Rep. Luis Gutiérrez warns of last GOP Prez

[Katzndogz]

The amusing thing is democrats think Latinos will still elect them. Latinos want unlimited immigration so they can elect Latinos not democrats.

 

[Statistikhengst]

yawn yawn yawn

we just had a damn Republican President six frikken years ago for EIGHT YEARS

you people will fall any nonsense as long as it fits for you

Yes, indeed, a Republican President who LOST in the popular vote in 2000 by -0.52% and who just barely got over 270: 271-266-1 in the EC.

Yes, a Republican President who barely won re-election, by +2.46%, in 2004, and only 286 EV, and that was when a Republican got 44% of the Latino vote.

So, actually, thank you for mentioning President Bush (a man whom I actually quite like and respect in many ways), because you just supported the message of this thread:


lose the Latino vote by the margins we have seen in 2008 and 2012, and you lose the national election.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The amusing thing is democrats think Latinos will still elect them. Latinos want unlimited immigration so they can elect Latinos not democrats.

Make sure to put that on lots of election placards, ok?!?!?

Let the world see that.

 

[Stephanie]

People need to vote out this Gutierrez

He doesn't have our best interest in mind

and what a shame Obama, the Democrat party and their low information votes don't either

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ucus-amnesty-hurts-black-wor.html#post9128358

 

[whitehall]

A debate about immigration beats talking about the negligent deaths of VA patients but what do you expect from the left these days besides a laughable claim by an ignorant one issue minority member of congress?

 

[R.D.]

It just gives me tingles up my leg to know a progressive is so concerned for Republicans.

Isn't he special

 

[Shrimpbox]

Stat, I can't recall what poll it was, but it was about issues most important to Americans, and immigration was way down the list. So why as our resident pollster are you highlighting a person who solely on the fact that the Latino pop is increasing says republicans can't win Latino votes and will never elect a republican. An awful lot of Latinos will not like obamacare, are not into the gay marriage thing, may have a bias against electing a woman, and don't like a party that constantly lies to them. This is an issue repubs can flip overnight if they are smart about it. Luis is practicing the present dem strategy of saying something enough times to make people think it is true.

 

[Howey]

Stat, I can't recall what poll it was, but it was about issues most important to Americans, and immigration was way down the list. So why as our resident pollster are you highlighting a person who solely on the fact that the Latino pop is increasing says republicans can't win Latino votes and will never elect a republican. An awful lot of Latinos will not like obamacare, are not into the gay marriage thing, may have a bias against electing a woman, and don't like a party that constantly lies to them. This is an issue repubs can flip overnight if they are smart about it. Luis is practicing the present dem strategy of saying something enough times to make people think it is true.

Really?

This is from *shudder* Newsmax

Poll: Voters Show Widespread Support for Immigration Reform

 

[guno]

yawn yawn yawn

we just had a damn Republican President six frikken years ago for EIGHT YEARS

you people will fall any nonsense as long as it fits for you

How did that American spring thingy go?

 

[guno]

People need to vote out this Gutierrez

He doesn't have our best interest in mind

and what a shame Obama, the Democrat party and their low information votes don't either

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ucus-amnesty-hurts-black-wor.html#post9128358

Talk about low info voter , you once made the statement you don't watch the news

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Prolly so.

But it doesn't make his observation any less true.

The idea that Hispanics will start voting for Republicans if they jump on board to some kind of amnesty plan is foolhardy. Let's not forget that Ronald Reagan actually granted real, authentic amnesty to 3 million illegals back in 1985 and yet Bush 41 actually received a lower percentage of Hispanic votes when he won in 1988 than Reagan did in both 80 and 84.

Hispanics are going to vote largely Democratic because they support redistributionist policies. Polling has shown repeatedly that people who migrate here from Hispanic nations as well as many some nations like Japan do not support our Constitutional ideas of limited government. They want a strong welfare state. Republicans have two choices. Either they cater to that or they make a serious concerted effort to reach out to those groups and convince them that less government is the better way to go.

Since you gave time to give a detailed argument, which I respect, ALOT, here is mine:

the GOP has a two-fold problem with Latinos.

First, it continues to bellyache about illegal immigrants and slurs them. Ok. It appears that the GOP has decided that it is not capable of swaying this group of potential voters, even though the proposed immigration reform that passed the Senate means at least a 10-12 year wait before the first illegal immigrants would be granted citizenship which means that of those who would get citizenship, they would first vote in a national election in either 2026 or 2028. So, Righties are telling me that they are defeatists, that they cannot possibly sway a group of voters over 12-14 years. Wow. That's just plain old sad.

Second, the many attacks on Latino illegal immigrants, whether it is intended or not by the GOP politicos who say this stupid stuff, do not discriminate between illegal aliens and Latinos who ARE legal, meaning, they are US citizens already. It's been one slur and one slap after another against the Latino community and if you think that Latinos who ARE US citizens haven't noticed, think again. Just look at the 2012 Prez election results in Latino heavy states, most notably Florida, where the Cuban Latino vote swung wildly for the Democrat - for the first time ever.


