A warning to the national GOP from California

[heyjude]

Trump Has Done to the GOP What Wilson Did in CA


JUL
20

Even before he shot himself in the mouth by denigrating Sen. John McCain, the obnoxious mogul Donald Trump had done for the national Republican Party in 2015 what former Gov. Pete Wilson did for the California Republican Party in 1994: poisoned it among Latino voters for decades to come.

In case you’ve been face-planted on the beach in Puerto Escondido after one too many mezcales, Trump’s signature immigration statement is this:

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you…They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

Just over two decades earlier, an unpopular Wilson linked his re-election campaign to the drive for Proposition 187, which sought to prohibit undocumented immigrants from obtaining health care, public education and other services in California.

It worked: Prop. 187 – fueled by TV ads of Mexicans sneaking across the border with a narrator intoning “They keep coming” – won with 59% of the vote and Wilson, who had trailed in early polling, beat former Democratic state Treasurer Kathleen Brown 55-41%.

Pedro pendejo: Despite Wilson’s personal, short-term triumph, Prop. 187’s provisions were later overturned by the courts – and Latino voters, who had been warming slightly toward the Republican Party, turned sharply away. Wilson became known as hijo de puta on the streets of Mexico City and the Republican brand name was mierda de perro among Latinos throughout California.

The California Republican Party ever since has tried in myriad ways to “reach out” to Latino voters. But their problem is not a failure to communicate: with a party platform that still opposes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, the GOP brand remains reviled among Latinos.

Ironically, with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush – fluent in Spanish and married to a Mexican woman – or with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio –himself a Cuban – as potential nominees, there was an outside chance that some Latino voters might actually consider voting for a Republican for president.

Of course neither of them supports the one issue that’s of overriding importance to Latinos – a pathway to citizenship for those without documentation. As Calbuzz has explained many times (see here, here, here and here for example), while immigration is not the No. 1 issue for Latino voters, it is the threshold issue: if a candidate is opposed to a path to legal status for immigrants, Latinos don’t even want to know his or her position on the economy, jobs, defense or anything else. That candidate is disqualified.

As Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, the most famous Latino journalist in the U.S., explained in an open letter to Republicans:

The Republican Party has been complaining lately about how some Latino journalists, including me, only ask them about immigration. That is correct, but what Republicans don’t understand is that for us, the immigration issue is the most pressing symbolically and emotionally, and the stance a politician takes on this defines whether he is with us or against us.

Fun with numbers: A recent survey by the non-partisan Pew Research Center shows that 72% of Americans say immigrants here illegally should be allowed to stay if they meet some requirements. That includes 42 percent who say those immigrants should be allowed to become citizens and 26 percent who say they should only become permanent residents.

Even 56% of Republicans support a pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants. In other words, a majority of Trump’s own party disagrees with him on his most basic contention about immigration.

But the damage Trump has done to his party’s image among Latinos is gigante. A recent pollfielded for Univision tells part of the story:

Univision’s exclusive interview reveals that Hispanic voters overwhelmingly reject Donald Trump’s derogatory comments about Mexican immigrants and give him bad grades as a presidential candidate. 79% of respondents consider Trump’s comments offensive. Only 18% don’t consider them that way. As a result, 71% have an unfavorable opinion of Trump, only 17% have a favorable opinion, and 12% have no opinion of him.

If the Republican primaries and caucuses were held today, Trump would receive just 7% of Hispanic Republicans’ votes, way less than Jeb Bush’s 38% , Marco Rubio’s 22% , and Ted Cruz’s 12%.

And if presidential elections were held now, Hillary Clinton would easily beat Trump among Hispanic voters. She would get 70% of their votes and Trump 16%.

Bottom line: Things will only get worse when it becomes apparent to Latino voters that attacking John McCain caused other Republicans to denounce Trump but that attacking Mexican immigrants was OK with them.

Calbuzz predicts that when future polling examines Latinos’ views about the Republican Party, they will have deteriorated even further.

[downtoearth]

Wait, the GOP is going to listen to CA?!?! What was Reagan brought back to life to bring them this message?! Ha ha ha ha.

Okay, now I'm off to read the article.

[NewOrleans]

Reasonably sure the national GOP doesn't care.

[heyjude]

They should care about what happened to the ca GOP!

[msmerymac]

I think Jeb! scares me the most as a candidate. Oh, he'd probably be marginally better than some in the White House, but he has more broad appeal, seems more moderate, and might actually appeal to some Latinos.

If Jeb! or (unlikely) Rubio or Cruz win the nomination, it will be interesting to see what that does to voting demographics in the 2016 election. I bet Jeb! hits the Latino media hard with ads highlighting his "credentials."

[downtoearth]

This was interesting b/c Trump IS doing damage, but it's also scary b/c he has almost a quarter of the early poll Republican support, and we can now guarantee that a quarter of the party is racist.

But, I thought we had another article that said that the Hispanic/Latino vote could not be summed up in a single issue about immigration. Wasn't it pretty well split between economics, immigration, and social concerns? Didn't we talk about that last month? I'll do a quick search.

