It would appear that the election is the prize for who are the standouts in the Immagration Bill upcoming in the Congress. I suspect both sides will be fishing for voters and this will turn into a beauty contest, with the media winner getting the seats. It will be interseting if the R's will be able to put the muzzle on Tancredo, or if the D's will pander away their relationship with labor. Let the sucking up begin.

Hispanics are the GOP answer to Blacks voting Democratic. The GOP hopes to have the Hispanic vote by pushing for immigration amnesty. If they suceed we will have GOP in control of DC for decades to come.  Hispanics in TX, CA and FL vote heavily GOP.

Based on the electoral college, a candidate only needs those 3 states to win the WH.

My mother was sworn in as a United States citizen this past January. I attended her swearing in ceremony. She had been waiting for this day for so long. Waiting outside the courtroom were volunteers asking the newly sworn citizens if they wanted to register to vote. Quite a few people took the time to register. I have no doubt that volunteers are waiting out in the halls of courtrooms all across this country doing the exact same thing. If she doesn't exactly know what candidate to vote for, she knows what party that candidate is going to be from: Democrats. Why?

The overtly racist tone of the immigration debate last summer. (Hear that Utah? "Utah County GOP Chairwoman Marian Monnahan says District 65 Chairman Don Larsen's resolution - asserting that illegal immigration is the devil's plan to destroy the nation by 'stealth invasion' - 'in no way' is endorsed by the Republican Party." http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5762668) No group likes to be singled out and vilified. I hope the Republicans enjoyed the Hispanic support in 2000 because no amount of broken Spanish is going to convince the newly naturalized voter to vote Republican anytime soon.

Actually, not only are hispanics still reliable Dem voters nationwide, they vote overwhelmingly Dem in CA. Polling numbers that showed high hispanic turnout for Bush in 2004 have largely been debunked as bad polling, where 70% of those surveyed were living in suburban and rural areas even though 70% of hispanics are urban dwellers. It is likely that Kerry beat Bush 2 to 1 in hispanic votes nationwide, including CA. Barbara Boxer won 3 to 1 in CA. Bush may have had a homeboy advantage in TX, but an out of stater would probably not fare as well.

In addition, Bush has a minority position in his own party on immigration. In order to win the republican primary, the likely nominee will have to pander to the anti-immigration crowd. My hunch would be TX goes solidly Dem in 08. FL is another story, but their Hispanic population is not typical. Not only are patterns changing as the old guard of proto-fascist exiles dies off, but changes in Cuba and our relations with them will alter the politics significantly. A large number of hispanics who are newly registered are urban poor. A disproportionate number who voted in the past were suburban middle-class (and Hispanics still voted lopsidedly Dem overall). I am pretty sure this is a big boon for the Dems all around.

Re: No Republican has carried MI or PA in any of last 43 elections,

Maybe you meant "last 4 elections"?
Reagan won both states in 1984.

I have to agree with the majority here that the GOP is unlikely to make much headway with the Hispanic vote, at least for a decade or so. The currrent Republican party structure, particularly at the state level, is dominated by nativist if not plain xenophobic local elites. Until those groups start losing their hold, the GOP is not going to be real appealing for Hispanics.

I don't have nuffsaid4now's first hand experience, but I was about to make the same case. Any new citizens who care enough to vote have probably already noticed that there is a decidedly racist streak in the Republican party today.

You all jumped over WhiteRoseBuddy, and I can't swear that he's articulated a sensible or winning strategy for the GOP, but he's exactly right that it's been their plan. Besides underlying the amnesty idea, it was in Bush's old show of talking better Spanish than his opponents', and the GOP has also hoped that opposing abortion would extend past Protestant voters to Catholic immigrants (which may have some truth).

Sure, it may not work; and sure it's the usual GOP hypocrisy, what with their populist appeal to threatened white voters with talk of walls and with their economic policy that favors the wealthy. But it's real (and the 1 rating for him suggesting a troll was stupid), and we definitely can't count on the same 80% vote we get from African Americans. Hey, if Lou Dobbs could pick up ratings by talking Spanish while continuing his unrelenting faux populist crusade against immigrants he would.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

Based on what I've read, I'd agree that in the short term increased Latino/a registration favors Dems, but what about the longer term?

