The GOP’s Hispanic Voter Gap

July 27th, 2010 at 5:03 pm | 49 Comments |

| Print

A 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

Recent Posts by Jeb Golinkin



49 Comments so far ↓

  • Rabiner

    “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.”

    You realize that Whites are more likely to vote for Whites, Blacks more likely to vote for Blacks and so forth. It’s not something new. Recruiting Hispanics to run for office is nice but if they don’t change their policies it probably won’t matter.

  • elizajane

    Yuck. Talk about cynical. “Our policies don’t represent them, but if we can get one of them to represent us, they’ll vote against their own interests on the basis of race. They’re that stupid.” Isn’t this kind of racial calculation what we were supposed to be moving beyond? At least most African-Americans were Democrats already.

  • andydp

    I’ve already seen some “toning down” of the anti immigrant rhetoric so prevalent in the GOP. Lou Dobbs seems to have softened his view. I saw a sign that said “Immigration yes – Illegal no” Good start. (I still think my immigrant, spoke with an accent all his life, WWII US Army Veteran dad would get a hard time in this day and age.)

    You still have a very strident group of conservatives that lumps all Hispanics into the “illegal” camp. Since the squeaky wheel get the grease, it stands to reason the majority of Hispanic voters only hear and see a decidely anti Hispanic tone from Conservative circles.

    About 100 years ago my dad came from Italy as a 14 year old. He encountered the anti Italian bigotry of New York. Seventy Five years before that the Irish had their turn (No dogs or Irish allowed). In the 50′s it was the Puerto Ricans’ turn. Now its the Hispanic Immigrant’s turn.

    While I recognize the many problems surrounding the Immigration issue, I can’t help but wonder: would everybody be this venomous if the “illlegals” were from Canada ?

  • Claude

    Slate.com, not normally a friend of the Republican Party, has noticed that Republicans have quite a few Hispanic candidates:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2261459/

  • buddyglass

    One has to look at distribution. Without crunching the numbers, it seems as if Hispanics are concentrated in states that either already strongly “blue” (California) or so strongly “red” that they’re unlikely to flip (Texas).

    I suppose they could make a big difference in places like Arizona, but…yeah. State Republicans are on top of that one already. :)

  • dante

    How’s Marco Rubio’s support among Hispanics in FL? Hispanics aren’t dumb, they’re not going to vote for a party that has gone out of its way to demonize them at every turn, and to put forward (and herald) legislation that has a “guilty until proven innocent” aspect like AZ.

    The GOP is hanging it’s hat on shrinking demographic bases, and it could very well come back to haunt them in the years to come.

  • buddyglass

    @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.

    Here’s some rudimentary analysis along those lines:

    http://www.isteve.com/babygap.htm

    Of course, Republican-leaning couples reproducing at a higher rate is only meaningful if parental conservativism is a useful predictor for an offspring’s eventual politics.

  • msmilack

    Unless the GOP changes its stance on immigration, they will not attract more Hispanics. Case point: Arizona. The GOP doesn’t offer Hispanics any more than it offers African Americans; having a candidate of color is not the same as having a platform that addresses the discrepancies in the culture. It’s like having Nikki Haley or Bobby Jindal but making sure everyone knows they aren’t “really” Indian because they are Christian; does anyone think of Rubio as Hispanic? I just think of him as the candidate picked by the Club for Growth.

  • msmilack

    andydp
    You wrote: “While I recognize the many problems surrounding the Immigration issue, I can’t help but wonder: would everybody be this venomous if the “illlegals” were from Canada ?”

    Good question. Of course the answer is no because you can’t tell by looking that they’re from a different country. (I guess that goes without saying.)

  • msmilack

    buddyglass // Jul 27, 2010 at 6:33 pm
    @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.

    I remember reading that the Hispanic-born population will be over 50% by mid-century.

  • Oldskool

    It’s good to identify tactical problems, it’s another problem altogether to corral the loonies the GOP spends so much time pandering to.

