More Latino voting myths
Sure, as Latinos become more assimilated into American society, their participation rates may increase—but their voting patterns will probably change as well. One recent analysis warns that Latinos’ share of the population by 2050 will be so large as to permanently damage Republicans’ prospects. Such scenarios, however, assume a static electorate that, in 40 years, votes the same way it does today. …
What’s more likely than race to account for Hispanic voting trends is income, a decisive factor in this election. The Obama campaign did a good job of portraying Romney as a Wall Street multimillionaire whose policies would favor the rich. Despite some conservatives’ belief that the Republican Party is capturing blue-collar America, Romney lost decisively among lower-income voters, who continue to vote Democratic in large numbers. Hispanic households fit into this demographic group: on average, their incomes are about 35 percent lower than the national average. Even more to the point is that Romney did terribly among voters who earned less than $50,000 a year, capturing just 38 percent of their votes—and over 60 percent of Hispanic households fit that income profile. …
But in most cases, income is a far better determinant of voting patterns than race is (blacks are an exception, for historical reasons). The voting of ethnic groups evolves significantly as their incomes change. The ancestors of millions of today’s ethnic voters came to America in the great immigration wave of the early twentieth century and voted reliably Democratic for generations. Over the last 30 years or so, their descendants’ voting allegiances shifted significantly. Many were first attracted to the Republican Party by an optimistic presidential candidate who campaigned on a convincing pro-growth agenda. That won over voters in 1980; it would do so today, too.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Yeah, let’s find one of those.
Browncoatone on November 14, 2012 at 11:23 AM
See you all in 40 years.
portlandon on November 14, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Maybe this is why progressives want the poor to be poorer.
forest on November 14, 2012 at 11:26 AM
Exactly. There was an article on several blogs within the last six months about how Latino voting would trend towards the GOP based on their changing economic stations. There was lots of agreement with the article in the comments here and it was very positive and upbeat one for conservatives. Now the sky is falling.
I looked for that article a lot last week but was unable to find it.
levi on November 14, 2012 at 11:26 AM
In other words over time everyone in America, except blacks, becomes “white”. Even some Blacks, like Obama, become “white” too but they constantly feel guilty for that for some reason.
I am of Italian heritage and my ancestors received a lot of discrimination here. Now they are universally classed as “white”. Sometimes even referred to as “Anglo-Saxons” which I find hilarious.
What I don’t understand is why I am not considered a Latino?
I mean if Italians aren’t Latinos then who the heck is?
Rocks on November 14, 2012 at 11:32 AM
Yeah, I was going to say that the Dems have this covered as well anyway.
Esthier on November 14, 2012 at 11:32 AM
What about the past four years makes you think anyone’s economic status is going to change favorably?
Esthier on November 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM
Namely, that the Democratic Party was founded on an abolitionist platform, while Republicans started the KKK and filibustered civil rights legislation.
Wait, what?
sadarj on November 14, 2012 at 11:36 AM
True. But if nothing is done to stop the liberal agenda and we keep voting Democrat as a nation, the benefits will run out by force anyway. As I read this morning on Zerohedge, folks will see their EBT cards no longer work and will look around to see who will now feed them and wipe them.
levi on November 14, 2012 at 11:36 AM
In 40 years the economy and the entitlement state will have completely collapsed and we’ll be living in a diminished socialist super-state or a struggling but reborn republic.
gwelf on November 14, 2012 at 11:37 AM
The Democrat party has managed to keep the black population largely impoverished for generations. They’ve got the same thing in mind for latinos.
gwelf on November 14, 2012 at 11:40 AM
Not true. Latino birthrates are way down. In fact, the most of any race.
Oil Can on November 14, 2012 at 11:42 AM
Where are we going to get one of those? Maybe in some wilderness area or something?
Latino refers to people from Latin America, i.e. brown people. Europeans need not apply.
Odysseus on November 14, 2012 at 11:52 AM
My Uncle got as “brown” as any black person in the summer. People of Latin America are not brown all the time. Some have as much trouble tanning as your average Irishman. You don’t see the press cite polls and studies referring to “Non-Hispanic Whites” for the fun of it. The word Latin doesn’t mean brown either. Why was it called Latin America in the first place?