I'm especially thinking about religious factors; most of Latin America is predominantly Catholic. An AP wire story from Wednesday said Joey Ratz (aka Pope Benedict XVI) supported excommunicating politicians who legalized abortion, so the church seems willing to get more political on this issue, not less.

I'm neither Catholic nor Latino, so I don't have a very good feel for what percentage of new Latino/a citizens are likely to become single-issue anti-abortion voters in the longer run. But don't Repuglicans think a lot of them would? Isn't this one of the assumptions that drives their belief that new Latino/a voters would tilt their way? How right are they, and how can progressive politicians counter this effect? (Part of the answer to the last question, of course, is by following their egalitarian instincts and pointing out the (sometimes coded) racism of the Repugs.)

Any thoughts?

A diary last week from Ezra at Right Wing Watch:

Contrary to Myth, Far-Right Positions on Wedge Issues Won't Win over Hispanics

Gary Andres, a conservative columnist for the Washington Times who served both Bush administrations, ruminates on the future of Hispanic voters, and passes along a piece of the Right’s conventional wisdom: that Republicans can pick up the votes of Latinos, who are mainly Catholic, by tacking to the right on social wedge issues. Writes Andres:

"A second issue concerns the complicated link between religion, Hispanic political ideology and voting. Many Republican strategists argue Latinos are culturally conservative, and therefore potential supporters. Hispanics are more conservative than non-Hispanics on some social issues, like gay marriage and abortion, according to Pew."

Andres is citing a new report from the Pew Hispanic Center on Hispanics and religion, and indeed, the surveys cited in the report (page 69) find that a narrow majority of Latinos oppose gay marriage (56%) and say abortion should be illegal (57%), as compared to non-Hispanics (42% and 40%, respectively). But those numbers don’t carry over to Election Day results.

As a poll by the Center for American Values in Public Life shows, Hispanics are actually more likely (64%) than the general population (58%) to support granting gay couples the same rights as married couples (page 17). This support is even higher among Hispanic Catholics (74%). These nuances certainly contradict the mythical rule that Latinos are more socially conservative because they are Catholic.

More importantly, while Andres points to the immigration debate is a “mitigating factor,” what he doesn’t mention is that, like most Americans, Latinos do not vote based on gay marriage or abortion. Asked in the summer of 2006 what issue areas were most important in deciding their votes, only 3 percent of Latinos cited gay marriage and abortion – even less than the public as a whole (page 9). And while 11 percent did decide their vote on the issue of immigration, most Latinos cited the economy (24%) and Iraq and national security (26%).

The lesson for Republican strategists hoping to recruit Hispanic voters is that staking out far-right positions on gays and abortion is not going to do the trick.

There are many reasons for the left to be optimistic about Univision's efforts.

Drinking Liberally in New Milford

I am Hispanic, a naturalized US citizen.

I would NEVER vote for the current GOP. As a New Yorker, I can appreciate excellence in management, and would vote gladly for Mayor Blooomberg again, even though he's a Republican.

But the current center of the national GOP is skewed so far right it's in the fringe. When you put people like Rick Santorum and Orrin Hatch as your party's leaders, you have a serious problem with the mainstream American voter.

Univision is a clear and present danger for HIspanics. They are now owned by Saban, a trustee and senior fellow at Brookings which makes him a NeoCon, a rabid pro-Israel Zionist, and a billionaire. That puts him squarely in GOP base.

Univision also had to get dispensation in 2003 from Bush's DOJ to begin a series of hispanic-language media consolidation moves. A classic Rove tactic. The effort was so clearly abusive that the DOJ filed suit against Univision under Anti-Trust regulations. Yuo can guess the rest: On December 13 last year, Gonzalez and the DOJ dropped the suit.

I would worry, and I think the new Dem Congress should take a closer look at this whole situation.

Still more about Saban's support for Clintonism.

