The Divide: The "Trumpians" vs. the expected 2016 demographics

[Vandalshandle]

Do you mean, Stat, that Trump is NOT going to be our next president? But Trump said that he was going to get the Latino vote! I have already ordered my Trump Collection suit from the factory in Mexico!

 

[Toro]

Charlie Cook and David Wasserman just put out an interesting analysis of the 2016 election in terms of demographics, and the concensus is that it looks very, very ugly for the GOP, much uglier than the GOP wants to admit.

So, here we go:

2016 Voters by the Numbers - NationalJournal.com

..through a demographic lens, the modern GOP's increasing reliance on a shrinking pool of older, white, and working-class voters—and its failure to attract nonwhite voters—would seem to present an enormous obstacle to the eventual Republican nominee. In 1980, when nonwhite voters were just 12 percent of the electorate, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of white voters and was elected in a landslide. But in 2012, when nonwhite voters accounted for 28 percent of the electorate, Mitt Romney took 59 percent of white voters—and lost the presidential race by 4 percentage points. Without a total brand makeover, how can Republicans expect to prevail with an even more diverse electorate in 2016?...

...If the electorate evolves in sync with the Census Bureau's estimates of the adult citizen population (admittedly, a big if), the white share of the electorate would drop from 72 percent in 2012 to 70 percent in 2016; the African-American share would remain stable at 13 percent; the Latino portion would grow from 10 percent to 11 percent; and the Asian/other segment would increase from 5 percent to 6 percent. If the 2012 election had been held with that breakdown (keeping all other variables stable), President Obama would have won by 5.4 percentage points rather than by his actual 3.85-point margin.

In addition, the group with which the GOP does best—whites without college degrees—is the only one poised to shrink in 2016. President Obama won just 36 percent of these voters in 2012, while 42 percent of white voters with college degrees pulled the lever for him. But if the electorate changes in line with census estimates, the slice of college-educated whites will grow by 1 point, to 37 percent of all voters, while the portion of whites without degrees will shrink 3 points, to just 33 percent of the total. In other words, the GOP doesn't just have a growing problem with nonwhites; it has a shrinkage problem as well, as conservative white seniors are supplanted by college-educated millennials with different cultural attitudes.

That's it, in a nutshell.

To back up the stats, here are the exit polls from 1976 through 2012:

How Groups Voted in 1976 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 1980 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 1984 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 1988 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 1992 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 1996 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 2000 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 2004 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 2008 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 2012 - Roper Center


Yes, the statistic from 1980 is correct but at the same time somewhat misleading. Ronald Reagan only took 56% of the White vote in 1980 and still won with a +9.74% landslide over Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter because it was a three man race and John Anderson (Independent) was also in the mix.

In 1984, the second largest popular vote landslide since 1964 and the largest EV landslide since 1936, Ronald Reagan took 66% of the White Vote, which is the high water mark in this category since Roper has been polling for voter demographics.

The main message is that Romney came close to 60% of the White Vote in 2012 and still lost to Obama by 3.86 points. The reason is obvious: a shrinking White electorate, and a elderly White electorate that is shrinking even more quickly.

So, in 2016, even if for some reason, a GOP nominee were to get 66% of the White Vote as did Ronald Reagan in 1984, since the White Vote is likely to go from 72% of the electorate in 2012 to 70% of the electorate in 2016, that would probably not be enough to get a GOPer over the top in the EC, but maybe in the PV. The problem with that is that no GOPer is likely to get to 66% of the White Vote, because the female vote is already showing a major tendency toward Hillary Clinton (D), also among White Women.

As the data shows, had Obama won with the same groups, but with the projected 2016 demographics, his margin would have been +5.4 over Romney instead of +3.9. That's an automatic 1.5 point difference, just based on expected shifts in the demographics for the next presidential cycle.

The math makes it clear: without inroads into the minority vote, there is no real path for a GOP victory at the national level, plain and simple.

And Charlie Cook's assumption that the White Vote will sink again in 2016 is exactly in line with electoral history. In fact, instead of 70%, I would not be surprised if the White Vote clocks in at 69% in 2016.

