Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Texas Republicans: 100 Ways to say "We don't want you"
March 30, 2011 12:31 PM   Subscribe

Texas Republicans have been turning against the ideas on immigration supported by George W. Bush, who actively courted Latino voters in his 1998 gubenertorial election campaign (cached), and in his two presidential election campaigns. In 2010, some 12,000 Republican delegates came together, many proposing new directions on immigration reform. By January 2011, there were more than three dozen immigration-related bills filed, a number of them creating heated debates. By the of March, there were nearly 100 immigration bills written or filed, some with serious loopholes. (Rep. Debbie Riddle, previously.)
posted by filthy light thief (57 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

 
> Proposed Texas immigration law contains convenient loophole for ‘the help’

Boy, did I ever call that one.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:33 PM on March 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


100 ways for Hispanics, in America, to say "We won't vote for you."
posted by Skygazer at 12:43 PM on March 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


How many Hispanics vote anyway? Honest question.
posted by spicynuts at 12:44 PM on March 30, 2011


I realize that simply writing or even filing bills doesn't mean they'll get anywhere, but the mindset of some folks is astounding. From the January 2011 link, State Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, filed proposed legislation designed to provoke a legal challenge to the 14th Amendment, which bestows citizenship on anyone born in the U.S., regardless of the status of the child’s parents.
“If it passes, we expect to be sued immediately, and that’s exactly what we’re looking for — we want to be sued in federal court so that federal judges will finally read the 14th Amendment.” After that, he said, it’ll only be a matter of time before the federal government realizes the amendment was ratified in 1868 only for those children born in the U.S. to black slaves.
The Texas Tribune site is great, because they profile the representatives in detail, putting the rep.'s background information alongside election and proposed legislation information.

The March 2011 link notes that in 1998, George W. Bush was voted in as governor with nearly half of the Hispanic vote, yet now the Hispanic vote is cast aside, assumed for the Democrats. And in the transcript, Bill Hammond, the president of the Texas Association of Business said "Today, 56 percent of Texans under the age of 25 are minorities. The growth in the population has been largely Hispanic over the last 10 years. I believe the Republican Party is throwing away their future." The Texas Association of Businesses is a major supporter of the Republican party, but apparently not major enough anymore.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:49 PM on March 30, 2011


Table 2 of this report (pdf) shows that about 9.7 million Hispanics voted in the 2008 election, which represented about 7% of the total votes.
posted by thewittyname at 12:50 PM on March 30, 2011 [4 favorites]


The city of San Antonio is already 60% Latino, and those are the counted, legal residents. If you count undocumented residents SA is probably approaching 80% Latino. Actually, the whole of South Texas is majority-Latino, and seems to be doing just fine. I have no idea how Republicans think they are going to win elections by demonizing such a huge chunk of the state.

The entire state of Texas is on track to being majority Latino within 40 years. The entire U.S. will no longer have a white majority within 60 years.

The only real "solution" that would save the GOP, at this point, would be to simply revoke citizenship and voting rights from anybody with brown skin. Obviously impossible under our current political system -- but I've long been convinced that we are currently in a transition period from democracy to fascism anyway.

The real question in my mind -- the most terrible question -- the thing that I have nightmares about -- is what the GOP's last gasp 50 years from now is going to look like? South Africa 1990 or Serbia 1995?
posted by Avenger at 12:52 PM on March 30, 2011 [5 favorites]


So, if the 14th amendment is retconned to be about children of slaves, I'm sure that all these white folks whose grandparents and great grandparents came over from the old country and had kids but never got their own US citizenships will be surrendering their US citizenships and becoming stateless persons.
posted by rmd1023 at 12:53 PM on March 30, 2011 [12 favorites]


Texas has been a bi-cultural state since before it was a state. Hell, it was Mexican before there was a single Anglo there. Most Texans are aware of this, and the dual cultures have pretty well coexisted for the last hundred fifty years.

