Republicans are be divided with or without Trump

(Michael Vadon/Wikimedia)

As Republican delegates get ready to head to Cleveland for the party’s convention next week, the debate has shifted to whether party members should follow the will of Republican voters and anoint Donald Trump as the Republican nominee or whether they should act as a failsafe device and reject the unpopular choice of the voters for another candidate. Trump supporters argue that such a move would divide the GOP and make a Hillary victory inevitable. In reality, Donald Trump has already divided the Republican Party and almost definitely assured a Hillary win.

Donald Trump’s candidacy in and of itself has divided the Republican Party as no (other) Democrat could ever hope to do. Trump’s unpopularity is no longer news. The businessman’s most notable political accomplishment, aside from becoming the presumptive nominee, is making Hillary Clinton look good by comparison.

Trump’s unfavorable rating has consistently hovered in the 60 percent range according to Real Clear Politics, worse than Hillary’s approval, which itself is nothing to brag about. A New York Times poll found that Trump is considered less trustworthy than Hillary, again no mean feat, and his values are shared by fewer voters than are Hillary’s values.  

Fundamental problems with Trump’s character are causing his base to splinter. The same Times poll reports that “three in ten voters who supported other Republican candidates” say that they will not support Trump in November. A more recent CNN poll found that 48 percent of Republicans would prefer that the GOP choose someone else as its nominee. NBC News and the Wall St. Journal found even more Republicans dissatisfied with Trump at 52 percent.

Prominent Republicans such as George Will, Max Boot and Hank Paulson have announced their intention to support Hillary over Trump. CNN recently reported on a grassroots “Republican Women for Hillary” movement. Even former First Lady Laura Bush has hinted that she may support Clinton over Trump.

The Republican Party is clearly divided over Donald Trump. In contrast to Trumps -30 percent net approval rating, by July 2012 Mitt Romney, another unpopular candidate, had an approval rating that broke even on average. Romney also worked hard to unify the party against President Obama and the Democrats. Trump’s attitude has been one of “my way or the highway.” Trump backer Sarah Palin has even taken to calling Trump opponents “R.A.T.’s,” an acronym for “Republicans against Trump.”

Perhaps related to Trump’s personality problems are his strategic problems. Traditional GOP donors are not rallying behind Trump. USA Today reports that the Team Trump has only $1.3 million on hand compared to $42 million for the Hillary campaign. Hillary’s campaign staff is 10 times larger than Trump’s and, according to Politico, Trump campaign staff in battleground states is almost nonexistent. 

All of the above has contributed to a growing revolt against Trump. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that anti-Trump activists were close to gaining enough votes at the convention to unbind delegates. A federal ruling on Monday held that Virginia delegates could not be required by state law to vote for the winner of their state primary. As Trump’s erratic behavior continues, it seems that struggle for the nomination will be completed on the convention floor.

The bottom line for Republican delegates as they get ready to make their way to Cleveland is that they are caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place. If Donald Trump emerges from the convention as the nominee, a large number of Republicans are likely to sit out the election or vote against Trump. With a fragmented base and support cratering among Hispanics, blacks and women (where he trails by 17 percent), Trump seems to destined to lose if he is formally nominated. There simply aren’t enough Republican voters in the white male demographic, the only segment of the electorate that seems to favor him, to allow Trump to win.

On the other hand, if convention delegates are able dump Trump, the party will be split along different fault lines. Trump’s core supporters will likely desert the GOP. They may well take with them moderate Republicans who feel that the party should honor the outcome of the popular vote, even if they don’t agree with the majority’s choice of Trump. Once again, this scenario would probably end in a Clinton victory.

Republican delegates are left with an unenviable choice. Either course will, in all probability, split the party and result in Clinton presidency. 

Read it on Conservative Firing Line

Did Trump really win the Hispanic vote in Webb County, Texas?

(Youtube.com)

A post-Super Tuesday article from the Laredo (Texas) Morning Times is making the rounds on the internet. According to those posting the article, Donald Trump’s primary election victory in Webb County Texas proves that Trump can win Hispanic voters in spite of his immigration policies, which include deportation of all illegal immigrants and a 40-foot tall wall along the Mexican border. Critics have argued that Trump’s proposals, along with rhetoric calling illegal immigrants “criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.” will drive Latino voters to the Democratic Party.

Webb County is a west Texas county that includes the border city of Laredo. The county is 95 percent Latino according to the US Census so when Donald Trump won the Republican primary there on March 1, many took it as a sign that warnings about Trump’s harsh immigration rhetoric were off base.

The headline of the Laredo Morning Times on March 2 asked the question, “How did Trump win Webb County?” The article went on to note that Webb County was one of only six in the State of Texas that were won by Trump. The British newspaper, The Guardian, picked up the story with the headline, “Trump dominates in Texas border town where proposed wall would be built.”

The vote in Webb County was close. According to the Morning Times, “Ted Cruz won 1,155 votes in Webb County and Marco Rubio won 1,163, an eight-vote difference ― a true split.” Trump edged out the two Hispanic senators with 1,427 votes leading Webb County Republican Party Chairman Randy Blair to speculate, “I really think the main reason he won in Webb is because the two [candidates] behind him split the Hispanic vote.”

While this theory may be true, the most important aspect of Trump’s victory in Webb County is missing from both the Morning Times and the Guardian. The obvious questions for inquiring minds are what percentage of Republican voters in Webb County were Hispanic and how did Donald Trump and his immigration proposals stack up against Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders?

The first question is unanswerable. Exit polls were not taken for Webb County. The closest we can come is to look at statewide exit polls for Texas from the New York Times. These show that, even though Latinos make up 40 percent of the population of Texas according to the Texas Department of State Health Services, only 10 percent of Republican primary voters were Hispanic. In contrast, 28 percent of voters in the Democratic primary were Hispanic.

