Loser Liberalism

[Pwns]

JSO is correct. Even if we assume that white millenials get more conservative as they get older the demographic picture down the road isn't that bright for the Republican party as it stands now.

The only reason donks are so liberal with immigration is because they know the demographics are going to change in their favor.

And I see nothing in sight that is going to change that.

[JohnStOnge]

Trump pulled nearly 30% of Team Brown and nearly 10% of blacks...but more importantly Trump can make inroads in "union voting" households if he gets them back to work. It's the economy stupid.

I already, once again, debunked the idea that the Republican candidate did well in the historical context among Blacks and Hispanics. He didn't. Now I will, once again, debunk the idea that the economy was the primary factor leading to the Republican candidate's victory.

Here are results of exit polling on the question of the most important issue facing the country during the 2016 election nationally:



Clearly, the economy was not the factor that gave Trump the advantage. The issues that worked to Trump's advantage were immigration and terrorism. Another thing we can do is compare how the parties did on the economy issue last time to how they did this time. So here are results of exit polling on the question of the most important issue facing the country during the 2012 election nationally:



Two key things: #1, the estimate for the percentage of voters who considered the economy the most important issue in 2012 was HIGHER (59% vs. 52%) in 2012 than it was in 2016. Also, the Republican did BETTER among those who considered the economy to be the most important issue (+4 percentage points vs. -11 percentage points) in 2012 than the Republican candidate did in 2016. And if you're wondering, those swings are large enough to be very confident in concluding that more people thought the economy was the most important issue (7 percentage point swing) and that the Republican did better among such people (15 percentage point swing) in 2012.

Finally, we can pick a key State and look at 2016 exit polling for that State. Let's take Pennsylvania. Here are the 2016 exit polling results on the relevant question for Pennsylvania:



Trump did better in Pennsylvania among people who thought the economy was the most important issue than he did nationally, but the difference is big enough to have high confidence that he lost among that group. The basic picture is the same as the basic national picture: The issues that gave Trump the juice he needed were immigration and terrorism.

I would compare 2012 Pennsylvania to 2016 Pennsylvania but I can't find State by State exit polling results for 2012. There is no reason to believe it would show a bottom line different from that shown by the national exit polling.

I know that at least some of those who insist on believing "it was the economy stupid" in spite of what the exit polls clearly indicate will simply dismiss the exit polling results as unreliable. But they're not. This kind of thing, looking for insight into the reasons for why people voted the way they did, is what exit polls are really for (they're not really for trying to call elections ahead of time). And, as I've written in other posts, the idea that the pre election polls were way off in this election is a popular myth. The national polling was very close (RealClearPolitics average +3.3 Clinton vs. +2.1 Clinton actual margin) and by the RealClearPolitics staff's reckoning the State by State polling was correct with respect to who would win the State in all but one case in which that staff felt polling provided sufficient evidence to make a call one way or another. Yes, there was some pro Clinton bias. But not nearly enough to justify dismissing polling as generally unreliable. Not nearly enough to dismiss something like exit polling results estimating that the Republican candidate did 15 percentage points worse in 2016 than the 2012 Republican candidate did in terms of margin among voters who considered the economy to be the most important issue.

Another thing is that the economy just wasn't all that bad to begin with. Jimmy Carter's "misery index" (unemployment rate + inflation rate + prime interest rate) was low. There was no big economic crisis going on. All indications are that Trump won because he tapped into concern over illegal immigration and terrorism. It wasn't the economy.

[CID1990]

The exit polls are unreliable.

The GOP owns all of D.C., and most of the states, and the Oval Office. Economic factors drove the three steps that got us here.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

Trump pulled nearly 30% of Team Brown and nearly 10% of blacks...but more importantly Trump can make inroads in "union voting" households if he gets them back to work. It's the economy stupid.

I already, once again, debunked the idea that the Republican candidate did well in the historical context among Blacks and Hispanics. He didn't. Now I will, once again, debunk the idea that the economy was the primary factor leading to the Republican candidate's victory.