This Anglo first mentality is an alien thing. Texas Democrats could easily paint Texas Republicans as Yankee influenced. If there's one thing Texans, left and right, white and brown, hate more than illegal immigrants, it's Yankees.

That Tea Party? That's a Boston thing, ain't it? Yankees.
posted by Xoebe at 12:54 PM on March 30, 2011 [17 favorites]


I have no idea how Republicans think they are going to win elections by demonizing such a huge chunk of the state.

Two words: Voter ID. Which is the main emergency bill this legislative session, and far more important than the budget deficit.
posted by immlass at 12:57 PM on March 30, 2011 [6 favorites]


I have no idea how Republicans think they are going to win elections by demonizing such a huge chunk of the state.

Two words: Voter ID.


One more word: Gerrymandering.
posted by Saxon Kane at 1:08 PM on March 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


Two words: Voter ID. Which is the main emergency bill this legislative session, and far more important than the budget deficit.
posted by immlass at 12:57 PM on 3/30
[+] [!]


Voter ID is a red herring, though. Despite GOP claims to the contrary, there is no epidemic of illegal Mexicans voting for democrats. Hell, dems have a hard enough time getting Latino citizens to vote.

It just seems like the GOPs position is motivated by pure animus towards Latinos and little else. It doesn't even make electoral sense.
posted by Avenger at 1:11 PM on March 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


Xoebe: "That Tea Party? That's a Boston thing, ain't it? Yankees."

To the European, a Yankee is an American.
To an American, a Yankee is a New Englander.
To a New Englander, a Yankee is a Vermonter.
To a Vermonter, a Yankee is someone who eats apple pie for breakfast.
And to a Vermonter who eats apple pie for breakfast
a Yankee is someone who eats it with a knife
New Yorker.
posted by mkb at 1:16 PM on March 30, 2011 [4 favorites]


Xoebe: Hell, it was Mexican before there was a single Anglo there. Most Texans are aware of this...

Including George W. Bush - the 2004 campaign video he talks to that point, and does a decent job of embracing Latinos (from this Californian white boy's point of view).
posted by filthy light thief at 1:17 PM on March 30, 2011


I didn't think the actual purpose of voter ID was to keep non-citizens and others who are ineligible from voting, but to provide a chilling effect on poorer people voting since they are 1. less likely to get ID and 2. more likely to be intimidated by a (however inaccurate) rumor that the folks at the polls will run a check for warrants and unpaid parking tickets and ask if you've had an abortion (wait, sorry, that last is the IRS, not poll workers) or whatever else someone might claim.
posted by rmd1023 at 1:17 PM on March 30, 2011 [7 favorites]


rmd1023 has it right about voter ID

This has a faint feeling of the Civil War to it: No, we won't abandon our hatred of the other, even if that results in the dissolution of the union and Sherman burning our beloved land. Because our hatred and fear is justified, damnit!
posted by angrycat at 1:22 PM on March 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Texas is on track to being majority Latino within 40 years

I think it's more like nine years (re: by 2020, Hispanics will make up the majority of Texas’ population), a demographic inevitability freaking some people out.
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 1:23 PM on March 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


oops; borked 2nd link: try again: ...freaking some people out
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 1:25 PM on March 30, 2011


To a New Englander, a Yankee is a Vermonter.

To a New Englander, a Yankee is from that rival baseball team in New York.
posted by Melismata at 1:27 PM on March 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


I'm white and my wife is Mexican. My daughter is 6 months old. However, when she's old enough to vote I will make sure what when a politician says "Illegals" she will think of her grandparents. And, when a politician says "Anchor Baby" she will think of her mother.
posted by sideshow at 1:28 PM on March 30, 2011 [9 favorites]


The Texas Miracle in action.
posted by Max Power at 1:34 PM on March 30, 2011


Honestly, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that birth-right citizenship extends only to those born in the country of parents who are here legally. I'd probably extend that to say that people born in the US to parents who were born in the US (regardless of legal status) should be US citizens. Literally grandfathering them in.