If this holds true for Webb County, it would mean that Hispanic voters were drastically underrepresented in the county’s vote for Donald Trump. It would also explode the myth that Webb County Hispanics were rallying behind Donald Trump and his wall.

The answer to the second question can help to answer the first. The Morning Times also published full primary election results for both parties. Comparing Democratic and Republican primary results can help determine how excited Webb County Hispanics are about both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

The Republican primary results were [results for candidates who have withdrawn are not shown]:

Donald Trump	1,427 votes	34.90 percent
Marco Rubio	1,163 votes	28.44 percent
Ted Cruz	1,155 votes	28.25 percent
John Kasich	61 votes	1.49 percent

Looking to the Democratic primary, the results were:

Hillary Clinton	18,559 votes	71.86 percent
Bernie Sanders	6,177 votes	23.92 percent

When the two primary elections are compared, Trump’s miraculous victory among Hispanics evaporates quickly. There were 4,063 Republican votes compared to 25,826 votes for Democrats. To put that into perspective, the Democratic runner-up received more votes than the top three Republican candidates combined. This is not an encouraging sign for Republicans.

Looking at the numbers a little more deeply, we can see that Trump’s share of the total vote was roughly equivalent to the white share of Webb County’s total population. His Webb County victory required Trump to win few, if any, Hispanic votes.

Where some Trump supporters are lauding the Webb County results, they actually show a major weakness that could prevent both Trump and Cruz from beating Hillary Clinton in November. Previous polling has indicated that most Americans favor a pathway to citizenship and oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants. These numbers are even stronger in the Hispanic community. In many of the must-win swing states, Hispanic voters may be the deciding factor. Based on the results so far, it appears that Hispanic swing voters would break heavily for the Democratic candidate.

The Webb County results should not surprising. The southwest corner of Texas is the most Democratic part of the state. Historic election results from 2008 and 2012 show that Webb County voted for Barack Obama in both elections. In fact, the 13 percent of votes garnered by all Republicans is markedly worse than the 22 percent won by Mitt Romney in 2012.

Exit polls were not conducted in Texas in 2012, but Obama won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote nationally. Republicans must improve on this number if they want to win the White House.

While primary voters are not an accurate representation of the general electorate, these numbers should be alarming to Republicans. Hispanic primary voters in a deeply red state have roundly rejected both Republican frontrunners in favor of Hillary Clinton. This should be a wakeup call to the Trump and Cruz campaigns that they need to tone down their anti-immigrant and anti-Mexico rhetoric.

Interestingly, the presence of Marco Rubio, an immigration reform proponent, also did not bring Hispanic voters over to the GOP. There are several possible reasons for this. First, Texas Hispanics are primarily of Mexican descent, where both Cruz and Rubio are of Cuban descent. The two Hispanic Republicans might fare better in other states where the Hispanic population is more diverse. Second, there is the fact that Hispanic primary voters are skewed more to the Democratic Party and its track record of immigration amnesty. In any case, all three Republican candidates have work to do in reaching out to the Hispanic community.

To win the presidency, the Republican candidate must flip the states of Florida, Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia that were won by Obama twice. Many swing voters in these states are Hispanic or naturalized Americans. The Webb County results show that these voters are unlikely to abandon Hillary Clinton and the Democrats for Donald Trump and his wall.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line and Freedom Daily

Why a hard line on immigration will lose the election

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3525/4569689892_01fd9dc66d_b.jpg

Amid the Republican battle on illegal immigration and deportation of illegal immigrants, the effect of immigration policy on the general election is lost. The general election will likely hinge on the outcome of a handful of swing states, most of which were won by Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. In order to win the White House, the Republican candidate must flip the states of Florida, Iowa, Ohio and Colorado as well as win North Carolina, which was won by Obama in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.

The hardline stance of several Republican candidates in the primary is almost certain to make it difficult or impossible for them to win these swing states in the general election. Losing even one of these states would put Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in the White House. To understand why immigration may kill the chance of electing a Republican president, let’s take a closer look at the State of Florida.

The Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, recently published estimates of the racial and ethnic composition of swing state electorates. The group estimates that the largest minority voter group in Florida will be Hispanics with an estimated 20.2 percent of the electorate. Blacks are projected to increase to 15.5 percent of voters and Asians to 2.2 percent.

Pew Research puts the share of Hispanic voters for 2016 slightly lower at 18.1 percent. In either case, the Hispanic share of the electorate is steadily increasing. Exit polling also reported by Pew found that Hispanics made up 17 percent of Florida voters in 2012 and 14 percent in 2008 so a 2016 share of 18-20 percent is realistic.

While all minority groups are growing in the state, Hispanics make up the fastest growing group. In this year’s election, minority voters are likely to make up between 35 and 38 percent of the electorate. This would be a substantial increase over the 33 percent they represented in 2008.

Who do these groups vote for? Washington Post exit polls show information specifically for Florida for the past two election cycles. As is well established, Obama won virtual unanimity among black voters with 95 percent in 2012 and 96 percent in 2008.  

Among Hispanic voters, Obama won a less commanding majority. In 2008, Obama won the Hispanic vote by 57 percent to John McCain’s 42 percent. In 2012, the total was practically the same with Obama at 60 percent and Mitt Romney at 39 percent. In Florida, Romney lost by 74,309 votes out of 8.4 million votes cast. That is a margin of 0.8 percent.

Many observers believe that Romney lost the race with a comment in a primary debate in January 2012. In that debate, Romney stated that his plan for dealing with illegal immigrants was “self-deportation.” The election could have easily turned on the feeling of many Hispanics that Romney and the Republicans didn’t like them and didn’t want them in the country.