Here are results of exit polling on the question of the most important issue facing the country during the 2016 election nationally:



Clearly, the economy was not the factor that gave Trump the advantage. The issues that worked to Trump's advantage were immigration and terrorism. Another thing we can do is compare how the parties did on the economy issue last time to how they did this time. So here are results of exit polling on the question of the most important issue facing the country during the 2012 election nationally:



Two key things: #1, the estimate for the percentage of voters who considered the economy the most important issue in 2012 was HIGHER (59% vs. 52%) in 2012 than it was in 2016. Also, the Republican did BETTER among those who considered the economy to be the most important issue (+4 percentage points vs. -11 percentage points) in 2012 than the Republican candidate did in 2016. And if you're wondering, those swings are large enough to be very confident in concluding that more people thought the economy was the most important issue (7 percentage point swing) and that the Republican did better among such people (15 percentage point swing) in 2012.

Finally, we can pick a key State and look at 2016 exit polling for that State. Let's take Pennsylvania. Here are the 2016 exit polling results on the relevant question for Pennsylvania:



Trump did better in Pennsylvania among people who thought the economy was the most important issue than he did nationally, but the difference is big enough to have high confidence that he lost among that group. The basic picture is the same as the basic national picture: The issues that gave Trump the juice he needed were immigration and terrorism.

I would compare 2012 Pennsylvania to 2016 Pennsylvania but I can't find State by State exit polling results for 2012. There is no reason to believe it would show a bottom line different from that shown by the national exit polling.

I know that at least some of those who insist on believing "it was the economy stupid" in spite of what the exit polls clearly indicate will simply dismiss the exit polling results as unreliable. But they're not. This kind of thing, looking for insight into the reasons for why people voted the way they did, is what exit polls are really for (they're not really for trying to call elections ahead of time). And, as I've written in other posts, the idea that the pre election polls were way off in this election is a popular myth. The national polling was very close (RealClearPolitics average +3.3 Clinton vs. +2.1 Clinton actual margin) and by the RealClearPolitics staff's reckoning the State by State polling was correct with respect to who would win the State in all but one case in which that staff felt polling provided sufficient evidence to make a call one way or another. Yes, there was some pro Clinton bias. But not nearly enough to justify dismissing polling as generally unreliable. Not nearly enough to dismiss something like exit polling results estimating that the Republican candidate did 15 percentage points worse in 2016 than the 2012 Republican candidate did in terms of margin among voters who considered the economy to be the most important issue.

Another thing is that the economy just wasn't all that bad to begin with. Jimmy Carter's "misery index" (unemployment rate + inflation rate + prime interest rate) was low. There was no big economic crisis going on. All indications are that Trump won because he tapped into concern over illegal immigration and terrorism. It wasn't the economy.

phpBB [video]

[Ibanez]

Demographics don't support Democratic hegemony if a strong economy pulls more people into the middle class. Minority voters who broke for Trump fur into two categories: economic voters and voters who have gotten wise to the establishment Dem plantation.

Conversely, if Trump policies don't strengthen the economy is ways that benefit the middle class (and brings more minorities into it) then the Dems will get their shot again.

Once again, it's the economy, stupid.

The tendency for Non Whites to vote overwhelmingly Democrat has been constant throughout the period during which exit polling allows us to assess such things regardless of what the economy has been doing. I think the economy is one factor in any given election year. But it's not as important a factor...or at least so far it hasn't been as important a factor...as demographics is.

If only Non Whites had been voting since exit polling started in 1976, all of our Presidents would have been Democrats. If only Whites had been voting all that time, all of our Presidents would have been Republican. The fact that the population is evolving towards being less White is not good news for the Republicans.

It's the economy, stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

JSO's point is really only applicable to the Presidency,

I think the Presidency will go first because, unless something changes with respect to the demographics factor, Texas is inevitably going to flip to reliably Democrat in the relatively near future. But I also think other aspects of government will inevitably follow. Look at this past year's House elections, for example. In all the House races combined, the Republicans won the overall vote by 49.1% to 48.0%. But the exit polling voting estimates for White vs. non White voters were as follows:

White (71% of voters): Democrat 38%, Republican 60%
Non White (29% of voters): Democrat 74%, Republican 24%

The percentage of Non White voters will continue to increase. And at some point, unless the tendency of Non White voters to vote Democrat declines significantly, the dam will break. The future is not bright for the Republican Party.

