Skip to main content

View Diary: The GOP's lose-lose dilemma on immigration (107 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Maybe, but W made a strong showing among (0+ / 0-)


    Sensible position on immigration, but more than that, he appointed latinos to high office and comes from a family that has a Mexican-born daughter of migrant workers among its members.  It was more than a political strategy for him.

    It can be done.
    Can Republicans who are likely to run for President in the coming elections do it?

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:55:16 PM PST

    •  Actually he didn't (0+ / 0-)

      that's been proven to be a myth

      •  Really? Not from anything I've seen (0+ / 0-)

        Got links?

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:49:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's some (0+ / 0-)

          "The media have also exaggerated Bush’s Hispanic support. Exit polls taken during 2004 showed a wide variation in Bush’s share of the Hispanic vote, ranging from a high of 44 percent in some polls to a low of 33 percent. Most in the media have gone with the higher number. Yet subsequent academic studies have discredited it and have since estimated Bush’s actual level of Hispanic support at somewhere between 35 percent and 37 percent. "

          More here

          Google Myth of the Bush Latino vote

          While better than Romney, its not a huge growth considering the one issue involved. The assumption often all one has to do is do immigration reform, but the shift is small.

          In fact, if Latino Decision is to believed, Bush's numbers was about the same as what Cruz received of the Latino vote this cycle, which brings up another issue. Being Latino is not enough to secure Latino votes. Even if its of the same nationality. Eg Rubio of florida performed worse with Cubans than Bush did by 8 points.  Remember CUbans are the most Republican in voting pattern.

          In other states, exit polls showed- even worse results:

          "Nevada Governor, featuring Reid’s son against Hispanic Republican Brian Sandoval.  Sandoval received 33% of the Hispanic vote, whereas Angle received 30%.  That surprised me.  A Hispanic Republican received 33% in his winning bid, yet Angle won 30%, despite her anti-immigration ad that was perceived by many as anti-Mexican American immigrant. [11]  I consider myself a moderate Republican, and Angle’s ad featuring a map of Mexico and dark-skinned border crossers makes me cringe.  It was a textbook case of how to alienate many Latinos.  Yet, Sandoval only polled a 3% increment of Hispanic voters over Angle."

          In short, the GOP doesn't have an easy route to get to the Latino vote. Its not just immigration. Its a shift of the ideological spectrum, and its one that may affect the Democratic Party too.

          •  Didn't Nixon get 40% of the Hispanic vote? (0+ / 0-)

            "Republicans are the party that says that government doesn't work, then they get elected and prove it."-- PJ O'Rourke

            by nocynicism on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 09:24:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  According to this- for just Mexican vote (0+ / 0-)

              No. He only got 35 percent.


              There's a lot of data out there. What's interesting int his is that the data underscores that the numbers remain about the same.

              The lowest point was Dole in the modern era.

              But what's clear is that a large percentage went to independent candidates (which is danger for the Democratic party). That they are willing to vote a third party, especially given their left leaning ideological bent.

              eg favor socialism more, favor big government more etc

              The GOp isn't the only party facing changes.

              In terms of historic numbers, while Obama's numbers are impressive, they aren't the highest percentage ever received.

              That goes to LBJ  who is theorized to have gotten 90 percent of the Latino vote.

              Also Humpert Humphrey got 87 percent.

              Obama's number reflects Dukais's numbers- the later got 70 percent.

              The history tends to bring into question whether Obama has really done anything unique other than maintain and already strong long term historic tie with a growing demographic

              The main different historically is that the latino percentages only have started to matter with demographic shifts in the composition of the voters rather than just percentages voting Democratics.

              I have thought to write about this, but decided against it, because the reality is that people here are Democrats, and don't much seem interested in a more complicated picture

              10 percent in 1997 went to independents.

              If Democrats fail to move left as the demographic shifts occurs, the question I would be raising is not just whether the GOP faces a challenge, but whether the Democratic Party does as well?

              I don't have answer to that question, but I also know raising that here would bring out the true believers who think only i n terms of partisans scales of Democratic v REpublicans rather than what may be a more complicated future as what is likely tob e an ideological reallignment will shift away from both parties.

              That's an issue that right now the whole Grand Bargain is trying to get ahead of.

              They won't be able to pull this shit so easily even 4 years form now, much less 10. The demographics in questions- make that clear. I suppose they c ould somehow do so, but the way they have won over such nw demographics inthe past is to buy th em off through government action, which is self defeating of the goal of trying to cut government benefits. Again, not sure that's a conversation for here.