Rocks on November 14, 2012 at 12:01 PM
Reagan, the Hollywood ex-liberal, beat a preachy white male Southerner- who won the white Southern Baptist vote, btw. Of course parts of the old D coalition were relatively comfortable with Reagan. Why do people insist on romanticizing Reagan’s election as an ideological milestone?
Seth Halpern on November 14, 2012 at 12:06 PM
A. Democrats want their constituents to be poor and dependent on them. A few “you’ll be back in chains!!” shout-outs reinforce their dependence on a party that opposed civil rights and founded the KKK.
B. Blacks didn’t vote for Obama based on historical anything. They voted for racist reasons and have no qualms admitting it.
HotAirian on November 14, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Then how do you explain the shellacking of the GOP by Asians, who gave upwards of 70% of their votes to Obama?
thirteen28 on November 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM
Long term, the best way to win over Hispanic voters, is to pass pro-growth policies that’ll push them further and further into the middle class.
Short term, well, thats a much more hairy question.
WolvenOne on November 14, 2012 at 12:20 PM
The Texas county I’m in is considered a border county in terms of demographics (80 percent Hispanic) and income (it’s average single-family housing price three years ago was the lowest of any county in the United States). But it’s also one of the counties that has benefited tremendously from the shale oil fracking operations, to the point that despite still having an unemployment rate about a point above the national average, you’re getting more and more people in the county who have a stake in making sure the current drilling system doesn’t get scuttled by liberal environmental groups.
The result was that while Obama won the county last week, the margin was only 5.5 percent, 35 percent lower than Hispanic voters as a whole, and — even if you assume every single non-Hispanic voter in the county went for Romney — still about 10 points lower than you would forecast the vote for Obama should have been, based on demographics and the nationwide Hispanic voting patterns.
Having a stake in the economy does change voting patterns. Once you start getting more Hispanic workers into the middle class and understanding that their improved economic conditions depend on not voting for people who will regulate business to death, you will see changes. It’s just that the changes and the need to maintain the techniques responsible for those changes, aren’t as obvious as with the oil-related growth in Texas. Getting the point across to people working in other private sector businesses is going to be the challenge for Republicans over the next decade (especially since for Obama and the Dems, the weaker the economy stays, the more likely you are to keep those people dependent on the government).
jon1979 on November 14, 2012 at 12:20 PM
It’s refreshing to read this after all the chicken-littling that was going on the first days after the election. Personally I think conservatives staying home is more of the reason for losing the election. If you have a candidate people can get motivated to vote for it doesn’t really matter what the makeup of the electorate is.
If you study maps of previous presidential elections you can see how the electorate has shifted. Check out the colorful 1860 presidential map leading up to the Civil War and how subsequent elections show the beginnings of the primarily two-party competition with what we know as the modern-day Republican and Democrat parties. See how the red and the blue shift and even switch places in some cases and in which years the map gets more colorful. Even my ridiculously corrupt and uselessly blue state of IL voted Republican in 5 straight elections over 20 years, 1968-1988, which means IL voted Ford over Carter even. From 1969-2003, 4 out of IL’s 5 governors were also Republican. Yes, it takes awhile for change but things do not remain static.
stukinIL4now on November 14, 2012 at 12:39 PM
That’s how America used to work. People came to America, learned our language and ways, and then created a new life for themselves. But in the 70s, liberals changed the rules. So now, instead of assimilating and succeeding, immigrants and blacks are encouraged to preserve the cultures from which they are trying to escape. Blacks were mainstreaming well in much of the country, but then urban planning took hold and black businesses were destroyed, and black neighborhoods converted to government-subsidized housing projects.
Voila! Permanent lower class.
hawksruleva on November 14, 2012 at 12:55 PM
Can somebody explain to me how blacks ended up voting Democrat? How did LBJ manage to convince them that they should vote for the party of Bull Conner and against the party of Lincoln?
hawksruleva on November 14, 2012 at 12:57 PM
It was the class warfare lies thing that got Obama over again.
That, and a unhinged liberal media. It’s not this color and that color.
Wake the hell up.
Moesart on November 14, 2012 at 1:02 PM
Ummm, because he pushed for and signed into law landmark anti-discrimination legislation pertaining to public accomodations and voting rights?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act
cam2 on November 14, 2012 at 2:05 PM
That law was supported by more Republicans than Democrats, and was a continuation of Civil Rights advancements that Dwight Eisenhower had started. Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
hawksruleva on November 14, 2012 at 2:36 PM