And the white vote has been increasingly going voting higher % conk as their % of the population has dropped. By the time non hispanic whites drop below 50% in 2050 or whenever, the country will be even more balkanized and the white vote will probably be voting conk at as high a percentage as the non white vote is voting donk, and white will still have a higher turnout. The future is bright for the conk party for the next generation, and as things stand now, certainly better than the donk party.

[kalm]

I think the Presidency will go first because, unless something changes with respect to the demographics factor, Texas is inevitably going to flip to reliably Democrat in the relatively near future. But I also think other aspects of government will inevitably follow. Look at this past year's House elections, for example. In all the House races combined, the Republicans won the overall vote by 49.1% to 48.0%. But the exit polling voting estimates for White vs. non White voters were as follows:

White (71% of voters): Democrat 38%, Republican 60%
Non White (29% of voters): Democrat 74%, Republican 24%

The percentage of Non White voters will continue to increase. And at some point, unless the tendency of Non White voters to vote Democrat declines significantly, the dam will break. The future is not bright for the Republican Party.

And the white vote has been increasingly going voting higher % conk as their % of the population has dropped. By the time non hispanic whites drop below 50% in 2050 or whenever, the country will be even more balkanized and the white vote will probably be voting conk at as high a percentage as the non white vote is voting donk, and white will still have a higher turnout. The future is bright for the conk party for the next generation, and as things stand now, certainly better than the donk party.

Millennials...

[CID1990]

And the white vote has been increasingly going voting higher % conk as their % of the population has dropped. By the time non hispanic whites drop below 50% in 2050 or whenever, the country will be even more balkanized and the white vote will probably be voting conk at as high a percentage as the non white vote is voting donk, and white will still have a higher turnout. The future is bright for the conk party for the next generation, and as things stand now, certainly better than the donk party.

Millennials...

.... and the economy

[Pwns]

And the white vote has been increasingly going voting higher % conk as their % of the population has dropped. By the time non hispanic whites drop below 50% in 2050 or whenever, the country will be even more balkanized and the white vote will probably be voting conk at as high a percentage as the non white vote is voting donk, and white will still have a higher turnout. The future is bright for the conk party for the next generation, and as things stand now, certainly better than the donk party.

The question is, will a lot of the whites who voted for Obama and went to Trump keep voting GOP down the road? Especially when they come to the realization that Trump doesn't have the magic formula to make good-paying manufacturing jobs come back to the US?

[SDHornet]

And the white vote has been increasingly going voting higher % conk as their % of the population has dropped. By the time non hispanic whites drop below 50% in 2050 or whenever, the country will be even more balkanized and the white vote will probably be voting conk at as high a percentage as the non white vote is voting donk, and white will still have a higher turnout. The future is bright for the conk party for the next generation, and as things stand now, certainly better than the donk party.

The question is, will a lot of the whites who voted for Obama and went to Trump keep voting GOP down the road? Especially when they come to the realization that Trump doesn't have the magic formula to make good-paying manufacturing jobs come back to the US?

If donks keep making everything about "-isms" as their mainstay and conks keep touting the economy as their mainstay (and bring about moderate economic improvement or better) then I would say that is possible.

[kalm]

The question is, will a lot of the whites who voted for Obama and went to Trump keep voting GOP down the road? Especially when they come to the realization that Trump doesn't have the magic formula to make good-paying manufacturing jobs come back to the US?

If donks keep making everything about "-isms" as their mainstay and conks keep touting the economy as their mainstay (and bring about moderate economic improvement or better) then I would say that is possible.

Again...millenials. For better or for worse. That's going to be a very important demographic coming up. They are a bit of an oddity in being the first generation to pretty much fully grow up in the age of the internet. They consume establishment news to a far lesser extent than other generations but their heads are full of more information than any generation before them. How they view economics and who to blame and honor for their standing remains to be seen but they tend to be way more liberal in most other categories.

[Pwns]

Again...millenials. For better or for worse. That's going to be a very important demographic coming up. They are a bit of an oddity in being the first generation to pretty much fully grow up in the age of the internet. They consume establishment news to a far lesser extent than other generations but their heads are full of more information than any generation before them. How they view economics and who to blame and honor for their standing remains to be seen but they tend to be way more liberal in most other categories.

Another important point...they are the least white generation ever.

[JohnStOnge]

And the white vote has been increasingly going voting higher % conk as their % of the population has dropped.

