Originally Posted by
davekay1971
In reply to the excellent posts by devil77 and guru...
Guru: I agree there is certainly a degree to which Americans vote for, or against, candidates who look (or don't look) like them, but I think it's relatively small compared to other factors, and I'm not sure that it mattered too much with Obama. While the voter turnout among African Americans was better for him than it was for the previous two Dem nominees, the percentage of African American votes he got didn't differ much from previous presidential elections. There was an understandable enthusiasm in having the first African American president that drove the higher turnout. That might not be replicated with a female candidate driving higher turnout in women, or even a Hispanic candidate driving a higher turnout in Hispanic Americans. The African American experience in US history is unique, and therefore the reaction to having "one of our own" as a candidate may not be the same in other demographics. In addition, Obama didn't fare significantly worse with the white vote than did either of the preceding two candidates, so there wasn't much of a measurable impact of people voting against him because he didn't look like them.
Related to this, and responding also to devil77 (and thank you devil for your reply, which I also largely agreed with), there's a danger in political parties playing to group identities. The common logic now is that Republicans in general, and Conservatives especially, have an increasing demographic problem. But why should they assume that these groups are monolithic and their voting patterns locked in? People don't vote Democrat because they're women. The Democratic platform has appealed to women more in recent years because of what's in it. That leaves Republicans options: move their platform closer to the Democratic platform; alter their own platform in a way that still distinguishes them from Democrats, or keep the platform and try to make the argument in a better, more coherent, and more appealing way. The issue that most pundits say hurts Republicans with women most, for example, is reproductive rights. Okay, so do Republicans put forward a pro-choice candidate (or a modified pro-choice...ie: supporting choice up to 20 weeks but still against late term abortion, or something to that effect)? Or do they stick with their current party platform and try to emphasize their points better (a more coherent and accessible discussion of intra-uterine development, for example)? Or do Republicans simply say, "hey, we know life-at-conception is never going to become a federal law (most Republicans don't agree with it anyway), this is more of a state level issue anyway, we may try to chip away at things like late-term abortion or pain-capable child abortion, but we're really going to put all of that on the back burner and emphasize how Republican policies are going to help you, mom, make a better income, keep more of your income away from the Federal Government, get your kids in better schools, and keep you and your family safe at home, work, and school"?
I'm NOT trying to start a discussion on any particular policy issue, particularly something as divisive as reproductive rights, so please view the above paragraph entirely in the following context: My point is solely that Republicans would be mistaken to simply look at demographic blocks as set in stone, or voters within those blocks as single-issue creatures where the only way to get their vote is change platform to satisfy that issue. Are reproductive rights important to women? Absolutely. So are economics, security, etc. Is immigration reform/amnesty important to Hispanic American voters? Yep, but so are other issues.
Even with African Americans, Republicans need to get and keep a dialogue going. 50 years ago the Democrat Party flipped it's perception in the African American community, erasing a long and ugly history of supporting racist policies by focusing it's conversation instead on what government could do to help African Americans. There's an argument that Republicans can make (and many are trying to make) that the Democrat Party's initiatives over the last 5 decades have hurt African Americans more than they have helped. Republicans have a long way to go to overcome perceptions, to overcome their own mistakes, to expunge from the party the idiots who, every time they speak, validate the worst fears of African Americans. But for the Republican Party to say, well, these people, by the virtue of their skin color, will always vote Democrat, would be simplistic and racist, and would be ultimately self-defeating.
I also like Rubio's chances if he gets the Republican nomination, only partially because he probably would have a better chance of making a connection with Hispanic voters. I actually admire, and think it will ultimately help him, that he worked in a bipartisan manner on immigration reform. In addition, he has a great personal story to tell, he's articulate, and he elucidates Conservative principles in a way that is generally positive. He's not a perfect candidate, but then again, neither is any candidate for either party right now.