I also think that that's a minor part of the whole immigration problem and that the real solution is going to involve throwing (white) business owners in jail for hiring illegals and people don't want that.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 1:44 PM on March 30, 2011


¿Como se dice "Don't Mess With Texas" en español?
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 1:44 PM on March 30, 2011


I'm not quite so optimistic. We liberals may not want to hear it, but...

1)Latinos don't vote. Relatively speaking. Even here in CA, where their vote was crucial in keeping the state blue, their voter participation is extremely low compared to your average white eligible citizen (and the average citizen is already pretty inactive - sadly, it is the older white conservative voters who are most active).

2)Latinos are by no means a "natural" Democratic demographic. They synch pretty well with Repub talking points on social issues, and even, tragically, on the whole "job creation through loosening regulation". They are also quite religious (comparatively) and that tends to be conservative.

3)The Latinos are by no means monolithic as a voting block - compared to f.ex. African-Americans, who regularly vote 90%+ Demo. Latinos are strongly split regionally, with f.ex. Cuban-Americans often being very conservative. And there are many, many conservative Latino politicians (see N. Mexico), whereas there are very few African-American politicians on the right. Many Latinos vote Republican. We are talking high 40%-45% in many regions.

4)And most depressingly: voters have shockingly short memories. With the notable exception of African-Americans, many many many formerly oppressed groups swing right at a drop of a hat and a passage of as little as 10 years. Democrats do all the work of fighting for people's rights, and as soon as those rights are even partially attained, the beneficiaries are swept up by the Republicans waiting in the wings. Old political truism recognized since at least Truman: Democrats lift working people into the middle class where they finally have the opportunity of becoming Republicans, which they do in great numbers; only today they don't even wait to become middle-class, as that is shrinking; now hate is moving comfortably into the working class.
posted by VikingSword at 1:45 PM on March 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


I didn't think the actual purpose of voter ID was to keep non-citizens and others who are ineligible from voting, but to provide a chilling effect on poorer people voting

Yeah, the voter ID bill is clearly about vote suppression. I won't say there is no vote fraud, not with all the unlocked electronic voting boxes that you can hack with a basic knowledge of Access programming or whatever, but the problem isn't non-citizen voters. That's only the pretext.
posted by immlass at 1:57 PM on March 30, 2011


I don't think it's unreasonable to say that birth-right citizenship extends only to those born in the country of parents who are here legally.

If you don't extend it to everyone born in a country, it's entirely possible to end up with stateless people.
posted by drezdn at 2:04 PM on March 30, 2011 [4 favorites]


The Emperor of Ice Cream: a demographic inevitability freaking some people out

"The state's largest county - Harris - will shed Anglos throughout the coming decades." Shed? Such an odd word choice. Anyway, I read the bigger issue as being the following:
The state's future looks bleak assuming the current trend line does not change because education and income levels for Hispanics lag considerably behind Anglos, he said.
So instead of trying to bleach the state, why not face the inevitable, and start embracing education? Oh right, education is long-term investment, and they're in fiscal trouble right now. So let's bicker about immigration policies! It's great for job creation!
posted by filthy light thief at 2:11 PM on March 30, 2011


the federal government realizes the amendment was ratified in 1868 only for those children born in the U.S. to black slaves.

Does that mean we can also stop using it as the justification for full corporate personhood?

(holds breath)
posted by absalom at 2:11 PM on March 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


So two years ago, Republicans were more conservative than Ronald Reagan, now they're more conservative than George W. Bush. In 2012, will the Republican base consider Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin not conservative enough?
posted by mattbucher at 2:16 PM on March 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


Democrats lift working people into the middle class where they finally have the opportunity of becoming Republicans

This is probably very true, and the Republicans could take advantage of it if they didn't let their racism get in the way.