Here the exact numbers for the White Vote, vis-a-vis electorate and GOP take of the White vote:

YEAR / % of electorate / Republican take
1976: 89% / 52%
1980: 88% / 56% (three-man-race)
1984: 86% / 66%
1988: 85% / 60%
1992: 87% / 41% (three-man-race)
1996: 83% / 46% (three-man-race)
2000: 81% / 55%
2004: 77% / 58%
2008: 74% / 55%
2012: 72% / 59%


Actually, I think that Charlie Cook's comparison of Reagan to Romney was false. It is much more logical to compare Bush 41 to Romney. In 1988, Bush 41 took 60% of the White Vote and won the election by +7.73%. In 2012, Romney won the White Vote by 59% (he did better than Bush 43 from both 2000 and 2004!), but lost by -3.86%. That's an 11.59% difference, in spite of the fact that both gentlemen took essentially the same amount of the White Vote.

This is how much of a difference the electorate shows when it goes from being 85% White (1988) to 72% White (2012).

Let's look at the shifts as well. In every cycle EXCEPT 1992, the White Vote shrunk over the previous cycle. And since 1996, the White Vote has shrunk by no less than 2% over the previous cycle, so a prediction of 70% for the White Vote in 2016 is absolutely in-line with electoral history.

Also, let's think about the Women's vote:

Obama won the women's vote by +13 in 2008 and by +11 in 2012. Hillary is polling between +15 and +21 in the women's vote and has been the entire time - and I am being VERY conservative with this estimate here: against Ted Cruz, it's +29. Let's take a mean of +18, 5 points higher than Obama's margin from 2012. Assuming 90% of the Black Vote for Hillary, 70% of the Asian Vote and at least 70% of the Latino vote, this can only mean a certain amount of that rise in the women's vote must come from White women voters, which leads to the logical assumption that it is going to be very hard for a Republican to get above 59% of the White Vote overall, much less even hold at 59%.

So, at a time when Donald Trump is holding a mega-anti-immigration rally in a state well known for it's antipathy toward Latinos, namely, Arizona, the demographics are pointing clearly to a need for the Republican nominee to make inroads into the Latino vote.

It's that simple. And it is also the reason for the title of the OP: "The Divide" - because there is a huge divide between that which seems to attract the ultra-conservative majority of the Republican party in a primary election - and that which will attract General Election voters in November 2016.

In other words, the phenomenon of the "red-meat" that Mitt Romney threw to the Right in 2012, which then ended up being a poison-pill for him in the General, appears to be even more prominent looking toward 2016.

George W. Bush (43) managed to get to -9 in the Latino vote in 2004 and he took 58% of the White Vote, and that barely got him over 270 EV (286, to be exact). With a reduced White electorate looming in 2016, a GOPer cannot afford anything worse than -10 in the Latino vote, and it looks like the cleft might be as large as -60. That is a math that they cannot win with.

Yepp, the demographic numbers look brutal for the GOP in 2016.

I didn't read any of this because it was too long and there were too many big words, but Trump rools!

America, fuck yeah!

 

[Derideo_Te]

but Trump rools!

You dropped the 'd'!

 

[Statistikhengst]

Charlie Cook and David Wasserman just put out an interesting analysis of the 2016 election in terms of demographics, and the concensus is that it looks very, very ugly for the GOP, much uglier than the GOP wants to admit.

So, here we go:

2016 Voters by the Numbers - NationalJournal.com

..through a demographic lens, the modern GOP's increasing reliance on a shrinking pool of older, white, and working-class voters—and its failure to attract nonwhite voters—would seem to present an enormous obstacle to the eventual Republican nominee. In 1980, when nonwhite voters were just 12 percent of the electorate, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of white voters and was elected in a landslide. But in 2012, when nonwhite voters accounted for 28 percent of the electorate, Mitt Romney took 59 percent of white voters—and lost the presidential race by 4 percentage points. Without a total brand makeover, how can Republicans expect to prevail with an even more diverse electorate in 2016?...

...If the electorate evolves in sync with the Census Bureau's estimates of the adult citizen population (admittedly, a big if), the white share of the electorate would drop from 72 percent in 2012 to 70 percent in 2016; the African-American share would remain stable at 13 percent; the Latino portion would grow from 10 percent to 11 percent; and the Asian/other segment would increase from 5 percent to 6 percent. If the 2012 election had been held with that breakdown (keeping all other variables stable), President Obama would have won by 5.4 percentage points rather than by his actual 3.85-point margin.

