Barbara Bush On Obama's Reelection: 'People Spoke. Move On, Get On With It'

[White Eagle]

I have no opinion on Barbara, really.

Jeb is positioning himself for a run though... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77137.html

George P may wind up being the Gov of Texas before anything else...

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/po...s-texas-land-commissioner-post/#ixzz2CWZnsn3W

So George P will be among the elected chattering class by the time the mid term elections are here.

I don't know George P other than he is a looker. But that don't make the politician. Altho he will have an easier time because of it. I just don't trust the Bushes, other than Barbara. I lived in Houston when they were there and found her quite trustworthy.

 

[Críostóir]

I don't hate JEB... but I don't expect I'll ever see a Bush run for President again in my lifetime.

even if it's a totally unrelated person whose last name also happens to be Bush, I think the brand is critically damaged.

I sure hope you're right.

 

[JayHawk]

I'm not being overly exuberant. But as far as specific issues, I think it's much more than that. Latinos have been democrat for a long time... Bush was the most successful getting them to vote republican and that was only 40%. Republicans have never had an edge among Latinos... and I expect it to get increasingly difficult for them. I think it's not just specific issues, but rather an overall ideological divide... this has been brewing since the time of Cesar Chavez really.

Unless the republican party has a major realignment, I just don't see them getting anymore than 30% of Latino voters.

Not hardly but the republicans do not need 60% Latin vote to win... just 35% ... look at the number there is definite room there for a republican moderate... Romney was supposed to be that moderate but he never moved to the center until it was way too late and Obama had defined Romney to the people.

So if the Pubs weren't the Pubs a whole lot more people would vote for them?

The fundie right will never give up abortion, gay marriage, or the brown horde all the little Bush's will have to oust them, capitulate or start a new party. That is IF they in fact disagree in the first place.

The fundies no... the republican party is hardly made up of fundies just like the democrat party is not made up of socialists or communist BUT some of those folks vote for democrats.

I agree. A realignment doesn't seem to be in the works for the GOP... looking at what they have out there as far as candidates. Ted Cruz said something incredibly idiotic recently about the third debate... just goes to show business as usual.

Ted Cruz did say ignorant shit about being much more conservative and I didnt say it was a foregone conclusion. Neither is the idea they wont be around. The party mainstays will go to the middle. It is evident in their demeanor on the public stage. They can read the writing on the wall and will change in my opinion. They could ride the tea party into irrelevance. Many options. I just don't see them going away.

 

[TX-Beau]

The fundies no... the republican party is hardly made up of fundies just like the democrat party is not made up of socialists or communist BUT some of those folks vote for democrats.

I think you mistake the casual moderate calling himself republican who votes that way every four years with the actual republican who is active all the time - and yes the fundie base is in charge, it's not just a few crazies, and that causal guy is obviously not setting policy positions, asking for "pledges," or vetting candidates. If he was, the Pubs might have won a few more races.

PLUS the Republican party DID NOT get up in arms about their platform, or the crazy shit their politicians were spouting - the only guy who got wrist slapped was Akin, and then they went right back to supporting him. Where was all this moderate Republican outrage over their radical religious right wing agenda? Nowhere, I think it's wishful thinking that somehow Republicans aren't "like that," I live with the fuckers and you know what, most of them ARE like that. The minority are the moderates because by now they've all been exiled.

That whole "both parties are the same," is no longer even moderately true, the Pubs have indeed gone off the deep end.

 

[TX-Beau]

The brown Bush MIGHT, be able to connect with Latino's, it remains to be seen, but from what I've heard, at least the Latinos I know don't think of him as one of them. They don't like Cruz either.

But immigration reform and the Dreaded amnesty will sink the Bush national with his own party if his position on that is even remotely reasonable. Why, because the Pub primary machine is broken and the inmates are running that asylum.

 

[Críostóir]

The Republican Party is dominated by what I call the Teahadists, who are kakistocrats like Michelle Bachmann. By "dominated by," in this case, I don't mean that they're the majority; they're just driving the bus. Everyone else is afraid to piss them off, and with good reason: if they don't like you, you will lose your primary and the seat will go either to the Democrat or to someone absolutely insane.

