the evangelical branch converted back to Democrats?

I have my opinions which you can probably guess but I'm interested to hear others.

The Republican Party was started by Evangelical Progressives and would implode without em.

And I'm not one, nor do I have much use for em.

Sure would be good for the REAL Conservative parties out there though.

It began as a coalition of anti-slavery "Conscience Whigs" and Free Soil Democrats opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, submitted to Congress by Stephen Douglas in January 1854. The Act opened Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory to slavery and future admission as slave states, thus implicitly repealing the prohibition on slavery in territory north of 36� 30′ latitude, which had been part of the Missouri Compromise. This change was viewed by Free-Soil and Abolitionist Northerners as an aggressive, expansionist maneuver by the slave-owning South.

The Act was supported by all Southerners and by Northern "Doughface" (pro-Southern) Democrats, and by still other northern Democrats persuaded by Douglas' doctrine of "popular sovereignty". In the North the old Whig party was almost defunct. The opponents were intensely motivated and began forming a new party.[1]

The new party went well beyond the issue of slavery in the territories. It envisioned modernizing the United States � emphasizing giving free western land to farmers ("free soil") as opposed to letting slave owners buy up the best lands, expanded banking, more railroads, and factories. They vigorously argued that free-market labor was superior to slavery and the very foundation of civic virtue and true republicanism � this is the "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" ideology.[1]

You guys should kick us out at then next stop! No worries here!

Well, since they historically make up 20%-23% of the electorate, roughly 25-30 million votes, it would eternally kill the Republican party.

America would be perpetually under Democrat rule.

The Founders were big fans of them. See my signature...

you should consider what you gain as well though.

For example - single women voters represent 25% of the electorate and reproductive rights are the #1 voting motivation for them to turn out to the polls. Even if you don't think you'd get the single women vote, historically the only time this group turns out to vote in large numbers is when they think pro-choice is threatened.

17% of the overall electorate describe themselves as socially moderate and fiscally conservative and 60% of independents say they are not aligned with a party because they agree with the Republicans on some things, such as the economy and national security, and with the Democrats on social issues.


food for thought

What would the Republican party look like if....the Tea Party pulls out...

what it looked like when McCain /Palin got their ass handed to them?

You assume those groups would side with Republicans.

Democrats have done more harm to each of those causes and yet they still side with them.

Consider blacks. Democrats have enslaved and impoverished them, yet they support them with 95%+ of the vote.

Also, the female vote is split pretty evenly. Reproductive issues are NOT their #1 concern. That's a bs ruse sold by liberals.

Young, single women are somewhat concerned about that and vote Democrat. They are also very anti gun and liberal across the board. Married women vote overwhelmingly Republican and tend to understand how the world works.

I didn't say the women vote in general - I said single women, which is not a ruse by the liberals - Romney won the married vote by 7%, but he lost the single women vote by 36%.


I'm not assuming they will vote Republican, I'm assuming that many of these people that are driven to vote democratic will not be if the GOP softens their stance.

I dunno about parties & voting blocs. I'm either not smart enough, or more likely just too disinterested, to figure it out.

I just wonder what the country will look like if/when everyone starts thinking & behaving like adults, who will at least entertain the notion of responsibility.

Think of the possibilities.

FC

Independs are split as well. You provide an example of a portion of the independent vote.

They are driven to vote democratic because they are liberal.

They are anti gun, pro environmental, pro animal rights, and so on. Name any liberal ideal and single women are strongly behind it.

but you are saying that 20-30% of the christian electorate all vote republican?

that split the vote thing works both ways

The first thing thrown out in any tyranny in history is religion.

Consider why.

Yep! They make up 50% of Republicans.

Would any party survive if half of its electorate switched teams?

I'm not sure of the relevance of that.

No one is talking about doing away with religion. We're talking about changing the platform planks of a party so it can be competitive in a run for the white house.

KFWA is talking evangelical Christians NOT the traditional/conservative Christians of the Founding Fathers. Evangelical Christianity did not come into play until the very early 1800's.

However, you are right that the Republican Party would go down the tubes if the evangelical Christian left the party as evangelicals make up 50% of the party. Evangelical Christians will never leave the party as they have no where else to go.

Not doing away with religion, just removing its voice in politics.

Losing 50% of your electorate to the other side would not make you remotely competitive.

You won't get anywhere near that from independents.

so 20-30% of the electorate makes up 50% of the GOP?

good grief, no wonder they can't win the white house. They need that % to drop noticeably.