If Hispanics respond to an innocuous remark in a debate with a landslide for Democrats, the question that needs to be addressed is how they would respond to a policy of mass deportations and the elimination of birthright citizenship. Many conservatives believe that Hispanics and other legal immigrants will back conservative candidates with a hard line on illegal immigration because they resent the illegals who don’t wait their turn. Is this belief supportable by fact?

In August 2015, a Gallup poll found that two-thirds of Americans support a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Among Hispanics, support for what some Republicans call “amnesty,” runs even higher. Seventy-seven percent of Hispanics favor a pathway to citizenship for illegals.

thebluediamondgallery.com

On the issue of birthright citizenship, most Americans favor keeping the Constitution and birthright citizenship as is by a margin of 57-39 percent according to an August 2015 Pew poll. Among Hispanics, 73 percent oppose trying to end birthright citizenship.

The same poll found that 72 percent of Americans believe that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States. Only 17 percent favor a national effort to deport all illegals. The survey did not give statistics on the question for Hispanics, but did note that 60 percent of Hispanics saw an increase in deportations as a bad thing and that 46 percent were concerned that a close friend or family member could be deported.

For most Americans, immigration reform is not an important issue. Last week, Gallup found that the economy was the most important issue for most voters at 17 percent. Ten percent of voters name immigration as the most important problem, placing it in a tie for third place with jobs and unemployment.

Hispanic voters agree that the economy and jobs are the most important issues according to a Univision poll from last July. Unlike most voters, Hispanics rank immigration as another “hot button” issue.

“A lot of individuals and a lot of people in the Hispanic community feel that the extreme right-wing, anti-immigration rhetoric tends to be code for anti-Hispanic rhetoric, and that’s why it has such traction,” said pollster Fernand Amandi. He added, “On the question of a pathway to citizenship, Hispanic voters that we asked say that the majority are more likely to support a candidate for president that advocates for a position that includes a pathway to citizenship, when it comes to a comprehensive immigration reform plan.”

Using the “Swing the Vote” tool from Five Thirty Eight, we can see that a shift of the Hispanic vote by three points nationally would move Florida to the Republican column. Specifically, in 2012, Obama won Florida by 74,309 votes. That means that flipping only 2.6 percent of Florida’s Hispanic vote would have flipped the state to Romney.

Winning 43 percent of Hispanics should not be an unattainable goal for Republicans. George W. Bush won 44 percent of Hispanics nationally as recently as 2004. Chris Christie won the Hispanic vote outright in New Jersey, a solidly blue state, in 2013.

The immigration vote will be important in other swing states as well. Colorado has a Hispanic electorate that, at 15 percent in 2012, is almost as large as Florida’s. Virginia and Ohio have fewer Hispanics, but have large immigrant populations, many of whom are naturalized and can vote. These voters can be reasonably expected to oppose candidates with policies that they perceive as anti-immigration and unfriendly.

The American Immigration Council estimates that almost five percent of Ohio’s population are immigrants. About half of these Ohioans are naturalized and eligible to vote. About two percent of Ohioans were Hispanic. This is 60 percent of Obama’s margin of victory in 2012.

In Virginia, the AIC statistics show that immigrants make up 11 percent of the population. About nine percent of these are Hispanic. Again, half of these Virginians are US citizens who are eligible to vote. Again, this is more than half of Barack Obama’s margin of victory.

Almost all swing states have Hispanic and immigrant populations that could easily be decisive in the 2016 general election. By focusing on the divisive issue of immigration rather than topics that unite voters against the Democrats, Republican candidates may be making it impossible to win the election in November.

Read, comment and share on Conservative Firing Line and Freedom Daily!

Marco Rubio: The most conservative candidate who can win

MarcoRubio.com

I entered the 2016 election season without a favorite candidate. I kept an open mind and examined all the potential nominees, but as the first round of primaries draws near, the best nominee for the Republican Party has become clear.

I like many of the Republicans running this year. In fact, that has been a big problem. There are too many. One of my initial favorites, Scott Walker, never caught on. In part this was due to the overcrowded field. In part, the Wisconsin governor just wasn’t ready for the national stage and foreign policy questions.

Even though candidates like Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina are appealing, I am leery of untested candidates in such an important election. Running for president is immensely challenging and candidates who have never run a campaign (or, in Ms. Fiorina’s case, won a campaign) would be at a large disadvantage against the Clinton political machine. Two candidates that I liked from previous elections, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, simply did not catch on this cycle.

The man who defunded Obamacare

In the end, one of my early favorites became a strong contender and is one of the top three candidates as the primaries begin. I believe that Marco Rubio is the candidate that, as William F. Buckley put it, is the most conservative candidate who can win.

Many conservatives and Tea Party members have objections to Rubio. He has been charged with being a RINO and a squish. These charges are not supported by fact. The Heritage Foundation scorecard rates Rubio at 94 percent, well above the Republican average of 60 percent. The American Conservative Union rates Rubio at 96 percent. Investor’s Business Daily notes that this is identical to Rand Paul’s score and only four points behind Ted Cruz. Other scorecards compiled by various interest groups show Rubio to be strong conservative on fiscal, social and national security issues.

Even though he has only been in the Senate for six years, Rubio has an impressive list of accomplishments. He has become a strong voice for freedom and human rights. He coauthored a tax reform plan with Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) that would lower tax rates and simplify taxes by replacing the current system with only two tax brackets.

Rubio’s most important accomplishment was pushing through the legislation that may ultimately kill Obamacare. In December 2015, Rubio was successful in including a measure to defund Obamacare’s risk corridors, i.e. insurance company bailouts, in the omnibus spending bill. The measure passed and the results can be seen as insurance companies withdraw from Obamacare amid huge losses.