It's not a good time to be both sane and a Republican.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Republicans' problem is that for the time being no candidate for president can get past the many states dominated (owned) by the elephangelicals. That means that any candidate is going to have to flip when he gets to the general election, which means that he's going to be feeding the Democratic candidate ammunition all along the way. So the campaign for president begins inevitably with the eventual Republican nominee shooting himself in the foot.

 

[JayHawk]

They won't be getting 35%. And while that may have been the case in the past, as Latinos represent a growing percentage of the electorate, democrats will put increasing emphasis on winning them. There isn't much room for a republican moderate, and there won't be a realignment for republicans any time soon. They will continue their anti-immigrant ways.

And I will reiterate... maybe 10 or 15 years ago they only needed 35%... but there are demographic changes, and even that won't be enough. Latinos pushed Obama to victory in several states it is said. So that 65% of Latinos democrats do win will have an increasing power in the elections and should not be underestimated.



I don't expect that to happen. I expect their party to continue their trend to the right wing. While some may be wanting to go to the middle, I see most of the republican party reacting sharply to their loss in the election. They even said Mitt Romney wasn't conservative enough. Sure the writing is on the wall, but the republican party are wearing Kim Kardashian sized sunglasses.

GC Romney was ignorant and quite possibly the most anti immigrant candidate to run for office.... yet he garnered 27% of the Hispanic vote.... The Hispanic vote is only 9 % of America... I know it feels good to say it but it is way off base to think a moderate republican cant make up that 8% Romney didn't get among Hispanics and if women lean towards a republican by 3 to 4 % then you have that 3 million deficit instantly erased.

But like I said earlier it is pointless to argue now... I will just say that in 2007 and 2008 I was spot on when I said whomever the democrat is they wont change a damn thing about our patriot act and national security changes that libs are crying about.... guess who turned out to be much more Moderate conservative than liberal in office? The point is dont let what you desire get in the way of reality.

Sometimes reality is a bitch but ideology never trumps the even minded one.... just saying... the republicans can develop a candidate like that... look at Christie for just one example....

 

[JayHawk]

I think you mistake the casual moderate calling himself republican who votes that way every four years with the actual republican who is active all the time - and yes the fundie base is in charge, it's not just a few crazies, and that causal guy is obviously not setting policy positions, asking for "pledges," or vetting candidates. If he was, the Pubs might have won a few more races.

PLUS the Republican party DID NOT get up in arms about their platform, or the crazy shit their politicians were spouting - the only guy who got wrist slapped was Akin, and then they went right back to supporting him. Where was all this moderate Republican outrage over their radical religious right wing agenda? Nowhere, I think it's wishful thinking that somehow Republicans aren't "like that," I live with the fuckers and you know what, most of them ARE like that. The minority are the moderates because by now they've all been exiled.

That whole "both parties are the same," is no longer even moderately true, the Pubs have indeed gone off the deep end.

That is in your neck of the woods which has always been filled with outrageous sounding asshats.... that isn't the entire country

 

[moschj]

Mama Bush is the one who caused all the problems. Her son had to show up Dad and "finish" the war in Iraq. Don't trust anything she says.

 

[TX-Beau]

That is in your neck of the woods which has always been filled with outrageous sounding asshats.... that isn't the entire country

Are you kidding? Akin did not come from the Texas, nor did the "rape babies are a gift from God" guy, nor did Ryan, or Bachman, or Palin, or that wingnut in FL, Cantor, Grahm, or McCain who is the mildest of the Pubs from AZ, and that isn't even counting ALL the rest of them from the South and plains, and even from places like Utah and Idaho.

 

[JayHawk]

In Ohio Hispanics voted 53% for Obama not 70 to 80... again dont fool yourself and they were a crucial THREE percent of the Ohio vote. Feel free not to lecture me on my home state... lol

However you are becoming the victim somehow with the "they don't matter" bullshit that I did not say... I said they do matter and republicans missed the bus but it is not gone forever. So really you all need to grow up and exp[ect that so it isnt such a bewildering surprise when it happens. An industry that just spent a billion dollars to gain power is not simply dying on the vine.

