RSS Feed MenuA new AP/Univision poll shows that Hispanics back Democrats far more than they do Republicans. If the GOP doesn’t do something about this weak support, the party will struggle to return to majority status.
Anyone who cares about making the Republican party a majority party again will need to address two figures that come out of the survey. First, the poll found that a mind boggling 50% of the 1,500-plus Hispanics surveyed consider themselves Democrats, with only a meager 15% identifying as Republicans. With the polls 3.5 point margin of error, the best conceivable scenario for Republicans is that the Democrats get only 46.5%, while Republicans score 18.5%, which is still a 28 percentage point support gap among the fastest growing voter pool in the country. If Republicans don’t close this margin significantly in the coming years, forget about forming a “new majority”. We will be lucky to form a big minority.
Luckily, the second figure every Republican should take note of provides a prescription for cutting into the Democratic lead among Hispanic voters. 41% of Hispanic voters said that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who is Hispanic. The RNC and local state parties need to start recruiting far more Hispanic Republicans to run for office at all levels of government.
Follow Jeb on twitter @JGolinkin
Madeline // Jul 27, 2010 at 11:42 pm
The electoral problem (for Republicans) isn’t horrible as long as Democrat-voting Hispanics concentrate in solidly blue states like California. Forfeiting Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada could still be acceptable if offsetting gains are made in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Michigan.
But the Hispanic population is increasing (rapidly) in states like Utah, Idaho, and Colorado in the west; and Mississippi, Alabama North Carolina and Georgia in the south; which should be troubling to the GOP.
Moderate // Jul 27, 2010 at 11:53 pm
msmilack:
Another thought that bothers me is what if people are trying to escape the drug war going on in Mexico? Should we not offer asylum?
If our policy is to accept refugees from the drug wars, that’s only a temporary salve. The fighting will continue, and we’ll have countless refugees fleeing the same problems for generations to come. The U.S. cannot handle that burden.
It would be much more helpful to those mired in violence if we, for example, re-worked our domestic drug laws.
Moderate // Jul 28, 2010 at 12:01 am
@Madeline
Utah, Idaho, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, etc. are so overwhelming Republican (for federal elections) that if they fall, then so too has every other Republican state. The real point of no return is Texas; I can’t imagine a Republican electoral coalition that didn’t include it. I’m assuming that if Texas falls, it means that Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada have as well.
But like I said, my reason for reaching out to Hispanic voters isn’t because I’m worried about losing Arizona. I’d like the GOP to reach out to all voters: Hispanics, Asians, blacks, Muslims, atheists, Jews, Hindus. Republicans do not need to compromise their principles to do this; they only need to compromise their xenophobic base.
DeepSouthPopulist // Jul 28, 2010 at 12:23 am
RE: demographic trends
A very good analysis in the context of government spending and resource allocations.
The gist: Aging Whites and young non-Whites have different priorities. Confrontations likely.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20100724_3946.php?mrefid=site_search
connor25 // Jul 28, 2010 at 12:43 am
Moderate at 12:01 a.m
I agree with you 100% on your last paragraph. I’ve been studying race relations for some time. The GOP can reach out to these people, but for the party to truly embrace diversity would require them to leave their shrinking base in the South and not just get non-whites elected to office.
I’ve had conversations with the base, they think reaching out is heresy and becoming a Democrat (read: people like CO Independent and my arguments with him, Smarg and Carney)
But I think it’s going to take losing more elections for the party to get a clue. The GOP will realize they don’t have the fiedlity with the shrinking base and more people are rejecting them. They’re going through what the Tories did in England, it will probably be a while but it will force them to change their image on demographics and race.
Shouldn’t Obama have been a wake-up call for the party to do serious reformation on race relations?
I have posted examples here before on how Republicans won with reaching out.
Moderate // Jul 28, 2010 at 1:16 am
@connor25
I assume that the Republican powers are keenly aware of the long-term instability of the Southern Strategy. Once they’re back in power, they’ll re-define the party’s priorities and the rank-and-file will accept the changes without question.
I wouldn’t worry too much about what the base thinks. Their opinions are unsophisticated and malleable.