The money quote:

Saban wasn't even interested in politics until he met Bill Clinton during his first term as President. The meeting was brief, but the friendship grew as Clinton made dozens of trips to California during his presidency. Clinton, Saban says, ignited his interest in using his resources to find solutions to strife in the Middle East. He soon became the Democratic Party's largest single donor. "I don't say this lightly," says Terry McAuliffe, head of the Democratic National Committee at the time. "Haim Saban saved the Democratic Party."

Now Saban is turning his energies to Hillary Clinton. "I think he likes her better than he likes me," jokes Bill Clinton. But as he talks about Saban's support of Senator Clinton, the former President turns serious. "It is something that" - he pauses - "I can hardly talk about it because it really makes me emotional, 'cause he has genuinely come to love and respect her."

--

"There's no telling what new harm Bush might do
if he ever gets back up off the mat.
You have to keep your knee on his windpipe
until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau

My mother once worked for Hispanic Business Magazine and one of the things she learned there is no uniform Hispanic view on anything. Is there any reason to believe that unless the Republicans continue to put there most bigotted sounding candidates forward that the new voters won't vote all over the place?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Great. Instead of treating new citizens as new citizens, and treating illegal immigrants like illegal immigrants - This will prob. kick off tremendous boot-licking and sucking-up to Latinos as a whole....whether they are legal or not.

So, instead of rewarding legal migration and citizenship: we will be pandering to people based on their skin color and less-than-american status. The Democratic Tent will have to open wider and we will be burdened with not only trying to attract voters who want EVERY american to get a fair shake, but also trying to rationalize why we are spending a lot of our political energy on legislating for new immigrants and people who aren't even americans.

Huh, and just when I thought a politician might care what I want.....they go sucking around for the approval of immigrants and illegals.
I have nothing against legal, new americans. But letting them into America and bestowing all the attendant rights and priveleges is all that we owe them. Make everything good for All Americans and the blessings will be automatically bestowed on the legal new americans. Singling them out is putting the cart before the horse, and is snubbing every American who has paid their taxes, bled in wars, and fought to make america better. You don't leapfrog your lifelong constituency to go pander to the newbies.

Goodbye, America!

Think Regionally. Act Regionally

If the citizenship campaign culminates in two million to three million new Hispanic voters, "that could turn the tide in several states," including Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, says Sergio Bendixen, a pollster who specializes in ethnic markets.

It's great hearing stuff like this, but I have some six words of advice:

Target Texas! Target Texas! Target Texas!

Seriously, 87% of Texas's population growth (which is 2nd highest in the US) is Hispanic. Honestly, Texas won't vote for a Republican President in 2008, unless maybe it is Richardson (to bring out the Hispanic vote) versus Guilliani (to suppress the Pharisean Right vote). But, it could in 2012. Plus, we have a reasonable shot at a Senate seat in 2008, and maybe we can grab KBH's seat when she retires. We also currently have 32 house seats, and with the growth rate, we have several more to come. Those new seats will be Hispanic based.

Have no fear.. I'm sure Saban's support extends beyond Clinton to Edwards and Obama. Know why? It sounds like he's a centrist Democrat, just like them, and all those candidates support Israel...

A side effect of today's immigration, legal or illegal.

Its a given that when you put labor in competition for jobs you drive down wages and benefits. X number of immigrants, legal and illegal, entered the country over the last few years and we now supposedly have 2 million or 10 million illegals (choose your number). This influx into the labor force drove the wages and benefits of American workers down, and as it continues, irony comes into play;

Using Hispanic immigrants as an example, new immigrants will now drive down the wages and benefits of Hispanics that have been working here for some years.

Its a circle.

Jose takes Joe's job because Jose will do it for less.

Juan takes Jose's job because Juan will do it for less...

Of course the idea used to compensate Corporate Executives in that they must be offered extremely generous pay and benefit packages to attract the best people does not apply to workers in production lines.

yep typo last 4 presidential

My mother once worked for Hispanic Business Magazine and one of the things she learned there is no uniform Hispanic view on anything.

But did she discover what sort of race all these Hispanics belong to:

A scientist who founded a company (DNAPrint) to utilize DNA to divine admixtures of continental ancestry had his wife, a Mexican, take the test.

She flunked.

There was a rather rapid adjustment of some rare alleles so the wife could pass her exams.