Hell, if you were careful about how you did it, you could probably get a fair number of second and third-generation Latinos on board with some version of immigration reform. Nativism isn't restricted to white people.

Of course if it were really about immigration per se, and not about "too many brown people," then the obvious target would be businesses (especially big ag and big meatpacking). But that presumes that the issue is economic rather than racial, which it doesn't really seem to be, at least in large part. When you see exceptions being carved out for domestic help or favorite businesses, then it makes the real motivations more clear.
posted by Kadin2048 at 2:16 PM on March 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


> How many Hispanics vote anyway? Honest question.

If you think that G.W. Bush was conciliatory towards the immigration issue for any reason other than he needed the "Hispanic vote" to get elected Gov. of Texas then I admire your innocence, if not your ignorance of political events.
posted by spock at 2:25 PM on March 30, 2011


Hispanics Now Majority in Texas Public Schools

The future is just not evenly distributed...
posted by mattbucher at 2:34 PM on March 30, 2011


¿Como se dice "Don't Mess With Texas" en español?

No te metas con Texas.

or

No metas con Texas.

Google Translate confirms...
posted by JoeXIII007 at 2:55 PM on March 30, 2011


The voter ID thing is so typical. Somebody points out that hey y'all, that's illegal because a State ID costs 16 bucks, so you're essentially charging people to vote, and you can't do that.

Republican Solution: ok then um...you can get a State ID for free now! Yeah!

So Texas loses all the revenue they made from selling non-driver IDs, in order to repel the imaginary teeming hordes of evil Mexican stealth-voters. Real money left on the table, while they cut hundreds of state jobs.
posted by First Post at 2:57 PM on March 30, 2011


Remember the Alamo!

Specifically, remember that when you are vastly outnumbered by Mexicans, tiny barriers to entry won't keep them out.
posted by twoleftfeet at 3:08 PM on March 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


The entire U.S. will no longer have a white majority within 60 years.

The next time anyone is wondering why the US seems to have gone off the rails in the last decade or so, and particularly in the last two years, just come reread this sentence.

The world is changing and the people who have enjoyed power up until now are seeing the world they think they remember slipping away one brown person at a time. And it scares the hell out of them and they are flailing around trying to figure out any way to stop it, even if it means looking irrational, racist, or horribly out of touch.
posted by quin at 3:27 PM on March 30, 2011 [4 favorites]


I won't say there is no vote fraud, not with all the unlocked electronic voting boxes that you can hack with a basic knowledge of Access programming or whatever, but the problem isn't non-citizen voters. That's only the pretext.

Correct. The entire goal of the voter-identification bill is—(and has always been, as similar legislation gets filed by the Texas GOP every year... but only this year, with a super-majority in the Texas House plus a strong backing from Rick Perry who needs it for 2010 presidential campaign material**, were they able to shove it through)—voter intimidation and suppression.

When poor people vote, they vote Democrat. This is why Republicans never run GOTV efforts*. Conversely, by scaring poor people into thinking that if they go to the polls, they will draw undue legal attention on themselves, their families, and their occupations (or lack thereof), is a proven way to keep them out of the booths. Keeping out poor people = lowering Democratic turnout.

Proponents of the Texas voter-ID bill say it's about reducing voter fraud at the polls. And yet, out of 50 million votes cast in Texas since 2002, only one case of voter impersonation has been recorded. Conversely, actual voting fraud in Texas has been commonly recorded with mail-in ballots, where no identification is required whatsoever.

Only, conveniently, the voter-ID bill doesn't even address mail-in ballots.

* GOP does technically run "get out the vote" efforts—where they try to drum up voting among known Republican constituencies such as retiree communities, evangelical Christian churches, etc. But many people consider true "GOTV" to be increasing voter registration numbers across the board, ie. increasing all-around turnout, not just getting established partisans out to the polls.

