Are the Democrats Finished?

[Steinlight]

I don't know what you are ranting about, but your link doesn't work, and you mentioned nothing about immigration.

But by all means, explain how current laws which allow over a million legal immigrants alone each year benefit the middle class and the working class.

We are on our way to becoming like Barbados and Jamaica though, a society with an unwashed mass of colored people with a low living standard with an economy primarily based on financial speculation and tourism.

So you will get your wish.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Illegal immigration for Dems isn't about helping their fellow man. It is about VOTES. They will deny this, but it is the absolute truth.

As opposed to Republicans, for whom illegal immigration is about getting poor people to work for a pittance and undermine working peoples' wages.

FINALLY, FINALLY, you've admitted this. So, now as part of your 12-step program, call for all the illegal infiltrators to be deported because they're taking jobs away from Americans and UNDERMINING WORKING PEOPLES' WAGES.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The day your party Honors the laws of the United States and enforces the Immigration policies of the United States you will have a leg to stand on..........The current administration ignores the laws and makes up his own after Swearing an Oath to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States.

Actually, Obama has sent more illegals home than Bush did..

That's bullshit and I believe we've had this dance before. What Obama did was reclassify captures at the border as deportations. When you compare actual deportation from within the US to what was happening during the Bush Administration, the deportations are down quite significantly. Changing definitions of what constitutes deportation is a propaganda move. Please stop with the propaganda.

 

[Rikurzhen]

A sealed border is 10 years off even if we could afford it.

I think we really need to prioritize the importance of this situation

If we can afford to study why lesbians are so grossly obese, give massages to rabbits and tubal ligations to deer, then we can afford to build a wall.

 

[Discombobulated]

Can anyone name a Reagan, ie Conservative Democrat, Moderate??

Can anyone name a Reagan, ie Conservative Republican, Moderate??

 

[Andylusion]

I don't know what you are ranting about, but your link doesn't work, and you mentioned nothing about immigration.

But by all means, explain how current laws which allow over a million legal immigrants alone each year benefit the middle class and the working class.

We are on our way to becoming like Barbados and Jamaica though, a society with an unwashed mass of colored people with a low living standard with an economy primarily based on financial speculation and tourism.

So you will get your wish.

The first link does. The second link was to a paygate. The article can be purchased from the American Economic Review, which is why I gave the complete reference.

I find it ironic that you whine that I didn't stick to immigration, when the post of yours that I replied to, didn't either.

So apparently I'm supposed to stick to a narrow topic, when you did not.

Leftist policies never work. There has never been a leftist based economy, that didn't end up ruined.

Now, for the sake of discussion, let's talk about immigration.


This aspect for me is ridiculous, and shows the arrogance and selfishness of leftist policy.

Why is your comfort, and your standard of living, more important than that of any other person?

explain how current laws which allow over a million legal immigrants alone each year benefit the middle class and the working class.

Really?

Let me see if I understand this correctly....

You don't want anyone advancing themselves in our country, unless it directly benefits you or the middle/working class.... and if it doesn't benefit you and the middle/working class, you want to doom them to impoverishment....

Am I getting this right? Isn't that belief system right there, exactly what you accuse the rich and wealthy of doing?

 

[Youch]

Maroon,

Welcome to reality. The "historical past" is based on LEGAL immigration. As a human, can you discern the difference?

Say something smart....

Most of our past, we didn't regulate immigration. You got on a boat and got here, you were in.

Reality is, the rich people you worship want illegal labor. They just keep you mad about it so you vote against your own economic interests.

Why are you replying to a conversation in which you were not involved? I don't mind, but you are inserting yourself into another's conversation.....

Okay....No, of course you are wrong. Most people immigrated legally, I don't worship rich people (an odd accusation) and they don't want "illegal" labor (dumbshit). What the employers want is cheap labor as it pertains to the global market. Labor is an economic factor as much as it is a political one. I focus on the economic factor. If we ran our economy as an economy, and not as a political fight, then we'd already have the needed labor and an effective and secure boarder.

This is too fundamental. Come on people....

