeguards in place, therefore people assume X isn't a worry and they remove the safeguards. Then X happens.
— Nate Silver
"Robots aren't the problem. Capitalism is." -- Last words of Stephen Hawking.
These days, "libertarian" is just a euphemism for a Nazi who's afraid to commit.
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." -- Heather Heyer
"I'd rather have my child, but by golly, if I gotta give her up, we're gonna make it count." -- Her mother
"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events." -- some RINO

#9 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 09:46 AM

The Turkish commentator Cynk Uygur knows the score. Uygur understands the less power white people have, and not just white Republicans, the more power non-whites have over society. Marginalizing whites works to his interests, and that of blacks, latinos and others, pretty much anyone who isn't white.

Unwittingly, Uygur himself makes the best case for direct and explicit appeals to white ethnic interests in politics. He derides the idea of appealing to whites, but supports making ethnic appeals to non-whites. Although blacks, latinos and others get appealed to in terms of their tribal interests all the time, Uygur mocks the idea of appealing to whites in tribal terms. Speaking as a Turkish man and apparently without irony, he regards it as fair that every group but white folks get appealed to in ethnic terms. The best justification for appealing to whites in ethic terms is simple fairness. Other groups get appealed to in those same terms.

Now, that said, I think that Brit Hume is right on the narrow point but still a FOOL and wrong on the larger point regarding appeals to whites. On the narrow point, he is right; this immigration bill means an immediate death for the GOP as opposed to a prolonged one.

On the larger point regarding ethnic appeals to whites, he misses the points twice. In order for such appeals to work, then 1) the GOP would have to offer a program worth supporting, and 2) the appeals to whites would have to be in EXPLICIT ethnic terms. In other words, the GOP would have to legitimize appealing to white interests in the public arena.

The GOP won't do # 1 and definitely won't do number # 2. It's why I generally don't pay attention to GOP / race discussions in the media

#10 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9554 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 09:49 AM

View PostD. C. Sessions, on 09 July 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

You missed the big message of 2011: The Republican Party recognized that math (and arithmetic in particular) has a liberal bias and have since rejected it as ideologically unreliable.

If by 'missed' you mean laughed so hard that my sides hurt, you'd be right. I still chuckle over the unskewed site. My goal for 2016 is a prank site where I give statistics WAY more realistically calculated than that idiotic site, yet just as wrong. Cruel, I know, but you only live once.

#11 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9554 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 09:54 AM

View Postdsp, on 09 July 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

On the larger point regarding ethnic appeals to whites, he misses the points twice. In order for such appeals to work, then 1) the GOP would have to offer a program worth supporting, and 2) the appeals would have to whites would have to be in EXPLICIT ethnic terms. In other words, the GOP would have to legitimize appealing to white interests in the public arena.

The GOP won't do # 1 and definitely won't do number # 2. It's why I generally don't pay attention to GOP discussions in the media

Yes, because the GOP has been shockingly lacking in their ethnic appeals to whites.

#12 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 09:58 AM

But they have been. They don't do it explicitly. They have done it in the past in some cases using code-speak. Not the same thing

View Postindy, on 09 July 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

Yes, because the GOP has been shockingly lacking in their ethnic appeals to whites.


#13 D. C. Sessions

    I don't have to pretend to be an adult any more

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11829 posts
  • LocationCentral New Mexico

Posted 09 July 2013 - 10:07 AM

View Postindy, on 09 July 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

If by 'missed' you mean laughed so hard that my sides hurt, you'd be right. I still chuckle over the unskewed site.

No, that was the message of 2012. 2011 was the House budget.
The way a lot of catastrophes happen is that X doesn't occur because there are safeguards in place, therefore people assume X isn't a worry and they remove the safeguards. Then X happens.
— Nate Silver
"Robots aren't the problem. Capitalism is." -- Last words of Stephen Hawking.
These days, "libertarian" is just a euphemism for a Nazi who's afraid to commit.
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." -- Heather Heyer
"I'd rather have my child, but by golly, if I gotta give her up, we're gonna make it count." -- Her mother
"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events." -- some RINO

#14 D. R. Tucker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1131 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 10:29 AM

Krugman: Whites and the safety net

http://krugman.blogs...the-safety-net/

#15 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9554 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:04 AM

View Postdsp, on 09 July 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

But they have been. They don't do it explicitly. They have done it in the past in some cases using code-speak. Not the same thing

And your point is what? That the dumb poor white folks were too stupid to hear the coded ethnic appeals? I grew up with the dumbest and poorest whites in the country and they heard them plenty well. The discussion here is how will the GOP garner more white votes that AREN'T already hearing the ethnic message, coded or not. And the answer to that is like maybe 4.

