Republicans Can Kiss Hispanics Bu-Bye After Sotomayor Vote

[MystikWizard]

I don't think Republicans had Hispanics to any real degree, anyway. Nothing is going to change much, here.

 

[poolerboy]

I don't think Republicans had Hispanics to any real degree, anyway. Nothing is going to change much, here.

I think mostly Cubans.

 

[iman]

The big problem for the Republicans is that they had no good reason to vote against Sotemayor. Sotomayor was qualified, very experienced, and quite moderate. Had the judge been male and caucasian, he would have been overwhelmingly approved. No one objects to wise Irishmen or wise anglo-saxons.

The Republicans are trapped in their own racial and ethnic politics, they dare not cross their regressive base and do not have enough moderates to carry primaries.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Arizona and Texas.

 

[jj1087]

9 Republicans did vote her.

Most of whom were moderate or retiring.
I don't really see the vote tipping hispanics one way or another. Some of these senators won't be up for re-election for 4-5 years and the Supreme Court doesn't seem to be something that most people pay attention to. Yes the vote was historic, but I'm just not sure how memorable it will be, especially once some in Congress gets the balls enough to start tackling immigration. IMO that'll be the issue that changes hispanic votes.

 

[White Eagle]

The big problem for the Republicans is that they had no good reason to vote against Sotemayor. Sotomayor was qualified, very experienced, and quite moderate. Had the judge been male and caucasian, he would have been overwhelmingly approved. No one objects to wise Irishmen or wise anglo-saxons.

The Republicans are trapped in their own racial and ethnic politics, they dare not cross their regressive base and do not have enough moderates to carry primaries.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Arizona and Texas.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-79448634.html

The results of Census 2000 for the state of Texas confirmed
the growing presence of Latinos throughout the state. With the overall
population of Texas increasing 22.8 percent to 20,851,820, those
identifying as either Hispanic or Latino represented 32 percent of the
population at 6,669,666, up from 4,339,905 or 25.5 percent.

I am interested in seeing how this 2010 election will go. Hutchinson is running for Gov that year. Cornyn voted against Sotomayer but isn't going to be up for election til 2012? I think that will be the year.

http://www.caller.com/news/2009/jul/24/gop-sen-cornyn-vote-against-sotomayor/
The Texas Republican acknowledged that his decision to oppose Sotomayor could carry political risks one-third of his constituents are Hispanic and said he was announcing it with "regret and some sadness."

A Latino named Rick Noriega ran against Cornyn in 08 so I hope he runs for Hutchinson's seat in 10.

 

[01solara]

Meh. Immigration is such a small "problem" by comparison of the dozens of other issues we have. The Henny Penny, sky-is-falling mentality of some just show their racism, ignorance, and belligerence when they claim immigration is a huge, fundamental problem in this country.

Probably depends on where you live, I am glad it isn't a problem there but hang on that just might change. Then again it is so damn cold there you may not ever have a problem. I like cold weather and snow every now and then but that below zero shit is for the birds. Just my ignorant, uneducated, racist belligerent opinion nothing to trouble yourself over.

 

[01solara]

Oh dear! The Republicans can kiss bu-bye whatever chances they had of getting the Hispanic vote after their shameless, shameless conduct during the Sotomayor hearings, and after their near-unnanimous opposing vote today.

In the 2008 election they only received 31% of the Hispanic vote. What will they garner in 2010 and the years beyond? Probably far less.

Let's be clear: the GOP is now reduced to being a regional, white party -- a party of the South and of white men. Hear the death rattle! Smell the decay! That's what happens when a political party becomes that party of "No!"

Anyone agree? Disagree??

If we are going to go for group think Democrats can kiss the middle class Bu-Bye after they violate their campaign promise and raise taxes on them to create another bloated, over regulated entitlement program designed to buy the votes af acorn registered Illegals, welfare queens and Disney characters.