You guys kill me... this was the same ignorant shit republicans were saying in the eighties...

Republicans: GOP needs to get with the times

Some of the early prescriptions offered by officials and operatives to rebuild after devastating elections: retool the party message to appeal to Latinos, women and working-class people; upgrade antiquated get-out-the-vote systems with the latest technology. Teach candidates how to handle the new media landscape.

The party "has to modernize in a whole wide range of ways," added former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who ran against White House nominee Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential primary. "We were clearly wrong on a whole range of fronts."

To determine what went wrong, the Republican National Committee is examining every detail of the 2012 elections, with the goal of rebuilding the party for the future -- much as the Democratic Party did in the 1980s after suffering a series of stinging losses at all levels of government.

Hmmm I wonder what that means.....

"We need to make sure that we're not perceived as intolerant," said Ron Kaufman, a veteran GOP strategist who advised Romney. "The bottom line is we were perceived to be intolerant on some issues. And tone-deaf on others."

Believe me if you are under some delusion that they will not retool their message to not have the party fouls that push away voters then you twp are as tone deaf as the current republican party....

 

[Kulindahr]

Mama Bush is the one who caused all the problems. Her son had to show up Dad and "finish" the war in Iraq. Don't trust anything she says.

You think she told GW to go to war? Not even I think he's such a weenie as to believe that.

 

[Kulindahr]

In some states like Ohio and Colorado, Obama got 70-80% of the Latino vote. It's good to talk about "oh but he got 27%!!!" It's not really relevant. It's an incredibly weak answer in my eyes... it's like saynig "but the republicans got 20% of the LGBT vote". I don't mean to sound so criticial, but I actually find your argument quite offensive and completely far from the truth.

Um... the two statements are exactly parallel: The intent is to say that there's a small portion of both populations so screwed up they vote against their own interests. How is that offensive? and how is it far from the truth?

 

[Kulindahr]

Believe me if you are under some delusion that they will not retool their message to not have the party fouls that push away voters then you twp are as tone deaf as the current republican party....

How long do you expect the 'evangelicals' to play along when the GOP decides to change the things it has to in order to be relevant? and how long do you expect the racist wing of the GOP to play along when the party starts to actually try to become inclusive?

I don't see any way for them to retool without losing the fanatic core that supplies the ground troops.

 

[JayHawk]

How long do you expect the 'evangelicals' to play along when the GOP decides to change the things it has to in order to be relevant? and how long do you expect the racist wing of the GOP to play along when the party starts to actually try to become inclusive?

I don't see any way for them to retool without losing the fanatic core that supplies the ground troops.

Well i am done arguing with the guy who gets upset at me providing quote from WAPO ... who has argued how false fox news is but somehow now they are the reasoning for his argument... so I will continue the actual conversation with you...

When did you think evangelicals would accept a Mormon to whom they were calling the religion a cult? As soon as those folks running the evangelical mindset agree then they will get in line. How many churches accepted gay marriage in 1950? How many accept it now? I am just saying change can and will occur.

There is no way possible a side of the american public that stands at 48% of the voting public is simply going to go away because of two election cycles...

 

[Kulindahr]

Well i am done arguing with the guy who gets upset at me providing quote from WAPO ... who has argued how false fox news is but somehow now they are the reasoning for his argument... so I will continue the actual conversation with you...

When did you think evangelicals would accept a Mormon to whom they were calling the religion a cult? As soon as those folks running the evangelical mindset agree then they will get in line. How many churches accepted gay marriage in 1950? How many accept it now? I am just saying change can and will occur.

There is no way possible a side of the american public that stands at 48% of the voting public is simply going to go away because of two election cycles...

They accepted the Mormon grudgingly because he agreed with them -- or purported to -- on the knee-jerk issues they're fanatic about. They're not going to budge away from those, despite the fact that they're driving away young people in droves because those young people see Jesus speaking of love and compassion but hearing a message of hate and law and vengeance from their preachers.

I heard from Catholics who supported Romney for those very same reasons, claiming that politics is different than religon (but not seeing that that very position invalidated their very attempts to legislate religion).