#16 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9554 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:07 AM

View PostD. C. Sessions, on 09 July 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

No, that was the message of 2012. 2011 was the House budget.

Ah, yes. Well, you know, it's hard to keep all the various ways the GOP is mathematically challenged straight these days.

#17 D. C. Sessions

    I don't have to pretend to be an adult any more

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11829 posts
  • LocationCentral New Mexico

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:10 AM

View Postindy, on 09 July 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

Well, you know, it's hard to keep all the various ways the GOP is mathematically challenged straight these days.

The PoG may be challenged by mathematics, but mathematics doesn't control any divisions.
The way a lot of catastrophes happen is that X doesn't occur because there are safeguards in place, therefore people assume X isn't a worry and they remove the safeguards. Then X happens.
— Nate Silver
"Robots aren't the problem. Capitalism is." -- Last words of Stephen Hawking.
These days, "libertarian" is just a euphemism for a Nazi who's afraid to commit.
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." -- Heather Heyer
"I'd rather have my child, but by golly, if I gotta give her up, we're gonna make it count." -- Her mother
"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events." -- some RINO

#18 J-CA

    Probably in one of my drunken stupors..

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4768 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:31 AM

View Postdsp, on 09 July 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

But they have been. They don't do it explicitly. They have done it in the past in some cases using code-speak. Not the same thing

View Postindy, on 09 July 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

And your point is what? That the dumb poor white folks were too stupid to hear the coded ethnic appeals? ... The discussion here is how will the GOP garner more white votes that AREN'T already hearing the ethnic message, coded or not...
DSP, I feel like this deserves a clear answer from you, I have asked it myself at other times. Given an "ideal" GOP platform (so leaving aside the rest of the GOP's positions):
1. How large do you feel the population of voters is that want to hear an explicit appeal and are too dumb to hear the implicit one?
2. How large do you feel the population of voters is that want to hear an explicit appeal and specifically do not vote for a candidate because the appeal is not explicit?
3. How large do you feel the population of voters is that are currently voting for the GOP but will withdraw support based on an explicit appeal?

I'd like to know because to my thinking the numbers in groups 1 & 2 are both too small and in the wrong places for the GOP and group 3 is fairly large and in the wrong places as well (i.e. the suburbs where the GOP either win or are competitive).
I am the burrito until someone hands me to a philosopher.

#19 D. R. Tucker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1131 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:56 AM

Think Progress: No, Republicans, 'Missing' White Voters Won't Save You

http://thinkprogress...sing/?mobile=wp

#20 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 12:00 PM

I'm talking about explicit, wide-open to appeals to whites as whites, not implicit appeals or code-speak. The appeals would be modeled on how both parties presently appeal to blacks and latinos. They would have to mean it of course. It couldn't just be a rhetorical strategy. If combined with economic populism, I'd say the potential pool is most of today's GOP voters, most white folks who vote democrat now mainly for economic reasons, and many millennial whites.

Potentially, it's almost all white folks, since all white folks have ethnic interests that presently aren't being protected by either party. This reality may not be apparent to most people today, but it will be over time. Whites are under 50% of new births. White voters will not be able to get their needs met when every ethnic group operates as a collective bloc for their communities while whites run around atomistically.

This is purely theoretical of course. The GOP won't do this. As I said in another thread, the GOP leaders would rather destroy the party than legitimize white interests in politics.

View PostJ-CA, on 09 July 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:


DSP, I feel like this deserves a clear answer from you, I have asked it myself at other times. Given an "ideal" GOP platform (so leaving aside the rest of the GOP's positions):
1. How large do you feel the population of voters is that want to hear an explicit appeal and are too dumb to hear the implicit one?
2. How large do you feel the population of voters is that want to hear an explicit appeal and specifically do not vote for a candidate because the appeal is not explicit?
3. How large do you feel the population of voters is that are currently voting for the GOP but will withdraw support based on an explicit appeal?

I'd like to know because to my thinking the numbers in groups 1 & 2 are both too small and in the wrong places for the GOP and group 3 is fairly large and in the wrong places as well (i.e. the suburbs where the GOP either win or are competitive).






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users