 

[Borillar]

This seems to go in cycles. For years the Democrats couldn't get out of their own way. They were the party of nutjobs, fruitcakes, and guilty white men. The GOP reigned supreme as the party that defeated the Soviet Union, gave us the peace divididend and about 20 years of economic growth and prosperity.
Then the GOP screwed up and tried to out-Dem the Dems. That didnt work.
SO the Dems came in on fairness, equality, and other issues that appeal to their not very bright base.
The results have been, um, sub-par to say the least. Stagnation. Poverty. Dependence. Debt.
So the GOP looks like it will kick butt in the midterms and if 2006 is any indication will go on to take the presidency as well. Democrat policies and programs look to be thoroughly discredited for the failuires they are.
But can the Dems come back? What can they do to junk the special interest gravy train, the whack jobs, the nutcases, the Stalinists that have taken over their party? Do the Dems need to stage the equivalent of the Beer Hall Putsch to cleanse the party of the toxic elements that are costing them elections?

No, the Dems are not dead. But I think they need a bit of house cleaning. The problem is, with the moderate Reps getting beat up pretty bad by their own party and overlooked, we are headed for some rough years with them in charge. The Radicals are driving both parties.

Lest you forget it was the moderates and liberals who brought us to the state we're in, not the conservatives. When was the last time we saw spending reduced? That's a key conservative position.

If that's the case, when was the last Republican administration to cut spending? When was the last Republican administration to balance the budget? So called conservatives are always claiming fiscal responsibility, but never deliver. Instead, they do stupid crap like cut taxes during war.

 

[BluesLegend]

This seems to go in cycles. For years the Democrats couldn't get out of their own way. They were the party of nutjobs, fruitcakes, and guilty white men. The GOP reigned supreme as the party that defeated the Soviet Union, gave us the peace divididend and about 20 years of economic growth and prosperity.
Then the GOP screwed up and tried to out-Dem the Dems. That didnt work.
SO the Dems came in on fairness, equality, and other issues that appeal to their not very bright base.
The results have been, um, sub-par to say the least. Stagnation. Poverty. Dependence. Debt.
So the GOP looks like it will kick butt in the midterms and if 2006 is any indication will go on to take the presidency as well. Democrat policies and programs look to be thoroughly discredited for the failuires they are.
But can the Dems come back? What can they do to junk the special interest gravy train, the whack jobs, the nutcases, the Stalinists that have taken over their party? Do the Dems need to stage the equivalent of the Beer Hall Putsch to cleanse the party of the toxic elements that are costing them elections?

No, the Dems are not dead. But I think they need a bit of house cleaning. The problem is, with the moderate Reps getting beat up pretty bad by their own party and overlooked, we are headed for some rough years with them in charge. The Radicals are driving both parties.

Lest you forget it was the moderates and liberals who brought us to the state we're in, not the conservatives. When was the last time we saw spending reduced? That's a key conservative position.

If that's the case, when was the last Republican administration to cut spending? When was the last Republican administration to balance the budget? So called conservatives are always claiming fiscal responsibility, but never deliver. Instead, they do stupid crap like cut taxes during war.

You are confusing Republicans with Conservatives, that's like comparing a liberal to a normal person.

 

[Rikurzhen]

This seems to go in cycles. For years the Democrats couldn't get out of their own way. They were the party of nutjobs, fruitcakes, and guilty white men. The GOP reigned supreme as the party that defeated the Soviet Union, gave us the peace divididend and about 20 years of economic growth and prosperity.
Then the GOP screwed up and tried to out-Dem the Dems. That didnt work.
SO the Dems came in on fairness, equality, and other issues that appeal to their not very bright base.
The results have been, um, sub-par to say the least. Stagnation. Poverty. Dependence. Debt.
So the GOP looks like it will kick butt in the midterms and if 2006 is any indication will go on to take the presidency as well. Democrat policies and programs look to be thoroughly discredited for the failuires they are.
But can the Dems come back? What can they do to junk the special interest gravy train, the whack jobs, the nutcases, the Stalinists that have taken over their party? Do the Dems need to stage the equivalent of the Beer Hall Putsch to cleanse the party of the toxic elements that are costing them elections?

No, the Dems are not dead. But I think they need a bit of house cleaning. The problem is, with the moderate Reps getting beat up pretty bad by their own party and overlooked, we are headed for some rough years with them in charge. The Radicals are driving both parties.

Lest you forget it was the moderates and liberals who brought us to the state we're in, not the conservatives. When was the last time we saw spending reduced? That's a key conservative position.

If that's the case, when was the last Republican administration to cut spending? When was the last Republican administration to balance the budget? So called conservatives are always claiming fiscal responsibility, but never deliver. Instead, they do stupid crap like cut taxes during war.

