This excellent article prompts me to comment on one of the flaws of democracy; that the need to win votes persuades parties to proclaim beliefs that are outside their core beliefs, and therefore insincere.
It could be said that core beliefs are sincere, genuine and yet naturally tribal.
True democracy is perhaps the opposite, being the pretence of accepting of beliefs that are alien.
Hence the dilemma of all candidates is this: how far to move away from the base of their genuine tribal core beliefs towards the other end of the belief spectrum in order to satisfy as many voters as deemed necessary.

This is why the Democrats are so keen on importing em: to provide a perm Dem majority: same reason Nulab let four million third worders into the UK: you have a permanant welfare dependent third world underclass who can be relied upon to vote Democrat.

It would be helpful to be Latino? Tell that to the Latinos who are treated like third rate citizens by so many white Americans. A leader of the free world and 'at the heart of all that is fair and good' no wonder the Hispanic population of the US look to someone who has more in common with them i.e. Obama, regardless of his policies and beliefs. It would be ridiculous to expect there to be no prejudice against people of colour as it is so deeply engrained in the American psyche, but come on - illegals and aliens? Aliens! There is no way Romney should ever get into the White House as it would be a complete leap back in time to a place we should never be again.

Why is it "identity politics" when the non-white and the female are lining up to vote for Obama very largely because he is black, but not when large numbers of the white and the male are lining up for the other candidate for no other reason than that he is both white and male?

So much, it must be said, for longstanding Republican attempts to court the Hispanic vote. As soon the coming Hispanic majority there moves Texas into the Democratic column, there will never be another Republican President of the United States. Will there ever be another President who is both white and a native speaker of English? Quite possibly not. The battle in future will be between a black candidate and a Hispanic candidate for the Democratic nomination, itself effectively the guarantee of election.

Worth watching, therefore, is the increasing attempt by the Israel Lobby to bring the Latinos in line, not least out of shared antipathy towards the blacks, the WASPs , and the "white ethnics". If the Latinos really were the Great Brown Hope of American Catholicism, then they would side instead with the Latin Catholics and the Syrian Catholics, the Melkites and the Maronites, who with the Arab Orthodox and the ancestrally Orthodox Palestinian Anglicans (it's a long story) founded Arab nationalism in general and the whole concept of Filastin in particular, and provided almost the latter's entire leadership inside the Green Line until 1973, despite the overwhelming Sunni Muslim majority among Israeli Arabs, as among Palestinians generally. The former Balad MK Azmi Bishara, who was driven into exile as recently as 2007 because of the bombardment of Lebanon, was a Catholic from Nazareth, where, in an echo of the roots of the Christian Coalition and the Moral Majority, he was educated by the Southern Baptist Mission.

But then, the "white ethnics" would also take that view if they really were the existing pillars and bulwarks of Catholic and Orthodox America. Furthermore, if the road to American Christendom really did have its signs painted in Spanish, then the speakers of that tongue would be solid social conservatives as well as solid economic populists in the New Deal tradition. As it is, so far are they at least from the former, that they might be susceptible to the blandishments of those with the closest possible ties to Hollywood and to the New York media. And thence, of course, to Wall Street.

The Senate, in particular, will continue to contain enough Republicans to make that party look like a reasonably viable national force. The question, then, is which of the two Democratic Parties, competing in the bitterest of terms within that body, will partly subsume and partly be subsumed by the rump of the GOP.

Will it be the economically populist and even social democratic, morally and socially conservative, largely black one (the Republicans having been historically the party of the blacks) which is also sufficiently "white ethnic" to speak and act for the ancient indigenous Christians of the Holy Land and the wider Middle East, but which otherwise represents Republicans' own historical norm of more or less isolationist foreign policy together with a strong pursuit of global nuclear disarmament?

Or will it be the economically neoliberal, socially liberal one with a largely Hispanic electorate but with its direction set from the liberal Jewish salons of Hollywood and New York, giving it a strong and active commitment to the secular Zionist project of old and to a wider liberal interventionism throughout the world?

These will be the two main formations in American politics before very long at all. America does not really do third parties. So, the remnant Republicans can find a home in one of them, or they can find a home in the other. Which is it to be? And why?

In the meantime, might not a party on the first model be set up for ballot line purposes in New York State?

Very ironic that Univision now brings us the Fast & Furious Obama drug cartel gun-running scandal in full gory detail. And gave Oblamer the toughest media interview this year. Many hispanics are conservative, family-oriented & religious. sí se puede y tu mama jankass!