The bolded: I have never ever even once seen such a poll. Please show me the data. I call bullshit on that one.

-Stat

Page 31

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/04/PHC-Hispanic-Identity.pdf

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

One, no such data credibly exists that Japanese and Hispanic immigrants detest limited government.

The Liberal Newcomers | National Review Online

 

[protectionist]

By 2020, more Hispanics will be voting than far right white reactionaries.

Nor if most of them get deported in 2017.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Stat, I can't recall what poll it was, but it was about issues most important to Americans, and immigration was way down the list. So why as our resident pollster are you highlighting a person who solely on the fact that the Latino pop is increasing says republicans can't win Latino votes and will never elect a republican. An awful lot of Latinos will not like obamacare, are not into the gay marriage thing, may have a bias against electing a woman, and don't like a party that constantly lies to them. This is an issue repubs can flip overnight if they are smart about it. Luis is practicing the present dem strategy of saying something enough times to make people think it is true.

First, present that poll. I wanna see who presented it, how big the survey group was and what the demographic of the survey group was. Also, the MoE and when the poll was taken.

Second, among Latinos, that issue is WAY up there.

And the electoral statistics from 2008 and 2012 are out there for everyone to see.

 

[Statistikhengst]

One, no such data credibly exists that Japanese and Hispanic immigrants detest limited government.

The Liberal Newcomers | National Review Online

That is from a Phyllis Schafly website that quotes the National Annaberg Election Survey from 2008, which is a protected data set that only people in academia can get passwords to read.

However, there is an e-book in google that covers it.

I am reading it right now. No indication of such a question, but if I find it, I will quote it directly.

So, most likely a terrible misrepresentation from a rabid Right-Winger from a poll that is now 6 years old. Had that really been the case, then Right-Wingers would have used this as a major talking point in the last 6 years, but they have not. So, why have they not done this?

I will be getting back with you about this. It is likely deception.


The Shafly blog entry also quotes a PEW poll, but again, she is deceptive.

Here is the poll:

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/05/07/chapter-9-social-and-political-views/

Regardless of party affiliation, most Hispanics prefer a bigger government that provides more services (67%) to a smaller government providing fewer services (21%).

Majorities of all major religious groups prefer a larger government with more services to a smaller one providing fewer services. Compared with other religious groups, Hispanic Catholics are particularly supportive of a larger government.

Similarly, there are only modest differences among Hispanic origin groups, though Salvadorans and Dominicans tend to be more supportive of a bigger government than Cubans and Puerto Ricans.

There is somewhat less support for a bigger government among U.S.-born Hispanics (55%) compared with immigrants (75%).

Among the general public, the balance of opinion on this issue is reversed: About half of Americans overall (51%) prefer a smaller government, while 40% prefer a bigger government.

Latino women are slightly more likely than men to prefer a bigger government, a pattern that is also found in the general public.

There is a big difference between "big" and "bigger". The survey doesn't say that Latinos prefer big government, it says they want bigger government. But bigger in relation to what? A thimble full? A dumptruck full? Hmmmm??

I may say I prefer a "bigger" cup of coffee, and so could you, but my cup is 10 oz, while yours could be 32 oz. Our "bigger"s would not be the same.

"Bigger" says nothing. With out a firm reference point, there is no way to guage the meaning of the word.

You do realize that, right?

 

[JoeB131]

Prolly so.

But it doesn't make his observation any less true.

I live in Chicago. I remember Gutierez when he was an attention seeking Alderman doing demonstrations in front of my Armory during the first Gulf War.

The guy is sort of a weasel.

I also don't guy his contention that the GOP would be better off supporting immigration reform.

I really don't see how legalizing 20 million illegals does anyone a favor.

First, it's not fair to those who followed the rules and did it the right way. Many of them waited years and spent thousands of dollars and worked hard to get legal status, and we are going to give status to those who just snuck under a fence? Really?

Second, once you've done that, you really haven't corrected the problem. The borders are still porous and there are still employers who are willing to hire illegals because they work cheap and don't complain about bad working conditions. Let's not forget, Simpson-Mazolli (the Amnesty bill Reagan signed in the 1980's) was supposed to resolve this problem, but now it seems that it's worse with 11-20 million illegals.

Third, I don't see how this helps the GOP either way. Hispanics vote 70% Democratic, and of the 30% who vote Republican, a large portion of that are Cuban-Americans who get their own special privileges and rules. Admitting more Mexicans just means the balance will be changed.

Fourth, this all assumes that Hispanics who are citizen are really voting solely on this issue. The GOP would be better served by putting the rights of working folks over that of big business. That would bring more voters of ALL races into their fold.