Oh and this is interesting and promising from the article:

Fun with numbers: A recent survey by the non-partisan Pew Research Center shows that 72% of Americans say immigrants here illegally should be allowed to stay if they meet some requirements. That includes 42 percent who say those immigrants should be allowed to become citizens and 26 percent who say they should only become permanent residents.

Even 56% of Republicans support a pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants. In other words, a majority of Trump’s own party disagrees with him on his most basic contention about immigration.


Read more: pandce.proboards.com/thread/463867/warning-national-gop-california#ixzz3gYS3oBjU

[ttt]

Jul 21, 2015 13:28:57 GMT -5 heyjude said:

The California Republican Party ever since has tried in myriad ways to “reach out” to Latino voters. But their problem is not a failure to communicate: with a party platform that still opposes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, the GOP brand remains reviled among Latinos.

This completely reminded me of this: 

Romney Blames Loss On Successfully Communicating His Message To Minorities

Yes it's satire and humor, but it's also painfully true. With minorities as with women, the GOP seems insistent that the problem is that they haven't "communicated their values" or "reached out" but is completely unwilling to confront the possibility that they *have* successfully communicated their values and that minorities and women simply don't like those values one bit. 

[LadySusan]

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you…They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

It took me the longest time to realize that this was an actual quote. For the longest time I thought it was viral SNL or something. Because who says that?

[heyjude]

Like the article said, immigration isn't neceasarily the number one issue for all Latinos, but it is a threshold issue. It tells Latinos everything they need to know about what the candidate actually thinks of the Latino community in America.

[heyjude]

Jul 21, 2015 14:41:45 GMT -5 LadySusan said:

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you…They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

It took me the longest time to realize that this was an actual quote. For the longest time I thought it was viral SNL or something. Because who says that?

I bet SNL writers are going crazy being in summer hiatus!

[NewOrleans]

Jul 21, 2015 14:37:44 GMT -5 ttt said:

Jul 21, 2015 13:28:57 GMT -5 heyjude said:

The California Republican Party ever since has tried in myriad ways to “reach out” to Latino voters. But their problem is not a failure to communicate: with a party platform that still opposes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, the GOP brand remains reviled among Latinos.

This completely reminded me of this: 

Romney Blames Loss On Successfully Communicating His Message To Minorities

Yes it's satire and humor, but it's also painfully true. With minorities as with women, the GOP seems insistent that the problem is that they haven't "communicated their values" or "reached out" but is completely unwilling to confront the possibility that they *have* successfully communicated their values and that minorities and women simply don't like those values one bit. 

And the party leadership does. not. care.  

[ttt]

Jul 21, 2015 14:45:06 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Jul 21, 2015 14:37:44 GMT -5 ttt said:

This completely reminded me of this: 

Romney Blames Loss On Successfully Communicating His Message To Minorities

Yes it's satire and humor, but it's also painfully true. With minorities as with women, the GOP seems insistent that the problem is that they haven't "communicated their values" or "reached out" but is completely unwilling to confront the possibility that they *have* successfully communicated their values and that minorities and women simply don't like those values one bit. 

And the party leadership does. not. care.  

Nope. Remember when the GOP commissioned an internal study to do some soul-searching about why women weren't voting Republican? And their conclusion was "those silly wimmin just don't understand. Let's just distract them from abortion!" 

www.politico.com/story/2014/08/gop-poll-of-women-party-stuck-in-past-110398.html

[heyjude]

Jul 21, 2015 14:45:06 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Jul 21, 2015 14:37:44 GMT -5 ttt said:

This completely reminded me of this: 

Romney Blames Loss On Successfully Communicating His Message To Minorities

Yes it's satire and humor, but it's also painfully true. With minorities as with women, the GOP seems insistent that the problem is that they haven't "communicated their values" or "reached out" but is completely unwilling to confront the possibility that they *have* successfully communicated their values and that minorities and women simply don't like those values one bit. 

And the party leadership does. not. care.  

This actually isn't true. I think the party leadership cares deeply about whether or not the GOP is about to become an irrelevant party. Thus their autopsy report in 2012 where they urged candidates to reach out to Latinos and pass immigration reform.

[downtoearth]

Jul 21, 2015 14:49:40 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Jul 21, 2015 14:45:06 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

And the party leadership does. not. care.  

This actually isn't true. I think the party leadership cares deeply about whether or not the GOP is about to become an irrelevant party. Thus their autopsy report in 2012 where they urged candidates to reach out to Latinos and pass immigration reform.

Well yeah, Reince Priebus, said the following...

The chairman remarked that a third straight presidential loss would result in the party ceasing to exist “as a national party.”

“On a scale of 1-10, how do-or-die is 2016 presidential race?” Ingraham asked Priebus.

“Ten. 10-11-12. I mean, we don’t exist as a national party if we don’t win in 2016,” Priebus told Ingraham. “You can’t compete 16 years out of the White House, it’s just not possible.”