** Yes. Believe it. And go ahead and send money to the DCCC. Every penny helps.
posted by pineapple at 3:32 PM on March 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Latinos don't vote. Relatively speaking. Even here in CA, where their vote was crucial in keeping the state blue, their voter participation is extremely low compared to your average white eligible citizen

I just pulled down the 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study and Latinos reported voting at about the same rates as whites and blacks. These numbers usually seriously inflate turnout, both because of people lying and because being part of a survey can activate someone to vote, but unless you believe that this inflation is higher for Latinos than it is for whites and blacks, there's not much apparent difference. In CA as well as the US overall.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:43 PM on March 30, 2011


repel the imaginary teeming hordes of evil Mexican stealth-voters [...] cut hundreds of state jobs.

I suspect this is known as a "win-win".
posted by Kadin2048 at 3:44 PM on March 30, 2011


The entire U.S. will no longer have a white majority within 60 years.

I call that "the reckoning".
posted by hal_c_on at 4:11 PM on March 30, 2011


The world is changing and the people who have enjoyed power up until now are seeing the world they think they remember slipping away one brown person at a time. And it scares the hell out of them and they are flailing around trying to figure out any way to stop it, even if it means looking irrational, racist, or horribly out of touch.

How do I say this on the internets...oh yeah "Quoted for truth"

I am almost damn positive that foxnews would not have survived had it started up at the same time as CNN. But now...people are just "flailing" (Quin, 2011) and have grabbed onto that as their worldview.
posted by hal_c_on at 4:15 PM on March 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


ROU_Xenophobe, without having seen your study (and I'm not paying $34 for it), I'll just say that your assertion doesn't pass the sniff test.

If you look any number of other credible sources, including CNN, the Pew Center, and the U.S. Census, the range for Hispanic voters in the U.S. is widely held to be between 6-9% of all registered voters.

In other words, we don't get to look at merely "eligible voters" i.e. anyone over the age of 18 when we say "Latinos do or don't vote".

Registered Hispanic voters = 6-9% of all voters. And we know that not 100% of any group actually goes to the polls; Gallup estimates it at closer to 60% for registered vs. actual voters.

So while it's possible that Latinos report it to a poll in equal measures, the numbers are simply not there that Hispanic-identified registered voters actually go to the polls in equal measures with other demographic groups.
posted by pineapple at 4:28 PM on March 30, 2011


There should be a vaguely Schengen inspired treaty among all North & South American countries, ideally including all large European countries and Australia.

It should provide for nearly automatic inexpensive residency and work visas for a citizen of country A wishing to immigrate to country B so long as the number of citizens of country A living in country B remained below some percentage of country B's population.

Ideally, that percentage would vary depending upon country A's size and cultural homogeneity, i.e. Denmark may cap the proportion percent per source rather tightly, but the U.S.'s theoretical cap would run much higher, like say 5%.*

You'd similarly allow country A to require applicants to either prove rudimentary language proficiency or sign up for a year long language course with the first few months intensive, under say $3k. Again, people moving to say Finland better sign up for a language class, but any prospective immigrant probably speaks almost enough English already.

* There are only about 33 million immigrants living in the U.S. totaling all sources combined. And there are only about 30 million Mexican Americans, i.e. any nth generation ancestry. If the U.S. was permitted a 5% cap, that'd still effectively end the restrictions on immigration from Mexico. Ain't immigration that'll swing the vote in Texas and Florida. It's native born Americans who've been harassed by redneck police, politicians, etc.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:32 PM on March 30, 2011


Well, Texas sounds downright reasonable compared to some places:
On Tuesday Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced the launch of “Operation Desert Sky,” an airborne version of his controversial crime sweeps. This time he wants to send 30 pilots into the air with M-16s and a .50-caliber machine gun so they can intercept people trying to cross the border. [...]