Not so. I saw this yesterday and today I got around to looking at the question. Here is how the exit poll estimates have gone in terms of the percent White vote going Republican over the time period covered by exit polling at the Roper Center site:



There's no trend there. You have a situation where the percentages dropped down into the 40s when Perot was in the race but otherwise the percentages have just kind of randomly remained in the same general area. And yes I did a statistical test. Not anywhere close to sufficient evidence to say there's a trend such that % White vote Republican is increasing.

The problem for Republicans is illustrated by this pair of observations:

1) When Reagan got an estimated 56% of the White vote in 1980 he won the overall popular vote by 10 percentage points over Carter.

2) When Trump got an estimated 57% of the White vote in 2016 he LOST the overall popular vote to Hillary Clinton by 2.1 percentage points to Hillary Clinton.

You can whistle past the graveyard if you want. But the future is not bright for the Republican Party. We are now at a point in history where the tipping point is near unless the Republican Party does something to change the underlying dynamic. And it didn't make any progress in that regard during this past election season.

[Skjellyfetti]

Democrats may be benefited by the demographic shift in the future...

But, election of state legislators and the House of Representatives still reward rural population more than population concentrated in the cities.

[UNI88]

And the white vote has been increasingly going voting higher % conk as their % of the population has dropped.

Not so. I saw this yesterday and today I got around to looking at the question. Here is how the exit poll estimates have gone in terms of the percent White vote going Republican over the time period covered by exit polling at the Roper Center site:



There's no trend there. You have a situation where the percentages dropped down into the 40s when Perot was in the race but otherwise the percentages have just kind of randomly remained in the same general area. And yes I did a statistical test. Not anywhere close to sufficient evidence to say there's a trend such that % White vote Republican is increasing.

The problem for Republicans is illustrated by this pair of observations:

1) When Reagan got an estimated 56% of the White vote in 1980 he won the overall popular vote by 10 percentage points over Carter.

2) When Trump got an estimated 57% of the White vote in 2016 he LOST the overall popular vote to Hillary Clinton by 2.1 percentage points to Hillary Clinton.

You can whistle past the graveyard if you want. But the future is not bright for the Republican Party. We are now at a point in history where the tipping point is near unless the Republican Party does something to change the underlying dynamic. And it didn't make any progress in that regard during this past election season.

John for someone who has been very critical of the social sciences in the past you sure like to selectively use their tools when it suits your purpose. Yes, demographic trends by themselves do not favor the Republican Party but this experiment isn't taking place in a petri dish. There are hundreds of other factors, some more significant than others, that will impact future elections. To issue a blanket statement that the Republican Party is doomed due to demographic trends is foolish and indicative of poor scientific discipline.

For example, if (and granted it's a big if) the Republican Party can get past its dislike of immigrants it has a lot in common with Hispanics - hard working, religious, family-oriented, etc. That one unpredictable pivot changes everything related to your precious demographics. There are other factors that could change things as well.

[CID1990]

There is only one thing that will give the Dems political hegemony going forward and that will be a middle class that continues to shrink. A large middle class is going to vote its economic well being- which is what happened this time around

The economy again


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

There is only one thing that will give the Dems political hegemony going forward and that will be a middle class that continues to shrink. A large middle class is going to vote its economic well being- which is what happened this time around

The economy again

[kalm]

There is only one thing that will give the Dems political hegemony going forward and that will be a middle class that continues to shrink. A large middle class is going to vote its economic well being- which is what happened this time around

The economy again


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wait...but it's shrinking, right? And it works only 1/5th as hard as the producers, right?

[JohnStOnge]

John for someone who has been very critical of the social sciences in the past you sure like to selectively use their tools when it suits your purpose. Yes, demographic trends by themselves do not favor the Republican Party but this experiment isn't taking place in a petri dish. There are hundreds of other factors, some more significant than others, that will impact future elections. To issue a blanket statement that the Republican Party is doomed due to demographic trends is foolish and indicative of poor scientific discipline.

For example, if (and granted it's a big if) the Republican Party can get past its dislike of immigrants it has a lot in common with Hispanics - hard working, religious, family-oriented, etc. That one unpredictable pivot changes everything related to your precious demographics. There are other factors that could change things as well.

I've repeatedly said "unless they can change the underlying dynamic." There has been no indication that they're doing that.