In addition, the group with which the GOP does best—whites without college degrees—is the only one poised to shrink in 2016. President Obama won just 36 percent of these voters in 2012, while 42 percent of white voters with college degrees pulled the lever for him. But if the electorate changes in line with census estimates, the slice of college-educated whites will grow by 1 point, to 37 percent of all voters, while the portion of whites without degrees will shrink 3 points, to just 33 percent of the total. In other words, the GOP doesn't just have a growing problem with nonwhites; it has a shrinkage problem as well, as conservative white seniors are supplanted by college-educated millennials with different cultural attitudes.

That's it, in a nutshell.

To back up the stats, here are the exit polls from 1976 through 2012:

How Groups Voted in 1976 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 1980 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 1984 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 1988 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 1992 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 1996 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 2000 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 2004 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 2008 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 2012 - Roper Center


Yes, the statistic from 1980 is correct but at the same time somewhat misleading. Ronald Reagan only took 56% of the White vote in 1980 and still won with a +9.74% landslide over Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter because it was a three man race and John Anderson (Independent) was also in the mix.

In 1984, the second largest popular vote landslide since 1964 and the largest EV landslide since 1936, Ronald Reagan took 66% of the White Vote, which is the high water mark in this category since Roper has been polling for voter demographics.

The main message is that Romney came close to 60% of the White Vote in 2012 and still lost to Obama by 3.86 points. The reason is obvious: a shrinking White electorate, and a elderly White electorate that is shrinking even more quickly.

So, in 2016, even if for some reason, a GOP nominee were to get 66% of the White Vote as did Ronald Reagan in 1984, since the White Vote is likely to go from 72% of the electorate in 2012 to 70% of the electorate in 2016, that would probably not be enough to get a GOPer over the top in the EC, but maybe in the PV. The problem with that is that no GOPer is likely to get to 66% of the White Vote, because the female vote is already showing a major tendency toward Hillary Clinton (D), also among White Women.

As the data shows, had Obama won with the same groups, but with the projected 2016 demographics, his margin would have been +5.4 over Romney instead of +3.9. That's an automatic 1.5 point difference, just based on expected shifts in the demographics for the next presidential cycle.

The math makes it clear: without inroads into the minority vote, there is no real path for a GOP victory at the national level, plain and simple.

And Charlie Cook's assumption that the White Vote will sink again in 2016 is exactly in line with electoral history. In fact, instead of 70%, I would not be surprised if the White Vote clocks in at 69% in 2016.

Here the exact numbers for the White Vote, vis-a-vis electorate and GOP take of the White vote:

YEAR / % of electorate / Republican take
1976: 89% / 52%
1980: 88% / 56% (three-man-race)
1984: 86% / 66%
1988: 85% / 60%
1992: 87% / 41% (three-man-race)
1996: 83% / 46% (three-man-race)
2000: 81% / 55%
2004: 77% / 58%
2008: 74% / 55%
2012: 72% / 59%


Actually, I think that Charlie Cook's comparison of Reagan to Romney was false. It is much more logical to compare Bush 41 to Romney. In 1988, Bush 41 took 60% of the White Vote and won the election by +7.73%. In 2012, Romney won the White Vote by 59% (he did better than Bush 43 from both 2000 and 2004!), but lost by -3.86%. That's an 11.59% difference, in spite of the fact that both gentlemen took essentially the same amount of the White Vote.

This is how much of a difference the electorate shows when it goes from being 85% White (1988) to 72% White (2012).

Let's look at the shifts as well. In every cycle EXCEPT 1992, the White Vote shrunk over the previous cycle. And since 1996, the White Vote has shrunk by no less than 2% over the previous cycle, so a prediction of 70% for the White Vote in 2016 is absolutely in-line with electoral history.

Also, let's think about the Women's vote:

Obama won the women's vote by +13 in 2008 and by +11 in 2012. Hillary is polling between +15 and +21 in the women's vote and has been the entire time - and I am being VERY conservative with this estimate here: against Ted Cruz, it's +29. Let's take a mean of +18, 5 points higher than Obama's margin from 2012. Assuming 90% of the Black Vote for Hillary, 70% of the Asian Vote and at least 70% of the Latino vote, this can only mean a certain amount of that rise in the women's vote must come from White women voters, which leads to the logical assumption that it is going to be very hard for a Republican to get above 59% of the White Vote overall, much less even hold at 59%.

So, at a time when Donald Trump is holding a mega-anti-immigration rally in a state well known for it's antipathy toward Latinos, namely, Arizona, the demographics are pointing clearly to a need for the Republican nominee to make inroads into the Latino vote.

