More readers respond to The Many Deaths of the GOP http://www.vdare.com/election.htm


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 http://www.vdare.com/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