Thread: GOP can't lose Latinos

GOP can't lose Latinos
Republicans drove them to vote for Democrats this election; they can start undoing that damage with sensible immigration reform.

http://link.toolbot.com/latimes.com/23131

By Tamar Jacoby, TAMAR JACOBY is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

November 17, 2006

ACROSS THE NATION, Republicans are asking what they did wrong in the 2006 midterms. This is a question with many answers. But few missteps were more foolish — and few will be harder to correct — than those made with Latino voters. The appointment this week of Cuban-born Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida to chair the Republican National Committee is a good way to make a new start. But the damage done in the last year goes deeper than symbolism, and it will take more than one appointment to undo it.

Republicans have, of course, long been divided about Latinos — split between those who "get it" and those who don't. President Bush was the most prominent Republican who got it, though he was hardly alone. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki and others have long understood the GOP's inherent appeal for the fastest-growing voting bloc in the country. In a national poll last month, 34% of Latinos called themselves conservative, 29% moderate and only 24% liberal.

Diverse as they can be in origin and outlook, on many issues — abortion, homosexuality, education, homeownership, small-business concerns and Iraq — Latinos tend to line up with Republicans. And though Democrats have been wooing these voters longer and have won the lifetime loyalties of many in the second and third generations, immigrants have been up for grabs — and for more than 10 years now Republicans have been making a hard run at them.

That effort was working pretty well. Between 1996 and 2004, Bush and Karl Rove managed to double the percentage of Latinos voting Republican in presidential elections: up from 21% for Bob Dole to a whopping 44% for Bush two years ago. Other Republicans across the country were making similar inroads. In 2004, Bush advisor Matthew Dowd said that in the years ahead, the GOP would have to keep its share above 40% if it wanted to remain the majority party.

But that scenario failed to account for the Republicans who didn't get it — and in the last year or so these naysayers have destroyed everything Bush built. Republican hard-liners in the House refused to enact the president's immigration reform. They passed a bill making felons of illegal immigrants, not because it was good law but merely to make a political point. They spent recent months demagoguing the immigration issue, first at a series of "field hearings" in their districts and then on the campaign trail, casting newcomers as terrorists and criminals and anyone who seemed to side with them as un-American.

The problem was as much about tone as substance — many Latinos are also worried about illegal immigration. But the hard-liners' grandstanding added up, and there was no mistaking the message: Not only illegal immigrants but 30 million Latino voters heard Republicans saying, "We don't like you." The results were hardly surprising. Last week, Latinos voted 70% to 29% in favor of Democrats. And it could be argued that this shift is what decided the election. According to exit polls, white voters were split more or less evenly between the two parties, with Latinos, Asians and blacks making the difference on election night.

The question is what happens now. Does the wing of the GOP that made the mistake see it? Conservative bloggers are urging Republicans in exactly the wrong direction, arguing against all evidence that the midterms were a vote against immigration and that any compromise with Democrats on this issue would be a betrayal of the party. But even if the GOP ignores this bad advice, the party has plenty of damage to repair.

The issue isn't just immigration but the way the hard-liners' stance has been so offensive, even to Latinos who agree with them about the need for a secure border. It's about whether you see Latinos as "us" or "them." It's about what kinds of innuendo you use in making your case. It's about whether or not you're imagining a shared future, and how constructively you're planning for it. Republican naysayers fail on all counts. Latinos sense it. And as a consequence, most can no longer hear the GOP even on issues on which they agree with the party.

Even without further immigration, Latino political muscle is expected to explode in coming years as newcomers become citizens and their children come of age. Already in 2008, four of the most heavily Latino states — Florida, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada — are expected to be critical battlegrounds. And what Latino voters ultimately need — what would serve them and serve the nation — is competition between the two parties to make policy that helps them succeed as Americans: economic policy, education policy, assimilation policy and policy to ensure opportunity. But that competition can't even take place — Latinos can't be expected to give the Republican case a hearing — until the party digs itself out of the hole it has dug itself into.

Immigration is the place to start undoing the damage. But it's going to be a long, uphill walk.

It is not neccessary to attract Latinos it is neccessary to give credit to the right Latinos. The Latinos who stand behind their interests as American citizens. There is a sizable number who already support immigration enforcement and they will feel slighted if we choose to coddle lawbreakers.

The Republican hard-liners' clear and firm messages on immigration were PRECISELY why I voted Republican this year. Thank you to all the concerned Republicans who had the courage and foresight to listen to us as our country is disintegrating. To change course on this issue will be an even more serious judgement error by Sen. Mel Martinez and the battered Republicans. It would be worse that the war in Iraq because it will tilt our own homeland.

President Bush split his own party and he is quite proud of it. Greed? You bet! It was all for the good of the NAFTAA Superhighway to benefit Texas economy. Just think of all the Spanish/Mexican bilingual support companies that will move in along both sides of that highway and flood into Texas. And then just visualize of all the increased illegal activity connected to THAT!

We need a new political party in the United States that stands by the constitution, defends the enforcement of our laws, and abides by the will of the people who formed this country for centuries.

Tamar Jacoby has a record of being hysterically in favor of legalization, so I distrust her.

Like Shocked, the House Republican message on immigration was why I voted Republican this year, for the first time ever.

I say to Tamar that the election was about Iraq, and many people who voted Democrat will not be happy about what they do on immigration.

If Republicans need to make clear that their concern is only with illegal immigrants, and to make very clear the principles upon which they stand, then fine.