In moving this measure forward, Rubio showed an understanding of how to accomplish a conservative agenda in a divided government. Grandstanding, ultimatums and brinksmanship are counterproductive. Reaching across the aisle to build a coalition to get a majority of votes can yield large victories.

Further, Rubio has already been the subject of millions of dollars of attack ads by PACs supporting Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush. Rubio has absorbed the attacks and emerged as a strong contender in spite of the onslaught.

Rubio’s imperfections

This is not to say that Rubio is perfect. Most conservative criticisms of Rubio center around two issues. First, Rubio was part of the “Gang of Eight” senators who attempted to create a bipartisan immigration reform bill in 2013. For his participation, Rubio has been labeled as a supporter of amnesty. This charge also does not stand up to scrutiny.

To make this charge, opponents of the bill must literally redefine the word “amnesty” to mean any immigration reform that does not deport all illegal aliens. In reality, Merriam-Webster defines “amnesty” as “a decision that a group of people will not be punished or that a group of prisoners will be allowed to go free” or “the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.” Amnesty is a pardon, which is “an act of officially saying that someone who was judged to be guilty of a crime will be allowed to go free and will not be punished” or “forgiveness for something.”

The Gang of Eight bill did punish illegals, therefore, by definition, it cannot be amnesty. A Washington Post article explained that the Gang of Eight bill required illegal immigrants to pay a $1,000 fine and back taxes in order to become legal. This was predicated on triggers for the border security portions of the bill. Since the bill contained punishment for illegals, it cannot be an amnesty.

Second and more troubling is Senator Rubio’s support for the Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA). This is a bipartisan bill that addresses sexual violence on campus. CASA has been criticized by many conservatives as eliminating due process for people accused of rape on college campuses. My examination of the bill doesn’t turn up any evidence that it eliminates due process. It would be unconstitutional if it did. Nevertheless, it doesn’t solve the very real problem of presumption of guilt on many college campuses. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education provides a summary of the bill. CASA has not been passed nor should it be in its current form. Nevertheless, nothing in it should be disqualifying for Rubio.

A unity candidate

On the plus side of the ledger, Rubio is the candidate most likely to unite both the Republican Party and the country. A recent poll by the Washington Post and ABC News found that Rubio had higher acceptability among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents than either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Rubio also had the smallest number of Republicans who viewed him as unacceptable.

Polling has also shown Rubio as the only Republican candidate who consistently beats Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, but, as I pointed out a few weeks ago, national polling is meaningless in a presidential election. Presidential elections are a series of 50 state elections and one election in the Electoral College. To win, any Republican must win four states that President Obama won twice. These states are Florida, Ohio and Virginia plus another state such as Colorado or Iowa. In addition, the Republicans must hold on to North Carolina, which was won by Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Of the three leading Republican candidates, Rubio is most likely to shift these swing states to the GOP.

His advantage in Florida is most obvious. Rubio would have a home field advantage in this swing state, but his position on immigration also gives him an important advantage over both Cruz and Trump. Rubio’s experience as majority leader and speaker of the Florida House of Representatives gives him a connection to Florida voters and experience in leadership and government that the other candidates lack.

Demographics and immigration

Pew Research points out that Hispanic voters will likely make up a historically large percentage of the electorate in 2016. In Florida, more than 18 percent of voters will be Hispanic. In Colorado, the number is more than 14 percent. This matters because Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have alienated themselves to many Hispanic and minority voters with their hard line on immigration.

In Virginia, more than 10 percent of the population is made up of immigrants according to The Commonwealth Institute. In Ohio, four percent of the population is foreign born and about half of these are naturalized citizens who are eligible to vote according to The American Immigration Council. Trump and Cruz’s rhetoric on immigration and anchor babies will hurt them in these must-win states where vote margins will be razor thin.

Last August, Gallup found that Donald Trump had a net disapproval rating of 51 percent among Hispanics. This means that the difference between the disapproval and approval was 51 points. Ted Cruz scored better, but still had a net disapproval of seven points. Neither candidate has moderated their view on immigration in the heated primary so both are likely to be even less popular among Hispanic voters now than they were five months ago.

The candidate who scored best was Jeb Bush with an 11 point approval margin. Marco Rubio was second with five points. For reference, Hillary Clinton had a net approval of 40 points.

Some conservatives say that Republicans cannot win Hispanics. This has also been proven false. In his 2013 reelection campaign, Chris Christie won 51 percent of Hispanics according to Pew’s exit polls. Even in a national election, George W. Bush won 44 percent of Hispanics in 2004 according to CNN exit polling. A Republican doesn’t have to win Hispanics outright, but they have to do better than John McCain’s 31 percent or Mitt Romney’s 27 percent.

In 2012, the Hispanics made up 10 percent of voters. In 2016, that number is likely to increase. Republicans cannot afford to nominate candidates who are alienating 10 percent of voters. This is especially true since black voters, 13 percent of the electorate in 2012, already flock to the Democrats almost unanimously.

Leaving demographics aside, Trump and Cruz would still have problems in the swing states because their harsh stance against legalization for illegal immigrants is at odds with public opinion. In August 2015, Gallup found that 66 percent of Americans support a pathway to citizenship while only 14 percent want all illegals deported. Fifty percent of Republicans support a path citizenship as do 77 percent of Hispanics. These numbers are consistent with other polls and long-term trends.

Opposition to deportation is likely to be significant in swing states, making it even more difficult for Republican candidates like Trump and Cruz to win there. Supporting deportation might win the Republican nomination, but it will lose the general election and possibly poison the well with Hispanics for decades to come.

