AHC: have Hispanics be a major Republican bloc

Your challenge, should you accept it, is for hispanic voters in the US to be one of the main Republican Blocs, with a POD no later than 1989.
 
The Mexican Revolution drags on much longer. By 1925 Mexico resembles modern day Somalia. When the war finally ends it is Felix Diaz (nephew of the former dictator) who emerges on top. Diaz, like his uncle, maintains very close relations with United States. Upon his death in 1945 he is replaced by his son. The reign of Felix Diaz Junior is comparable to that of Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, and Batista in Cuba. The second Mexican Revolution erupts in the late 50s As Mexicans are fed up with over 75 years of dictatorship under the Diaz family. A radical leftist group takes control of Mexico and by the early 60s Mexico goes communists. Hundreds of thousands of Mexicans, loyal to the Díaz regime, flee north into the United States. Much like the Cuban exiles in OTL They are staunchly anti-Communist, and blame the Democrats For not following through with the planned bay of Veracruz invasion. They consistently vote Republican up until the modern-day.
 
Have any presidential candidate from 1988 on prior speak fluent Spanish on television, preferably from humble Latin origins and with a solid educational resume. Maybe a Cuban family out of Miami or expats from Chile, Peronist Argentina, or Brazil would work too.
 

d32123

Banned
Have the Democrats become dominated by the Dixiecrats or just appear more overtly racist and nativist than the Republicans.
 
Your challenge, should you accept it, is for hispanic voters in the US to be one of the main Republican Blocs, with a POD no later than 1989.

This timeline's POD, Republicans pass Civil Rights Act, etc..., and the Dixiecrats remain in the Democratic Party. Since the Republicans in that timeline will be pro-civil rights, get most of the Hispanic vote.
 
It shouldn't be too hard. Since Hispanics tend to be Catholics, have the GOP stay socially conservative, since the Catholic Church is, too. Also no supporting right wing dictators during the Cold War that might have pushed many Latin Americans to vote leftist.
 
Have any presidential candidate from 1988 on prior speak fluent Spanish on television, preferably from humble Latin origins and with a solid educational resume. Maybe a Cuban family out of Miami or expats from Chile, Peronist Argentina, or Brazil would work too.

Honestly, I don't think it matters. The Republican Party thinks that by modifying its stance on certain policies they will bring over Hispanics. They never will. Getting a Latino face won't help much either. The GOP is pathetic, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the party never regains the White House and is eventually absorbed into a more vigorous political organization. These guys honestly thought Mitt Romney was a good candidate and believed he had a chance. The encyclopedia has a picture of the guy under the entry for "stale toast".

The majority of Hispanics in the United States are Mexican, and they generally seem to agree with the Democrats' philosophy of government paternalism and heavy state economic involvement. I would attribute that to the poor socioeconomic circumstances of many Mexican immigrants, as well as the Catholic culture in which they were raised.

The only way that Hispanics would join the GOP in great numbers is if they viewed themselves as more upwardly mobile. That means that the makeup of Hispanic immigrants to the United States would have to change, or early immigrants have to do far better. Either Mexico will have to be a more stable prosperous country, or the immigrants will have to come from some other country. Maybe the majority of immigrants, instead of being the unwanted poor could be composed of middle class people seeking opportunity in an economically integrated North America.

Hispanics will gravitate more toward the GOP as their socioeconomic status improves and they become more assimilated. I personally don't think the GOP will be around to reap any award, though.
 
It shouldn't be too hard. Since Hispanics tend to be Catholics, have the GOP stay socially conservative, since the Catholic Church is, too. Also no supporting right wing dictators during the Cold War that might have pushed many Latin Americans to vote leftist.

That's something often overlooked. Many more people vote for people with (D) in front of their names for their economic policies than social ones. If the Republicans don't become the Repomen (take from the poor and give back to the rich and all that conspiratorial stuff), then it wouldn't be terribly hard. Now keeping politicians from opening-mouth, inserting-foot will be the hardest part.
 
That's something often overlooked. Many more people vote for people with (D) in front of their names for their economic policies than social ones. If the Republicans don't become the Repomen (take from the poor and give back to the rich and all that conspiratorial stuff), then it wouldn't be terribly hard. Now keeping politicians from opening-mouth, inserting-foot will be the hardest part.

I don't agree with the Repomen comment, but you're completely correct about relative importance of social issues versus economic issues. People at vote based on social issues are usually the single issue voters, abortion, guns, gay marriage, immigration, mandated vaccinations, whether dogs should be legally eligible to run for Congress, whatever. They're a minority (and usually whacko), most people vote on what they perceive to be their self interest. The Republican Party would do much better if it explained why its moral philosophy is superior rather than cravenly changing its positions on social issues it deems important to voters.
 
Since Hispanics tend to be Catholics, have the GOP stay socially conservative, since the Catholic Church is, too.
1. The GOP is socially conservative.
2. According to actual polling of Hispanic voters (and not, y'know, stereotypes) the GOP is significantly more socially conservative than most Hispanics.
 
1. The GOP is socially conservative.
2. According to actual polling of Hispanic voters (and not, y'know, stereotypes) the GOP is significantly more socially conservative than most Hispanics.