            •  By the way, this data link demonstrates (0+ / 0-)

              even people here to do not understand the Latino numbers

              Someone below claims a much higher percentage for Bush Senior than what actually occurred.

      •  Just did a little checking, and it says no myth (0+ / 0-)

        He won 35% of Latinos in 2000 and 44% in 2004.

        That's one hell of a lot better than Romney's 27%.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:57:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The claim was that he won 45 percent in 2004 (0+ / 0-)

          So yes, myth

          And I  linked above to multiple articles discussing it. You can also fi nd by simply googling the subject.

          Finally, you are looking at the numbers wrong. Look over time at th enumbers rather than  one or two cyle or with one candidate.

          •  Who made that claim? Not me. (0+ / 0-)

            Between putting words in my mouth and trying to cling to 1% point, you seem pretty desperate to avoid the truth.  Why is that?

            And what in the hell do you mean that I am looking at the numbers wrong?

            Looking at the numbers for McCain or Romney have nothing to do with the performance of Bush, which was my point of comparison.

            If you'd like, however, go back a little further and you'll see that Mr. Conservative, Ronald Reagan, did nearly as well as Bush.

            It's stupid for the GOP to write of Latino voters.
            First, it's a recipe for defeat.
            Second,  a good GOP candidate can win enough to matter.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 07:39:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You didn't state a number (0+ / 0-)

              and in historic context, the number that Bush did receive, according to the links I provided you were not all that impressive.

              So yes, if you are going to look at numbers, compare them to others. Not just two election cycles that validate your position.

              You also misstate the data in relationship to that history. Here's an accurate statement of it:

              "Yet subsequent academic studies have estimated Bush's actual level of Latino support at the lower end, somewhere between 35% and 37%. Seen in this context, the "swing" of voters from Bob Dole, who garnered 21% of the Latino vote in 1996, to George W. Bush was hardly historic. In 1984, Ronald Reagan captured 37% of the Latino vote -- a performance at least equal to Bush's. "


              The best outcome is Bush tied Reagan, and more likely outperformed Bush, and not that Bush outperformed Reagan.

              The reason why the academic studies matter is that it provides a better review of the data than right after an election when counting is still going on amongst other issues.

              Let's also place this data into context. Reagan did this with immigration amnesty, as was something that Bush promised.

              My point is not about the GOP. Its about the latino voter.

              This is a core problem of being a partisan. You read everything- especially if you are a Democrat- in terms of us versus the GOP and specifically how to react to the GOP or the GOP reacting to Democrats.

              The point I am making is that the GOP will have a harder time than even Daily Kos is willing to state. Not just because of the polling data regarding Latino votes and GOP shifting its position on immigration. See the Nevada example for an example of Mexican voters (the biggest Latino voting block to affect outcomes and how Sandoval , a Latino REpublican, lose their vote by 67 points. He only received 33. Doing only slightly better than the anti-Latino immigration vote of the Republican candidate in 2010.

              The problem is deeper than immigration. Its ideological spectrum.

              The Latino vote, and Kos touched on this because the Conservatives are aware of this, are to the left of the GOP,a nd franky it seems the Democratic party and its base,

              The shifting demographics are likely to shift both the GOP AND the Democrats to the left. The Democrats it seems will resist this. One can see that in CA in the direct vote ballots.

              My point is this: the GOP has a lot of work cut out for it beyond immigration to win the Latino vote. Even with immigration they can may be shave a few points, but that's not so clear even with Latino candidates running pro immigration issues.

              It may be that the Latino vote is becoming solidly Democratic, but also that due to ideological make up that they are choosing the Democrats as the default not reactiionary party.

              That means the GOP has a problem, bu talso the Democratic establishment, which is used to playing off the reactionary right. That playbook  may be going ou tthe window. Thats the point of lookinig at all the data over time and what issues have affected outcomes.

              •  Latino voters are not monolithic, but I agree that (0+ / 0-)

                the GOP isn't likely to win a majority any time soon.

                On the other hand, there is fertile ground.  Where I live, a lot of the local latinos start businesses, and small business is a traditional strong spot for the GOP.

       don't win votes with a message that says, "We support small business, but not your kind."

                Fortunately for the GOP, the Democrats are content to lose white votes, so they have a little time to get that worked out.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 04:42:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site