/elitist
//not elite, though, sadly
busboy33 // Jul 28, 2010 at 9:43 am
@Moderate:
“Another thought that bothers me is what if people are trying to escape the drug war going on in Mexico? Should we not offer asylum?”
“If our policy is to accept refugees from the drug wars, that’s only a temporary salve.”
Well . . . yes. But that’s not really answering the question, is it? Asylum is a temporary salve, fine. So “Should we not offer a temporary salve?”
easton // Jul 28, 2010 at 9:55 am
msmilack, I live in Mexico and I have to say things are nowhere as bad as people imagine. Most of the killing is between the cartels or the cartels and the cops, and most is along the northern border, where I live in Oaxaca is far safer than when I lived in New Jersey.
sinz54 // Jul 28, 2010 at 10:10 am
Golinkin: Luckily, the second figure every Republican should take note of provides a prescription for cutting into the Democratic lead among Hispanic voters. 41% of Hispanic voters said that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who is Hispanic. The RNC and local state parties need to start recruiting far more Hispanic Republicans to run for office at all levels of government.
As RedState.com has pointed out,
such a strategy would be vulnerable to the charge of hypocrisy: For years, the GOP has run against “identity politics” and affirmative action. That minority groups shouldn’t be pandered to with special favors.
And so RedState.com is against recruiting anyone on the basis of their ethnicity.
And they’re right.
Let the Democrats run black candidates in black districts and Jews in Jewish districts and so on.
CO Independent // Jul 28, 2010 at 10:24 am
>> I’ve had conversations with the base, they think reaching out is heresy and becoming a Democrat (read: people like CO Independent and my arguments with him, Smarg and Carney)
1. You mischaracterize my statements. I have stated previously that Republican outreach programs to the African American community, which consistently votes 90-95% Democrat, are a waste of money and should be stopped. Ditto for the Jewish vote, which consistently votes 70-80% Democrat. (The Republican Party’s person in charge of Jewish outreach said the same thing after the 2008 election.)
2. I have consistently stated that outreach to the Hispanic community is probably worthwhile.
3. Golinkin’s solution is to adopt explicit racial politics. This will kill the Republican party. Republicans have to transcend race to be successful.
busboy33 // Jul 28, 2010 at 11:03 am
@CO Independent:
“Republicans have to transcend race to be successful.”
Wow. I actually agree with you for once.
LFC // Jul 28, 2010 at 11:45 am
buddyglass said… @dante: OTOH I’d wager Republican white families reproduce at a higher rate than white Democrat families. The evangelical community, which is largely Republican, certainly has a higher birth rate.
This goes a long way in explaining why the right is so against LEGAL immigration too. Asians and Africans are scary people and they tend to have kids.
Moderate said… I assume that the Republican powers are keenly aware of the long-term instability of the Southern Strategy. Once they’re back in power, they’ll re-define the party’s priorities and the rank-and-file will accept the changes without question.
You obviously haven’t been following the Tea Party Pinheads. After spending years and considerable effort to fire up the fear and froth of the right, the “Republican powers” have pretty much lost control of what was created. Oh, well.
jquintana // Jul 28, 2010 at 12:08 pm
CO Independent // Jul 28, 2010 at 10:24 am
“Golinkin’s solution is to adopt explicit racial politics. This will kill the Republican party. Republicans have to transcend race to be successful.”
That’s always been the Republican’s problem—they’ve tried to transcend race for decades now and they’ve been constantly accused of racism BY Democrats because they don’t pander LIKE Democrats.
Democrats have NEVER transcended race. Their strategy, since the 1960s, has been to divide people by category, then pander to each individual group until they have a dedicated voting block. Then they go to that same voting block again and again and accuse Republicans of being at best uncaring, and at worst racist, because Republicans aren’t politically savvy enough to play that game. Oldest trick in the political playbook.