Why do you think that the TEA Party is waging war at the primary level? Why do you think so many Republicans are upset with RINOS?

Your criticism is valid and this state of affairs upsets a lot of conservatives.

 

[Borillar]

You have any facts or statistics at all to back up that swill.

Because the membership rolls of the Democratic Party, the voter registration stats in the 31 states that do them according to party affiliation, mid-term polling for the Senate horseraces, key HOR races and the generic meter do not back up your strange claims at all.

Were the Democratic Party finished, then Tillis would be swamping Hagan in North Carolina, a traditionally deep Red state that Mitt Romney reclaimed for the GOP in 2012. And yet, Hagan is still ahead and likely to win re-election.

Were the Democratic Party finished, then why must the RNC all of a sudden have to dump money into the South Dakota race?

We hear this meaningless crap from political hacks like you all the time and the swill never comes to fruition.

You are just frustrated because not everyone thinks like you think and this makes you angry like a 2nd grader who just lost his favorite toy.

The GOP is VERY likely to take the Senate, because electoral history patterns for mid-terms point clearly to the opposition party having the upper-hand in mid-terms, totally irregardless of the popularity of the sitting president (see: Eisenhower 1954, 1958. see: Reagan 1986. see: Clinton 1994. see Bush: 2006. see: LBJ 1966. See: Truman 1946 and 1950. See: FDR 1938 and 1942. See: Hoover 1930. See: Wilson 1918. See: Taft 1910. The list goes on and one and on).

Neither major political party is finished. One of the two major political parties is in danger of being shut out of presidential victories for a good long time due to demographic shifts across our great Union and that party's unwillingness to accept people who are not White and ultra-conservative, but neither party is "finished".

Your thread, as usual, is trash. And lacking in any real substance.

Now, go play with your tonka-toys.

. This is rich. You as a member of the party who founded the KKK sayIng the GOP is "unwilling to accept people who are not white" is laughable coming from the party who wrote Jim Crowe laws. Hell, even uber-liberal FDR put Klansman Hugo Black on the Supreme Court. Who really doesn't accept non-whites? It's not the GOP.

The facts are the GOP never enslaved a black, never hung one from a tree, never prevented him from voting. That is your party's heritage. And if you think times have changed, the only difference now is your methods have changed to keep blacks on the plantation.

The Dixiecrats left the Democrats along time ago.. The reminisce of their ideology is the GOP now...

The truth is demographics are against the GOP in its present form and the GOP is just going further to the right not trying to win the middle.

The GOP is on the wrong side of a lot of issues from the majority, strangely I think they are doing well considering that.. You can only rely on getting people to voting against there own interests for so long.

Untrue. All but one Dixiecrat remained democrat until the day they died. Why do we have to keep telling you people over and over? There is no progress with you damn progressives. We are constantly arguing the same points over and over. It's settled science.

If redneck southerners used to vote democrat back in the day because they supported segregation, why are they voting repug now? Did they change their racist stances or did the repug party change to accommodate them?

 

[Borillar]

This seems to go in cycles. For years the Democrats couldn't get out of their own way. They were the party of nutjobs, fruitcakes, and guilty white men. The GOP reigned supreme as the party that defeated the Soviet Union, gave us the peace divididend and about 20 years of economic growth and prosperity.
Then the GOP screwed up and tried to out-Dem the Dems. That didnt work.
SO the Dems came in on fairness, equality, and other issues that appeal to their not very bright base.
The results have been, um, sub-par to say the least. Stagnation. Poverty. Dependence. Debt.
So the GOP looks like it will kick butt in the midterms and if 2006 is any indication will go on to take the presidency as well. Democrat policies and programs look to be thoroughly discredited for the failuires they are.
But can the Dems come back? What can they do to junk the special interest gravy train, the whack jobs, the nutcases, the Stalinists that have taken over their party? Do the Dems need to stage the equivalent of the Beer Hall Putsch to cleanse the party of the toxic elements that are costing them elections?

No, the Dems are not dead. But I think they need a bit of house cleaning. The problem is, with the moderate Reps getting beat up pretty bad by their own party and overlooked, we are headed for some rough years with them in charge. The Radicals are driving both parties.

Lest you forget it was the moderates and liberals who brought us to the state we're in, not the conservatives. When was the last time we saw spending reduced? That's a key conservative position.

