When they say why, it becomes understandable. "I came here with $7.23 in my pocket and didn't even speak the language. I'm making a living. Get off welfare and get a job."
The Dems are painted as the party of handouts and the handouts torque the immigrants off. The immigrants are working extremely hard,sending money home to their families and so on.
Oh, wait…
A lot of hispanics voted for Trump in this election.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/14/florida-latinos-dis...
Pretty sure Hispanics can think for themselves, with factual references at hand. I believe the linked article paints them in an unfairly gullible light, while it does nothing to discredit what it claims as being conspiracy theories. They point to current developments happening in their home countries, only becoming discreditable 'theories' because of the absurdity in which they are framed (in the article).
To name an example, The Open Foundation (associated with philanthropist Soros) has been funding parties and congresspeople all over S.A. who are looking to advance certain social causes. This is part of funding declarations by the recipients, and since it's not unlawful, and not a secret, it's not a conspiracy; and since it's not fiction, it's not a theory (in the sense of supposition). One of such causes is the decriminalization of abortion, an issue that's been traditionally (fiercely) opposed.
Considering Trump's aim to defund Planned Parenthood, and the appointment of a fitting (Catholic) judge to the Supreme Court, couldn't they not lean towards him in this aspect on the grounds of a proven track record, rather than just propaganda?
We should all be so lucky to "fail" that badly...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...
That sounds like you believe parties don't always adjust to the electorate. No major party can have a platform that doesn't allow them to get a majority of the vote. So if demographics means the country becomes liberal, then so do both parties. That doesn't mean the conservative party isn't the more conservative one. It might mean that they want single payer healthcare or, for example.
That’s patently false: one Republican president in 28 years has been elected with a majority of the vote.
On the local level, gerrymandering and vote suppression are both tactics to get around the need to appeal to a majority, and the GOP has embraced both.
If it weren't winning the presidency, it would be compelled to be more competitive. No major party exists nationally without winning presidential elections.
Republicans will become a minority party with no power at all. Democrats will get mad that there are Republicans on the ballot, so the rules will be changed to allow two Democrats on the ballot, a progressive one and a "liberal"/moderate one (and no Republican). This allows progressive policies to continue, and the legislature ends up being a supermajority mix of progressive Democrats and liberal Democrats, with some useless Republicans from a few low-population counties.
There's absolutely no reason the US won't follow this same pattern: it works.
(You can also see the Democratic Party's progressive/liberal split today with the DSA. That's just the CA dynamic going national.)
Also why would that happen? There are tons of republicans in California. Obviously, California republicans running for state offices should have a platform that might resemble a D platform. Because as I said - you adjust to the elctorate. What parties stand for isn't written in stone. Parties that think it is will become irrelevant. Annd no, not because they are banned from running.
If they bothered to break democracy, why hold elections at all? There is no legitimacy coming from a one party election. Multi party and ranked choice I hope will bring some sanity to the system.
Republicans work about as hard keeping more right-associated candidates off the ballot (e.g. libertarians).
CA voters approved the change. Who's being divisive here? If voters want more relevant choices on the final ballot, and vote for the change, that should be fine in a Democracy.
Or maybe you prefer some other kind of rule?
I thought you were speculating about what a party would do which you disagree with. If this is indeed something that happened (despite your use of future tense) I apologize.
> If voters want more relevant choices on the final ballot, and vote for the change, that should be fine in a Democracy.
If they decided to simply not have elections, because people want all D so what's the point, would that be OK in a democracy? (Answer: No, because it's not a democracy any more then).
I feel this discussion has sidetracked a bit. I think the conclusion is this: in a 2 party system, if opinions shift (due to time/demographics/fashion/talk radio...) then if both parties don't adapt, you risk ending up with a de-facto one party rule. And that's not the fault of the party that didn't need to change, but the fault of the party that needed to but didn't.
Imagine a district with the following breakdown: 35% Progressive D, 35% Liberal/moderate D, 25% Republican, 5% Other. So overall, 70% D.
CA used to mandate that on the final ballot, you got one choice per party, e.g. one D, one R, and N "Other".
Here's what would happen: the D primary would have a Progressive and a Liberal/moderate. But because Progressives were a lot more "activist", they got out and voted in the primary and their candidate would win. So the final ballot would be: Progressive D, moderate R, N "Other".
In the election, enough Liberal/moderate Ds would NOT vote for the Progressive D, so the moderate Republican kept winning, despite only being 25% of the electorate and not voting with Democrats in the legislature, even though 70% of their district were Democrats.
The change was to have the top two candidates of any party on the ballot. This resulted in a Progressive D and a Liberal/moderate D (and no R). R's (of course) vote for the Liberal/moderate D in this scenario on the final ballot, and they win (and vote with the Democrats in the legislature). This, more or less, is why Democrats have a supermajority in CA, but it's really two wings of the same party, and they have to negotiate much the same way that Democrats and Republicans in the US Senate have to get along.
Just not in California. But it would be different federally, right?
As long as there are conservative Whites living in California in sufficient numbers, there will be a Republican Party to represent their interests—that's how a "representative democracy" is supposed to work. Republicans lose when there aren't enough Whites with conservative beliefs to elect them, and win when there are enough.
Republicans today remind me of the Confederacy in a lot of ways, and I expect them to fade away over time in a similar manner. The US can no longer support an effectively White-only national party.
I think this is a gross oversimplification (and demonstrably false if you look at some other countries), but OK, for the sake of argument let's say that one party represents one core demographic. Then one of these is true: 1) their core demographic is a majority or 2) they can attract enough share from other demographics without alienating their core demographic. or 3) they are, and should be a minority party.
I think a big part of the problem is that the US is a big and diverse place politically, so having parties with a huge national identity like the donkey and elephant is always problematic at the edges. R's simply have to attract more minority voters, more women voters, more young voters etc.
> I expect them to fade away over time in a similar manner. The US can no longer support an effectively White-only national party.
Well they will adapt or fade away. That of course goes for any political party, anywhere. A party can't please everyone. But it also can't perfectly please only a tiny core base. They need to broaden their support. But are they capable of that? It's like they think that "Attract voters from demographic X" means "Tell people in demographic X how good Republican policy is". What it should mean is actually change policy to attract that demographic.
Now: this state discussion misses a big point with the US political climate and it's that the divide isn't really between states, nor mostly between demographics like age or ethnicity, but between city and rural. I honestly don't quite understand why that divide is so pronounced.