  • easton

    msmilack, the country will be minority majority, with blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc. making up over 50% And, of course, we will continue to see an increasing rate of mixed race children.
    buddyglass is right, in Pa. Hispanics are generally all Democratic but are a fairly smallish minority, having a hispanic Republican will not win anything any more so than having black Republicans have since the vast majority live within the Philly region.

    As to that babygap point, it is fairly misleading, Utah having a high birthrate is not very significant since the population of Utah is so small comparatively. The simple fact is the Democratic minority base is bigger than the Mormon, or rich Republican base.

    And yes, as buddy mentioned, Children have a tendency to have minds of their own. Both my parents are upper middle class Democrats, and their 4 children are 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans.

  • rbottoms

    Yuck. Talk about cynical. “Our policies don’t represent them, but if we can get one of them to represent us, they’ll vote against their own interests on the basis of race. They’re that stupid.

    Cynical, thy name is GOP.

  • msmilack

    easton (and others),
    FYI: I just happened to see this article from San Antonio that confirms what you are saying and provides some interesting ways of looking at the different minorities within that new majority and how they will most likely vote.

    http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/Demographic_trends_spell_trouble_for_GOP__99360029.html

  • msmilack

    “Demography is Destiny”:
    that’s a phrase from the article I mentioned above; here are a few paragraphs that I found particularly interesting:

    “The Millennial generation that gave Obama a stunning 66-32 margin in 2008 will grow to 90 million eligible voters by 2020, representing 40 percent of the eligible electorate.To survive in elections beyond 2010, the Republicans will have to make substantial revisions in their approach and move toward the center to compete for these constituencies.

    To win over more Hispanics they will need to show more social tolerance, especially on immigration. To expand their support among young, college-educated whites they will need to go beyond “no more taxes” and devise solutions that use government to address their problems.

    Anti-government appeals that have galvanized the white working class in the past may not work for the GOP in the future, since that would require an even larger super-majority of votes from a group that is declining in numbers.

    Demography is destiny. The Democrats have a bright future if they can be successful in their policy agenda. The wisest course for the GOP would be to start the long, painful process of ideological re-examination and realignment.”

    http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/Demographic_trends_spell_trouble_for_GOP__99360029.html

  • Watusie

    Surely the news here is that as many as 15% of Hispanics still identify as Republicans – what’s up with that?

  • Moderate

    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.

    The reason why Republicans should address Hispanic issues is not to keep Arizona red – it’s because Hispanics are Americans and deserve just as much focus, attention and interest as whites. I consider it bizarre and misanthropic to only address a person’s interest so long as they vote for you.

  • busboy33

    @OldSkool:

    “It’s good to identify tactical problems, it’s another problem altogether to corral the loonies the GOP spends so much time pandering to.”

    I’ve got nothing to add, I just thought people should read that at least twice.

    @Watusie:
    what that means is that 15% support a party that seems dangerously counter their own ethnic interests. That means they WANT to be GOP voters. God, they WANT to be GOP. They’re begging to vote Red. The GOP is actively pushing away what appears set to become the pivotal swing vote bloc for the next 40-50 years. So you 40 million voters want to be Republican? Tell me how much you hate being Hispanic! Say Hispanics are bad! Not all of them, of course . . . you’re a good one. But the rest are all shiftless and troublesome, don’t you think?

    It certainly is a bold and “outside the box” type of approach to courting political relevance, so the GOP does get a few points for originality and style.

  • anniemargret

    andy: “While I recognize the many problems surrounding the Immigration issue, I can’t help but wonder: would everybody be this venomous if the “illlegals” were from Canada ?”

    My grandparents also emigrated here from Italy around the turn of the century, and also met with prejudice and hate in some circles.

    Prejudice in any way is almost always attributable to ‘fear of the other.’ There is something innately intrinsic in the human being that makes most of us shy away from those that are ‘different’ whether it is skin color, ethnicity or national origin, religious or social issues, rural vs city, etc… the list can go on and on and on.

    Sad, isn’t it? I used to think as a child that 100 years from now the human race would evolve, and all these stupid prejudices would be seen as childish and nonproductive. Not so – all one has to do these days is join a blog or watch TV or listen to talk radio.

