Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Weekly Open Thread: Good Friday Edition (309 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Schumer negotiates immigration compromise (8+ / 0-)

    Link to Huffington Post story

    Stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it, Rubio! We have a REAL statesman in our party who brought Big Business and Big Labor to the table to work out a compromise on comprehensive immigration reform.

    Polls don't vote, statistics don't vote, history doesn't vote, yard signs don't vote...PEOPLE VOTE!!!

    by DownstateDemocrat on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 12:52:05 PM PDT

    •  That's a big hurdle cleared (3+ / 0-)

      If a bill can get 70+ in the Senate, I wonder what it could mean for the House.

      •  Another Hastert Rule breaking? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, DownstateDemocrat, jncca

        "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

        by conspiracy on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 02:16:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's what I'm wondering (4+ / 0-)

          There is a House group that is apparently close to  unveiling a proposal as well, one that also has a pathway to citizenship. That group has some conservative GOP members, so it seems possible that a comprehensive deal(either that or the Senate one) could get a majority of Republicans.

          But I dont know enthusiastic Cantor is about a comprehensive deal. Seems like I've only heard him talk about a DREAM act. Maybe I'm wrong, but Boehner obviously has to watch Cantor's stance on this.

    •  Good news (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DownstateDemocrat

      But there will be ample opportunity for people to torpedo the deal, so let's not crow prematurely.

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 02:19:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Awesome, I hope they start hearings soon. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      "...and as I learned higher joys, so I learned neither to harm, nor to wish harm upon others." -Nietzche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

      by KingofSpades on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 02:32:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting (5+ / 0-)

      The particular pathway to citizenship in this bill isn't a "get to the back of the line" - it's a 13 year flat rule.

      23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

      by wwmiv on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 03:35:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In other words (6+ / 0-)

        This is much better electorally for Democrats. If that stays intact, then that'll hit en masse in 2025.

        23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

        by wwmiv on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 03:36:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you think this means Texas would go blue (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          in 2028?

          •  Any reform which has a pathway to citizenship (4+ / 0-)

            will eventually lead to Texas going blue and staying that way unless Republicans can start winning - and consistently so - 40% of the Hispanic vote in Texas.

            There's no reason to believe that they can do that even among Hispanics that are currently part of the voting population. The likelihood is even bleaker for them, given that Hispanics not in the voting population are likely to be more Democratic than those that are, meaning that their share should go down not up over time.

            Moreover, Texas would be purple today even discounting the not eligible to vote population if eligible Hispanics turned out at the same rate as Anglos and kept their voting habits at the same ~30% Republican pattern that they've been at for the last decade (according to this study).

            I go back and forth on this subject. Some days I really feel like turning Texas purple or even blue is a hopeless and wasteful endeavor, but other days I look at the demographic evidence in front of me and cheer because I realize how screwed the GOP is long-term.

            23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

            by wwmiv on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 01:47:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  15 years. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wwmiv, Darth Jeff, MichaelNY, jncca

              I used to think that Texas being a toss-up state by 2028 was all but demographically inevitable. But I've changed my thinking a bit as I look more and more at the details of turnout, in particular the really shockingly low turnout in Hispanic areas. I don't have quite as much faith that the demographics will automatically cause Texas to turn blue, if turnout remains so low. But on the other hand, I think a concerted, effective, long-term Democratic effort to engage that vast pool of potential voters could turn the tide even sooner, perhaps making TX a toss-up by 2024 and actually lean Dem by 2028. Hopefully Battleground Texas will prove to be that effort; but we'll have to see...

              •  Well (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Chachy, MichaelNY, bumiputera

                Remember the other week the poll that the Texas Tribune put out that showed that whites moving here from out of the state are something like 58-42 GOP and everyone was like "well, that just means that they aren't favorable for Dems picking up the state".

                That actually means just the opposite, because those whites are a hell of alot more liberal than existing whites. It means that over the long-term (as pre-existing whites die off or leave) whites in this state are becoming more and more Dem, even if it is not ever possible to win that group. The more that Dems can control their losses among whites (which this helps us do), the more and more likely it becomes that we can win the state even with lackluster minority turnout (minority turnout, it should be mentioned, is the absolute lowest in the country by far).

                If you can get minority turnout up to even what it is like in places like NM, AZ, CA, NV, and CO relative to whites you could put the state within reach sometime over the next 6 years.

                As I said above, if you could get it to the same level as whites in the state, you could put it within reach now.

                And even if you let the demographics work its magic on its own, Texas will be purple by 2028 (I think).