Arpaio said Operation Desert Sky won’t distract normal law enforcement work because it will be staffed by citizen vigilantes and deputies from human smuggling and drug enforcement units.
Local news video has annoying advert but good coverage. This is presumably intended as a response to the minor furor in Kansas recently when state Rep. Virgil Peck proposed something similar, for which he has since apologized. Given that some of these pilots have been flying around 'observing' since 2001 this doesn't seem like much more than a publicity stunt, but I'm hoping the FAA decides to audit them all anyway.
posted by anigbrowl at 4:41 PM on March 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


On Tuesday Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced the launch of “Operation Desert Sky,” an airborne version of his controversial crime sweeps. This time he wants to send 30 pilots into the air with M-16s and a .50-caliber machine gun so they can intercept people trying to cross the border. [...]

That's amusing... Last I checked, Maricopa County didn't share any land with the border between the US and Mexico. Seems like someone is outstepping his jurisdiction.
posted by hippybear at 4:52 PM on March 30, 2011


You should send contributions to groups like the ACLU, EFF, Amnesty, SPLC, Article19, NAACP, Wikileaks, NORML, Swedish Piratpartiet, etc. and individual candidates way before the DCCC.

The DCCC allocates their spending solely for the purpose of defeating as many Republicans as possible, even when their supporting a Lieberman. You'll maximize your influence by donating to causes that push the Democrats into adopting the underlying correct moral position.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:52 PM on March 30, 2011


I have no idea how Republicans think they are going to win elections by demonizing such a huge chunk of the state.

It's called having (evil) principles. They're willing to risk losing elections to keep the brown folks out.
posted by callmejay at 4:59 PM on March 30, 2011


ROU_Xenophobe, without having seen your study (and I'm not paying $34 for it), I'll just say that your assertion doesn't pass the sniff test.

Here's the crosstab:
. tab  v2005 v4004,row

+----------------+
| Key            |
|----------------|
|   frequency    |
| row percentage |
+----------------+

                | did r vote in the 2006 election
           race |       yes         no  don't kno |     Total
----------------+---------------------------------+----------
          white |    20,531      2,306         58 |    22,895 
                |     89.67      10.07       0.25 |    100.00 
----------------+---------------------------------+----------
          black |     2,263        342          7 |     2,612 
                |     86.64      13.09       0.27 |    100.00 
----------------+---------------------------------+----------
       hispanic |     2,108        303         11 |     2,422 
                |     87.04      12.51       0.45 |    100.00 
----------------+---------------------------------+----------
          asian |       146         51          3 |       200 
                |     73.00      25.50       1.50 |    100.00 
----------------+---------------------------------+----------
native american |       172         29          0 |       201 
                |     85.57      14.43       0.00 |    100.00 
----------------+---------------------------------+----------
          mixed |       317         56          3 |       376 
                |     84.31      14.89       0.80 |    100.00 
----------------+---------------------------------+----------
          other |       533         37          2 |       572 
                |     93.18       6.47       0.35 |    100.00 
----------------+---------------------------------+----------
 middle eastern |        72          3          0 |        75 
                |     96.00       4.00       0.00 |    100.00 
----------------+---------------------------------+----------
          Total |    26,142      3,127         84 |    29,353 
                |     89.06      10.65       0.29 |    100.00 
The row percentages appear below each number, so it's saying that 89.67 percent of whites reported voting, 10.07 percent not, etc.

We know these numbers are inflated, in part because people lie about turnout but also because the CCES and related studies have phases before and after the election, so people get activated and go vote that otherwise wouldn't. The relevant thing is the comparison across races. Unless you have a good theory about why latinos would be more likely to lie, reasonably current data don't seem to suggest a large gap. I mean, it's possible, sure, and I don't do behavior, but I can't think of an offhand reason why Latinos would be more likely to lie about having voted than Anglos would.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:06 PM on March 30, 2011


>> The relevant thing is the comparison across races.
Sort of. All your source demonstrates is that, across whatever criteria these participants were selected for the poll (registered voters? likely voters? exit polls? self-selected via Facebook ad? stopped in a mall?), people regardless of ethnic identity are equally likely to report having voted. This is surely a human quality and is not affected by race.