Unless, of course, it's a tyranny by a religious cult (Iran, for example).

53% of voters in 2012 consider themselves christian, approximately 75% voted red. Mostly GOP and independents.

Gop made up 29% of the electorate in 2012 and is reportedly down to 25% now.

Independents are up to a record high 42%.

Teaparty christians are already baling on the GOP and turning independent.

The GOP is headed for ruin under the leadership and direction of Rove and the like.

Kent

It's no secret here that I believe religion does have a rightful place in politics. Culture matters imo.

That said, my stance, and the stance that most evangelicals hold is that social matters are not the role of the federal government, but it is the role of the states.

We don't care if NY legalized abortion. We just want the right for Alabama to ban it.

We don't care if California redefines marriage to include same sex couples, we just don't want their definition to be forced on us.

We do believe that there should be a national moral standard, but we believe that it would arise from the states being free to make their own social laws.

...they looked in the mirror to find out why they've failed so miserably INSTEAD OF blaming everyone else and everything else under the sun for their failures.

The same group of people that give lip service to 'personal responsibility' don't want to take ANY responsibility as a group for their failure as a party.

My inner TRH.

+1

Allow me to make a correction to my statement.

Insert "free exercise of religion"

Yup, I would say that number is right. It certainly was when I sat on the country Republican Central Committee.

Also why I'm a registered conservative, not a registered republican

You may not care but most evangelicals want social matters defined at the federal level and made into federal law.

For some reason folks think the GOP makes up 50% of voters because Romney gets 48% of the vote, or Bush got 51%.

Dems 31%, repubs 25% and independents 42%.

It's just that dems and repubs give us our candidates.

Elections can still be won obviously... with the right candidate.

Kent

The Republicans here in Montana are trying to close the Republican primary to registered Republicans only which I favor. If this comes about I'll have to register as a Republican.

No offense Tim, but you're a pagan and not among the evangelical people. I am. Evangelicals fear too much federal power in anything. We know that if we give the feds the authority to define marriage our way, we also give them the authority to define it another way. We're not dumb.

Would we like to see everybody embrace family values as we have them? Of course! But we know that using the federal government to force that is a double edged sword.

Let's make sure we're clear here with a little translation. You're saying the #1 motivator for U.S. single women, as a demographic, to vote is to be able to kill a baby anytime and anywhere they choose?

If that's true it is obvious why this country is in such terrible shape.

I grew up in NY and it was like that there. I hated it. The party doesn't have to try to pull votes from other parties that way. It gives them too much power and no checks.

Then again, I'm not happy with ballot laws here in Alabama.

If a candidate runs as a democract or republican they need 5000 signatures to be on the ballot. If they run in any other party they need 45,000 signatures.

I think part of our problem is that the two dominant parties are just too powerful. They are out of touch because they can be.

to make it worse though, it would appear Republicans are so intent on addressing it as a platform plank, that they are willing to give up a shot at the white house over it.

which is yet another reason the country is in such terrible shape.

You are the exception not the rule. Believe me, most politically active evangelicals WANT federal legislation on social issues.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act was NOT a pagan, libertarian, or liberal legislation. The legislation came from the evangelicals.

BTW: Being a Pagan has nothing to do with it. I sat on the Republican County Central Committee and I dealt with the political evangelicals and we had little in common.

Culture matters.

Social issues shape culture.

Culture provides the climate for an economy to function.

ok, lets say that's true

what good is it to keep cultural beliefs in the forefront of political ambitions if they are a boat anchor keeping you down?

I think its hard to argue that if Mitt Romney was allowed to be pro-choice, he'd be president (never mind whether you think Romney would be a good president, he was the GOP choice).

And what legislation is a pro-life president going to get passed in this country given the percentages of the electorate we've talked about? Yes, there is pro-life legislation taking place at the state level but not against the backdrop of urban centers.

its like the liberals thinking they are going to get gun legislation passed.

Don't think you can blame the Tea Party for that one. What did the Party look like when Romney/Ryan got their ass handed to them?

Reason I asked, is because I have wondered why Sarah's last best seller was aimed directly at the largest base in the Republican Party.
For sure, Sarah is a Evangelical Christian writing for her choir...so to speak...but I wonder...

I wonder what the GOP Good Old Boys would do if faced with a creditable, as in for sure, threat of losing their Evangelical base? Maybe a threat based on primary voting results?

