Exactly. One lawyer I worked with had the last name Hernandez. Whiter than a Swedish winter.
When it comes to social issues, that’s true. But on economics, it’s not–as even this conservative blogger (citing the highly respected Pew poll) noted in 2012:
Now, it’s true that Trump is not as into cutting entitlements and such as other Democrats. But the Tea Partiers running Congress still are. And this kind of big government with services can’t be maintained with the huge tax cut for the rich Trump is planning. So even if they don’t care about Trump’s open hostility toward them, this just doesn’t make a lot of sense and I suspect they will regret it. It seems like Americans need a periodic dose of the reality of Republican presidencies before they make a better choice. (I stopped being as sad about the results of the 2000 and 2004 elections once we got Obama, because I don’t think he would have had a chance had either Gore or Kerry become president.)
I wonder who wins Florida if Obama doesn’t cozy up to Cuba?
Apparently there are a lot of Latinos who do not like Hillary, or do not like liars, or who supported Bernie and didn’t like the way Bernie was fucked over by the DNC, or who are more interested in creating jobs in the U.S.A… I’m sure there are a lot more reasons as well.
Oh, you mean like how he always talks about building a wall to keep out the Mexicans and deporting all the rapist Hispanics? Yeah, that must be it.
Wait, so you are trying to peddle a narrative in which people who don’t like *liars *would vote for Donald fucking Trump? Come again? :dubious:
I can’t speak for the Hispanic point of view personally, but I would speculate that these are people that are legal immigrants that recognize the importance of the rule of law. A country that can’t/won’t enforce its laws becomes the mess that much of Central and South America is, which is what they wanted to leave behind.
Whatever the nuances of the concept of ‘white Hispanic’ in the US or countries of origin of Hispanics, ‘whiteness’ of Hispanics doesn’t seem to explain why an ostensibly more anti-Mexican* white candidate would do better against a white candidate (Clinton) than a less ostensibly anti-Mexican candidate did v. a black candidate (Romney v Obama). Hispanics certainly aren’t much more ‘white’ on average than they were in 2012.
*That is, various nationalities of Hispanic is another variable. Trump’s statements widely quoted to show he’s anti-Hispanic tended to specify Mexicans, as ‘rapists’, ‘Mexico will pay’, ‘Mexican judge’, etc. Perhaps a bit of the explanation Trump did relatively better than Romney with Hispanics is because non-Mexican Hispanics don’t react as hostilely as might have been assumed to statements perceived to be against Mexico or Mexicans.
I personally would go with what I see as simplest explanation as the main one. Trump has had a different appeal than past recent GOP’ers, more focused on working class concerns. A higher % of Hispanics (and blacks) are working class than is the case with (non-Hispanic) whites. Some of the election simply came down to the upper half or upper couple of quintiles (not just the ‘1%’) doing better in recent years’ economy than the lower half or lower 60%, and HRC represented the status quo. Of course the group identity concerns of blacks and Hispanics didn’t disappear. Perhaps that aspect was indeed exacerbated by Trump’s persona, statements and associations. But those two factors netted out in Trump doing still much worse among those groups than Clinton did, but better relatively than Romney did.
Catholics–>Pro-Life
Yes, by being elected President While Black. Twice.
We all know you hate him, but he’s on his way out. Your Guys will have a chance to show us what they’re made of. And what you’re made of.
But only around 55% of US Hispanics now identify themselves as Catholic, and that’s lower than in 2012, not higher. Plus anyone paying real attention to the campaign would realize that Romney’s pro-life views by 2012 were heartfelt and his earlier pro-choice period in public life opportunistic, whereas Trump’s supposed pro-life conversion just opportunistic and he doesn’t actually care.
I live in South Texas, where about 90-95% of people are Hispanic.
Most do not see themselves as members of a “minority” group in the least, or even have a strong sense of “race.” “White,” blanco/a," or “güero” may simply mean “lighter skinned than average.” (Non-Hispanic whites are “Anglos,” “Gabachos,” or - often affectionately - “Gringos”). Older people here certainly recall a time when segregation existed and the local elite was mostly white (or white-skinned), but most people under fifty grew up in a place where most local politicians were Mexican American.
In my county, Trump received about 29% of the vote, which almost certainly means at least 25%, or one in four Hispanic votes. I think the gap is much stronger with male voters. This is anecdotal, but I would say at least half the working-class, blue collar Hispanic men I know who voted (which would be about half that subset) probably voted for Trump. They probably voted for Trump for the same reasons similar men in Indiana or Michigan did.
Remember Romney’s “self-deport” plan. I think that might affect people more viscerally than “build a wall.” Romney basically said “I will make life so miserable in the U.S. you will want to leave.” Trump is mainly focused on keeping new arrivals out (and would probably continue Obama’s levels of standard deportations).
Yes, could be that talking heads on TV overestimate how differently average Hispanic voters would see the Romney v Trump statements on illegal immigration.
Plus again and related to your other post, voters aren’t just one thing. Hispanic voters who are also working class average Joe’s might be more attracted to Trump than to Romney for similar reasons as white average joe’s are more attracted to Trump than Romney. Part of this is getting out the bubble/spin of saying Trump’s whole appeal is ‘racism’ then having to twist oneself into a pretzel trying to figure out why so many people, including more Hispanics apparently, are attracted to Trump. The simple answer might start with realizing that ‘racism’ or its undertones, though not necessarily completely lacking in any validity as an explanation of Trump’s appeal with anyone, isn’t necessarily the main thing with everyone.
I was pretty leary of the confidence everyone had that Trump is obviously going to lose the Hispanic vote (more than previous R candidates) and there would be a big boost in their turnout to boot. It’s not that it was an unreasonable hope but they’ve had such a shitty record in election participation that I never felt it should be taken as a given they’d completely change this time.
Trump’s statements were directed at illegal immigrants.
His own wife is a legal immigrant and naturalized citizen.
Legal immigrants can and apparently did support Trump.
So, yeah, more hispanic votes than Romney, but not by much.
65% is still a supermayority for Clinton, of course one can blame the smaller number on Clinton and the jobs/macho message of Trump, but I wanted to point that out because many here seem to imply that most hispanics did support Trump. The stereotype that is being talked about their participation does not apply to all states.
that and Kaine with his spanish rallies, cringe didn’t help. I hate to be questioned why I would not vote Democrat. really? I have to vote for “her” because it’s her turn. And to be honest I don’t believe Trump to be racist I never got that impression, but thanks for letting me know how to feel.
I think one part that people may be missing is that as any immigrant group becomes more assimilated, they tend to identify more and more as Americans and less and less as their ethnic identity group. So it’s possible that as Latinos are here for longer, they vote less based on their Latino identity and more based on concerns that they might share with other Americans, e.g. Trump voters.
I suspect that this may be a counter to the notion that the declining number of whites in America dooms the Republican Party. Because over that same time, they may gain increasing shares of the minority vote. Unless a given ethnic group fails to assimilate. (That’s why divisive racial rabble-rousing helps the Democrats, in causing members of ethnic groups to see themselves in terms of their ethnic identities.)
Of course, the bolded section would have driven them away from Trump whose lies–both in seriousness and quantity–are far beyond anything Clinton produced. I am pretty sure that the decisions were not based on an actual opposition to liars.
Cubans émigrés, established Latinos who oppose later “illegals,” people who align with Republican ideas regarding “family values” (despite the fact the Trump shares none of them), and others probably make up a large portion of the Tump Latino support, but opposing liars makes no sense.