Look at that map again dude those red areas aren't only in the south and there are bound to be nonwhites in some of those red counties as well. Are you geographically or factually challenged or just living in your own fantasy world where everyone agrees with you?
Election results by county

If you click on it, it will get bigger!!! You won't like it but it will get bigger.

 

[jj1087]

Election results by countyView attachment 346773

If you click on it, it will get bigger!!! You won't like it but it will get bigger.

Ehh....I'm not a big fan of the county map. Obama won by nearly 10 million votes but still all the red is there.
And a lot of the non-southern states that are mostly red (Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Kansas, Dakotas) are 85%+ white.

 

[jackoroe]

I remember the dims being in much the same shape the pugs are in now back in 1995. So I'm sure the other knuckle heads will crawl back out of the mud into the driver seat at some point. It'll never get any better until we decide to start electing third party candidates.

 

[01solara]

I remember the dims being in much the same shape the pugs are in now back in 1995. So I'm sure the other knuckle heads will crawl back out of the mud into the driver seat at some point. It'll never get any better until we decide to start electing third party candidates.

I totally agree. How do we get third party candidates that have the money and name recognition to win? There aren't that many folks out there with Ross Perot personal fortunes. I didn't care for him but he had the resources to be heard. How do we stop the insanity in the mean time? I know this is the wrong thing to say but I can't help it, if you have a solution I'm all ears Larry.

 

[chance1]

The big problem for the Republicans is that they had no good reason to vote against Sotemayor. Sotomayor was qualified, very experienced, and quite moderate. Had the judge been male and caucasian, he would have been overwhelmingly approved. No one objects to wise Irishmen or wise anglo-saxons.

The Republicans are trapped in their own racial and ethnic politics, they dare not cross their regressive base and do not have enough moderates to carry primaries.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Arizona and Texas.

I agree

voting against Sotomayor was unwise politically as there was nothing to gain

that said

she is/was a weak choice by Pres. Obama

her decision in the NH Firefighter exam case was beyond bogus

and her "wise latina woman" comment absurd

she will not be a leader on the court in my lifetime

should be interesting to see how she votes but i imagine left and moderate left

which is the same as who she replaced

as for the repubs voting no ...............

i would say this - no dems had a problem with her?

talk about lemmings

but politically dumb move by the repubs as it appears to be an anti minority vote which IMO is not an accurate read

can't wait to see the propoganda flying on this one

 

[Kulindahr]

Meh. Immigration is such a small "problem" by comparison of the dozens of other issues we have. The Henny Penny, sky-is-falling mentality of some just show their racism, ignorance, and belligerence when they claim immigration is a huge, fundamental problem in this country.

It's not a small problem when the last INS raid in your town rounded up a number of illegals equal to over a third of the official unemployment number. With unemployment high here, Hispanics are finding their treatment getting steadily worse. If for no other reason, we need to deal with immigration so that those who are here legally aren't smeared due to the resentment generated by the illegals.

I remember the dims being in much the same shape the pugs are in now back in 1995. So I'm sure the other knuckle heads will crawl back out of the mud into the driver seat at some point. It'll never get any better until we decide to start electing third party candidates.

Hear, hear!

I totally agree. How do we get third party candidates that have the money and name recognition to win? There aren't that many folks out there with Ross Perot personal fortunes. I didn't care for him but he had the resources to be heard. How do we stop the insanity in the mean time? I know this is the wrong thing to say but I can't help it, if you have a solution I'm all ears Larry.

You start at the bottom. The only other option is to somehow convince a sizable number of congresscritters to get together in a new party. If you want a serious opposition party to the big bad duo, get people voting for them for local things -- city council, and such.

 

[Kulindahr]

WRT to OP...

If Hispanics are shallow enough to base their decision of voting for other candidates because of this vote, it's a sad day... and we need to educate them to be Americans.
OTOH, if they vote unanimously to unseat those who voted for no reasons but partisan ones... yay!