The flawed frontrunners

Finally, Trump and Cruz have other negatives that Rubio does not. The two frontrunners share several similar traits. They both tend to make enemies rather than build coalitions, which will make victory in the general election difficult. Both have a strategy of dividing the Republican Party and hoping to lead the larger faction. Both demagogue other members of their party for their own benefit. Both have squared off against immigration reform and put themselves against the clear majority of voters in doing so. Finally, both Cruz and Trump are essentially showmen. They engage in political theater for the benefit of their supporters, but have little in the way of actual accomplishments.

Trump, in particular, is problematic for conservatives. He has a long record of supporting liberal causes and candidates and has admitted to using his money and influence to gain favorable treatment from politicians of both parties. While Trump claims to have converted to a conservative mindset, there is little evidence other than his own words that he has done so. Like Obama in 2008, Trump is a blank slate on most issues. He allows supporters to project on him their belief of what he is for while rarely taking a firm stand on any issue.

Gallup polling shows that people are familiar with Trump, but that they do not like him. He is not only the most disliked Republican, he is less favored that Hillary Clinton by more than 20 points. Such an approval deficit would be very difficult to overcome.

With Cruz, the case is more difficult. He is also not well liked by most voters outside the GOP, but has more room for improvement. I have trouble supporting Cruz for several reasons in addition to his support for deportation and his unpopularity with general election voters.

First, Cruz has reputation as being a principled conservative, but, in reality, has a long record of flip-flopping on important issues. Cruz has changed his mind on several areas of immigration including legalization, legal immigration visas, and deportation of nonviolent illegals. On all these issues, he has moved in the wrong direction for the general election. Cruz has also moved from nonintervention in Syria to supporting “carpet bombing” of ISIS (although it isn’t clear that he understood what the term meant), supporting other anti-Jihadist factions and possibly using ground troops. Cruz reversed himself on both Trade Promotion Authority (fast track negotiating authority) and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Cruz has also been inconsistent on national security issues such as NSA surveillance.

Second, Cruz’s time in the Senate has been replete with strategic errors and shows little actual accomplishment. He is most known for his spectacular failure with the government shutdown in 2013 in which his strategy caused approval of the Republican Party to plummet to a record low, but his antics also allowed lame duck majority leader Senator Harry Reid to approve a number of filibustered Obama judicial appointees in December 2014. His 2013 filibuster was all for show. He had arranged the speech with Harry Reid in advance and surrendered the floor so that the vote went along as scheduled. Cruz has returned to his shutdown strategy time and again while trying to prevent an increase to the debt ceiling or to prevent passage of the omnibus spending bill in 2015. Cruz seems not to realize or care that Republicans do not have the votes to force their will on President Obama and the Democrats.

Cruz’s problems have made him one of the most unpopular Republicans in the caucus. At this point, Ted Cruz does not have a single endorsement from a sitting senator, the people he works with every day. It seems that the people who know his work best do not think that he is presidential material. The lack of endorsements from Washington politicians is deemed a good thing by some, but in reality it says a lot about Cruz’s inability to build coalitions and turn his platform into law. Either Cruz is wrong or every other Republican senator is wrong.

Contrast Cruz’s endorsements with Rubio’s. Marco Rubio is endorsed by a long list of conservative elected officials. This includes four sitting senators as well as Joni Ernst, the freshman senator from Iowa, who stumped for Rubio without making an official endorsement. Rubio is also endorsed by such stalwart conservative congressmen as Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Darrell Issa (R-CA).

The conservative solution

Emerging from a crowded field, Marco Rubio is the most qualified candidate who can unite the Republican Party in the primary and then win the general election by a large enough margin to create an unquestionable conservative mandate. In 2016, as Republicans attempt to undo the damage of eight years of Obama, eking out a victory by a slim margin is not enough. Democrat liberalism must be thoroughly and soundly rejected.

After eight years of Barack Obama, Republicans have one chance to get it right. If we nominate a conservative candidate who can win then we will have an opportunity to roll back Obama’s policies and begin to repair the damage of the last decade. If we nominate a candidate who cannot win, not only will Obama’s legacy be locked in by a Democratic president but we may lose congressional majorities and the ability to block the next Democratic agenda that may well include nominating Barack Obama to the Supreme Court.

Choose wisely, America.

Minority voters put GOP over the top

Exit polls reveal the surprising statistic that shows the source of the Republican surge.

The Republican sweep of the battleground Senate seats left conservatives both elated and shocked. No one had predicted the enormity of the Democratic rout that left pundits and politicians scrambling for explanations. An analysis of exit polls from around the country reveals the answer.

Practical Politicking compared CNN exit polls from 2014 to three previous elections, the 2008 and 2012 presidential races as well as the 2010 midterm elections in which the Tea Party revolution reached its zenith as the GOP captured the House, but fell short of taking control of the Senate. The result shows why the Republican Party performed so well this year when compared to previous elections and also provides clues about the upcoming presidential election of 2016.

“Older, whiter and richer” is true… as far as it goes

It has been said that the 2014 electorate was “older, whiter and richer” than the 2012 electorate that returned President Obama to the White House for a second term. This explanation, often made by liberal pundits such as those at Think Progress, ignores the fact that President Obama almost split the vote of people who earned more than $100,000 with Mitt Romney (44-54 percent). In 2008, Obama tied this segment 49-49 with John McCain. Democrats have done well with the wealthy in the recent past. This year the Democrats lost this group by 16 points, which was less than their 18 point deficit from 2010.

Voting statistics show that the old stereotype about young people trending liberal and becoming more conservative as they grow older is true. Nevertheless, President Obama did well among older voters, losing the demographic by only eight points in both 2008 and 2012. The Republicans did better among older voters in 2010 when they won seniors by 21 points as opposed to this year’s 16 points.