Would the Tea Party get invited back to the next convention? Would we hear a different tune from the choir?

your question was what would it look like without the tea party. The tea party was mostly a Ron Paul collection until after that election.

I've never been to Alabama so I leave that alone.

Here in Montana in the last primary election the Republican candidates were decided, for the most part, by the Democrats.

With closed primaries, at least on the Republican side, Republicans would be selected by Republicans not by Democrats. The last thing Democrats want is libertarian Republicans. conservative Republicans, or Tea Party Republicans in the state legislature as freedom might really break out. Heavens to murgatroyd!

Tim, have you read DOMA?

It was a State's Rights bill to do exactly what I said. It was to allow State's to define marriage and prevent the federal government from doing that.

This is exactly what I mean. You are on the outside looking in and wrong.

Evangelicals have always been states rights people.

Turn around is fair play.

Lets assume I am than you evangelicals have got to do a better job of marketing your brand. That's not the marketing message I'm getting.

Oh I agree!

Kind of like the marketing libertarian's get.

You're being fed the fear mongering spin.

"Look what they did in their State! They'll do that to the whole Country! They must be stopped!"

I find it hard to believe that evangelicals are states rights people.

I bet you won't have to go too far on here to find several that claim to be evangelicals and believe at the federal level for laws supporting their views on abortion, marriage, prayer in school, etc

Here in Montana, Republicans or the independents that tend to vote Republican in primaries do not cross over and vote and vote Democrat. The Democrats are fighting the closed Republican primary tooth and nail. The Democrat primary would still be open. By the way, all other parties have closed primaries or nominate for their candidates in convention.

If the closed Republican primary does happen than only the Democrats will have an open primary.

I'm having a hard time believing evangelicals are states rights people too. There is this thing called the national Republican Party Platform.

I would counter that most people here fall within the evangelical value group and those calling for what you point out are the exception not the norm here just as they are in the larger group. Very vocal nonetheless.

Like poachers being hunters. Poachers get the press.

The confederacy had a national platform too.

I for one wish the states would reclaim the power that they forfeited to the federal government years ago. That would fix a lot of this mess.

Which begs the question of what would the GOP do without the Tea Party? And/or the Evangelicals?
A real threat of total destruction by a coalition of Conservatives.

Who would blink first?

It is going to take a real threat of destruction to save the GOP.

To add...shots are being fired already...
Sen. Ted Cruz on Thursday took a thinly veiled shot at Jeb Bush, saying that Republicans will ensure a Hillary Clinton presidency if they run a more moderate candidate in 2016.

Appearing on CNBC, the Texas Republican and tea party favorite was asked about Bush and said that presidential candidates from the party�s establishment wing � like Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2008 and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in 2012 � consistently fail to turn out millions of voters.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/ted-cruz-jeb-bush-hillary-clinton-112349.html#ixzz3HdzV01Xh

its been a good discussion - I appreciate your comments

I really appreciate you sharing how things work there because Montana is at the top of the list of places that I'm considering relocating to.

Are the other parties closed due to State law?

I don't know about a national platform but they had a constitution. But what's that got to do with anything?

The national Republican Party platform is evangelical driven, not Pagan or libertarian driven.

You and I have come down on the opposite side of many a debate but you've never once made it personal. I've always respected that about you.

honestly I don't think there are too many degrees of separation from the version of the tea party now and the evangelicals.

My idea of the tea party is it is comprised of people that are mad at the Republican party for not being "republican" enough which in their mind is more evangelical, more hawkish, more small government (and to be honest , their idea of small government is just doing away with what they don't like and building up what they do like)

There won't be a "tea party" candidate that doesn't align with the evangelicals

Nope. The other parties are closed by choice. The Democrats and Republicans in the pass had legislation passed to open the primaries so a law is needed to close those parties primaries.

Of course, way back in the day there were no other parties but the Democrats and Republicans. At one time big business ran both the Democrats and the Republicans so opening the primaries probably seemed like a good idea. Now not so much.

I think you have it nailed down shut.

To add...shots are being fired already...
Sen. Ted Cruz on Thursday took a thinly veiled shot at Jeb Bush, saying that Republicans will ensure a Hillary Clinton presidency if they run a more moderate candidate in 2016.

