It has been taking as true on both sides of the argument that Obama’s selection of Judge Sotomayor to be on the Supreme Court will help the Democrats win ths Hispanic vote. So says both The Huffington Post and The Wall Street Journal.
My question is, is that really true? The so-called Hispanic block is a lot more fragmented that that isn’t it? Are the Mexican/Cuban/Salvadoran immigrants really going to flock to the Dems? I personally doubt it, as I think that immigration policy is the Hispanics main concern, but what do you all think?
Hispanics went 2 to 1 for Obama in 2008. As the older generation of Cuban Hispanics die out, this disparity will only grow greater. The nomination of Sotomayor, plus the “racist” overreaction by many leading Republicans will only increase this trend. I do not see Hispanics ever getting to the same 90%+ threshold that African Americans demonstrate for the Democratic Party, but I can see numbers in the high 70’s in the 2012 election.
This appointment was a master political stroke in so many ways. Rahm Emanuel is a political genius.
I don’t think so. All one has to do is point out Miguel Estrada to highlight the hypocrisy involved by the left.
It might be an immediate feel good shot, but I don’t think it will affect any elections. Look who appointed the first black Secretary of State, the first black woman Secretary of State, the first Hispance AG, etc. Do you think any of those impacted elections?
Liberals love this kind of identify politics. They get to feel good about being historic. Meanwhile their opponents do the same thing, only without the ‘Look at me!!!’ attitude.
Its not just picking Sotomayor that helps Obama, its the republicans fighting her and making themselves look even more anti-hispanic thats gonna help the most.
I don’t think the appointment of one Latina would itself move many voters. However, the fact that Obama continues to appoint so many women and people of color to various posts might have a cumulative effect, as it shows that his appeals to diversity aren’t just lip service. (Obviously, his own race is the biggest part of this.)
But what I think can move a lot of Latinos is the disgusting race-based attacks of the GOP on the Sotomayor nomination. And not the fringe, but a lot of mainstream commentors. Like the guy who’s pissed off because she pronounces her name like it’s pronounces instead of letting “Americans” pronounce it like Niedermeyer. Or the people who think that it reflects poorly on her judicial temperment that, as a woman of Puerto Rican heritage, she has admitted liking Puerto Rican food. It makes plain that the GOP as currently constituted has no real care for the problems of people who aren’t white men. And that’s going tocontinue to drive away a lot of non-whites who, because of social and economic values, were considered a fertile field for Republican recruiting a few years ago.
Sinaijon - your examples are attempting to deny that there was a several decade trend for African Americans as solid members of the Democratic Party. A few window dressing appointments were not going to change already cemented belifs and demographic realities.
The same can be said for Hispanics. They are now trending to be heavy Democratic voters. This is based on recent election results and the demographics of their population. An appointment like Sotomayor could be just the thing to advance those already existant trends even further to the Democrats favor.
One appointment, or even a small number of them, cannot change established trends and beliefs. One key appointment - especially a very high profile one like Sotomayor and the Republican “racist” overreaction can indeed provide impetus to push already functioning trends even further.
What does Miguel have to do with anything? He was appointed, and the left, without reference to his ethnicity, said his record was horrible.
Sotomayor was appointed, and the right, without reference to her *record *(better than any modern nominee, BTW) say her *ethnicity *is horrible.
The two are completely unrelated. The only type of person who thinks of them as equivalent cases is the type of person who is oblivious to every quality *except * their race.
Cliffy is right. Just go to any American city or town where they have a large Hispanic polulation and ask them to identify Estrada or Sotomayor. For each person who knows anything about Estrada, ten or twenty will know who Sotomayor is. Go even further, give them the details about Estrada from Wikipedia and then see how many Hispanics care about it. Let the Limbaughs of the Republican Party get their way and stop Sotomayor and then see what Hispanics say about that.
538 has had a series of posts analyzing this which are summarized in this post:
Which I must admit surprises me. I also continue to maintain that long term Texas is going to come into play and that dissing the Hispanic population will only speed up that day.
Probably not much. Hispanic voters strongly favored Obama last time out, and the Republicans’ stance on immigration alienated that group pretty thoroughly. The Sotomayor nomination might cement those trends somewhat but I don’t think it inspires major changes on its own.
Ah, you’re right. I apologize for my seemingly contradictory statement. Allow me to re-phrase.
There is no “Hispanic bloc”. Hispanic-Americans from Puerto Rico have different concerns than those from Mexico, Cuba or El Salvador, so that those from Mexico, Cuba or El Salvador won’t be swayed to supporting the Dems just because Obama picked Sotomayor. Those from PR won’t necessarily be swayed to support the Dems just because of Sotomayor either, I hope. (I would hope their reasons for supporting the Dems would be deeper than that.)
I don’t think the move gains many Hispanic votes in itself, but it doesn’t lose any, and the stupid attempts to paint her as a racist by the right is not going to gain THEM any votes.
Unlike Clarence Thomas, Sotomayor was chosen for her qualifications, not her skin color. It seems to me that since right wingers are incapable of seeing minoritiy appointees as anything but tokens, they assume that the same must be true of the left when the left stopped being concerned about that shit a long time ago.
I think there has been one notable exception on the right, and that was, of all people, GWB. For all his myriad faults and shortcomings, I believe he was genuinely color blind, (and gender blind) when it came to making appointments and deciding who he wanted to listen to.
What the right is really doing is exactly what they tried to do to Obama. The new strategy for dealing with any non-white political opponent is not to attack them on their race (which would be politically moronic), but to try to flip the script accuse THEM of being racist and “anti-white.” It’s still racist. It still feeds on fear of the other. It still insinuates that white people should fear non-whites.
Go ahead. Keep it up. How did that work out for you in November?
Rush & Co. have been attacking her record, not her ethnicity. You can disagree with the attacks but if you can’t make up stuff. Where can I find instances of “the right” (which is wide and there should be many) saying her *ethnicity * is horrible? (Or anything even close)