Likewise, Obama lost white voters by 12 points in 2008 and 20 points in 2012. This year’s margin (22 points) was not markedly different from 2012 and was almost identical to 2010 (23 points). It is also interesting to note that the share of white voters actually declined this year from 2010 by two points.

The “older, whiter and richer” explanation is true as far as it goes. While it underscores the well-established fact that the electorate in a midterm election is almost totally different from the voters who come out to vote for a president in the highest profile election, it falls short of convincingly explaining this year’s Democratic debacle. Nevertheless, this myth, like that of 2012’s “missing Republicans” seems destined to live as a salve to soothe liberal disappointment and channel anger toward whites and rich people, two common Democratic bogeymen.

No gender bender

There was also no appreciable shift in gender voting patterns. Women traditionally favor the Democrats and that was true this year as well. Democrats won 51 percent of the female vote, less than the 55 percent of 2012, but more than 2010 when Republicans won women by one point. The peak was in 2008 when 56 percent of women voted for Barack Obama.

Obama won men in 2008 by one point, but the Democrats lost the male vote in the other three elections. Fifty-five percent of men voted Republican in 2010 and 52 percent in 2012. The male vote peaked this year with a whopping 57 percent of men voting GOP and only 41 percent voting Democrat. While men seemed to be responding to a Democratic “war on men,” the bottom line is very similar to 2010 and is not enough to explain this year’s landslide.

“Look to the cookie.”

The key to understanding the shift in the electorate from 2010 to 2014 is with the racial demographics of voters. It is true that the electorate was whiter than 2012, but that is only part of the story. As Jerry Seinfeld said, we must “look to the cookie” of race relations for the true answer.

The following table shows the percentage of each demographic group voting Republican:

Year	White	Black	Latino	Asian
2008	55	4	31	35
2010	60	9	38	40
2012	59	6	27	26
2014	60	10	36	50

The following table shows the percentage of each demographic group as a percentage of the electorate:

Year	White	Black	Latino	Asian
2008	74	13	9	2
2010	77	11	8	2
2012	72	13	10	3
2014	75	12	8	3

The nearby charts show the percentage of each ethnic group voting Republican in each election along with each group's share of the electorate. When all the information is examined, we find that the “white” part of the “old, white and rich” explanation is not true in several important ways. There were more white voters than in 2012, but, as noted earlier, the share of white voters declined from 2010 to 2014. The share of black voters increased one point between the midterm elections, but was one point lower than in 2012 and 2008. Black voters didn’t stay home, but came out as a greater share of the electorate than in the previous midterm election.

The liberal pundits totally fail to take into account that this year saw Republicans do much better among minority voters than in any election of the Obama era. Republican candidates faired marginally better this year than four years ago in the last midterm and dramatically better than the pathetic performances of both John McCain and Mitt Romney. It was this improved performance with nonwhite voters that put the GOP contenders over the top.

What does this mean for 2016?

The lesson for 2016 is that the coalition of minorities, women, and young people that elected Obama both times won’t necessarily turn out to elect other Democrats. While these groups all voted Democrat this year, the margins were far narrower than in 2008 when Obama was seen as a hip, new, “post-partisan” politician and hope was in the air. Six years later, many minorities and young people are still jobless and the “war on women” has worn thin.

This year also saw the election of several new minority Republicans. Tim Scott is the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction. Mia Love is the first ever black Republican woman in the House. As more and more minorities “come out” as conservatives, it will be easier for others to do so in the future.

Likely Democratic contenders for 2016 such as Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren lack Barack Obama’s minority connections as well as his hipness and charisma. If Republican solutions resonate with voters over the next two years, the next wave of candidates may find that even more minority members are willing to pull the lever for a Republican.

Originally published on Examiner.com

How to solve the GOP problem with minorities and millennnials

Barack Obama’s two presidential election victories were built on the backs of three groups in which he received landslide victories. Obama won with margins on the order of two-to-one with black, Hispanic and young voters both times he ran. These lopsided numbers provided him with the slim margin that he needed to eke out a victory over Mitt Romney in spite of a strong showing by Romney among white voters. If any Republican hopes to win a national election in the future, it is axiomatic that he must slice deeply into the Democratic advantage with minority and millennial voters.

 The Democratic plan has been one of targeting their message to individual demographic groups in a divide-and-conquer strategy. Black voters are told that Republicans are racist and want to suppress them at the polls and repeal the Voting Rights Act. Hispanics are told that Republicans are racist and want to deport them. Millennials are swayed by Obama’s “cool” factor. The razor thin rationales targeting the various demographic groups should be permeable to Republican attacks.

President Obama’s unpopularity and the failure of his agenda present a unique opportunity for Republicans. Voters who were firmly in the Obama camp may now be willing to listen to alternative viewpoints. Charles Ellison recently wrote in The Root that dissatisfaction with the president and high black unemployment are resulting in tempered black support for Democratic candidates. Likewise, high unemployment among millennials may hurt their support for Democrats as well. With respect to Hispanics, Democrats have promised immigration reform for six years and failed to deliver.

The necessary first step for Republicans is to remove the stumbling blocks that prevent minorities from voting for Republican candidates. Republican candidates should put themselves in the shoes of minority voters and acknowledge that black and Hispanic Americans do have a different experience than white Americans. Republicans should take this into account and consider how certain messages will sound to minority voters.

Guilt by association is real. Conservatives should temper their enthusiasm for the defense of people like George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson. Springing to the defense of alleged murderers, especially before all the facts are known, is just as wrong as calling for their heads. Conservatives should also distance themselves from racists such as Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling. These people have the freedom to spout racist nonsense, but they don’t have the freedom to duck the consequences.