I keep wondering if the GOP is getting suicidal. If they nominate Santorum in 2016 then I guess that we'll know.
 
I keep wondering if the GOP is getting suicidal. If they nominate Santorum in 2016 then I guess that we'll know.
You know what the scary thing is? There's actually been a bit of a pattern in Republican presidential nominations since Watergate which, if it holds to 2016, means Santorum will be the nominee:


  • After Nixon's resignation, you have President Gerald Ford (the only entirely un-elected President). Ronald Reagan challenges him for the 1976 nomination and loses. Ford loses the election.
  • Ronald Reagan wins the 1980 nomination fairly easily, but his nearest rival is George Bush. Reagan is elected President, then re-elected.
  • George Bush (who is now the incumbent Vice-President) is nominated in 1988 -- his nearest rival is Bob Dole. Bush is elected President, then loses the next election.
  • Bob Dole is nominated in 1996 in a walk. His nearest rivals (Steve Forbes and Pat Buchanan) are not career politicians. Dole loses the election.
  • You may think the cycle is broken... but the 2000 Republican nominee is George W Bush, son of the aforementioned George Bush. Bush's nearest rival to the nomination is John McCain. Bush is elected President (sort of), then re-elected.
  • With an open primary again, the Republican nominee for 2008 is none other than John McCain. While he wins fairly easily, his nearest rival is Mitt Romney. McCain loses the election.
  • And finally, in 2012 the Republican Party nominates Mitt Romney for president. While Romney wins the nomination far more easily than a lot of people suspected, his nearest rival is none other than Rick Santorum. Romney loses the election.
And so, what can we expect for 2016? Well, the Democratic nomination is Hillary Clinton's for the taking -- the word is that if she officially declares her intention to run, other Democratic politicians will clear the way for her. And the thing is, she is old -- she'll literally be the age Reagan was in 1980. And the Republican Party has been going further and further to the right-wing with no sign of stopping. So, who better to face off against an old left-wing woman? Someone who is well and truly far-right, nice and masculine, and even if he's not exactly young can give off an air of youth and vigour. Mr Rick Santorum, former Senator for Pennsylvania.
 
Hispanics covers a vast array of groups ranging from Central American to South American to North American of Spanish Colonial descent to people from Spain, you're never going to get ALL of them to form a single bloc anymore than you're going to get all the people of German descent (IE the plurality the country) to do so.
 

NothingNow

Banned
It shouldn't be too hard. Since Hispanics tend to be Catholics, have the GOP stay socially conservative, since the Catholic Church is, too.

That's just adorable. I take it that you've never seen the platform of a Latin Christian Democratic party, or heard of Liberation Theology as anything other than some socialist bugbear?
Because the average latino is a hell of a lot further left than the GOP or the Church hierarchy is. (Although Francis I will likely try and change that.)

Your challenge, should you accept it, is for hispanic voters in the US to be one of the main Republican Blocs, with a POD no later than 1989.

Have the Republicans run way to the economic left at some point, with a strong "Neighborly" non-interventionist streak, and then actively court Latin Christian Democrat types.
Incidentally, if they go for a Latin sort of Christian Democracy with a good theological justification for their positions (which is much easier than justifying the Prosperity Heresy and their current positions,) and aren't a bunch of racist fucks, they could probably roll up the South pretty tightly as well.
 
These guys honestly thought Mitt Romney was a good candidate and believed he had a chance. The encyclopedia has a picture of the guy under the entry for "stale toast".
I'm a liberal and all but I thought Romney was one of the better candidates the Republicans have fronted. Certainly liked him better than McCain (campagin-wise) and Bush.
 
I'm a liberal and all but I thought Romney was one of the better candidates the Republicans have fronted. Certainly liked him better than McCain (campagin-wise) and Bush.

But McCain is alot more liberal than Romney, hell Bush is more economically liberal than Romney (though not by the same amount).
 
It shouldn't be too hard. Since Hispanics tend to be Catholics, have the GOP stay socially conservative, since the Catholic Church is, too. Also no supporting right wing dictators during the Cold War that might have pushed many Latin Americans to vote leftist.

No, what pushed the hispanic vote for the democrats was pre-existing politics of most of the Hispanic immigrants and the fact the republican party pretty openly despises having them in the country.
 
I'm a liberal and all but I thought Romney was one of the better candidates the Republicans have fronted. Certainly liked him better than McCain (campagin-wise) and Bush.

He had the skills to have been a technically competent President, and I believe he's a good man, but he has zero fire, zeal, charisma, or courage of conviction. I don't believe that someone like him could be a great political leader. I don't agree with many of Obama's policies, but the man is highly charismatic and extremely personally likable. Romney just isn't either of those things. Romney ran away from seeking a second term as Governor of Massachusetts. I think Barack Obama would have stayed and fought regardless in a similar position. That's why Barack Obama is a two term President and Mitt will never get near the White House other than in a guided tour.

Emotion and intestinal fortitude is what wins, not policy positions carefully crafted by hundreds of political hacks.
 
How about a scenario with no 9/11? Bush spends all of his political capital on immigration reform and rehabilitating the GOP brand among minorities generally. By the end of the decade, Hispanics are a lean-Republican demographic.

Dunno how plausible it is, but it's the best I've got under the constraints of the OP.
 
Top