LFC // Jul 28, 2010 at 12:36 pm
That’s always been the Republican’s problem—they’ve tried to transcend race for decades …
Yeah, that’s why you see so many Republicans condemning Andrew Breitbart for intentional deception and false accusations of racism. Oh, wait…
jquintana // Jul 28, 2010 at 12:50 pm
LFC // Jul 28, 2010 at 12:36 pm
“Yeah, that’s why you see so many Republicans condemning Andrew Breitbart for intentional deception and false accusations of racism.”
SHIRLEY SHERROD: I think he’d like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he’d like to see all black people end up again. And that’s why –
ANDERSON COOPER: You think he’s a racist?
SHERROD: Yes, I do. And I think that’s why he’s so vicious against a black president.
More of the “if you oppose Obama you’re a racist” crap, which proves my original point: Divide people by category, then pander to each individual group until you have a dedicated voting block. Then they go to that voting block again and again and accuse the opposition of being racist.
Breitbart’s mistake? Playing the same game liberals have been using for years. Taking soundbites out of context and using them to bludgeon the opposition. He just learned from the best, that’s all.
Slide // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:23 pm
jquintana // Jul 28, 2010 at 12:50 pm: “Breitbart’s mistake? Playing the same game liberals have been using for years. Taking soundbites out of context and using them to bludgeon the opposition. He just learned from the best, that’s all.”
Are Republicans ever responsible for their actions? EVER. What a bunch of bull crap to suggest that he “just learned from the best”. He is a lying piece of dog excrement and his ilk in the Republican party are responsible for the fact that they can write of the vast majority of African-Americans, Hispanics, Gays, Atheists, Jews, “elites”, Northern conservatives, immigrants, and the unemployed who’s benefits they refused to extend while screaming to keep the tax cuts for the super wealthy.. On the plus side however, they’ve seemed to have locked up that uneducated, bitter, aging, racist demographic.
Oh… and Brietbart is a racist. Not because he opposes Obama but because he is a racist. And what do racists do mostly? Well, they call others racists. You see Buchanan and Gingrich call Sottomayor a racist for her “wise latina” comment. Lord calls Sherrod a racist because she lied about someone being lynched when he was only beaten to death while in handcuffs. What a freakin racist she is. I don’t care that her father was murdered by the KKK and that no one was arrested. SHE is the racist you see… and that makes us all feel better about being the racists we are. Or so the thinking must go.
I’ve had it with the right suggesting that the left are the true racists. Bull shit. Pure and simple.
jabbermule // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Slide // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:23 pm
“Oh… and Brietbart is a racist. Not because he opposes Obama but because he is a racist. And what do racists do mostly? Well, they call others racists.”
Ladies and gentlemen, Slide has just provided us with a new definition of racism. Quite creative, I must say. You don’t have to engage in discrimination against ethnic groups other than your own, you just have to call someone a racist now. That’ll do it. Well, by that logic you just called yourself a racist, too, along with every one of your cohorts on the left. Does the irony of your statement escape you? Probably…you appear to be quite stupid and uneducated.
“I’ve had it with the right suggesting that the left are the true racists. Bull shit. Pure and simple.”
The left is filled with racists. Your racism comes from lowered intellectual and economic expectations of minorities, and you divide people by race or ethnicity. And you really don’t give a shit about fairness, you only want to gain as much political power as possible so you can force your socialist agenda on the American people.
You just use race as a means to attain your utopian goal of European-style socialism.
easton // Jul 28, 2010 at 8:15 pm
jabbermule, how did the shark look as you jumped over it? Good lord was that an idiotic posting.
“utopian goal of European-style socialism.” Really? Are you really this foolish to engage in such stupid hyperbole. Um…you do know Europe is not one country right? That Ireland has been considered to be more Capitalistic than the US, here is the order:
1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. Ireland
4. Australia
5. United States
So keep up the nonsense, it is a way to have zero credibility.
By the way, I hate to burst your ever so insane bubble, but most countries (hell, pretty much all) in Europe are not Socialist. You obviously believe socialism means anything you disagree with, well it doesn’t. It means State control over the means of production. So get a serious grip you clown.
msmilack // Jul 28, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Moderate
You wrote: “It would be much more helpful to those mired in violence if we, for example, re-worked our domestic drug laws.”
In a matter of life or death, however, even a temporary salve is better than none at all.
