With Friends like these … .
This analysis, and others, is probably correct that the Republicans don’t mathematically need to approve thier Histpanic vote to win national elections. That is, if the manage to get a larger portion of the “White” vote but if you consider the fact that the lost the Women’s vote (to include white women) by 20 points, and lost younger whites then it looks bad for them.
So yes please, keep taking people like Brit Hume’s advice!
“And I am absolutely convinced that this trope that you’re hearing that says that if the Republicans don’t go for immigration reform much as the Senate has done, they’ll never win another presidential election. Oh, baloney,” Hume said during an appearance on the conservative cable news channel. “If you look at the statistics, you find there was one significant bloc of voters who turned out in smaller numbers this time in a major way — way below expectations, below even their ‘08 turnout — and that was white voters. Now, that doesn’t mean that if they turned out thatRomney would have gotten them all but it shows you that this Hispanic vote, which is I think now 8.5 percent of the electorate or something like that, is not nearly as important as, still, as the white vote, which is above 70 percent.”
Hume added, “So, if you look at it from an ethnic point of view, that addresses the question of whether you need to get right with the Hispanics.”
The Republicans seem to be doing all they can to get Hillary Clinton elected in 2016 by supporting legislation that starves babies after insisting they be born and other acts of foolishness. So it is interesting that they are also - three years out from the next presidential election - starting a Stop Hillary 2016 movement.
Republicans are terrified of Hillary, and for good reason. Against their field of frauds and lackwits, Hillary strides like a Titan. Do they really expect Rand Paul to do better than looking like an errant school boy debating the former first lady and secretary of state?
Many of us look forward to it, to watching Hillary metaphorically slap Paul around. The ever-quotable Paul seems to be doing all he can today to set up his humiliating political demise tomorrow.
You would expect a poll company to say this, but my own totally anectdotal experiences with Twitter and twitter barrages during highly charged events bear this finding out. I’ve found that twitter tends to be extensively more negative and will usually either spin wildly right or left depending on issue or hashtag.
The reaction on Twitter to major political events and policy decisions often differs a great deal from public opinion as measured by surveys. This is the conclusion of a year-long Pew Research Center study that compared the results of national polls to the tone of tweets in response to eight major news events, including the outcome of the presidential election, the first presidential debate and major speeches by Barack Obama.
At times the Twitter conversation is more liberal than survey responses, while at other times it is more conservative. Often it is the overall negativity that stands out. Much of the difference may have to do with both the narrow sliver of the public represented on Twitter as well as who among that slice chose to take part in any one conversation.
A More Liberal Twitter Reaction to Some Events
In some instances, the Twitter reaction was more pro-Democratic or liberal than the balance of public opinion. For instance, when a federal court ruled last February that a California law banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional - a case that is now coming before the Supreme Court - the reaction on Twitter was quite positive. Twitter conversations about the ruling were much more positive than negative (46% vs. 8%). But public opinion, as measured in a national poll, ran the other direction: Of those who had heard about the ruling, just 33% were very happy or pleased with it, while 44% were disappointed or angry.
Despite disputing the declaration by the electoral commission that Uhuru Kenyatta won the presidential election, Prime Minister Raila Odinga has urged Kenyans to remain peaceful.
He urged Kenyans to await the decision of the Supreme Court on the election and abide by the law.
He disputed the declaration of Uhuru as President-elect, citing “massive irregularities” that marred the votes and subsequent tallying.
The CORD leader claimed there was massive tampering of the results and some figures were cooked and promised to provide evidence.
“Let the Supreme Court determine whether the result announced by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission is lawful. We are confident the court will restore the faith of Kenyans in the democratic rule if law,” Raila said.
The Premier did not indicate the day they intend to move to court but according to the Constitution, they have seven days from on Saturday when Uhuru was declared president, to file the petition. The Supreme Court will then have 14 days to hear the dispute and make a ruling.
You’ve probably moved on from the 2012 presidential election. It’s clear that the Republican Party is trying to. Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio both gave high-profile speeches Tuesday in which they showed they had learned the lessons of Mitt Romney’s loss. “Both parties tend to divide Americans into ‘our voters’ and ‘their voters,’ ” said Ryan, sounding a little bit like Barack Obama circa 2008 and nothing like Mitt Romney, who was secretly recorded telling donors that 47 percent of the country wouldn’t vote for him because they considered themselves victims. “Republicans must steer far clear of that trap.” Sen. Rubio spoke at the same dinner as Ryan. Rubio mentioned the middle class 34 times in his half-hour speech, which may qualify him for a special badge of some sort.*
Before you move on to 2016, though, there is one important trove of information about the last presidential race that was just made available. Harvard’s Institute of Politics has released the audio of last week’s Campaign Decision Makers Conference. This is the powwow of the vanquished and victorious that has taken place every four years at Harvard since 1972. The top strategists from both sides sit across vast stretches of white tablecloth and discuss the battle they just waged.