BTW my main criticism of the social sciences has been that, in my opinion, their practitioners have reflected an egalitarian bias.

This is not a "cause and effect" issue. It's just observation. The observations are that non Whites vote overwhelmingly Democrat and non Whites are increasing as a percentage of the electorate. If neither of those two things change the Republicans are screwed. I don't see that as a remarkable conclusion.

Now, if it turns out that Hispanics turn to start voting Republican or at least far less Democrat the equation would change. But right now that isn't happening. And I don't think Republicans did a lot to move things in that direction by nominating Trump.

I'd also be interested in seeing polling on how Hispanics tend to feel about a "government will take care of you" system. I haven't seen such polling. But I wouldn't be surprised if they tend to be a group that's very favorable to the "government will take care of you" paradigm.

[JohnStOnge]

There is only one thing that will give the Dems political hegemony going forward and that will be a middle class that continues to shrink. A large middle class is going to vote its economic well being- which is what happened this time around.

I don't see how you can say that the "only" thing is a shrinking middle class given the consistent racial trend.

And this time around more people voted for Clinton than voted for Trump. What does that mean with respect to your statement about people voting for their economic well being?

BTW, in my opinion, "middle class" is a relative term. There is no "large" or "small" middle class. The "middle class" is the "middle" of the distribution. If you go by the way the CBO normally divides things, it'd be the middle 60 percent of household incomes.

Anyway, however you define "middle class," you can't divorce it from racial trends. Asians, for instance, have a higher median household income than Whites do. But they have been consistently voting majority Democrat. They voted for Clinton by 65% to 27% over Trump.

[kalm]

John for someone who has been very critical of the social sciences in the past you sure like to selectively use their tools when it suits your purpose. Yes, demographic trends by themselves do not favor the Republican Party but this experiment isn't taking place in a petri dish. There are hundreds of other factors, some more significant than others, that will impact future elections. To issue a blanket statement that the Republican Party is doomed due to demographic trends is foolish and indicative of poor scientific discipline.

For example, if (and granted it's a big if) the Republican Party can get past its dislike of immigrants it has a lot in common with Hispanics - hard working, religious, family-oriented, etc. That one unpredictable pivot changes everything related to your precious demographics. There are other factors that could change things as well.

I've repeatedly said "unless they can change the underlying dynamic." There has been no indication that they're doing that.

BTW my main criticism of the social sciences has been that, in my opinion, their practitioners have reflected an egalitarian bias.

This is not a "cause and effect" issue. It's just observation. The observations are that non Whites vote overwhelmingly Democrat and non Whites are increasing as a percentage of the electorate. If neither of those two things change the Republicans are screwed. I don't see that as a remarkable conclusion.

Now, if it turns out that Hispanics turn to start voting Republican or at least far less Democrat the equation would change. But right now that isn't happening. And I don't think Republicans did a lot to move things in that direction by nominating Trump.

I'd also be interested in seeing polling on how Hispanics tend to feel about a "government will take care of you" system. I haven't seen such polling. But I wouldn't be surprised if they tend to be a group that's very favorable to the "government will take care of you" paradigm.

I can see the idea of hard working, entrepreneurial, and religious latinos moving Republican but then there's the labeling them as criminals and literally building a fence things...

[BDKJMU]

Not so. I saw this yesterday and today I got around to looking at the question. Here is how the exit poll estimates have gone in terms of the percent White vote going Republican over the time period covered by exit polling at the Roper Center site:



There's no trend there. You have a situation where the percentages dropped down into the 40s when Perot was in the race but otherwise the percentages have just kind of randomly remained in the same general area. And yes I did a statistical test. Not anywhere close to sufficient evidence to say there's a trend such that % White vote Republican is increasing.

The problem for Republicans is illustrated by this pair of observations:

1) When Reagan got an estimated 56% of the White vote in 1980 he won the overall popular vote by 10 percentage points over Carter.

2) When Trump got an estimated 57% of the White vote in 2016 he LOST the overall popular vote to Hillary Clinton by 2.1 percentage points to Hillary Clinton.

You can whistle past the graveyard if you want. But the future is not bright for the Republican Party. We are now at a point in history where the tipping point is near unless the Republican Party does something to change the underlying dynamic. And it didn't make any progress in that regard during this past election season.