If that's the case, when was the last Republican administration to cut spending? When was the last Republican administration to balance the budget? So called conservatives are always claiming fiscal responsibility, but never deliver. Instead, they do stupid crap like cut taxes during war.

You are confusing Republicans with Conservatives, that's like comparing a liberal to a normal person.

Liberals are normal people. Who do conservatives vote for? What party do conservatives identify with? Republicans, that's who.

 

[Rikurzhen]

If redneck southerners used to vote democrat back in the day because they supported segregation, why are they voting repug now? Did they change their racist stances or did the repug party change to accommodate them?

I don't understand liberals. How can you claim that white southerners are racist while white Vermonters are not, when the white Southerners live amongst the highest diversity in the nation and white Northeasterners and Oregonians and such live in the areas with the lowest amount of diversity.

Why do you pay so much attention to what Northern white liberals say and not what they do? If they really weren't racists then wouldn't they be seeking out communities with lots of black people and moving their to enjoy a more diverse lifestyle?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Liberals are normal people.

Comer on, quit joking. Where's the smiley?

 

[Youch]

You have any facts or statistics at all to back up that swill.

Because the membership rolls of the Democratic Party, the voter registration stats in the 31 states that do them according to party affiliation, mid-term polling for the Senate horseraces, key HOR races and the generic meter do not back up your strange claims at all.

Were the Democratic Party finished, then Tillis would be swamping Hagan in North Carolina, a traditionally deep Red state that Mitt Romney reclaimed for the GOP in 2012. And yet, Hagan is still ahead and likely to win re-election.

Were the Democratic Party finished, then why must the RNC all of a sudden have to dump money into the South Dakota race?

We hear this meaningless crap from political hacks like you all the time and the swill never comes to fruition.

You are just frustrated because not everyone thinks like you think and this makes you angry like a 2nd grader who just lost his favorite toy.

The GOP is VERY likely to take the Senate, because electoral history patterns for mid-terms point clearly to the opposition party having the upper-hand in mid-terms, totally irregardless of the popularity of the sitting president (see: Eisenhower 1954, 1958. see: Reagan 1986. see: Clinton 1994. see Bush: 2006. see: LBJ 1966. See: Truman 1946 and 1950. See: FDR 1938 and 1942. See: Hoover 1930. See: Wilson 1918. See: Taft 1910. The list goes on and one and on).

Neither major political party is finished. One of the two major political parties is in danger of being shut out of presidential victories for a good long time due to demographic shifts across our great Union and that party's unwillingness to accept people who are not White and ultra-conservative, but neither party is "finished".

Your thread, as usual, is trash. And lacking in any real substance.

Now, go play with your tonka-toys.

. This is rich. You as a member of the party who founded the KKK sayIng the GOP is "unwilling to accept people who are not white" is laughable coming from the party who wrote Jim Crowe laws. Hell, even uber-liberal FDR put Klansman Hugo Black on the Supreme Court. Who really doesn't accept non-whites? It's not the GOP.

The facts are the GOP never enslaved a black, never hung one from a tree, never prevented him from voting. That is your party's heritage. And if you think times have changed, the only difference now is your methods have changed to keep blacks on the plantation.

The Dixiecrats left the Democrats along time ago.. The reminisce of their ideology is the GOP now...

The truth is demographics are against the GOP in its present form and the GOP is just going further to the right not trying to win the middle.

The GOP is on the wrong side of a lot of issues from the majority, strangely I think they are doing well considering that.. You can only rely on getting people to voting against there own interests for so long.

Untrue. All but one Dixiecrat remained democrat until the day they died. Why do we have to keep telling you people over and over? There is no progress with you damn progressives. We are constantly arguing the same points over and over. It's settled science.

If redneck southerners used to vote democrat back in the day because they supported segregation, why are they voting repug now? Did they change their racist stances or did the repug party change to accommodate them?

Sorry to interject, but I must.

First of all, you prove yourself to be highly intolerant and small. Why that is must be a personal thing, none of our business.

Second of all, it is southern democrats that voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Democrats are the party of intolerance and racism, and facts and history proves this in spades. Easy to debate.

Conservatives, which you lamely clump into the Republican Party, have since Lincoln always voted for civil rights, freedom and liberty.

If you wanna talk racism, start a thread. If you want talk political philosophy, start a thread. Otherwise, refrain from making a fool of yourself. I only say this because of your stupid assertion that conservatives are racist.