Appearing on CNBC, the Texas Republican and tea party favorite was asked about Bush and said that presidential candidates from the party�s establishment wing � like Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2008 and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in 2012 � consistently fail to turn out millions of voters.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/ted-cruz-jeb-bush-hillary-clinton-112349.html#ixzz3HdzV01Xh

I guess the whole point of this discussion is

can the GOP win with its current configuration?

some people will give you a resounding yes pointing to just a couple of percentage point changes in one state or another and Obama wouldn't have won his second term, or maybe they'll take solace in the GOP winning the mid terms

I just happen to believe that the GOP will not win the white house because there are too many people out there that will vote against a GOP platform until a GOP candidate specifically spells out they aren't going to push morality or cut social programs.

Now some folks may say "what's the point of being a republican then" and there is some truth to that but I don't see a path to the white house for a republican unless that changes.

Some people dog the libertarians for supporting a guy they know will lose based on priciple, and to be honest, I don't see much difference in the republicans at this point.

5% points or 45% points - a loss is still a loss.

It's less and less evangelically driven. As a matter of fact many of us feel that the Republican party has become hostile to us. Thus why we are leaving them more and more, just like krp stated. Just like why I left them.

That said, a National Platform define's the party as a whole right down to your local level. While things like defending traditional marriage is a part of that platform, so is defending the 10th amendment.

Defending traditional marriage has always been a 10th amendment thing for evangelicals.

We believe that the first, second, and tenth amendments are the only things protecting our (evangelical) way of life.

I think a candidate that is evangelical and constitutional, extolling the 10th amendment, would be very very effective.

well, I think Cruz is right on that.

The libertarians have been saying that for both elections.

The ? is - does Cruz have the silver bullet figured out on how to bring down a popular Democratic candidate like Hillary?

I think you are right. Here in Montana the vote for the house and senate is coming down to the gun vote.

The senate Democrat candidate is so anti-gun that I don't think she stands much of a chance of getting the senate.

The house is a toss up on the gun vote.

Without the gun vote the Democrats would win both houses in a cake walk.

If the Rs would stick to low/flat taxes, smaller government, and strong national defense, they'd win. The culture war crap kills them.

The Tea Party has no use for Republicans and vice versa. The Tea Party is 90% + Libertarian.

I think Obama would have to be a serious boat anchor to Hillary like Bush was to McCain.

And if things remain status quo - Hillary will come in on a stabilized economy with unemployment below 5.7%, gas prices tolerable and people able to get loans on cars and houses again.

Its going to be a tough fight for Republicans to stand up and say we won't repeat the Bush years.

And BTW, the Republicans are whores just like the Democrats...they just dress better.....

I don't think I'll ever live long enough to see a Republican in the WH.

I think Hillary's popularity is falling.

That last sound bite will really hurt her.

"Don't let anyone tell you that corporations and businesses create jobs."

"You didn't build that" hurt Obama but I think Hillary has too much dirt and too many offensive sound bites to win.

I fear that opens the door to a moderate republican more though. That's frustrating.

I'd have to disagree with you on that.

They may *think* they are libertarian leaning, but just because you say you want smaller government and less taxes doesn't make you libertarian.

A very high % of those people would bail and vote old guard GOP the moment Rand Paul starts talking about not funding Israel, closing military bases, privatizing various government functions and cutting government funding on education, epa and HUD.

yea, that was dumb on her part.

I agree!

Culture matters, that's a fact, but emphasizing what resonates with everybody like you put up, while not ostracising values is a winning combination.

The man that can articulate conservatism as a role of government would win, solidly.

Cruz is dead center right, but I don't think at this time, he can win those voters we have been talking about.

Things may change, Cruz is just about the sharpest tool in the shed, but all those Christians lined up in the snow drifts to buy Palin's book...just sayin'

If a democrat had the economy melt on him and fight 2 wars at the same time like it happened under Bush, there would be a Republican being elected. Americans would have elected Richard Simmons over whatever party presided over that mess. Heck that mess even hurt Hillary as people felt she was too hawkish - and her close ties to supporting the war made her seem like she was old guard with Bush and McCain.

but its safe to say the GOP has a bigger hill to climb, even with all things being equal in the election. The numbers just aren't there for them like they are for Democrats. And its only going to get worse as Latino's come on board

They are going to have to change something - opinions vary on what that something is

Completely agree




Tough, yes.

But I think guys like Cruz and Rand present a distinct enough difference to sell it. They can articulate that difference.

yes they can to the nation, but it comes back to the old quandary that Romney faced - I can run to win the white house or I can run to win the GOP primary - but those are two different campaigns.

Misleading statistic.