John for someone who has been very critical of the social sciences in the past you sure like to selectively use their tools when it suits your purpose. Yes, demographic trends by themselves do not favor the Republican Party but this experiment isn't taking place in a petri dish. There are hundreds of other factors, some more significant than others, that will impact future elections. To issue a blanket statement that the Republican Party is doomed due to demographic trends is foolish and indicative of poor scientific discipline.

For example, if (and granted it's a big if) the Republican Party can get past its dislike of immigrants it has a lot in common with Hispanics - hard working, religious, family-oriented, etc. That one unpredictable pivot changes everything related to your precious demographics. There are other factors that could change things as well.

You mean illegal Immigrants....

[JohnStOnge]

John for someone who has been very critical of the social sciences in the past you sure like to selectively use their tools when it suits your purpose. Yes, demographic trends by themselves do not favor the Republican Party but this experiment isn't taking place in a petri dish. There are hundreds of other factors, some more significant than others, that will impact future elections. To issue a blanket statement that the Republican Party is doomed due to demographic trends is foolish and indicative of poor scientific discipline.

For example, if (and granted it's a big if) the Republican Party can get past its dislike of immigrants it has a lot in common with Hispanics - hard working, religious, family-oriented, etc. That one unpredictable pivot changes everything related to your precious demographics. There are other factors that could change things as well.

You mean illegal Immigrants....

Truth be told, I don't think the Republican Party likes immigrants, period. Here's a discussion as to why:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/study ... le/2547220

[BDKJMU]

John for someone who has been very critical of the social sciences in the past you sure like to selectively use their tools when it suits your purpose. Yes, demographic trends by themselves do not favor the Republican Party but this experiment isn't taking place in a petri dish. There are hundreds of other factors, some more significant than others, that will impact future elections. To issue a blanket statement that the Republican Party is doomed due to demographic trends is foolish and indicative of poor scientific discipline.

For example, if (and granted it's a big if) the Republican Party can get past its dislike of immigrants it has a lot in common with Hispanics - hard working, religious, family-oriented, etc. That one unpredictable pivot changes everything related to your precious demographics. There are other factors that could change things as well.

I've repeatedly said "unless they can change the underlying dynamic." There has been no indication that they're doing that.

BTW my main criticism of the social sciences has been that, in my opinion, their practitioners have reflected an egalitarian bias.

This is not a "cause and effect" issue. It's just observation. The observations are that non Whites vote overwhelmingly Democrat and non Whites are increasing as a percentage of the electorate. If neither of those two things change the Republicans are screwed. I don't see that as a remarkable conclusion.

Now, if it turns out that Hispanics turn to start voting Republican or at least far less Democrat the equation would change. But right now that isn't happening. And I don't think Republicans did a lot to move things in that direction by nominating Trump.

I'd also be interested in seeing polling on how Hispanics tend to feel about a "government will take care of you" system. I haven't seen such polling. But I wouldn't be surprised if they tend to be a group that's very favorable to the "government will take care of you" paradigm.

Again thats only true if whites, as their % of the population shrinks, doesn't vote more heavily republican, which very well could happen as the democrat party continues to demonize whites. Within a generation, as whites reach minority status, I predict they will vote like a minority group, overwhelmingly for one party. But whites will be by far the largest minority party. The same will be true for the other minority groups. All that there will be in the US is minority groups. It will be welcome to the balkanized USA.

[BDKJMU]

You mean illegal Immigrants....

Truth be told, I don't think the Republican Party likes immigrants, period. Here's a discussion as to why:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/study ... le/2547220

That might be true because a majority of the immigrants in the last generation who've to the US are poor & unskilled, and those that do obtain citizenship tend to vote donk. From the article:

"...Another reason is that the arrival of immigrants, whose ranks include substantial numbers of the poor and unskilled, increases income inequality in the areas they choose to live. "It is from areas of higher income inequality," writes Gimpel, "that we find the most support for a robust government with an expansive regulatory and redistributive role in the economy, among all citizens, not just immigrants." That will likely mean more electoral success for Democrats...."

If its legal immigrants who are STEM, highly educated (masters, phds), in demand skills, or high net worth, I don't think the republican party as a whole has any problem with them.

If its more uneducated, unskilled, cheap labor, which this country already has plenty of, then I would agree.