 

[Youch]

This seems to go in cycles. For years the Democrats couldn't get out of their own way. They were the party of nutjobs, fruitcakes, and guilty white men. The GOP reigned supreme as the party that defeated the Soviet Union, gave us the peace divididend and about 20 years of economic growth and prosperity.
Then the GOP screwed up and tried to out-Dem the Dems. That didnt work.
SO the Dems came in on fairness, equality, and other issues that appeal to their not very bright base.
The results have been, um, sub-par to say the least. Stagnation. Poverty. Dependence. Debt.
So the GOP looks like it will kick butt in the midterms and if 2006 is any indication will go on to take the presidency as well. Democrat policies and programs look to be thoroughly discredited for the failuires they are.
But can the Dems come back? What can they do to junk the special interest gravy train, the whack jobs, the nutcases, the Stalinists that have taken over their party? Do the Dems need to stage the equivalent of the Beer Hall Putsch to cleanse the party of the toxic elements that are costing them elections?

No, the Dems are not dead. But I think they need a bit of house cleaning. The problem is, with the moderate Reps getting beat up pretty bad by their own party and overlooked, we are headed for some rough years with them in charge. The Radicals are driving both parties.

Lest you forget it was the moderates and liberals who brought us to the state we're in, not the conservatives. When was the last time we saw spending reduced? That's a key conservative position.

If that's the case, when was the last Republican administration to cut spending? When was the last Republican administration to balance the budget? So called conservatives are always claiming fiscal responsibility, but never deliver. Instead, they do stupid crap like cut taxes during war.

You are confusing Republicans with Conservatives, that's like comparing a liberal to a normal person.

Liberals are normal people. Who do conservatives vote for? What party do conservatives identify with? Republicans, that's who.

Dangerous Fool,

Liberals vote to take things away from my family. Conservatives do not.

How and why is that hard to understand??????

 

[Rikurzhen]

Dangerous Fool,

Liberals vote to take things away from my family. Conservatives do not.

How and why is that hard to understand??????

How on Earth is this mindset normal?

 

[Borillar]

You have any facts or statistics at all to back up that swill.

Because the membership rolls of the Democratic Party, the voter registration stats in the 31 states that do them according to party affiliation, mid-term polling for the Senate horseraces, key HOR races and the generic meter do not back up your strange claims at all.

Were the Democratic Party finished, then Tillis would be swamping Hagan in North Carolina, a traditionally deep Red state that Mitt Romney reclaimed for the GOP in 2012. And yet, Hagan is still ahead and likely to win re-election.

Were the Democratic Party finished, then why must the RNC all of a sudden have to dump money into the South Dakota race?

We hear this meaningless crap from political hacks like you all the time and the swill never comes to fruition.

You are just frustrated because not everyone thinks like you think and this makes you angry like a 2nd grader who just lost his favorite toy.

The GOP is VERY likely to take the Senate, because electoral history patterns for mid-terms point clearly to the opposition party having the upper-hand in mid-terms, totally irregardless of the popularity of the sitting president (see: Eisenhower 1954, 1958. see: Reagan 1986. see: Clinton 1994. see Bush: 2006. see: LBJ 1966. See: Truman 1946 and 1950. See: FDR 1938 and 1942. See: Hoover 1930. See: Wilson 1918. See: Taft 1910. The list goes on and one and on).

Neither major political party is finished. One of the two major political parties is in danger of being shut out of presidential victories for a good long time due to demographic shifts across our great Union and that party's unwillingness to accept people who are not White and ultra-conservative, but neither party is "finished".

Your thread, as usual, is trash. And lacking in any real substance.

Now, go play with your tonka-toys.

. This is rich. You as a member of the party who founded the KKK sayIng the GOP is "unwilling to accept people who are not white" is laughable coming from the party who wrote Jim Crowe laws. Hell, even uber-liberal FDR put Klansman Hugo Black on the Supreme Court. Who really doesn't accept non-whites? It's not the GOP.

The facts are the GOP never enslaved a black, never hung one from a tree, never prevented him from voting. That is your party's heritage. And if you think times have changed, the only difference now is your methods have changed to keep blacks on the plantation.

The Dixiecrats left the Democrats along time ago.. The reminisce of their ideology is the GOP now...

The truth is demographics are against the GOP in its present form and the GOP is just going further to the right not trying to win the middle.