I agree with you that we need to do more work to fix our domestic laws as one way of assisting this problem though I’m not sure what you have in mind. If, e.g., what you are implying is that legalizing certain drugs would cut out the need for a supply from Mexico, I agree that that is one way to probably go for that reason (and I am open to other solutions as well). But that would not be enough to help them out in the short run. A second way to help is unfortunately to use our military more than we have already to assist the Mexican troops fighting these maniacs that are beheading civilians in their drug battles and most recently seen using USA made grenades. This is next door to us so we havea reason to get involved beyond altruism. I hate the thought of risking American lives for that cause, especially because the fighting is so filled with atrocities; yet don’t we have to do something?
Back to my original point: I have not read any distinctions being made between Mexicans escaping the drug wars and Mexicans selling drugs, both of whom may be trying to cross the border as illegal immigrants. I hope our humanitarian instincts still guide our consciences.
msmilack // Jul 28, 2010 at 11:10 pm
easton // Jul 28, 2010 at 9:55 am
You wrote: “msmilack, I live in Mexico and I have to say things are nowhere as bad as people imagine. Most of the killing is between the cartels or the cartels and the cops, and most is along the northern border, where I live in Oaxaca is far safer than when I lived in New Jersey.”
That makes me feel better. But of the victims — do you not think any of them are trying to escape? Certainly civilians who live near the warfare want to get away. What would you advise them to do? Or advise the USA do to help?
Rabiner // Jul 29, 2010 at 2:01 am
“Let the Democrats run black candidates in black districts and Jews in Jewish districts and so on.”
So having a candidate coming from a minority majority district that happens to be that minority is playing ‘identity politics’? And I do not know of any ‘Jewish’ majority districts except maybe in New York City.
GEValle // Jul 29, 2010 at 9:44 am
If the Hispanic population is dumb enough to vote Democrat in large numbers, then that’s their problem.
We’re not altering our pro-growth, pro-Constitution, limited-government message to win the ballyhooed Hispanic vote.
…Just another example of why we need REAl immigration reform, and why we need to end policies like chain migration and “anchor babies”.
But of course, that simple point will be lost to most of the dunderheads on this forum.
jquintana // Jul 29, 2010 at 12:20 pm
GEValle // Jul 29, 2010 at 9:44 am:
“If the Hispanic population is dumb enough to vote Democrat in large numbers, then that’s their problem.”
There are two reasons Latinos vote Democrat in large numbers:
1) In most of Latin America, the Republican Party is the state-controlled party that favors big government and more government control over the lives of the citizens, whereas the Democrat Party in Latin America is independent of the government (much like our parties here). Uninformed Latino immigrants who come here assume the parties are the same as at home, and naturally migrate to the Dems, who pretend to be the “party of the people.” Until, that is, they find out differently—that the Republican Party more reflects their values. Of the self-identified Latinos who are citizens, are civic-minded, take the time to look at the issues separating the two parties, and actually vote, large numbers of them eventually migrate to the Republican Party. That’s why roughly 1/3 of self-identified Latinos vote Republican—they’re the smart ones who actually do their homework.
2) As for the rest, well, they’re used to dictatorial/socialistic practices of the government in their countries of origin, and there’s a certain comfort level with what you’ve grown accustomed to. Besides, name me ONE Latin American country that has the freedoms and legal protections of our Constitution. Freedom can be a very scary thing for people who have lived under oppression their entire lives, and we have so many legal protections in this country we can’t even throw out those who are here ILLEGALLY.
“We’re not altering our pro-growth, pro-Constitution, limited-government message to win the ballyhooed Hispanic vote.”
Good, we should hang on to the 1/3 of Latinos who DO believe in those things. People who believe in the opposite aren’t very reliable voters, anyway.
“But of course, that simple point will be lost to most of the dunderheads on this forum.”
I hear you, brother.
Joe In NH // Aug 5, 2010 at 11:13 pm
The GOP will have to walk away from the very small but very vocal xenophobic base before escaping the Southern Strategy of Nixon and becoming a majority party but I wouldn’t bet on it happening any time soon.