More readers respond to The Many Deaths of the GOP http://www.vdare.com/election.htm
November 16, 2000, 04:00 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF

From: Humberto Fontova hfontova@cmq.com

The "much-touted Cuban vote" went 90% Republican, slightly better than its customary 78% Republican.

Remember, only half of the "Hispanics" in Florida are Cuban. Of course, if we use "Hispanic" literally, about 95 per cent are Cuban.

[Humberto Fontova, a frequent contributor to lewrockwell.com http://www.lewrockwell.com/fontova/fontova-arch.html, is the author of The Helldiver's Rodeo http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0871319365/vdare, which he describes as "an orgy of blood-lust, booze and lechery - about spearfishing, no less, contemporary society's most politically-incorrect endeavor."]

PB: Point taken! I meant that the Cuban vote apparently can't guarantee Florida, or even Florida's "Hispanics."


From: [Name Withheld]

I'm one of those Native Californians who fled California in 1989 to live in a part of America that was not overrun by hordes of poor immigrants from the Third World, settling in Colorado (but still missing a lot of California). It's so sad to see what's happened there since 1989.

Anyway, I appreciate your writings and would like to know if the recent election results mean that the demographic changes from untrammeled Third World immigration, which was actually predicted to occur after the 2004 general election, has happened a bit early?

How can the Republicans deal with this? Look what happened to the Republican Party and Pete Wilson after they supported Proposition 187 in California. I don't see how Republicans can take a stance against massive immigration, legal and illegal, without alienating more voters, even natives, and becoming marginalized.

I'm very concerned about this, because I believe it threatens our Constitution.

Your thoughts?

PB: [1] When Ed Rubenstein and I first projected the effect of immigration-induced demographic shift /people.htm, we asked in effect, "How long would it take before even a good Republican result is swamped?" We based our estimate on the 1988 election, when the GOP got 53% of the total vote - which was also its average over the previous six presidential elections, the highest average any party has ever achieved over so long a period. What happened in 2000 is that George W. Bush did not get that "good" result. He did worse than average even without the demographic shift. And the demographic shift made it worse.

[2] Don't start believing the other side's propaganda! PETE WILSON WON IN 1994! And Republicans did poorly among Hispanics long before that (e.g. 1988). The model for the GOP - or its patriotic successor - is the South. There, the GOP starts off with far worse demographics than in California today. But it wins overwhelmingly because it unites the white vote. As, for that matter, did Propositions 187, 209 (affirmative action) and 227 (bilingual education) in California. What's needed is not outreach, but inreach. And immigration reform. And, of course, a little courage.


From: George Mellinger melli004@gte.net

INS Fraud - the gift that keeps on giving!

November 16, 2000