It's that simple. And it is also the reason for the title of the OP: "The Divide" - because there is a huge divide between that which seems to attract the ultra-conservative majority of the Republican party in a primary election - and that which will attract General Election voters in November 2016.

In other words, the phenomenon of the "red-meat" that Mitt Romney threw to the Right in 2012, which then ended up being a poison-pill for him in the General, appears to be even more prominent looking toward 2016.

George W. Bush (43) managed to get to -9 in the Latino vote in 2004 and he took 58% of the White Vote, and that barely got him over 270 EV (286, to be exact). With a reduced White electorate looming in 2016, a GOPer cannot afford anything worse than -10 in the Latino vote, and it looks like the cleft might be as large as -60. That is a math that they cannot win with.

Yepp, the demographic numbers look brutal for the GOP in 2016.

I didn't read any of this because it was too long and there were too many big words, but Trump rools!

America, fuck yeah!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

Remember stat has bet the farm on Hilary winning and winning big. He must do everything he can to brainwash everyone that Hilary is an unstoppable force of nature. His numbers don't match up with head to head poll numbers with some,of the leading republicans, remember he cherry picks his polls. He also is relying heavily on the women vote thing. While there are drones who will vote for her even if she is lucifer, many women are not happy with the foundation, the lies, and the artifice. If republicans are lucky enough to get a Rubio or cruz(both of whose poll numbers are going up) she will be demolished in a debate. She goes down more every month and the future looks bleak with revelations coming out every month. It is all smoke and mirrors and money.

Hillary Clinton s poll numbers signal trouble ahead - Annie Karni and Gabriel Debenedetti - POLITICO

It's not about me.

It's about simple math.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

Democrats continue group think and pigeonhole people in groups from which the democrats don't let them escape.

What you could well see is the general dissatisfaction erupt in a primal scream of rage of the majority, which might just include members of the classified groups.

You can scream all you want but you cannot alter the math of the demographics in the OP!

It doesn't matter because people are individuals and not groups. Only democrats believe in the hive mind.

And only fools ignore simple math.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[koshergrl]

Fourth dumb "let's make fun of trump" thread today. Meh.

 

[koshergrl]

Whoops I mean the sixth.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Not surprising the RWs don't understand the OP.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Fourth dumb "let's make fun of trump" thread today. Meh.

koshergrl dimbulb nazi

IOW, it went right over your head too.

Where is anyone making fun of Drumpf?

Its math. Just pure facts.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

From the OP:

"It's that simple. And it is also the reason for the title of the OP: "The Divide" - because there is a huge divide between that which seems to attract the ultra-conservative majority of the Republican party in a primary election - and that which will attract General Election voters in November 2016."


This^^^

Its very much what we have seen in past elections as well. In the case of the low-info RWs, they get all excited over some idiot ... Then, the idiot shows his true colors and he falls from grace, only to be replaced by yet another idiot. This election will be the same.

Stat, your OP really is way too intelligent for the red meat RWs. They're in love with Trump BECAUSE he doesn't fool with silly things like facts. He tells them the lies they want to hear. Let's hope he keeps doing exactly that.

 

[Carla_Danger]

You can tell that not ONE rightwinger read the OP. What were you thinking Stat? You know they haven't gotten past My Pet Goat.


You should have started them out with a chart or something.

 

[auditor0007]

That's an 11.59% difference, in spite of the fact that both gentlemen took essentially the same amount of the White Vote.

This is how much of a difference the electorate shows when it goes from being 85% White (1988) to 72% White (2012).

So a 13% drop in the white vote equated to an 11.6% drop in support for the GOP candidates.

And it is going to be a 15% drop by 2016 which will make the difference over 13% in GOP support without factoring in the female vote swing.

It means that the GOP has to make up a deficit in white votes without replacing them with minority votes.

There is no way that someone like Trump can close a gap that big. In fact the only slim possibility out there might be Kasich and he isn't even showing up on the 1st primary debate radar.

A Kasich/Rubio ticket is about the only ticket I can imagine having any chance of winning, because it would give Republicans a much better chance of capturing both Ohio and Florida. If Jeb wins the nomination, he needs an Hispanic on the ticket, but Rubio is also from Florida, so that becomes a problem. A Bush/Kasich ticket would be a disaster, and Cruz is not a viable VP choice for Bush. Maybe Bush goes with Martinez if he wins the nomination.

 

[guno]

Democrats continue group think and pigeonhole people in groups from which the democrats don't let them escape.