Conservatives should also refrain from pointing out that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the other race baiters are the real racists. It’s obvious, but also irrelevant, that there is a double standard.
The biggest stumbling block for Hispanics is immigration. The Tea Party fringe that insists on deportation and no “amnesty,” by which they mean any immigration reform, seems bent on driving Latinos permanently into the Democratic camp. These opponents of “amnesty” claim not to the see the problems in the current system in which businesses and farms depend on immigrant labor, but under which legal immigration can take decades.

The next step for Republicans is to show up. Republican candidates should make frequent visits to ethnic neighborhoods and listen to the voters there. This should not merely be an election year exercise. They should forge long-term relationships with community leaders. It is harder to paint a Republican as an evil racist if the people already know and trust him. Minority voters won’t vote for Republicans if Republican candidates don’t show up to ask for their votes.

Finally, Republicans should find out where a majority Americans agree with them and oppose the Democrats. An October 2014 Gallup poll found that the top three issues for voters were the economy (17 percent), dissatisfaction with government (16 percent) and unemployment/jobs (10 percent). These were the only issues to rank in double-digits and, coincidentally, a separate Gallup poll found that voters favor Republicans on these issues. These are the issues that Republicans should be talking about.

While Republicans should not mimic the Democratic ploy of making separate promises to different demographic groups, they should target campaign messages to different groups. While it is true that a rising tide lifts all boats and that conservative principles would benefit the nation as a whole, Republicans can no longer simply spin out a generic message and wait for minority voters to flock to their banner.

The best strategy may be to take the advice of economist Arthur Brooks, who wrote in the Wall St. Journal that conservatives must make their policies personal to voters instead of railing against abstract ideas and things. By connecting with voters on a personal level and explaining how conservative ideas can help the poor, Brooks says, “Conservative leaders will be able to stand before Americans who are struggling and feel marginalized and say, ‘We will fight for you and your family, whether you vote for us or not’—and truly mean it.”

This means that conservatives should spend less time talking about abstract ideas and social issues. Republicans must deemphasize issues like abortion, marriage and even the repeal of ObamaCare. They should completely stop talking about things like amnesty, impeachment, and birth certificates. At best these issues are divisive. At worst, they alienate voters.

What Republicans should spend more time talking about how is Democratic policies hurt real people and their families, playing to their advantage on the economy and jobs. Republican candidates should stand with the unemployed who have been unable to find jobs in the Obama economy, the family breadwinner struggling to support a family on less than he made in 2008, the college graduate with no employment prospects and the cancer patient whose health insurance policy was canceled due to the Affordable Care Act. Republicans should make an emotional connection with voters by putting names and faces to real effects of the Obama agenda.

When the Republicans win control of the Senate, passing immigration reform unilaterally should be a top priority. If President Obama chooses to veto Republican immigration reform, the Democrats might well incur the wrath of Hispanic voters, while the Republicans could, for once, be the party of “si’.” Democrats promised immigration reform for six years, but didn’t deliver. This leaves the GOP with an opportunity. One need look back no further than 2004, or even more recently to Chris Christie in New Jersey and Rick Perry in Texas, to see that a conservative can win Hispanic votes.

With respect to millennials, emphasizing jobs and playing down social issues may help the GOP since younger voters tend to be more liberal on social issues, but may lean conservative on size and role of government. Removing Obama from the ballot may help as well. Potential Democratic candidates such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren lack the president’s hipness and youth appeal. In the pre-Obama elections, young voters were more closely divided. George W. Bush even tied the demographic with Al Gore in 2000.

Republicans don’t have to change their principles or write off entire demographics to the Democrats, but neither will these groups simply fall into the GOP camp by default. To win these voters, Republicans must show up, listen to their concerns, and convince them that conservative ideas will make their lives better. Read the rest on Examiner.com

Racial divide may shore up Obama approval

A new poll by Gallup illustrates the large opinion divide between whites and minorities and may help explain why President Obama’s job approval remains high in spite of a spate of recent scandals. Even though his administration has been buffeted by a series of scandals over the past few months including questions about Benghazi, IRS abuse of conservative groups, spying on reporters, telephone and computer surveillance of Americans, and the revelation that the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s signature piece of legislation, is driving up insurance prices. In spite of the scandals, President Obama still has a 47 percent approval rating according to Gallup (44 percent disapprove).

A new Gallup poll released today shows that the president’s support is concentrated among minorities, who are also more confident in most American institutions. The poll compares the confidence of non-Hispanic white adults with those of Hispanics and blacks. The sharpest difference between the two groups was their confidence in the presidency. Fifty-four percent of nonwhites had confidence in the presidency compared with 29 percent of whites, a difference of 25 percentage points.

By double-digit margins, nonwhites also had more confidence in television news, Congress and newspapers. By smaller margins, they also were more confident in nine other categories that ranged from the church to unions to banks and “big business.”

There were three categories in which the confidence of whites exceeded that of minorities. These categories included small business (69-52 percent) and the police (60-48 percent). There was also strong support for the military (79-72 percent) from a broad cross section of Americans.

The poll notes that much minority confidence in the presidency is likely due to the fact that Barack Obama is the nation’s first black president. This is borne out when Hispanic and black attitudes are compared. Seventy-one percent of blacks were confident in the presidency compared to only 44 percent of Hispanics. While President Obama’s support among blacks remains high, it is sharply lower than the 93 percent he received in the 2012 election according to an Examiner analysis of exit polls. Obama received 73 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2012.

Over the past few years, nonwhites have become more confident in many institutions of government while whites have lost confidence. In a 2004-2006 poll, whites were more confident in the presidency by a margin of 47-32 percent. Gallup points out that part of the disparity can be explained by the fact that Obama is Democrat and minorities tend to favor Democrats.

