This bit from Jim Geraghty might shed some light on why so many Republicans are reluctant to alienate hispanic voters:
There are, in some circles, this insistence that “if we Republicans want to win again, we just need to do what Ronald Reagan did†as if 30 years hadn’t passed since Reagan’s last electoral victory. (If you plug Reagan’s winning percentages among various demographics into the 2012 electorate, Reagan loses.)
It might also explain why they want to run Jeb, as his brother managed to peel off a good big of the Hispanic vote from the Dems. Personally, rather than the mindless pandering the establishment GOP seems to like, I think the solution is “libertarian populism,” as it’s being called; basically railing against crony capitalism going after big corporations that buy favors and protection from government reduce competition in the marketplace. You can read more about that in Glenn Reynolds latest USA Today column.
But is that transferable to Jeb?
Also Jeb has some unique problems given the while dynastic-retread angle.
And if it comes down to Bush versus Clinton: the Sequel. Well… people can hold their nose and vote for the “historic” one of the two.
What makes anyone think that being anti ILLEGAL immigration puts off “Hispanics”?? I’m in TEXAS and the majority of the construction workers here have green cards and they DO NOT make “less” than anybody. Hell most of them make more than I do (I work for the local govt inspecting the work they do) and nobody is going to do stone work or concrete work for $3 an hour unless they are picked up at the local Home Depot. This is more “don’t make the independents made” BS from Rove. And Rove represents Chamber of Commerce that THINKS they can get illegals to work for less. ALL BS! Rove is in it for HIS PAYCHECK! Fuck him.
What makes anyone think that being anti ILLEGAL immigration puts off “Hispanics�
I think that depends on whether Hispanics see appeals to “illegal immigration” as based on practical issues like economics, or just as dog-whistles for racism. A little of both are represented in the debate. It is less important what the actual percentages are (and sometimes the participants themselves don’t know) than what Hispanics perceive those percentages to be. A very small slip of the tongue can convince a large percentage of persuadable Hispanics that a candidate is a dog-whistler.
Yes. You can’t make your arguments in such a way that makes them think they are not wanted here. Border security is a national security issue in this age of terrorism, and restricting immigration is a basic jobs and wages issue: the economy just can’t support unfettered immigration, etc. The problem is, there are a lot of people on our side who don’t want hispanics here because they are prejudiced against them as a whole.
Another hazard I failed to mention is, if the folks motivated by race like the candidate too much, no matter how pragmatic and defensible his positions on immigration may be, that is going to make Hispanics uneasy. It is unfortunate that a candidate can become defined by who his biggest fans are.