re: 2016 GOP nominee could get a third or more of AA vote

quote:

---

2016 GOP nominee could get a third or more of black vote

---

quote:

---

No fricking way.

---

Correct

RollTide will be pleased to know that Rand got much love on Chris Matthews' show tonight, with Jonathan Capehart and Michelle Bernard concurring with him on the possibility of him cutting deep into the Black vote if he gets the nomination. I'll post the links to the videos as soon MSNBC makes them available.

quote:

---

Chris Christie's "resounding success" with AA voters was 20%.

---

Actually it was 23%, but even 20% would have made a big difference in the last couple of election.

quote:

---

As I mentioned earlier, it's already been proven that Republican politicians can win Black votes on the state level, so why not the national level.

---

I'm not sure if you misread, but while that is true, it is not responsive.

Can the GOP win with <10% of the total Black vote? Yes!
If the GOP does win, and >90% of Blacks vote for the opposition, who is hurt?

If Democrats assume, rightly or wrongly, >90% of Blacks will vote for them, who is hurt? Whether or not Dems win in that scenario, victims of assumed support (i.e., Democrat supporting Blacks) lose.

Until a bloc demonstrates ability to change, it loses more leverage with each subsequent contest. Best they can hope for is status quo, more of the same. More of the same is awful in this case. So the argument is at least as strong for the 90% to find a GOP Candidate and back him, as it is for a GOP candidate to court the vote.

It is far from a one-way street.

I disagree, their are many Christian voters who are starting to see what liberalism has wrought.

You can't win a vote until you go after them.

I think the Doctor and Rand would be a good ticket.

quote:

---

Until a bloc demonstrates ability to change, it loses more leverage with each subsequent contest

---

You have the whole thing backwards. It's the politicians who must woo the voters, not the voters who must woo the politicians. Black folks left the GOP because the party changed, and decided that it no longer was interested in Black votes, and when that mindset changes, Black attitudes will change. Here's how it was explained by a GOP operative in 1970:

quote:

---

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

---

LINK

And then there's this:

Lee Atwater explains the Southern Strategy

Here's the 1952 Presidential election map:



And here's the 1964 Presidential election map:

In 1956, Eisenhower won Louisiana. While the civil rights act was the final nail in the southern democrat coffin, I would argue that the solid south was beginning to show cracks even before that. Republicans lost the south in 1968 and 1976 as well. And reagan, in 1980, barely won southern states. It was amazing how the conservative icon, in 1980, won LA or SC or TN by only 1-3 points each!

quote:

---

Black folks left the GOP because the party changed, and decided that it no longer was interested in Black votes

---

Blame it on whomever. Attribute it to whatever. It matters not. The point is the result. Are "the 90%" better off for their votes? Why or why not?
I'd be honestly interested in your answer tf.

You make the assumption politicians have to "woo voters". That maybe truein today's world. I hate the divisive BS that politics has become. Nonetheless, it is what it is.

The question then, for a 12% minority, is which voters are "wooed" and to what end. If the premise is divide-and-conquer by peeling off constituencies, why would the GOP go after one so small and so entrenched, as compared to lower hanging fruit, i.e., ""the women's vote" or ""Hispanics"".

Again, I am happy as a lark Rand is discussing his policies in speeches to predominantly Black audiences. I am happy he is presenting his policies in speeches to liberal audiences at Berkeley and elsewhere. He offers both a way out, and a way up. He offers not just hope for change, but a method to get there.

In the end though, it is for the voters to decide who best represents a chance for them to improve, a chance for them to flourish, a chance for them to look back and say "Wow, see what I've done. I've done what I would have never thought possible. I built that! I did it!" A vote for more-of-the-same will get exactly what it deserves.

Let's look at it differently.
Hypothetically, what if, regardless of the GOP candidate, "the 90%" voted predominantly GOP in 2016 under the premise of real hope and real change. Assuming the GOP won, what do you suspect resulting influence of "the 90%" over policy might be? What kind of real, true, actual, sincere, and (most importantly) productive attention do you think the Dems might pay that same 90% in subsequent elections? IMO, that is how a constituency exercises power.

Again, it's a two-way street. If Rand spends a bunch of time and effort proposing ideas which would be far better than current policy for a traditional Democrat constituency, and that constituency shrugs him off in GOP primaries or the General Election, the damage it sustains is likely FAR WORSE than that anything the GOP sustains.

The GOP can win in other ways. However, "the 90%" cannot! "The 90%" will lose 100% of the time if it continues to fall in line for more-of-the-same.
Just the way it is.

The problem for Rand is the stances he'll have to take to woo the black vote will alienate some of his base. I would seriously question whether his gains with blacks would outnumber the loss of conservative support.

I'll bet it's a losing strategy. Which is fine. Rand is slowly changing from a libertarian to a mainstream Republican.

quote:

---

2016 GOP nominee could get a third or more of AA vote

---

I doubt it, and I'm a huge fan of Rand