Read more: dailycaller.com/2015/06/10/priebus-gop-wont-exist-as-a-national-party-with-2016-white-house-loss-audio/#ixzz3gYjH8js1

So I think Republican leadership is trying to test out every candidate they can in order to find one that can survive and potentially appeal to the MOST voters in 2016.  
 

[eponinepontmercy]

Californians aren't real 'Mericans anyway.

[msmerymac]

Jul 21, 2015 15:18:17 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Jul 21, 2015 14:49:40 GMT -5 heyjude said:

This actually isn't true. I think the party leadership cares deeply about whether or not the GOP is about to become an irrelevant party. Thus their autopsy report in 2012 where they urged candidates to reach out to Latinos and pass immigration reform.

Well yeah, Reince Priebus, said the following...

The chairman remarked that a third straight presidential loss would result in the party ceasing to exist “as a national party.”

“On a scale of 1-10, how do-or-die is 2016 presidential race?” Ingraham asked Priebus.

“Ten. 10-11-12. I mean, we don’t exist as a national party if we don’t win in 2016,” Priebus told Ingraham. “You can’t compete 16 years out of the White House, it’s just not possible.”


Read more: dailycaller.com/2015/06/10/priebus-gop-wont-exist-as-a-national-party-with-2016-white-house-loss-audio/#ixzz3gYjH8js1

So I think Republican leadership is trying to test out every candidate they can in order to find one that can survive and potentially appeal to the MOST voters in 2016.  
 

Welllll there have been times in the past when 1 party was out of the white house for 16 years (FDR/Truman most recently). And a win in 2016 doesn't mean Rs won't win in 2020 (though it's harder to beat an incumbent). But he's right that not getting elected on a national level for several elections like that doesn't mean anything GOOD for the party. 

However, there are still a ton of people willing to vote R at the local and state and congressional level, so... for now we have a marginally working 2 party system.

[zoegirltx]

but I feel like most of the GOP positions/platforms/planks/candidates are soooo far out of touch with actual polling & demographics & how potential voters feel on any given issue. I could name a dozen topics where they are extreme to the right of what would be a moderate, centrist position that would get them votes. I honestly don't see the Dems crowding out the left, trying to be the most extreme, yet the GOP is still getting enough votes locally/statewide to win elections with these outlandish positions & policies.

[NewOrleans]

Jul 21, 2015 14:49:40 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Jul 21, 2015 14:45:06 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

And the party leadership does. not. care.  

This actually isn't true. I think the party leadership cares deeply about whether or not the GOP is about to become an irrelevant party. Thus their autopsy report in 2012 where they urged candidates to reach out to Latinos and pass immigration reform.

But consider how they have continued to be horrible, utterly horrid, to women. And then consider the events of the past year as pertaining to black people and their responses.  And then consider the ONGOING RELIGIOUS NUTTERY AND AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM.  They continue to dig their heels in.  This article may be about Latinos, but the GOP's lack of fucks to give about their, um, messages goes way deeper.

[downtoearth]

Jul 21, 2015 17:08:28 GMT -5 zoegirltx said:

but I feel like most of the GOP positions/platforms/planks/candidates are soooo far out of touch with actual polling & demographics & how potential voters feel on any given issue. I could name a dozen topics where they are extreme to the right of what would be a moderate, centrist position that would get them votes. I honestly don't see the Dems crowding out the left, trying to be the most extreme, yet the GOP is still getting enough votes locally/statewide to win elections with these outlandish positions & policies.

Typing on my phone, so probably lots of mistakes and rambles.

I agree that nationally they seem totally out of rouch, but keep winning locally. But I know some local Republicans and they do care and do have constituents in line with their ideals - less government oversight and less money to the government is the GOP base and people can overlook taking like you're in an old man, white club if they are still genuinely concerned in trying to get more business and money to their small community while asking for less money from the populus.

I think they cater to the social right people a little too much and feel they have to because their base on the economic ideals only works at a state or local level - and sometimes it works well locally, I can't deny this. But I think you can't take care of country and civil rights issues piecemeal and from the same approach.

So basically, they aren't bad people, but IMO you can't run a diverse country like you run a county government or even state.

[greeneggs]

M

[mcsangel2]

Jul 21, 2015 15:39:06 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Jul 21, 2015 15:18:17 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Well yeah, Reince Priebus, said the following...

So I think Republican leadership is trying to test out every candidate they can in order to find one that can survive and potentially appeal to the MOST voters in 2016.  
 

Welllll there have been times in the past when 1 party was out of the white house for 16 years (FDR/Truman most recently). And a win in 2016 doesn't mean Rs won't win in 2020 (though it's harder to beat an incumbent). But he's right that not getting elected on a national level for several elections like that doesn't mean anything GOOD for the party. 

However, there are still a ton of people willing to vote R at the local and state and congressional level, so... for now we have a marginally working 2 party system.

The GOP's REAL "oh, shit" moment will come if they lose the 2020 election (assuming the Dems get in again in 2016), that would be 4 straight terms of the same party.

I wouldn't expect a straight 5 terms/20 years of the same party like we had with FDR/Truman to ever happen again.