 

[Shrimpbox]

The link is under Howies post on page two and it is from newsmax. Of course my point about where it ranks in the issue category is in the very last sentence.

Additionally stat, the polling is very misleading. I have no doubt Latinos are interested in immigration reform, but when the question is posed to everyone do you want comprehensive immigration reform many people are going to say hell yeah, get the borders closed so they will answer yes. The pollsters are as usual setting the question up to get the answer they want and make it look like a landslide. Finally, i stand by the claim repubs could turn this around overnight if they just had some pr smarts.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

One, no such data credibly exists that Japanese and Hispanic immigrants detest limited government.

The Liberal Newcomers | National Review Online

That is from a Phyllis Schafly website that quotes the National Annaberg Election Survey from 2008, which is a protected data set that only people in academia can get passwords to read.

However, there is an e-book in google that covers it.

I am reading it right now. No indication of such a question, but if I find it, I will quote it directly.

So, most likely a terrible misrepresentation from a rabid Right-Winger from a poll that is now 6 years old. Had that really been the case, then Right-Wingers would have used this as a major talking point in the last 6 years, but they have not. So, why have they not done this?

I will be getting back with you about this. It is likely deception.


The Shafly blog entry also quotes a PEW poll, but again, she is deceptive.

Here is the poll:

Hispanics' Social and Political Views | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

Regardless of party affiliation, most Hispanics prefer a bigger government that provides more services (67%) to a smaller government providing fewer services (21%).

Majorities of all major religious groups prefer a larger government with more services to a smaller one providing fewer services. Compared with other religious groups, Hispanic Catholics are particularly supportive of a larger government.

Similarly, there are only modest differences among Hispanic origin groups, though Salvadorans and Dominicans tend to be more supportive of a bigger government than Cubans and Puerto Ricans.

There is somewhat less support for a bigger government among U.S.-born Hispanics (55%) compared with immigrants (75%).

Among the general public, the balance of opinion on this issue is reversed: About half of Americans overall (51%) prefer a smaller government, while 40% prefer a bigger government.

Latino women are slightly more likely than men to prefer a bigger government, a pattern that is also found in the general public.

There is a big difference between "big" and "bigger". The survey doesn't say that Latinos prefer big government, it says they want bigger government. But bigger in relation to what? A thimble full? A dumptruck full? Hmmmm??

I may say I prefer a "bigger" cup of coffee, and so could you, but my cup is 10 oz, while yours could be 32 oz. Our "bigger"s would not be the same.

"Bigger" says nothing. With out a firm reference point, there is no way to guage the meaning of the word.

You do realize that, right?

I realize I gave you what you asked for and you're engaging in an Ad Hominem argument to dismiss it because you don't like what it says. That's your choice.

 

[bedowin62]

The Liberal Newcomers | National Review Online

That is from a Phyllis Schafly website that quotes the National Annaberg Election Survey from 2008, which is a protected data set that only people in academia can get passwords to read.

However, there is an e-book in google that covers it.

I am reading it right now. No indication of such a question, but if I find it, I will quote it directly.

So, most likely a terrible misrepresentation from a rabid Right-Winger from a poll that is now 6 years old. Had that really been the case, then Right-Wingers would have used this as a major talking point in the last 6 years, but they have not. So, why have they not done this?

I will be getting back with you about this. It is likely deception.


The Shafly blog entry also quotes a PEW poll, but again, she is deceptive.

Here is the poll:

Hispanics' Social and Political Views | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

Regardless of party affiliation, most Hispanics prefer a bigger government that provides more services (67%) to a smaller government providing fewer services (21%).

Majorities of all major religious groups prefer a larger government with more services to a smaller one providing fewer services. Compared with other religious groups, Hispanic Catholics are particularly supportive of a larger government.

Similarly, there are only modest differences among Hispanic origin groups, though Salvadorans and Dominicans tend to be more supportive of a bigger government than Cubans and Puerto Ricans.

There is somewhat less support for a bigger government among U.S.-born Hispanics (55%) compared with immigrants (75%).

Among the general public, the balance of opinion on this issue is reversed: About half of Americans overall (51%) prefer a smaller government, while 40% prefer a bigger government.

Latino women are slightly more likely than men to prefer a bigger government, a pattern that is also found in the general public.

There is a big difference between "big" and "bigger". The survey doesn't say that Latinos prefer big government, it says they want bigger government. But bigger in relation to what? A thimble full? A dumptruck full? Hmmmm??

I may say I prefer a "bigger" cup of coffee, and so could you, but my cup is 10 oz, while yours could be 32 oz. Our "bigger"s would not be the same.

"Bigger" says nothing. With out a firm reference point, there is no way to guage the meaning of the word.

You do realize that, right?

I realize I gave you what you asked for and you're engaging in an Ad Hominem argument to dismiss it because you don't like what it says. That's your choice.

typical leftard waffling