Everyone was showered, shaven, and showed the benefits of sleep they had missed for the last 18 months. Most were on the cusp of long vacations in pricey locales. As a result, mostly everyone was polite (damn it!). Still, it was informative.
Why revisit Thanksgiving when we’ve already hung half the Christmas lights? Because the shape for the final script of 2012 will determine how the participants in the 2016 conference run their races. Those of us who participated in the gathering were asked to keep our notebooks closed until Harvard posted the material. Now that it’s available to all, here are the most illuminating disclosures:
Now that the presidential election is finally over, it’s time to be blunt: The extreme nastiness of the discourse on Israel, coming mostly from those who opposed President Obama, did a great disservice to the American Jewish community. Well-funded advocacy groups, shadowy organizations and wealthy individuals poisoned the atmosphere and polarized the conversation. They resorted to fear tactics that harmed reputations and paid little heed to facts and fairness.
And it didn’t even work.
So before the next round of campaigning begins, some communal soul-searching is in order. Passionate debate is to be expected when something as significant as Israel’s future is at stake. But it’s time to say that the kind of meanness and mendacity on display this year has no home in the mainstream Jewish community.
A few examples: In March, the Emergency Committee for Israel ran a full-page (and mighty expensive) ad in The New York Times excoriating two small, liberal organizations for some things their staff members wrote. It used quotes from two Jewish leaders without their permission and out of context; both men unequivocably denounced the ad and ECI. The American Jewish Committee, also mentioned in the ad, released a statement saying it, too, was never consulted and wanted readers to know it.
This was only one of many newspaper ads, giant billboards and videos produced by ECI, which as a 501(c)4 tax-exempt organization is not obliged to disclose its donors. But we know that ECI is run by a small board that includes William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and a regular of the Sunday talk shows and Jewish events, where he presents a far more amiable persona than is evident in ECI’s handiwork.
I took the map of the 2012 Presidential election by percentage won per county generated by Mark Newman and made a huge version of it showing state borders, cities, etc.
(For the most detailed view, right click on the image and select “open image in new tab” in Chrome or “view image” in Firefox. I don’t know how the other browsers do it.)
The United States, traditionally a land of immigrants, is on the verge of historic change, with non-Caucasian Americans poised to become the majority in the coming decades. Obama’s recent victory has already shown how demographic shifts will change the political landscape.
Estrada Courts, a small housing project in eastern Los Angeles, looks about as Hispanic as half of southern California today. The symmetrical rows of low-income housing along East Olympic Boulevard, a 10-minute drive from downtown Los Angeles, are home to immigrants from Latin America, especially Mexico, but also El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
Laundry flaps in the wind on long clotheslines between the buildings, barbecue grills used to make churrasco, Latin American grilled meat, stand in front of the doors, and when school is out large numbers of children play outside. Spanish is the language they speak at home. The elaborate murals painted in bright colors on bare walls in the area tell the story, in their own way, of why Mitt Romney couldn’t win the 2012 presidential election in the United States.
Estrada Courts, a development of 414 residential units in two- and three-story row houses, was built in the 1940s, and was soon filled with war veterans and their families. The residents those days couldn’t have imagined that the walls would once be decorated with ornate images of the Virgin Mary, kitsch from the Cuban Revolution, complete with pictures of Che Guevara, and all the other brightly-colored art of Chicano painters.
Until the 1960s, the surrounding neighborhood of Boyle Heights was far more mixed and less Hispanic than it is today. Jewish immigrants lived there, as did a large Japanese community. There were immigrants from Yugoslavia, Armenia, Russia and even a few Irish.
Bit by bit, they moved away to better neighborhoods, were displaced by urban renewal projects or simply died off, leaving behind no or too few descendants, and Mexicans moved in to fill the vacuum. They came across the nearby border in growing numbers, legally or illegally, searching for a new and better home. Today, about 100,000 people live in Boyle Heights, and 95,000 of them have Hispanic roots. President Barack Obama’s reelection was decided in places like Boyle Heights.
High-level officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department were notified in the late summer that F.B.I. agents had uncovered what appeared to be an extramarital affair involving the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, David H. Petraeus, government officials said Sunday.
But law enforcement officials did not notify anyone outside the F.B.I. or the Justice Department until last week because the investigation was incomplete and initial concerns about possible security breaches, which would demand more immediate action, did not appear to be justified, the officials said.
The new accounts of the events that led to Mr. Petraeus’s sudden resignation on Friday shed light on the competing pressures facing F.B.I. agents who recognized the high stakes of any investigation involving the C.I.A. director but who were wary of exposing a private affair with no criminal or security implications. For the first time Sunday, the woman whose report of harassing e-mails led to the exposure of the affair was identified as Jill Kelley, 37, of Tampa, Fla.
Some members of Congress have protested the delay in being notified of the F.B.I.’s investigation of Mr. Petraeus until just after the presidential election. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and the chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that her committee would “absolutely” demand an explanation. An F.B.I. case involving the C.I.A. director “could have had an effect on national security,” she said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I think we should have been told.”