I would just bet you that the linguistics need some adjusting as well.

What we do know, of course, is that all Hispanics think alike whatever that tricky DNA stuff says. :-)

Best, Terry

More Hispanics than ever voted in the 2000 presidential elections, swinging some crucial electoral states and marking the importance of the Latino vote for the first time in the history of the United States.

Some polls, for example, suggest a majority of Hispanics is more likely to share Republican views on controversial social issues, such as abortion.

Hispanics voted for Bloomberg in 01, Pataki in 02 ,Schwartzenegger in 03 and Bush in 04.

Another article:

. Bill Richardson, one of the best-known Hispanic officials in the country, made a prediction: 

 President Bush would win the election if he and his Republican allies gained just five percentage points among Hispanic voters. It appears Richardson was dead on. While the exit polls are still subject to debate, Democrats concede that Bush made inroads among Hispanic voters on Election Day, and that the trend spells trouble for them unless they revamp efforts to reach out to the nation's fastest-growing constituency.

That's what makes the gains (for Bush) so significant," said independent pollster John Zogby. "You pick up a few extra percentage points of a hugely growing group, you're talking major significance."

My larger point is that the Hispanic vote is key in the electoral states that count...CA, FL. and TX...once a candidate wins the those states with Hispanic votes, no other candidate can win the Presidential election no matter how many popular votes they get. According to Zogby:

Almost one in four of our sample (23%) included those who identified as “born-again” or “evangelical” Christians—a growing phenomenon among Hispanic Americans. These represented only 19% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. When we closely examine this burgeoning group, we find that they are most favorably disposed toward the Republican Party in many ways. Two in three of this group give the party better marks than the Democrats in handling immigration and 56% say that the Republicans “understand them best”. This group is conservative across the board, and if they continue to grow, they will provide the party with the ready base it will need to stay competitive in national elections.

dup

Lots of misinformation in the comments above, but I'll just point out a material fact that both Nathan Newman and the WSJ forgot to tell you: NALEO - the organizer of the drive - is linked to the Mexican government. That government and Mexican political parties also have links to the organizers of the "mobilizations" Newman refers to.

Regarding the politics, the GOP intends to reach out to Hispanics via social issues: abortion, gay marriage, and the like. If they can do that, the Dems are toast.

Of course, there's always the possibility that with enough people, many Hispanics could form their own blood-and-soil party and begin demanding Quebec-style status. Here are some of those who would almost certainly be involved in that party.

In today's very closely divided United States every group that numbers at least 1% of the electorate is the key to winning since even a slight shift in voting behavior yeilds huge gains on election day.

I have not made any heated comments

Advising others to learn math when your own is - ummm - dubious might be considered less than polite. But I agree you were more sinned against than a sinner. I have admitted to finding your thesis fascinating - and wrong.

The group need not be monolithic to make a difference in the Presidential election.

??

The "group" needs to be defined somehow and demonstrate some common characteristics to have meaning.

A biotechnology company selling forensic software that divines ancestry from DNA has an interesting definition of Hispanic. It is essentially an admixture of Native American and European (not caucasian) ancestry. (Caucasian includes both some Asians and Africans.) You might notice there is no reason to believe such a race does not necessarily speak Spanish nor necessarily have a Spanish-speaking ancestor. Even those basing their identification on linguistics only generally include Portuguese-speaking Brazilians. The phenotypes as well as nationalities, economic status, and cultures vary. Generational differences are the same as with any other group.

When you lump everyone in some sort of box labeled "Hispanic," it might be helpful to know who you are discussing before making generalizations I think. Few bother.

Even if your statistics were right, which they are not, your logic is impaired IMO.

I give you credit, along with Zogby, for being wrong with a most interesting thesis.

Best, Terry

It is not stats Terry. It is arithmetic.

Like anyone who has studied mathematics, I am much better at math than arithmetic.

Any time you make projections from data, you have to take various imponderables into account.

It is my considered belief that registration of those generally categorized as Hispanics is a grave threat to Republicans rather than a benefit. I will not deny the possibility that I might be wrong.

This lefty is seldom right but always certain. :-)

Best, Terry