Former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin pushed back against the narrative that Republicans can only win if they win more Hispanic votes by voting for immigration amnesty. Palin points out that Mitt Romney lost in 2012 because working class Americans (Reagan Democrats) stayed home.
The former Republican vice presidential nominee reminded Republicans on Sunday in her Breitbart News piece [here] that these working class Americans are the voters who, despite their dislike of Obama, sat out the 2012 election because they did not think Mitt Romney was one of them or would fight for them.Stephen Bannon and Tony Lee point to Byron York's analysis that even had Romney won 70% of the Hispanic vote he still would have lost in 2012.
"These would be the same blue-collar working class voters of every ethnicity who chose to sit home in 2012 instead of turning out to vote in the swing states we needed to carry in order to stop Barack Obama’s promised 'fundamental transformation' of America," Palin wrote. "I note this just as a helpful reminder to those who believe the hyperventilated new hype claiming that conservatives need to support this bill in order to win future elections. That’s 100% wrong."
Romney needed less than 400,000 votes to win in 2012. But, according to a Center for Immigration Studies report 4.7 million fewer whites (4.2 million of them without a college education) voted in 2012 than in 2004. These non-voters include the Reagan Democrat profile.
Bannon and Lee conclude:
For Republicans to win back the majority and the presidency, they need to win the so-called Reagan Democrats and a new generation of working class minorities who will have to become Reagan Democrats 2.0. They need to win over the father who got laid off from his manufacturing job and has a child who did everything society said to do--go to college, get a degree, find a decent-paying job in the technology industry--and now may meet the same fate his father did when the labor market is flooded with an influx of cheap immigrant labor brought to do jobs Americans supposedly do not want to do.Palin understands and appreciates those in the working class and their contribution to America's greatness as well as to Reagan's conservative electoral success.
Not afraid to call to task those she supported in 2010 who have flip-flopped on the necessity for border security before legalization, Palin calls for primary challenges for Marco Rubio and Kelly Ayotte who changed their position from 2010 campaign promises and voted for the immigration bill.
On Tuesday, Palin fired back, specifically mentioning to Breitbart News that she would like to see Rubio (R-FL) and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) primaried for turning their back on voters and supporting the Senate's amnesty bill even though they promised they would put border security before amnesty while campaigning in 2010.
“Conservatives are getting ready for the 2014 and 2016 primaries. We have long memories, and there will be consequences for those who break campaign promises and vote for this amnesty bill," Palin told Breitbart News. "Competition makes everyone work harder, be better, and be held accountable. This applies to politics, too. No one is ‘entitled’ to anything."
She continued, "Rigorous debate in competitive primaries allows candidates the opportunity to explain their flip-flops. So think of contested primaries as a win-win for politicians and their voters."
"Every politician should be held accountable for breaking their campaign promises," Palin said to John Gibson on Fox News radio on Tuesday. "They turned their back on the American public, so why should they not be held accountable?"Palin also hints at the demise of the Republican Party:
4 comments:
Good to see her calling them out, but she's only partially correct in regard to the last election: while many did sit it out, it was the kids who elected Obama. The 18 to 30 year-olds pushed Obama over the top; he lost the over-30 year-old crowd by 2 million votes.
As always, it's the kids who are the problem; they view Democratics as hip and cool, and the GOP as pro-establishment big bucks - an image that the GOP's selection of Mittens merely reinforced. In so doing, they alienated the Reagan Democratics and lent credence to the kids' perceptions.
Again, a glitch in Blogger comments. Here's a comment from Max Redline that came to my e-mail but didn't make it online:
Good to see her calling them out, but she's only partially correct in regard to the last election: while many did sit it out, it was the kids who elected Obama. The 18 to 30 year-olds pushed Obama over the top; he lost the over-30 year-old crowd by 2 million votes.
As always, it's the kids who are the problem; they view Democratics as hip and cool, and the GOP as pro-establishment big bucks - an image that the GOP's selection of Mittens merely reinforced. In so doing, they alienated the Reagan Democratics and lent credence to the kids' perceptions.
Posted by MAX Redline to Terrance this is stupid stuff at 6/29/2013 12:45 PM
Max, my own theory was that Obama excited his base, and the liberals wildly over performed in turn out by about 19%. Meanwhile, conservatives as usual under performed by about 12%. Interestingly, in the last three presidential elections conservatives performed best in 2008 (under performing by less than 8%). The Palin factor?
[http://terrancethisisstupidstuff.blogspot.com/2012/11/liberal-turnout-was-difference-in-2012.html]
However, certainly the young were a big factor in Obama's win.
Again, I wonder if the Obamacare $100/mo extra in health care fees they will have to pay (or the fine) will be a voter education experience for them.
Agreed, TD - it's amazing that conservatives (so-called, anyway) so often sit on their hands come voting time. And the bump was doubtless attributable to the Palin influence; who could possibly have been enthused with McRINO himself?
It'll be interesting to see if implementation of Obamacare stirs hearts and minds.
Post a Comment