Remove single black women, who make up the majority of single women voters and let me know how they vote.

This is just like the bullshyt the media tried to pull in 2008 and 2012, by claiming that "women voters" voted for Obama.

The reality was that White Women voted overwhelmingly for Romney 56% to 42%, but the media relentlessly attempted to claim Women voted for Obama. The truth is 96% of black women voted for Obama, which overwhelmed the "women voter" demographic.

The truth is that those looking for handouts now outnumber those that desire to work for a living. The Republican party does not have a message problem, it get's the vote of real American men and women.

The only way the Republican party can change the dynamic is to get into a competition with the Democratic party, as to who can give away more free stuff.

A largely religious group.

Free eats > Catholicism

Well if you line up the Tea Party �not negotiable� platform and the Libertarian platform they are almost exact.
If Tea Party members, Conservatives and Libertarian�s whine if those cuts you mentioned happen then they don�t belong in any of the three movements.
We are either going to get Government out of our business, schools, wallets and the like�.or we are not.
Now personally I believe the whiners and takers will win out and we continue to ride the e-ticket all the way to a collapse that will make 29 look like a picnic.

True. They are despised by the Republican establishment.

I fear a repeat of Thad. Where establishment members funded anti McDaniel ads.

Well the good news is Rand Paul isn't going to do that- He wants to be President, not principled.

Eh, latinos are not afraid of hard work. They just come from a world where government is the source of wealth, they don't know differently so they support government.

Once they learn that it's their hard work that generates wealth and government steals from them, that can change.

The question is will they ever learn that lesson?

Looking at what Democrats have done to blacks, I have my doubts.

Do you think that's strategy or do you think he had really abandoned his principles?

Honestly, I can't tell.

I don't question their work ethic.

Mexicans don't vote with Catholicism, they vote for an open border and government handouts. The proof is in who they vote for.

What are the major platforms of the Democratic party?

Pro Choice
Open Borders
Government handouts
Global warming

Which of those platforms are main tenants of the Catholic religion?

So the reality is that they do not vote as a religious group, they vote as one looking for an open border, free education, free healthcare and government services.

Do you think the Democratic party would sell those issues, if they didn't think that's what Mexicans were looking for?

You have to look at this as supply and demand. Mexican's didn't flock to the Democrat party because they give two shyts about global warming and abortion, now did they?

The Democrat party tailored it's sales pitch to the 34 million Mexicans it wants to join it's party.

I can't argue that. Well done.

he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

honestly, he watched first hand what happened to his father and understands that there are some lines in the sand you don't draw - Ron Paul would stand up in front of millions of people knowing full well what he said was going to piss 'em off, cost him votes and kill his chances at the presidency. You had to ask at the point - is he serious about being president? I loved the man for being on the only honest politician on the stage, but I hated that he'd knowingly walk into the valley of political death every debate.

Rand is serious about being president.

Is Rand a trojan horse? The people that fear he is still a prodigy of his daddy think so and have said that if it looks like he is a front runner, they are going to empty the war chest out to prevent it from happening.

in the next election are single black women not allowed to vote ? otherwise, I'm not sure how that is a misleading statistic.

Pity.

There are a few conservative mouthpieces out there that I'd vote for. He is one of them.

They voted black more than voting woman.

either way they are voting democrat unless something changes on the GOP side.

What he said in spades


And I do believe when that happens we will get more govt not less


We will be pretty much saying goodbye to the concept of all men are created equal


IMO only hope for a return to constitutional law is rebellion & or succession

Bout as likely as me growing another foot taller

If history is any indication we are seeing the beginning of the end

Nah, they are voting democract because they are liberal.

Should republicans become more liberal?

Had a guy in english comp class this morning give a presentation on what his research paper will be.

He is writing how capitalism is akin to zombies. Lifeless, thoughtless, and full of rot. The girls thought it was a great idea! The professor, a single girl, no older than 25, who wrote her masters thesis on feminism, praised him.

Now, how would dropping abortion or marriage change their views and pull their vote?

It won't. They are liberals and embrace all things liberal.

The class is on how classic monsters are products of the culture they were invented in.

Naturally, my paper will be on the terror of tyranny.

Absolutely, but it is far more intellectually honest to identify that black women voted for Obama, instead of attempting to paint all women as traitors.



Let's look at this another way.

10 people from Ohio show up at a party, 1 is gay.

10 people from Michigan show up at the same party, 2 are gay.

20 people from Illinois show up, all 20 are gay.