The GOP is on the wrong side of a lot of issues from the majority, strangely I think they are doing well considering that.. You can only rely on getting people to voting against there own interests for so long.

Untrue. All but one Dixiecrat remained democrat until the day they died. Why do we have to keep telling you people over and over? There is no progress with you damn progressives. We are constantly arguing the same points over and over. It's settled science.

If redneck southerners used to vote democrat back in the day because they supported segregation, why are they voting repug now? Did they change their racist stances or did the repug party change to accommodate them?

Sorry to interject, but I must.

First of all, you prove yourself to be highly intolerant and small. Why that is must be a personal thing, none of our business.

Second of all, it is southern democrats that voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Democrats are the party of intolerance and racism, and facts and history proves this in spades. Easy to debate.

Conservatives, which you lamely clump into the Republican Party, have since Lincoln always voted for civil rights, freedom and liberty.

If you wanna talk racism, start a thread. If you want talk political philosophy, start a thread. Otherwise, refrain from making a fool of yourself. I only say this because of your stupid assertion that conservatives are racist.

Yep, back in the day white southerners were against the civil rights movement. A lot of them still are. That's why they vote for Repugs now. Do you think it is just a strange coincidence that minorities don't give much support to the Republican party?

Why shouldn't I lump conservatives with the Republican party? That's the party they support. I am not asserting that conservatives are racist. I'm asserting that southern redneck racists are conservative.

 

[auditor0007]

You have any facts or statistics at all to back up that swill.

Because the membership rolls of the Democratic Party, the voter registration stats in the 31 states that do them according to party affiliation, mid-term polling for the Senate horseraces, key HOR races and the generic meter do not back up your strange claims at all.

Were the Democratic Party finished, then Tillis would be swamping Hagan in North Carolina, a traditionally deep Red state that Mitt Romney reclaimed for the GOP in 2012. And yet, Hagan is still ahead and likely to win re-election.

Were the Democratic Party finished, then why must the RNC all of a sudden have to dump money into the South Dakota race?

We hear this meaningless crap from political hacks like you all the time and the swill never comes to fruition.

You are just frustrated because not everyone thinks like you think and this makes you angry like a 2nd grader who just lost his favorite toy.

The GOP is VERY likely to take the Senate, because electoral history patterns for mid-terms point clearly to the opposition party having the upper-hand in mid-terms, totally irregardless of the popularity of the sitting president (see: Eisenhower 1954, 1958. see: Reagan 1986. see: Clinton 1994. see Bush: 2006. see: LBJ 1966. See: Truman 1946 and 1950. See: FDR 1938 and 1942. See: Hoover 1930. See: Wilson 1918. See: Taft 1910. The list goes on and one and on).

Neither major political party is finished. One of the two major political parties is in danger of being shut out of presidential victories for a good long time due to demographic shifts across our great Union and that party's unwillingness to accept people who are not White and ultra-conservative, but neither party is "finished".

Your thread, as usual, is trash. And lacking in any real substance.

Now, go play with your tonka-toys.

All this talk of the Democratic Party being finished are a bit humorous. Look at it this way; what do Republicans do if they do not take back the Senate. Say the Dems hold on with a 41/49 edge or even 50/50 while owning the tie breaker. Then what for Republicans? In two more years, Republicans will be defending twice as many Senate seats as Democrats, Hillary will likely be the Democratic nominee for POTUS, and we all know Democratic voter turnout is highest in Presidential election years. 2016 could get very ugly for Republicans.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Do you think it is just a strange coincidence that minorities don't give much support to the Republican party?

It's completely expected actually. The Republican race-neutral and anti-racist message can't compete with the Democrat's pro-racism messages and policies which dole out race-based goodies. For minorities to come to the Republicans they'd have to give up getting race-based benefits and why would anyone rationally give up free things that are given to them based on race?

The Republicans strategy should be to peel whites away from the Democrats by continually pointing out that the Democrats are extracting wealth from whites and redistributing that wealth to their minority clients. The Democrats don't actually do anything for whites, they harm whites, so why on earth are whites actually supporting a party focused on harming them?

Every election cycle since the 80s the Republicans have increased their share of the white vote by 1% and they've not done anything proactive in order to bring about this gain, it's just been happening organically. This explains how Romney won the white women's vote and the white youth vote in a media created environment which told us that Obama had a lock on the woman's vote and the youth vote. Apparently he didn't have a lock.