Further, the November 2008 poll of the U.S. Census showed that only 37.6 percent of the Hispanic population is registered to vote, and only 31.6% of those actually voted in 2008. Whereas the same poll showed white citizens over 18 were registered at 66.6% and voting at 59.6%

So, yes, while of the 2,108 Latino people who were polled by CCES, 86.64% of them reported voting... surely you can understand why your particular study does not actually refute VikingSword's point that voter participation is low among Hispanics relative to whites.
>> You'll maximize your influence by donating to causes that push the Democrats into adopting the underlying correct moral position.
Respectfully, this depends on how one defines the terms "maximizing influence" and "correct moral position". Where I live, state legislators do far more to directly affect my daily quality of life than, say, Wikileaks.

I appreciate taking the principled stand, but I happen to feel that the "100% or nothing" approach to supporting liberal candidates has failed the Democratic Party in the last few years. It's like all Democrats set these insanely unattainable expectations down as a line in the sand and said, "You're either completely with us, or you're just not good enough, you're DINO and we don't support you." And where did that get the party? We went from the Big Tent to an Elitist Tent where if you don't take a perfectly hard line on every single plank of the platform, you aren't an air-quotes REAL Democrat.

Business-driven Republicans say to their candidate, "Eh, you know, your hardcore homophobia makes me uncomfortable... but we see eye to eye on regulation, so here's a PAC donation, go forth. Besides, it's not like I'm gonna vote for the other guy."

And churchy Republicans say to their candidate, "Eh, well, I'm uncomfortable with the fact that you support small business growth—including the liquor stores—but I know you're good for that abstinence-education-only vote, so I'll get 20 of my fellow congregants to the polls for you. Besides, it's not like I'm gonna vote for the other guy."

These strange bedfellows have come to understand that, ultimately, 75% of one's agenda supported is far more palatable than 0%.

And the Democrats say to their candidate, "Well, you are pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, pro-health-care-reform, pro-working-class, pro-decriminalization, anti-death-penalty, pro-gun-control, pro-women's-rights, pro-public-education, pro-union, and encourage the separation of church and state. But.... you know... that one time back on city council you didn't vote for more household recycling. And, it's not like I'm gonna vote for the other guy. So, I guess in good conscience I just can't vote at all."

Long story short: I indeed consider "defeating as many Republicans as possible" is fine with me. State legislatures and Congress are ultimately the places where lots and lots of shit goes terribly wrong, and that's where I'd like to maximize my influence.
posted by pineapple at 7:32 PM on March 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


All your source demonstrates is that, across whatever criteria these participants were selected for the poll (registered voters? likely voters? exit polls? self-selected via Facebook ad? stopped in a mall?),

RDD, I think, but I'd have to check. Or they may be using Doug Rivers' company, which does a weird double-sampling internet-based thing.

Further, the November 2008 poll of the U.S. Census showed that only 37.6 percent of the Hispanic population is registered to vote, and only 31.6% of those actually voted in 2008.

You're looking at the percentage of all Latinos in the US, which is the wrong denominator because many Latinos in the US are not US citizens. You want columns E and I. Latino citizens reported registering and voting at 59 and 50 percent in that poll.

Which is indeed lower than anglos reported in that survey, but far from the "Latinos don't vote" sentiment voiced earlier.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:04 PM on March 30, 2011


I'm not jumping on anyone...but I just want people to know that there is a difference between LATINO and HISPANIC. Using them interchangeably isn't accurate...or nice.