Shocked,

That is why we should vote for any member of the Constitution party.
I'm a Rep, and with the exception of a few of them, I'm very disgusted w/ both parties.
My questions is, why are they so focused on the latino vote? I cannot believe even with 40 million latinos here in the US, that their vote is going to be a such a huge deciding factor.
I know it would be a deciding factor if more and more American citizens stop voting, but if ALL OF AMERICA would wake up and take to the polls, the latino vote wouldn't be that relevant to winning. It seems only the incumbants needed the latino vote to keep their cushy job, seeing as how the majority of them voted to just hand them free citizenship cards.

I have never agreed with Tamar Jacoby. The fact that she is dead wrong on this issue simply means that there's no reason to change my opinion of her. She has the expected mindset of a member of the New York Jewsh community. The fact is that the New York Jewish community is among the most Left-leaning in this entire nation, to the extent that it often even abandons Conservative-leaning Israel on key issues. We must remember that it was European Jews who fathered both Socialism and Communism, and that the New York community represents that subset of the Jewish immigrant community that has least assimilated into mainstream America, clinging instead to the Leftist ideals those immigrants brought with them from Europe. It is no coincidence that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg hailed from that community, and it is no surprise that current members of that community see no reason to betray America on the issue of its invasion by foreign elements today. It's a damned shame that this one small but very visible subset of the American Jewish community, because of its vocal stance on many social issues, has become the basis for the opinion that many non-Jews hold of the Jewish community at large. That's like a foreigner basing his opinion of Americans on the average New Yorker, heaven forbid.

Originally Posted by sippy

Shocked,

That is why we should vote for any member of the Constitution party.
I'm a Rep, and with the exception of a few of them, I'm very disgusted w/ both parties.
My questions is, why are they so focused on the latino vote? I cannot believe even with 40 million latinos here in the US, that their vote is going to be a such a huge deciding factor.
I know it would be a deciding factor if more and more American citizens stop voting, but if ALL OF AMERICA would wake up and take to the polls, the latino vote wouldn't be that relevant to winning. It seems only the incumbants needed the latino vote to keep their cushy job, seeing as how the majority of them voted to just hand them free citizenship cards.

I saw something on the news one time that explained this. I can't remember all of it, but the way they explained it was that it wasn't only the number of Hispanic votes, but where they were concentrated. For instance, certain states like Florida which could decide an election--if the Hispanics there went for the Dems, then they could in effect tilt the election.

This might help explain their goals and plans

Tracking Latinos
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=46735

.

Originally Posted by noyoucannot

Originally Posted by sippy

Shocked,

That is why we should vote for any member of the Constitution party.
I'm a Rep, and with the exception of a few of them, I'm very disgusted w/ both parties.
My questions is, why are they so focused on the latino vote? I cannot believe even with 40 million latinos here in the US, that their vote is going to be a such a huge deciding factor.
I know it would be a deciding factor if more and more American citizens stop voting, but if ALL OF AMERICA would wake up and take to the polls, the latino vote wouldn't be that relevant to winning. It seems only the incumbants needed the latino vote to keep their cushy job, seeing as how the majority of them voted to just hand them free citizenship cards.

I saw something on the news one time that explained this. I can't remember all of it, but the way they explained it was that it wasn't only the number of Hispanic votes, but where they were concentrated. For instance, certain states like Florida which could decide an election--if the Hispanics there went for the Dems, then they could in effect tilt the election.

On the other hand, Hispanics constitute about 6% of the vote nationwide (last time I checked). Caucasians constitute about 70% of the vote. Caucasians vote heavily Republican, such that the white Republican vote combined with the white Conservative independent and unaligned vote approaches 50% of the total. So if the GOP siding with illegals disaffects about 10% of the total, that approximates the numbers of ALL Hispanic voters, regardless of political alignment. The loss of as little as 5% of the Coservative white non-Hispanic vote over an issue like immigration offsets any possible total gains in the Hispanic vote, and the reality is that when one really looks at the Hispanics who will vote Conservative regardless of immigration policy versus the maximum number that could be hoped to vote Conservative/GOP due to specific catering/pandering to the illegal community, the percentage of lost Caucasian votes that would offset those gains is more like 2-3%.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by noyoucannot

Originally Posted by sippy

Shocked,

That is why we should vote for any member of the Constitution party.
I'm a Rep, and with the exception of a few of them, I'm very disgusted w/ both parties.
My questions is, why are they so focused on the latino vote? I cannot believe even with 40 million latinos here in the US, that their vote is going to be a such a huge deciding factor.
I know it would be a deciding factor if more and more American citizens stop voting, but if ALL OF AMERICA would wake up and take to the polls, the latino vote wouldn't be that relevant to winning. It seems only the incumbants needed the latino vote to keep their cushy job, seeing as how the majority of them voted to just hand them free citizenship cards.

I saw something on the news one time that explained this. I can't remember all of it, but the way they explained it was that it wasn't only the number of Hispanic votes, but where they were concentrated. For instance, certain states like Florida which could decide an election--if the Hispanics there went for the Dems, then they could in effect tilt the election.

On the other hand, Hispanics constitute about 6% of the vote nationwide (last time I checked). Caucasians constitute about 70% of the vote. Caucasians vote heavily Republican, such that the white Republican vote combined with the white Conservative independent and unaligned vote approaches 50% of the total. So if the GOP siding with illegals disaffects about 10% of the total, that approximates the numbers of ALL Hispanic voters, regardless of political alignment. The loss of as little as 5% of the Coservative white non-Hispanic vote over an issue like immigration offsets any possible total gains in the Hispanic vote, and the reality is that when one really looks at the Hispanics who will vote Conservative regardless of immigration policy versus the maximum number that could be hoped to vote Conservative/GOP due to specific catering/pandering to the illegal community, the percentage of lost Caucasian votes that would offset those gains is more like 2-3%.

And the "brilliant" minded Jacoby just doesn't grasp simple math. Of course, as usual Crockett, you have nailed it!