(Quote) Casey-637092 said:
If we ever get America back the republicans will need the hispanic voteRomney did himself...
(Quote) Casey-637092 said:
If we ever get America back the republicans will need the hispanic vote
Romney did himself in when he suggested self deportation
Despite Latinos being predominately Catholic and sharing the conservative, family values of the republicqan platform , Romney's comments scared them , causing them to adopt tunnel vision on this one issue and thus vote scocialist
We are now as a nation in serious trouble . The utbe video " Determinators" spels out very well what obamacare will do , how much more it will cost and how it will be the flagship and lay the groundwork for the continued shredding of our constitution which starts with " we the people"
We are fast becoming a nation where the headline reads " WE THE GOVERNMENT"
I am new to this thread. I have not read I and II, and am currently within the first 10 posts in this thread. So maybe this has already been brought up. Here is the link to the article: www.numbersusa.com
Below I copied and pasted the essential part of the article.
PRO-Enforcement Romney Had Better 'Spreads' Than NON-Enforcement McCain In Most High-Hispanic States
With so much attention being given to Hispanic voting in the states, we wanted to see how such a strong pro-enforcement candidate like Romney did in the 20 states with the highest percentage of Hispanic voters.
The question on positions is not really about how a position might affect a single demographic group but what might be the overall net effect among all voters of that state.
So, we compared Romney's overall voter performance in those 20 states with that of the Republican nominee in 2008. While Romney ran as a decided PRO-enforcement candidate pushing especially for interior enforcement to keep illegal aliens from jobs and benefits, John McCain ran as a NON-enforcement candidate. He didn't oppose enforcement (like Obama), but he didn't advocate it.
What we found was that PRO-enforcement Romney significantly improved his "spread" in those high-Hispanic states, over that of NON-enforcement McCain.
For example, Obama's spread over McCain in Nevada was 12%. That means his share of the vote was 12 percentage points higher than McCain's.
But Obama's Nevada spread over Romney was 6%. The PRO-enforcement Romney improved the spread by 6 points. For whatever reasons, Romney's heavy pro-enforcement positions did not end up causing him to do worse than McCain who didn't push enforcement.
In Arizona, native-son McCain's spread over Obama was 9%. Romney's spread was 12%. So, Romney improved the GOP's Arizona spread by 3 points.
In 16 of the top 20 Hispanic states, Romney improved on McCain's spread with Obama:
Utah by 19 points
Illinois by 9 points
Kansas by 7 points
Nevada by 6 points
Connecticut by 6 points
Colorado by 5 points
New Mexico by 5 points
Washington by 5 points
Texas by 5 points
California by 3 points
Arizona by 3 points
Georgia by 3 points
Hawaii by 3 points
Florida by 2 points
Maryland by 1 point
There was no change in the spread in New York and Rhode Island. Romney's spread was worse than McCain's by 2 points in New Jersey and by 3 points in Idaho.
You may have noticed that there aren't many swing states in that list. That's because Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire and other highly competitive states have very small Hispanic electorates.
It would be foolish to conclude that Romney's pro-enforcement positions were the primary cause of his improvement over McCain. But the open-borders journalists and pundits seem to be trying to say the opposite -- that maybe Romney lost some of these states because of his pro-enforcement positions even though he actually had some significant improvements over the non-enforcement GOP candidate in the last election.
POLL SHOWS HISPANICS SUPPORT THE E-VERIFY THAT CONGRESSIONAL GOP LEADERS CONTINUE TO BLOCK