What you could well see is the general dissatisfaction erupt in a primal scream of rage of the majority, which might just include members of the classified groups.

 

[guno]

Uhm, no.

And Charlie Cook is anything but a Leftie.

Try again.

LOL

I'm so glad you are concerned for the GOP............It's moving................

You misunderstand.

It's not concern.

It's math.

Now, wake up and look at the math for yourself and decide whether or not the GOP should fucking stop hating on brown people before it is too late.

The day I need a Statist to tell me what I should think is the day I'll take a stroll in hell....................Your side's position is transparent............refuse to enforce immigration laws on the books............yell Amnesty.............vote early and often.............

The immigration debate to the left is about votes and nothing more.............it's understood that you ignore laws with glee and say you are for the country.............

so.................

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......................

Well, ok, you go with that, mkay?

In other words, either you didn't read the OP or two many big words or reading numbers hurt your head

 

[guno]

ZZZZZzzzzzzzz....bunch of left wing nutters trying to tell us how to vote, how to win elections, Blah blah blah.

ZZZZZzzzzzz......

Just keep on doing what you guys are doing and you will go the way of the wigg party

White deaths outnumber births for first time - The Washington Post

 

[guno]

Fourth dumb "let's make fun of trump" thread today. Meh.

Not surprising the RWs don't understand the OP.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Fourth dumb "let's make fun of trump" thread today. Meh.

koshergrl dimbulb nazi

IOW, it went right over your head too.

Where is anyone making fun of Drumpf?

Its math. Just pure facts.

Luddly Neddite


And the point is that, aside from the pure math, it is not so much about Trump at all, but rather, the raw, unbridled hatred of minorities that is just seething right under the surface of the Conservative wing of the Republican Party, which Donald Trump has tapped-into quite sucessfully, at least at present.

The point is much more that the GOP continues to make the very same mistake of having personalities with high name recognition within their party say very, very inflammatory things about minorities, in this case, specifically targeted at Latinos, and the bigger mistake is that they make no distinction between Latinos who are illegal immigrants and Latinos who are legal US-Citizens. The GOP has completely underestimated the power of the sleeping bear that is the Latino vote and many GOPers are unwilling to show even the most basic of kindness and decency to Latinos for fear of losing the extreme RW-base vote in the primaries.

You just cannot undo the words that so many GOPers have said about Latinos. It's on video, it's in the print media, and most importantly of all, it's in the minds of the US-Latino community. This doesn't mean that Latinos are inclined to automatically vote for a Democratic candidate at all, but seeing such a tidal wave of hatred aimed at their community by the Republican Party (and mind you, the GOP doesn't even bother to cloak this hatred in code-words anymore, it just throws it out there), then most Latinos have no choice but to vote for a Democratic candidate.

They also know who fought like hell FOR immigration reform in the last 6 years, and who did not.

Take this as an example: Chip Saltzman, then-head of the RNC in 2009, put out a Christmas CD for the Republican Party with cool tune titles like "Barack the magic Negro" and "Jose, can you see" (the Star Spangled Banner, ala Latino.... and not complimentary at all). As a result of this fiasco, Saltzman lost his posting as Head of the RNC by a narrow vote, but only narrowly. To those Republicans, this bullshit is "humor". I doubt that many Latinos found it to be humorous. Tom Tancredo, first as a Republican, then as a Consitution Party candidate for the US Senate in Colorado in 2010 (after Dan Maes fell under 10%), said that Latinos should have to take literacy tests in order to be able to vote. Yes, Jim Crow all over again. This did not sit well with the Latino community. Mitt Romney looked at Latino constituents while on the campaign trail and told them they should "self deport". This did not sit well with the Latino community.

Donald Trump said that Mexico is sending rapists, murderers and drug traffickers across the border. He is referring to Latinos from Mexico and Middle America. He then says that he would, as POTUS, build a complete wall between Texas and Mexico and force the Mexican government to pay for this. Perhaps the worst part of what he said was the flippant end to the one sentence with 'and some are good people', as just an afterthought. There are just so many problems with this, it's hard to know where to begin. First, Mexico is not 'sending' anyone anywhere. Mexico has as many problems controlling its border as we are having. Second, it's probably true that some of those who come across the border illegally are indeed criminals; it only makes sense that criminals would want to escape capture and prosecution in their land by disappearing somewhere else (American criminals do this also, many often disappear to a foreign country), but Trump generalizes and the direct feel is that he is referring to all Latinos, which is precisely how they are interpreting it. This is not sitting well with the Latino community, which sees that Univision has cut all ties to Trump, that Latino/Latina personalities with high name recognition have broken ties with Trump, etc.