See also: CHICANO
posted by hal_c_on at 8:11 PM on March 30, 2011


ROU: Latino citizens reporting voting at 50% is not just "indeed lower" than your 87%, it's what I would call significantly lower. But, I'm not going down a rabbit hole on this. Yes, VikingSword's statement was a blanket generalization but I read it as taking license for the sake of emphasis. You swung the pendulum all the way the other direction; only, the reality lies somewhere in the middle. That's all I wanted to point out.

hal_c_on: so, what is the difference? Because I know it, but I'm wondering if you actually do, and I'm wondering where you think people in this thread are being inaccurate or not-nice.

What's preferred is actually to refer to someone's country of origin—but obviously in this case where we are speaking about American citizens (many born in actual America, albeit with a particular Hispanic heritage), in a demographic capacity, there's no way to do that.

So what would you suggest?

Because, in case my tone is lost on the screen, my suspicion is that you're being PC for the sake of being PC right now. Texas is a minority-majority state and I feel pretty sure that if I personally have been offending loads of people my whole life with my cultural insensitivity, I'd have already heard about it. But I'm happy to hear your thoughts on where we're all doing it wrong.
posted by pineapple at 8:24 PM on March 30, 2011


ROU: Latino citizens reporting voting at 50% is not just "indeed lower" than your 87%, it's what I would call significantly lower.

That's not the thing to look from there. Any pre/post survey of voting is going to have substantially inflated turnout because the act of surveying someone about the election before it takes place makes them more likely to vote. I don't know if anyone's yet validated CCES turnout from voter rolls, but IIRC this effect has been large with the NES.

The thing to look at in either case is the difference between anglo turnout and latino turnout. In the CCES there seems to be a minimal difference, in the CPS a notable but not overwhelming difference.

Even if it is lower, still about half of latino citizens report voting. Latino voters are a group well worth courting and ignored or alienated at your long-term electoral peril.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:36 PM on March 30, 2011


>> Latino voters are a group well worth courting and ignored or alienated at your long-term electoral peril.

Oh, I wholly agree. I think the more significant issue for many people is not, "Do we pay attention to that voting bloc, or not?" but "The numbers are there, how do we increase the size of that bloc?"

I worked on a Congressional campaign a couple years back that used some very forward-thinking communication and outreach efforts on Hispanic GOTV... but ultimately it was still a bunch of white people trying to get a bunch of brown people to act a certain way and that's just not how change happens.

>> But I'm happy to hear your thoughts on where we're all doing it wrong.

Also... I allow that I could just be shirty on this because I don't like to be called insensitive. So, feel free to ignore my tone.
posted by pineapple at 8:45 PM on March 30, 2011


Remember the Alamo!

And when you remember the Alamo, remember that one of the causes of the Texas Revolution was the preservation of slavery. Remember the Alamo, and remember that, twice in a span of 25 years, Texas fought for the right to enslave people.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:52 PM on March 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


People who think Latinos don't vote might consider all of the U.S. citizens that became such by being born here of undocumented workers. Their parents don't vote, but they can and will some day. And their numbers are swelling. When they do (vote) they will likely vote on Latino issues. They will represent a HUGE swing vote, one that the Republicans may do without for a long time.
posted by spock at 5:20 AM on March 31, 2011


People who think Latinos don't vote might consider all of the U.S. citizens that became such by being born here of undocumented workers.

This is why all that 14th amendment stuff is all the rage with the conservatives lately.
posted by dave78981 at 10:06 AM on March 31, 2011


This is why all that 14th amendment stuff is all the rage with the conservatives lately.

Exactly. A constitutional amendment is highly unlikely, so in the meantime they've set about arguing that the 14th amendment 'was never meant' to yield that result. This is absolutely and completely untrue. Most people who are saying so have no idea what they are talking about, and the ones who do know what they're talking about (various conservative legal scholars) are lying through their teeth.
posted by anigbrowl at 1:24 PM on March 31, 2011


« Older Gnome Chompski: The Game....   |   The Beauty of Pixar and 25 Yea... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments