Latinos voted for the Republicans in unprecedented numbers because most are family-oriented Catholics, and the Catholic Church actually intervened in this election, really for the first time, by suggesting that a vote for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate was complicity with abortion and therefore a mortal sin.
Church-going Catholics, for the first time, voted massively for Bush. This is what accounts for the Hispanic shift.
The problem, of course, is that this is a one-issue shift, and that issue is abortion. Therefore, to maintain the shift, the Republicans MUST deliver pro-choice judges.
And the problem with that is that they are in serious danger of elevating Arlen Specter to the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
IF the Republicans keep their head (and Borking Specter would be a good indication that they are keeping their head), then they will be able to keep this coalition by advancing on values, and Hispanic immigration will end up favoring the Republicans over the long term.
Well for Hispanic immigration, or any immigration for that matter, to benefit the GOP they would by definition have to win more immigrant votes than the Democrats do. Even if Bush did win 44% of the latino vote (assuming here that the naturalized Hispanic vote was similar to the overall Hispanic vote) , he still lost by 10 points among them.
And the big question is whether or not Bush's results are the harbinger of a real trend, or are they anonmaly? Will the GOP nominee in 2008 be able to maintain 40-45% of the latino vote against Hillary?