    That is why prejudice and hate-mongering must be brought out in the light of day and strongly resisted, and those that pander to it, support it, be held up for scrutiny and derision.

    It’s the right thing to do if we want to create a more peaceful world. For starters, let’s do what we can do right here in the USA. We can, if we really want to.

  • anniemargret

    andy: And an answer to your query above is…no, of course not. WE might not enjoy having Canadians come over the border illegally, but we all know…know!…..what we witness now has most to do with brown-skinned Mexicans with little education. We might be witnessing the same if the illegals were brown-skinned Middle Easterners. Illegals from western Europe might cause a ruckus but we would be kidding ourselves if we think we would see the hysteria about them as we do from what’s happening at the Mexican border.

    That said, I also understand the frustration of the Arizona people. Most of them are good, decent people who probably wouldn’t normally be characterized as prejudiced. But due to a lack of oversight from both the Republican and Democratic parties, and a protection of corporations and agribusiness, they look the other way…. causing untold angst, anger, frustration..and eventually hate.

    We desperately need grown-ups in DC now more than ever. There needs to be compromise – it is the only way.

  • anniemargret

    msmilack: “It’s like having Nikki Haley or Bobby Jindal but making sure everyone knows they aren’t “really” Indian because they are Christian; does anyone think of Rubio as Hispanic? I just think of him as the candidate picked by the Club for Growth.”

    I agree with you here. I get the feeling that Steele, Rubio, Jindal, are almost like tokens. There in fact may be conservatives from other races and ethnic groups, but one cannot deny that the GOP in the year 2010 is almost exclusively anglo-Christians.

    There is a reason for that, and it has EVERYTHING to do with policy, not just rhetoric, albeit as stupid as it has been these days.

  • anniemargret

    easton: And I predict that with the change in demographics over the next decade or so, we will also see more people join Democrats. The reason for this is logical… the younger generation, those in their 20s and 30s now will be middle-aged or close to it in the next decade.

    This generation is almost completely free of the prejudices which has afficted the boomer generation and the “greatest generation.” They mix freely with each other, and have no big hangups about ethic origins, religious origins (or non-religious origins), gay marriage, environmentalism and interest in social justice and more concern for those that are needy.

    These are by far, liberal philosophies.

  • busboy33

    “My grandparents also emigrated here from Italy around the turn of the century, and also met with prejudice and hate in some circles.”

    My granddad kept an “Irish Need Not Apply” sign from his neighborhood in Boston.

    Boston. He got harassed for being Irish in Boston. That’s the most Irish place on the planet, and I’m including Ireland.

    Isn’t it amazing how the current xenophobia and immigrant angst is completely reasonable and justified, even though it EXACTLY mirrors the same complaints against past waves of immigrants and all of them in retrospect turned out to be laughabale? Isn’t that an odd coincidence?

    I’m actually looking forward to about 15-20 years from now, after the Hispanic is all settling down, when the next immigrant wave will kick off. I mean, who’s left for the Hispanic to look down on? The only ethnicity that hasn’t been hated moving in over here is the Austrailians. So we’re going to get Latin Passion sneering at the mongrels from “A Nation of Criminals” polluting America and killing and raping dogs and all sorts of awesome smacktalk. I’m imagining John Leguizamo and Steve Irwin yelling at each other on the 2030 version of O’Reiley. I think it’s going to pretty good theater.

  • msmilack

    anniemargret
    You wrote: “I get the feeling that Steele, Rubio, Jindal, are almost like tokens.”

    I’d say not “like tokens” but true tokens. In order for the GOP to truly welcome diversity they would have to first truly feel it only we’re talking about a party that’s strategy is dictated to a large degree by Jim DeMint and other (not all) white southern politicians who are, shall we say, not evolved.

  • msmilack

    To anyone:
    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? Atrocities are being committed on the other side of the border; if it were happening nearby me, I’d certainly try to escape to another land.

  • Madeline

    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

    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

    @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

    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

    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

    @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

    @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

    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

    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

    >> 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

    @CO Independent:

    “Republicans have to transcend race to be successful.”

    Wow. I actually agree with you for once.

  • LFC

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    “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

    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

    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

    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.