I was reading through this article today and was interested in seeing what the folks here on the board think of some of the assertions made. Basically, the article made the claim that unless the Democrats can regain a majority of the ‘Latino’ vote we will not be the majority party in the US again in our lifetimes. From the article:
What did the Democrats do ‘wrong’? From the article:
What did the Republicans do ‘right’? Again:
I have to admit that, at least in my own family (where we still think of ourselves as the un-PC term of ‘hispanic’) I’m not seeing it. Nearly all my family are still dyed in the wool Democrats, even though increasingly the Democrats are alienating them on religious grounds. Even so, being a Democrat is nearly reflexive and universal in my family. Of course, I don’t think that mi familia is necessarily tied in to some vast ‘latino’ over mind either…or that there even is one. Certainly after the 2nd or 3rd generation all bets are pretty much off IMO.
For debate I’d like to see people thoughts on the latino vote in the US, how vital it is to either party. For the parties, how do you expect to be able to capture this ‘block’ (if a block it is) of voters? How important should your party (dem or pub) take the latino vote, how much effort should they put into capturing it? Should politicians begin to emphasize latinos over other minorities and focus more on their particular issues? Whether they should or not…will they?
In my extended family, the Democrats at one point were the unquestioned choice - they stood for social justice.
Now there’s a distinct anti-Democrat patina to feelings; the Democrats are seen as very anti-religion. The abortion issue also drove a deep wedge into the previous rock-solid support for Democrats. As Latin, strongly Catholic voters, my family doesn’t see a way to vote for Democrats in good conscience.
It didn’t hurt Bush that he speaks Spanish, or that his brother Jeb married a Mexican.
There are other reasons to support Bush in my view, but my extended family is divided on them, so I won’t offer them as anecdotal evidence for why he carried support among Latins.
Guess no one is interested in dipping a toe into this debate. Ah well…
My family is very similar, especially on the religious issues (they are uncomfortable with many of the democrat positions and a lot of the rhetoric about things like abortion and gay marrage…they would be VERY uncomfortable on this board for instance, assuming that it was written in spanish of course :)), but they are still very firmly democrat because they perceive the democrats as being ‘for the little man’ and the republicans as being ‘for the rich’, and so justify their vote accordingly. I think they are uneasy about some of the democrats positions, but overall they don’t really think there is a choice in who to vote for…they really buy into that whole ‘republicans are evil and only help the rich’ thing. Its deeply ingrained at this point.
Kerry was definitely a good candidate with my family, very popular, because he was catholic and didn’t come right out and talk about thinks like abortion or gay marrage (love em as I do, the majority of my family is not very adapt at reading between the lines…especially in english). They absolutely loved him, and were very bitter when he lost.
One thing that was in the article I linked too though that I actually am seeing. There is a growing resentment against blacks in the community I grew up in. I hear it a lot…there is a perception that blacks in the democrat party are ‘keeping “us” down’.
It didn’t really buy him anything in my own family. My father and one of my cousins voted for Bush (I voted Badnarik, which made me a very odd duck in my family)…but they voted for him for other reasons than he spoke spanish or his brother married a mexican. In fact, if I were to bet, I’d say that my cousin didn’t even know those facts. For the rest of my family, they hated Bush…mostly because he’s a republican, not for anything specific…I won’t go into anecdotes either, especially as the thread is going no where. Its a completely reflexive action on their part.
I will say another thing I noticed…that the Bush ads were better targetted at the hispanic community here than the Kerry ones were. There were lots of Viva Bush! bumper stickers, lots of well done Bush ads in both spanish and in english but targetted to the hispanic community…and hitting on things important to the hispanic community out here in the south west. Most of Kerry’s ads, at least here in New Mexico, were simply Attack Bush™ type ads, not focused on what hispanics consider important. Again, not that this had much impact on my own family…but it certainly had an impact on several of the states in the south west.
It sounds to me like your family is more flexable than my own…and perhaps they are less reflexive in how they vote, actually looking at the issues. Were I to guess I’d guess that most of your family are at least 2nd generation? Or perhaps they were better educated in your home country…most of my family come from farmer stock in mexico, and the majority of my extended family are 1st generation…at least the ones who can vote now.
Seems to me the key issue that allowed Bush to win in 2004 was national security. How do Latinos feel about that? Do they (like most Americans, apparently) trust the Pubs more than the Dems to keep America safe from real or imagined enemies?
I’m unsure how the wider ‘latino’ community (if there really is such a beast) feels about national security, or if it had a major impact on why so many seemingly went pub in this latest election. Were I to make a guess though, I’d say that it was more the quasi-religious issues that brought them over…and perhaps a better marketting strategy which actually seemed to include hispanics instead of exclude them (as Bricker said, it probably didn’t hurt that Bush speaks spanish, that his brother has a mexican wife, or that there are several hispanics in key positions in his government).
Things like gay marrage really make hispanics uncomfortable over all with a few exceptions…odd balls like myself. Same goes with issues like abortion…and even things like prayer in schools and, gods help us, the whole evolution thing. My own opinion is that THOSE were bigger issues to the hispanic (or latino if you prefer) community than national security, which I think seems more remote and less immediate. As I said, most of my own family was against the war…but they were against the war not because they are anti-war or sympathized with the plight of the Iraqi or Afghani people (snort) but because it was ‘Bush’s war’…a republicans war.
I can’t say that I’m a close follower of Hispanic politics, but I don’t think they’re a single monolithic block to be “won” by either party. The Republicans may be able to appeal to them by playing to “family” issues, such as religion and abortion – but the Democrats can also appeal to them by playing up “societal” issues, such as immigration, labor rights, and social services.
It’s worth noting that the recent Los Angeles mayoral election was decisively won by Antonio Villlaragosa, who is notably more liberal than his opponent, James Hahn.
I believe the RCC is actually open-minded about evolution nowadays, unlike some of our Evangelical Protestant churches.
But I also understand Evangelical Protestantism is making some inroads in the Latino population, at the expense of Catholicism, in the U.S. and in Latin America proper.
“If only we were heathen so we could all live together like good Christians!”
In certain locales, the Latino vote is of course important. But the focus of this thread appears to be on the Presidency. Nationwide, Latinos are only 13% of the population, and depending on who you ask, somewhere between 20% and 50% are illegal immigrants, who aren’t going to be voting any time soon. Many are also legal residents but not citizens, so they can’t vote either. Suppose half of all Latinos have the franchise - that’s 6.5% of the electorate. Also, ignore the fact that voter turnout is less for Latinos than for the general population.
So every 10 percentage point swing in the Latino vote translates to at most a 0.65% swing in the overall vote. That could only be a factor in the tightest of elections, It also assumes that every Latino vote gained is not offset by the loss of other votes, which sort of flies in the face of the concept that Latinos form a bloc with special interests.
None of this will prevent candidates from either party from indulging in the silliest contortions and gyrations imaginable to try to get the Latino vote. It’s a hot topic and I’m sure all the campaign consultants are putting together their PowerPoint presentations right now. The biggest political scandal of 2009 will occur when it is revealed that NIH funding was diverted for a secret project to develop a special medicine to allow Bill Frist grow a Cesar Romero-type mustache and authentically roll his r’s.