Someone later says "most mid-westerners are gay".

Is that an accurate or misleading statement?

thats apples and oranges.

I firmly believe that majority of single women voters voted for Obama.

If you're saying that will change ( as in they will vote in noticeably different % for the republican over the democrat) then that is a point of discussion, but statistically they vote as a whole for the democrat

so I don't see the need to address race or locale

Right.

Evangelical principles weren't the issue either.

It comes down to liberals being liberal.

I don't define dropping the attempt to legislate morality as more liberal.

I don't think it should be a conservative platform period

The idea is among many is you *aren't* a conservative unless you push a pro-life, anti-gay marriage agenda. If that changed, then that swings many more voters in the camp of Republican.

if that's the case, then we proved that Latinos will not be voting republican, and that single women will not be voting republican

the republican party should just disband now.

They aren't voting conservative either.

If a conservative actually runs, maybe we'd find out.

Republicans got their a$$es handed to them in the last two presidential elections by the worst president we've ever had since I've been alive. And still, they vigorously defend their losing strategies...and vow to continue their losing strategies.

Those that embrace marxism can't also embrace conservatism

I'm sure we all have seen the recent video's showing black men telling their peers what horrendous damage the democrat party has done to their race.

Of course, the facts of this destruction are irrefutable and clearly detailed.

I've seldom seen such presentations and it appears they are getting more prolific.


Should these truthful declarations get traction, it could change the shape of politics in this country, and the climate in this country, for a long time.

I know it may seem like a long shot to many, but I wonder. Truth is a powerful thing and can be used as a powerful weapon in the right hands. For this truth and theses circumstances, those hands have to be Black.

Everyone understands there is an unsettling malaise in this country of apprehension due to racial hatred and fear. Also, a huge concern for many regarding the way politics are playing out. Both have contributed to growing polarization and people talking past each other, rather than to each other to air differences, gain understanding, and achieve resolution.

I also believe it's clear that the current administration has no intention to resolve these problems, but chooses to exacerbate them for their own purposes and gains. They would be better served, in their demented minds, by a revolution than a solution.

So I would rather concern myself with what the GOP would look like with more, many more, groups identifying with it than being cast out from it, and what it will take to make that happen.

They'll run, but the country will never get a chance to vote for them. The RNC and Wall Street will see to that.

Very true, and that says about all that needs to be said for the GOP does it not?

Nixon said something to the affect that you run to the right to win the primary, you runt to the left to win the general, and you government from the middle. That seemed to work for him but I don't know if that's valid today.

Nixon never won as big as Reagan did. There is your blue print as to how to do it again.

The 2010 election proved we still have the numbers, the demographic numbers to do it again.

You can have conservative Marxists within the context of Marxism.

Not even a Reagan blueprint will work today.

Because you'd rather just hang your hat on misleading claims, instead of finding the truth.

I took the time to do the math. All of the statistics are out there, it just takes a calculator and a willingness to not parrot what MSN and CNN tell you.

In the 2012 election:

67% of unmarried women voted for Obama.

Of the 67% that voted for Obama, 52.24% were women of color.
47.76% of that 67% were white.

Thus:
31% of unmarried women were white and voted for Obama.
31% of unmarried women were white and voted for Romney.
35% of unmarried women were of color and voted for Obama.
2% voted for other candidates.

As predicted, you were wrong and misleading.

In an election where nearly 60% of whites voted against Obama and 93% of Blacks voted for Obama, to ignore race is foolish and ignorant.

The 2010 election proved we still have the numbers, the demographic numbers to do it again.

It starts anew next week.

posted Hot Air on October 30, 2014
CBS poll: GOP lead in generic Congressional ballot similar to final 2010 poll

THAT is CBS talking!

Sure.

using your numbers I still don't see where you think I'm wrong. 31% of single white women voted for Obama, 31% voted for Romney.

Are you saying the 31% of single white women that voted for Obama would vote for a more hard core conservative than Romney?


other wise, my statement stands

the majority of single women voted for Obama and would likely vote democrat in the election and race is meaningless because they'd likely vote democrat in the same numbers again.

if you think I'm being disingenuous on this, then please tell me why you think the majority of single women will vote Republican, otherwise, your protest seem like alot of wasted effort.

if 31% of white single women voted for Obama, the same % as Romney, that doesn't bode well for the next republican candidate in my eyes.

Except when republicans run as pro life, they win. When they're wishy washy, they lose.