 

[JB3]

More than %60 of Maryland lives in its four Blue counties. The rest of the counties are either empty or very rural. Dorchester for instance only has about 20,000 people, mostly Republicans (although they elected Kratovil the Democrat for Congress), while Baltimore and Baltimore County have about 1.5 million mostly bleeding heart Democrats.

Showing the politics of landmass is pointless. Land doesn't vote.

Land doesn't vote, but the people that reside on it do. The colors represent how those counties have voted, not whether the red counties represent a population that out-numbers that of the blue counties. Essentially, you're seeing a visualization of HOW counties have voted, not how those counties influenced the final result.

 

[opinterph]

If you click on it, it will get bigger!!! You won't like it but it will get bigger.

Federal Lands in the US​

 

[opinterph]

There are lots of different ways to represent election results, using maps.

Maps of the 2008 US presidential election results​

 

[DBSKIsMine]

If we are going to go for group think Democrats can kiss the middle class Bu-Bye after they violate their campaign promise and raise taxes on them to create another bloated, over regulated entitlement program designed to buy the votes af acorn registered Illegals, welfare queens and Disney characters.

Look at that map again dude those red areas aren't only in the south and there are bound to be nonwhites in some of those red counties as well. Are you geographically or factually challenged or just living in your own fantasy world where everyone agrees with you?
Election results by countyView attachment 346773

If you click on it, it will get bigger!!! You won't like it but it will get bigger.

Your election results are skewed. Half of those counties in the plains and mountain states have more buffalo than people. I mean, it doesn't take much to win a county when you get 9 of the 10 total votes in it.

 

[SonOfSlobone]

Touchy? Okay, it's a party of the South with the exception of North Carolina and Virginia.

There was a really interesting map in the Times right after the election. Unfortunately I can't find the full-size version, only this teeny tiny one, but it might be good enough:

The red indicates counties where more people voted Republican in 2008 than in 2004. In other words, the percentage of Republican voters actually increased. The blue is the reverse.

The interesting thing is that, except for Arizona and Alaska, pretty much the only red parts of the map are a belt of the Upper South stretching from Oklahoma through Arkansas and Tennessee, and along the Appalachians all the way into New York. This is now the Republican heartland.

Plus the entire state of Louisiana, which I guess succeeded in evacuating as many black voters as possible.

 

[JB3]

There was a really interesting map in the Times right after the election. Unfortunately I can't find the full-size version, only this teeny tiny one, but it might be good enough:

The red indicates counties where more people voted Republican in 2008 than in 2004. In other words, the percentage of Republican voters actually increased. The blue is the reverse.

The interesting thing is that, except for Arizona and Alaska, pretty much the only red parts of the map are a belt of the Upper South stretching from Oklahoma through Arkansas and Tennessee, and along the Appalachians all the way into New York. This is now the Republican heartland.

Plus the entire state of Louisiana, which I guess succeeded in evacuating as many black voters as possible.

That map isn't really accurate, because it DOES NOT show how the counties actually voted. All it shows is that, in many areas, Obama drew a higher number of voters than Kerry did in 2004.

 

[JB3]

I have no idea how that map isn't accurate by your explanation, Droid. I read what you quoted from the other poster and then read what you said and find no discrepancy. Surely if you doubt the accuracy you'd want to check the numbers and verify the conclusions instead of just saying "I don't like what I'm seeing, thus it is inaccurate".

Because that map doesn't show the end result. Or to put it another way, it doesn't show how the majority of people in particular county (hence the county) voted. All it shows is whether Obama got more support than Kerry in a particular area. So, while some areas may be blue, they may have in reality voted to elect McCain. (see where I'm going here?) So, a county that might be blue on there may have had more votes for Obama than Kerry, but Obama could have still lost that county or state by a significant percentage.

The only thing its good for is seeing how Obama received more support than Kerry, but that's about it.