 

[Kulindahr]

Well that poll is from Latino Decision Polls which I don't believe is affiliated with Fox News, just for clarification.

It's a poll affiliated with this site: http://www.latinodecisions.com/

Specifically these two articles:



Source: http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog...ection-sets-record-for-support-latino-voters/



Source: www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2012/11/14/pre-election-polls-got-it-wrong-in-florida/

The massive problem with EXIT polling is as Segura has described. A very small sample existed of Latino voters in exit polling while Latino Decisions got a much bigger sample in states like Ohio, Colorado and Florida. Hence the disparity. Exit polling is a really POOR representation of Latino voters because of the lack of bilingual interviews.

You're right. I should have come up with a better site than Fox News.

http://www.latinovotemap.org/map/ - This is an interesting site that does show the impact of Latino voters on the electorate. The percentage of the electorate was 12-13% Latino for the 2012 Election (and 9% for the 2008 election). In some states 15-20% of the electorate is Latino. Increase the percentage of the electorate that is Latino and Obama seems to have bigger leads in states. It's an interesting pre-election day map.

The lack of bilingual interviewers shoots the exit polling down hard. I know Latino/Hispanic citizens who struggle with English daily, often relying on grandkids who are bilingual to get by. They vote -- and they'd spare little time for someone who couldn't actually converse with them.

There, BTW, is one reason that IMO cripples the Republicans: most all I know, and I see no reason not to presume the pattern to be national, are John Birchers in their regard to language, believing and communicating that those who arenb't fluent in English aren't really Americans (we have examples here on JUB).

 

[JayHawk]

They accepted the Mormon grudgingly because he agreed with them -- or purported to -- on the knee-jerk issues they're fanatic about. They're not going to budge away from those, despite the fact that they're driving away young people in droves because those young people see Jesus speaking of love and compassion but hearing a message of hate and law and vengeance from their preachers.

I heard from Catholics who supported Romney for those very same reasons, claiming that politics is different than religon (but not seeing that that very position invalidated their very attempts to legislate religion).

On point one they are going to change their message and the Christian vote would much rather make concessions to have some relevance rather than have no voice at all (as perceived by them). On point two the Catholic vote went overwhelmingly for the Democratic ticket because of the budget talks and the ticket talking about cutting social programs which is part of the good the Catholic folks see in the government.

I see the message changing and the topic of the 2016 election will not be what do we cut. it will be reforming healthcare and strengthening a struggling economy....

 

[JayHawk]

Well that poll is from Latino Decision Polls which I don't believe is affiliated with Fox News, just for clarification.

It's a poll affiliated with this site: http://www.latinodecisions.com/

Specifically these two articles:



Source: http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog...ection-sets-record-for-support-latino-voters/



Source: www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2012/11/14/pre-election-polls-got-it-wrong-in-florida/

The massive problem with EXIT polling is as Segura has described. A very small sample existed of Latino voters in exit polling while Latino Decisions got a much bigger sample in states like Ohio, Colorado and Florida. Hence the disparity. Exit polling is a really POOR representation of Latino voters because of the lack of bilingual interviews.

You're right. I should have come up with a better site than Fox News.

http://www.latinovotemap.org/map/ - This is an interesting site that does show the impact of Latino voters on the electorate. The percentage of the electorate was 12-13% Latino for the 2012 Election (and 9% for the 2008 election). In some states 15-20% of the electorate is Latino. Increase the percentage of the electorate that is Latino and Obama seems to have bigger leads in states. It's an interesting pre-election day map.

That is an interesting point. The Census indicated a large percentage of the Latino increase was due to identification of the respondents. I wonder if more bi-lingual census workers were employed thereby increasing the results.

Even in places like Texas where Cruz was elected he only gained about 6% more of the Hispanic vote compared to Romney in the same areas of the state. Yet that was more like 60/40 versus 80/20 in states that were going blue anyhow.

The Hispanic population is way too diverse to be a single issue (Immigration) voter and as the tone changes and as immigration reform is accomplished it will become who has the best message once again. Not that one party is diametrically opposed to all various constituencies agree with on policy issues.