OT : Another reason to say "Fuck Texas"

[Riccardo]

Ah, the racist tea party

good lord. I'm done here. Have fun

[TerpEagle]

good lord. I'm done here. Have fun

That wasn't a statement about them being racist or not. You decided to make that connections.

I'm just talking about his campaign and likely actions. He's going to cater to the loud sect of conservatives i.e. the Tea Party and to Big Business. He's not going to offer anything innovative or new outside of other GOP stances. All he's got going for him is his last name and I don't think that's all that much.

He's not some transcendent Latino candidate. Obama, like him and his policies or not, was transcendent because of racial history in America and he could convey a message. As far as ethnic/cultural changes in the US, Rubio represents the tiniest tip of the Latino iceberg.

He's blah.

[TerpEagle]

Texas isn't going dem in the next election or any time soon. Florida is the only swing state here. Why is it that the left has so much hatred for republican minority candidates that all they can do is call them names?

And from the Huffington Post regarding white-hispanic:

"But within the context of that social convention, white refers to skin color. Zimmerman, like most Latinos, is likely of racially mixed heritage -- what in most Latin American countries would be described as “mestizo.”

The United States, with its comparatively rigid ideas about race and refusal to acknowledge racial mixing, does not have a word in popular use to describe it. (That’s also probably the reason why 18 million Latinos selected the “some other race” category on their Census form.) So it’s not surprising that CNN’s attempt to describe a non-white person as a “white Hispanic” grates on the ears of practically everyone across the political spectrum."

I don't think Texas would go blue this election cycle but it's moving that way. Florida sways for multiple reasons because it's a diverse political spectrum.

And, while 18 million Latinos selected "some other race", over 80% of Cuban-Americans (like Rubio) selected white. He's the Hispanic candidate with the least amount of diversity possible.

That would be fine if he offered decent ideas and an air of leadership ability. But based on his name and ethnicity alone, which you implied are what matter with Latino voters in Texas, he has little in common. So I don't think that little bit in common is going to win much for him.

[TerpEagle]

I still prefer Jindal but that's just me. Who do the dems have besides Hillary? Her inevitability in 2008 didn't quite work out so well

Also, speaking of Piyush Jindal (will Fox News use his real name and discuss his non-Christian upbringing in telecasts I wonder), he's just another rank and file Republican with his policies.

Combined with the fact that he's taken part in exorcisms and he's supported teaching creationism in public schools.

Pass.

[Big Little]

Rubio just seems like a puppet to me, I don't think he will win over the GOP base.

Hilary will fair better in '16, it was an interesting ballot the first African American President or the first Woman President. Some glass ceilings were shattered with his election, I think that may pave the way for her.

It is 2 years a way, a lot can happen

Can you answer my riddle?

[Eagle In Ohio]

Larry Elder is an Uncle Tom

So let's recap: republican candidates - hispanic republicans are rich, white guys; asian republicans are rich, white guys; indian republicans are rich, white guys with nice tans; and black republicans are rich, functionally illiterate, uncle Toms. Did I miss any?

Riddle me this - if Barack Obama was republican, would you call him a rich, half-white guy, or a rich, half-black uncle Tom?

You might be able to throw Clarence Thomas and Ben Carson in there, too.

[The Ref]

When Marco Rubio runs for president in 2016, who do you think hispanics will vote for??

If you think latinos would vote for Rubio because of his last name, that's insanely stupid even for you. The Florida Cubans like him, but that's about it. Fortunately, the GOP leadership likely thinks as you do. Your side has zero chance of winning back the white house. None! The party is over. You'll figure it out in another decade. By then your side will never recover. Not on the national level. They'll gerrymander local and state governments, but even there they will eventually lose their grip.

A different conservative party will rise from the ashes, but not before the end of my life. So I couldn't give a shit.

[Riccardo]

Hilarious!

You really need to go back to your LaLa name - it is so much more appropriate. Left wing loons like you made the same "republicans are dead" claim after Clinton got elected, any fool can see how long that prediction lasted. There's a reason why left wing loons specifically and liberals in general are and always will be such a minority in this country - and you are a perfect example! Dream on

[Riccardo]

Never heard of him

nm

[TerpEagle]

You really need to go back to your LaLa name - it is so much more appropriate. Left wing loons like you made the same "republicans are dead" claim after Clinton got elected, any fool can see how long that prediction lasted. There's a reason why left wing loons specifically and liberals in general are and always will be such a minority in this country - and you are a perfect example! Dream on

Since 1992, Democrats have won the popular vote in all but one presidential election.

Quite the minority.

[Riccardo]

I said liberals, not democrats

20% of the population for decades.

[Riccardo]

And don't forget

Dubya received a higher percentage of the popular vote in his first and second elections than Clinton did respectively.

[TerpEagle]

Dubya received a higher percentage of the popular vote in his first and second elections than Clinton did respectively.

Oh, please. He had a clear plurality due to a third party candidate.

He defeated the other major party candidates by 15% and 20% respectively.

[Riccardo]

What relevance is that?

Voters chose a third party over him. He got 43% and 49% of the popular vote, W got 48% and 51%. Just the facts

[TerpEagle]

20% of the population for decades.

Ref was talking about the GOP losing steam, not conservatives. Why did you bring up one group of Democrats to make your point? Even with self-identifying liberals only grown from 17 to 21% since 1992, Democrats (the party most liberals vote with) have still won 5 our of 6 popular votes with regard to presidential elections.

So even if liberals aren't growing to a large percentage of the population (although they've grown ~25% in the last 20 years), people have been voting for Democrats for POTUS. That should worry hardcore GOPers even more. Moderates are moving away from the party and the older, white base of voters don't have the numbers to cover for it much longer.