But no one needs to take my word for it: just wait until the series of Latino Decisions polls comes out. I am pretty sure that the results, over the next many months, are going to be disastrous for the GOP, and that at a time when approximately 50,000 US-Citizens of Latino descent come of voting age and are legally eligible to vote - EVERY MONTH. And most of them are located in the SE Quadrant of the USA (New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, California). This is complicated by the fact the Bill Clinton had a very good relationship to US-Latinos, and they are showing the same affection for Hillary.

The fact that other GOP candidates took more than two weeks to even think to start a pushback against Trump's comments shows what pussies they are. They have no guts. Any GOPer with even a minimum of common sense in his head would have said immediately after Trump's weird announcement speech that this stuff about Latinos is just bullshit. But they didn't. They headed for the hills, stuck their hands in their pockets and acted as if it never happened. Their silence speaks just as loudly as their words in this case.

The GOP is like a man with a large cut in his left arm and, instead of bandaging it, takes a knife, sticks it in the wound and slices even deeper. And then he stands there, totally astounded that he is bleeding out. It is a self-inflicted wound.

And just wait until Trump starts doing anti-immigration rallies all over the place. Don't forget, this stuff will be on video and it is going to get ugly. We are going to see almost 100% white rally-audiences with people screaming all sorts of truly hateful shit. And Latinos are going to see this and realize that this directly connected to an official event by a Republican presidential candidate and that this hatred is directed at them. 'Latinos are rapists, murderers, druggies with calves the size of grapefruits. You suck. Vote for us because we tell you that you suck!' That's how crazy this message is going to come across to the entire US-Latino community. I honestly don't know how a young, dynamic Senator like Marco Rubio can look at himself in the mirror and not be totally ashamed to be a Republican.

Especially the upcoming Trump rally in Arizona could be especially raucous. These are images that are going to remain through and beyond the 2016 presidential election.

It's really that simple. And a shame, since many, many Latino families, with a staunch Catholic background, may even consider themselves a better fit for the GOP than for the Democratic Party, if only the GOP were not absolutely batshit crazy.

I will also remind that no US President has put more boots on the border and put his foot down more on illegal immigration than Barack Obama. That is a statistical FACT.

There. Now I wrote a lot of words. Smart people will understand them and RWNJs' eyes will probably just glaze over....

 

[eagle1462010]

LOL

I'm so glad you are concerned for the GOP............It's moving................

You misunderstand.

It's not concern.

It's math.

Now, wake up and look at the math for yourself and decide whether or not the GOP should fucking stop hating on brown people before it is too late.

The day I need a Statist to tell me what I should think is the day I'll take a stroll in hell....................Your side's position is transparent............refuse to enforce immigration laws on the books............yell Amnesty.............vote early and often.............

The immigration debate to the left is about votes and nothing more.............it's understood that you ignore laws with glee and say you are for the country.............

so.................

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......................

Well, ok, you go with that, mkay?

In other words, either you didn't read the OP or two many big words or reading numbers hurt your head

I read the OP..........and responded....................Your side wants Illegals here for the vote.............and the POTUS ignores the laws of the land and picks and chooses the laws he enforces..............................

Which is a violation of his Oath......................and your side doesn't care as long as you get the votes......................

It's that simple.

 

[Statistikhengst]

You misunderstand.

It's not concern.

It's math.

Now, wake up and look at the math for yourself and decide whether or not the GOP should fucking stop hating on brown people before it is too late.

The day I need a Statist to tell me what I should think is the day I'll take a stroll in hell....................Your side's position is transparent............refuse to enforce immigration laws on the books............yell Amnesty.............vote early and often.............

The immigration debate to the left is about votes and nothing more.............it's understood that you ignore laws with glee and say you are for the country.............

so.................

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......................

Well, ok, you go with that, mkay?

In other words, either you didn't read the OP or two many big words or reading numbers hurt your head

I read the OP..........and responded....................Your side wants Illegals here for the vote.............and the POTUS ignores the laws of the land and picks and chooses the laws he enforces..............................

Which is a violation of his Oath......................and your side doesn't care as long as you get the votes......................

It's that simple.

So much ignorance.... so much ignorance.

I am very glad that you are a Conservative.