                23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                by wwmiv on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 02:16:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  turnout (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY, jncca

                  I missed that Texas Tribune piece. Link?

                  If you can get minority turnout up to even what it is like in places like NM, AZ, CA, NV, and CO relative to whites you could put the state within reach sometime over the next 6 years.
                  I would love to see the details on the numbers behind this assertion. I would, incidentally, also like to know why minority turnout (but mostly just hispanic turnout, right?) in TX is so terrible.
                  As I said above, if you could get it to the same level as whites in the state, you could put it within reach now.
                  Well, that study you cited still had Romney and Cruz winning by 5%, so it'd still be an R+4 state. Plus, if Hispanics turned out at the same rate as whites, that means they'd actually overperform whites relative to age, education, and class demographics. So that would be a lot to ask for.
                  •  Turnout in Texas was the second lowest in '08 and (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    the lowest in '10. I haven't looked at '12 numbers, but I imagine that it's in the bottom 5 as we always are.

                    That is almost entirely driven by low turnout among eligible Hispanics.

                    R+4 is purple-ish. We describe North Carolina as purple, and that state is R+3 (R+4 in '08 and R+3 in '12).

                    On the second point: AAs outperform whites relative to age, education, and class. Why isn't it possible for, with a very concerted push, for Hispanics also to do so?

                    http://www.texastribune.org/...

                    I may have misremembered the poll itself, but the general point still stands. These people are less conservative than pre-existing whites (27% are liberals, which I'd assume is much higher than the level for preexisting whites).

                    23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                    by wwmiv on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 02:56:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But this is among all migrants from California, (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MichaelNY, jncca

                      right? Presumably some of these migrants are non-whites... In which case these numbers would be pretty bad.

                      •  I suppose that's true (0+ / 0-)

                        We'd have to know the racial breakdown, for sure, but I imagine that they're more Anglo than Texas given relative mobility of those in California and the assumption that most people leaving California are white not minority.

                        23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                        by wwmiv on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 03:56:53 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Have you really done the math on this??? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              I'm very skeptical.

              One thing I've been thinking in recent weeks is that the path to citizenship as an electoral windfall for us is a myth.

              These 11 million or so will prove to include some who end up ineligible for citizenship, never meeting the criteria (perhaps criminal record or whatever else).  Others in fact are uninterested in citizenship, if in fact they're allowed to stay without it.  Some others will fail to apply simply from inertia, they don't get around to it, or not for a long time after becoming eligible.  The ones who apply and get approved, quite a few won't bother registering to vote.  The ones who register, some will never actually vote.  Oh, and along the way, some will die or leave the country.

              These are a lot of choke points where you lop off some people at every step.

              Not to mention these people are scattered across the country.  Yes I realize distribution is very uneven and a state like Texas has a much bigger concentration than any other single state, but still it's only a fraction of the total.

              I tend to think that once we have the full effect of "amnesty" realized 2 or 3 decades from now, it will end up with a typical U.S. House member having maybe 5 people total who are actual voters and who benefited from "amnesty."

              Do you have math that says otherwise?

              But here's a bigger deal, a much bigger factor in changing the electorate:  the guest worker provisions I read they negotiated themselves include a path to citizenship!  That's a big deal.  These people will have portable work visas and can eventually apply for citizenship through a more generous process than undocumenteds receive.  That will kick in and change things much sooner.  But even then the numbers probably won't be significant...it could end up like I said with undocumenteds getting "amnesty," with a typical House member seeing only a trivial effect.  But I bet it ends up a bigger effect than from "amnesty."

              45, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

              by DCCyclone on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:21:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  5 people total? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wwmiv

                Tipped for intelligent thinking, as usual, but while some caution is warranted, I think you're way underselling the "amnesty."

                Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                by MichaelNY on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 10:40:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  5*435=2175 (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY, jncca

                  which is, in my opinion, a rather low estimate of illegal immigrants who end up as voters.

                  •  Yeah (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY, jncca

                    Especially considering the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. to be about 11 million, with about 1.65 million living in Texas alone (exceeded only in raw terms by California, and only by California and Nevada by percent).

                    Even if you assume that only 15% end up as citizens and voters (a very low estimate, I'd think), that's an additional approximately 247,000 voters in Texas alone. That's a HUGE amount, with a net Democratic vote of around 110,000.

                    That's a big deal. Perry only beat White by just over 600,000. That's one sixth of the way to victory.

                    23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                    by wwmiv on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 11:47:33 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site