Republican Party ready to embrace immigrants?

[stripe66506]

Honestly, I don't think immigration policy is what causes the Latino community to support Democrats. I think that for the most part the Latin community has a more collective mindset that does not jive with the Republican ideology. When it comes to social issues they are more conservative (like us in the Black community) but this does not within itself mean they will switch to the GOP if immigration were no longer an issue.

It would behoove the GOP to find a way to repackage their message to convince the non-white, middle/low income people that their policies would work FOR them and not AGAINST them. Too often I hear conservatives here talk about those on the lower economic ladder as people wanting hand outs and not wanting to work...tell that to the abuela who workers her behind off for minimum wage but is on food stamps.

As a former Republican I actually think the GOP could re-frame themselves as the champion of the working-class (at least in front of the cameras). They actually almost pulled it off during the election... they were talking about the REAL unemployment numbers, bailouts of corporations, people not being able to find work, etc. If I were them I would increase the "class warfare" rhetoric and drop the social issues.

[stripe66506]

[stripe66506]

[wormwood]

[Dennis]

[OGPhilly]

Mod edit. -u

[Dennis]

That sounds like a generalization to me.

Either way, the "Family Values" stances we see are mostly championed by Social Conservatives, and that is based on a traditional sense of family. It doesn't mean liberals don't like families. It means that social conservatives more often have a traditional sense of family than liberals typically do, or so it seems. And, hispanics often lean toward the former.

[Professor]

Think about it for a second. For the past few election cycles, people have not been "supportive" of their own candidate. They have mostly been "anti" the other candidate (exception being 2008, when Obama had a lot of support for himself, but most McCain people were "anti-Obama"). Back in 2004, most people were "anti-Bush", not so much "pro-Kerry". Even many former Obama supporters were simply "anti-Romney", not pro-Obama. And, obviously, almost every Romney vote was an "anti-Obama" vote, not a "pro-Romney" one.

If that is even a little true, then it figures into what I'm saying. If the GOP gets rid of its social conservatism (or, tones it down by 50%), they may not get many more "pro-GOP" votes. But, the Dems will certainly lose a LOT of "anti-GOP" votes. And, if the Dems don't change in kind, then the GOP base will still vote "anti-Dem".

As some have said, there is a risk of losing the financial backing of some of the ardent GOP base. But, will those people stop giving altogether? Will they simply take their money and go home? I doubt it. They might form super-conservative PACs, but that's not wholly bad for the GOP. After all, they're still saying the same things. And, even if some of the base does take their money and leave, I would imagine that many moderates would be attracted to the party, and could be talked into making contributions.

I really don't see a downside to toning the social conservatism down.

[The Comrade]

wishful thinking on your part. you just assume people will leave the democrats and flock to republicans....why? because america is truly just a republic haven or something?

[Dennis]

He's probably talking about independents, who will go with either party.