There is some good news for Republicans in the poll in the decline in confidence in the presidency over Obama’s 2012 vote share. The problem for Republicans is how a party that is perceived to be dominated by whites can appeal to disaffected minorities.

The poll is an aggregate of interviews conducted in June 2011, 2012, and 2013 so the full impact of the recent scandals may not be taken into account.

Originally published on Examiner.com

New Year’s Resolution for Republicans: Find sensible immigration policy

As we prepare to ring in 2013 and another four years of Barack Obama, Republicans should make a resolution to find an immigration policy that won’t turn off minority voters. Exit polls from the 2012 elections show that immigration was the single worst issue for Republicans. By a more than two-to-one margin, voters believed that illegal immigrants should be offered legal status rather than being deported. This issue undoubtedly influenced Hispanic voters and Asian voters to flock to Barack Obama by 71 and 73 percent respectively.

Obama’s record on immigration is less than stellar, but he proved less frightening than many Republicans. After ignoring the immigration issue for three years, the president issued constitutionally questionable orders to limit deportations. Although this order may have exceeded his authority as president, it proved more popular than Mitt Romney’s promise to veto the DREAM Act. Republican rhetoric on immigration has often been harsh, sometimes bordering on racist, and attempts by states to regulate illegal aliens were easily demonized by the Democrats.

Ironically, the Wall Street Journal pointed out that the state immigration laws are often bad for businesses. In Alabama, where the crackdown on illegal immigration was sold as a way to increase employment for U.S. citizens, there was a shortage of workers in industries that traditionally hired both legal and illegal Mexican immigrants. As Hispanics left the state regardless of their immigration status, employers turned to Haitian and African immigrants because native Alabamans did not pursue the open jobs. In 2011, the Journal reported that many crops were rotting the fields because there were not enough workers to harvest them.

In 2011, Georgia passed an immigration law similar to those of Arizona and Alabama. Implementation of the law was postponed by the courts, but parts of the injunction were lifted earlier this month. The law is intended to encourage illegal immigrants to leave the state, which may lead Georgia industries that depend on immigrant labor to experience difficulties in the coming year.

Republicans should recognize that the immigration problem is one of our own making. The tacit acceptance of illegal immigration for decades has encouraged more migrants to come to the U.S. to work. For years, immigration law was akin to the speed limit. Everybody knew that a lot of people were breaking the law, but it was accepted with a nod and wink. Large sectors of the economy now depend on labor provided by immigrants who entered the country illegally.

Republicans should also realize that these immigrants are coming to the country in pursuit of the American dream as our own ancestors did. Immigrants come to this country because opportunities are not good in their homelands. They come here to provide for their families and to make a better life, just as the English, Irish, Germans, and multitudes of others did since the birth of America.

The dilemma is that the needs of the economy must be squared with the need for national security in the post-9/11 world. The border must be secured to prevent the infiltration of terrorists, but legal immigration should be encouraged. In no case should otherwise law-abiding immigrants be deported simply for entering the country illegally or for something as simple as a traffic infraction. The idea of splitting up families and deporting parents or children is not something that a pro-family party should endorse.

Stories abound of illegal immigrants like Jose Castro, arrested in Hall County, Ga. for fishing without a license and threatened with deportation. In another Georgia case, Jessica Colotl was a college student arrested for driving without a license in Atlanta. After the arrest, Colotl, a Kennesaw State University student, was revealed to have entered the U.S. illegally as a ten-year-old. These cases make Republican immigration hardliners look heartless. Worse, it pushes millions of voters into the arms of President Obama and the Democrats.

The obvious solution is to allow migrants to enter the country on work visas. Illegal immigrants who are here already should be allowed to stay provided that they register with the government and pay a fine. They should not be granted amnesty or citizenship, but the right to work legally is something that both the immigrants and employers need. It would also be a boon to the government by bringing part of the underground economy into the light where it can be taxed and regulated.

It is simply not realistic to expect immigrants already in this country, many of whom already own homes or businesses, to return to their native countries before being able to obtain legal status. In many cases, the illegal aliens came here at such a young age that they have no real connection to their so-called homelands and don’t even speak the language there. A solution that is so draconian as to be unworkable is not a solution at all. If the solution is too harsh, illegal immigrants will simply remain in the shadows.

It should be easier for immigrants to come to the U.S. legally. It has long been noted that the U.S. is suffering a “brain drain” of university students who come to the U.S. to study but are unable to stay here to work. These students with science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) degrees then go abroad to work for competitors of U.S. companies. This is causing a shortage of technical workers in the U.S. Foreign STEM graduates don’t take jobs from Americans because very few Americans pursue these types of degrees.

If it weren’t for the immigration controversy, Republicans might get more votes from minority voters as well. Many immigrants tend to be socially conservative. According to a Pew poll, foreign born Hispanics tend to be much more conservative than their U.S. born counterparts. Many Hispanics also tend to be pro-life and strongly oppose same-sex marriage. They also tend to be very religious and religious voters tend to favor the GOP. Likewise, Asian voters have many reasons to lean Republican as well, but have not done so in recent elections.

It is extremely likely that the next four years of Barack Obama will prove as disastrous for immigrants and minorities as they will for the rest of the population. The 2012 election should underscore the fact that many people need more than an economic reason to cast a ballot for a Republican. They need to feel that they aren’t hated.

Republicans can reach out to the immigrant and minority communities by taking the initiative on immigration reform. Immigration languished on President Obama’s backburner for more than three years until he needed Hispanic votes for the election. He has very little credibility on the issue, but Republicans have even less. They might be able to change that by promoting common sense reforms that work for both immigrants and businesses.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/resolution-for-republicans-find-sensible-immigration-policy?cid=db_articles