Posted on 01/27/2009 2:33:21 PM PST by AuntB
Key Points
* Exit polls from Election Day indicated that President Barack Obama won 67 percent of the Latino vote, and John McCain 32 percent. This compares to estimates of Latino support for George W. Bush in the range of 39 percent or higher in 2004. In 2000, Bush is thought to have received 35 percent of the Latino vote.
* The drop in support among Latinos for Republicans between 2004 and 2008 was part of a broad-based electoral movement away from the GOP, and was hardly specific to that demographic group. McCain received only 57 percent of the white male vote, compared with 62 percent for Bush in 2004, and McCain’s 55 percent of regular church goers was significantly lower than Bush’s 61 percent.
* Credible surveys indicate that the major policy concerns of Latinos were no different than the concerns of non-Latinos: The economy and jobs topped the list.
* There is little evidence that immigration policy was an influential factor in Latinos’ choice between the two candidates once basic party predispositions are taken into account.
* McCain’s consistent history of advocating a legalization program for illegal immigrants made no impression on Latino voters.
* McCain lost the Latino vote by a wide margin even in his home state of Arizona, 56 to 41 percent. This was in spite of widespread news coverage of his immigration stance in that state.
* In 2008, Latino voters supported the GOP ticket at levels above the usual 30 percent only when they resided in states that were already safely in GOP hands.
* The size of the Latino voting population should be kept in perspective alongside other subsets of the electorate. An estimated 11.8 million voters were of Latino ancestry, compared with 17 million African Americans, 19.7 million veterans, 23.6 million young people, 45 million conservatives, and 34 million born-again white Christians.
The 2008 presidential election provided yet another opportunity to assess stability and change in the basic partisan commitments of voters. For almost 10 years now, leading GOP strategists have suggested that the party is on its way to making lasting inroads with Latino voters. Unfortunately, the 2008 results indicate that the party is no closer to this goal now than it was when it started. Exit polls on Election Night indicated that President-Elect Obama won 67 percent of the Latino vote; performing a bit better among Latino women (68 percent) than among Latino men (64 percent). (Results can be viewed on the CNN Election Center 2008 website at the following address, accessed December 15, 2008: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1.) The Pew Research Center’s national survey taken the weekend before Election Day showed virtually the same results: 32 percent for McCain and 68 percent for Obama.
The quixotic and costly Republican efforts to realign a large share of Latino voters have evidently been a failure, and for the reasons that I have identified in several previous CIS Backgrounders (Gimpel and Kaufmann 2001; Gimpel 2007; 2004). The Hispanic population consistently identifies by a margin of 2:1 with the Democratic Party, and it is heavily concentrated in places where the local Republican Party presence is weak — especially in larger cities and older suburbs.
Given that new voters learn their politics from those around whom they live and work, the Latino concentrations in the nation’s most Democratic cities and counties provides little opportunity for regular exposure to anyone with Republican allegiance. In many of these locales, there are few Republican candidates even on the ballot. As I have indicated elsewhere, very few Latinos are migrating into Republican-heavy communities, where they might develop some affinity for the Grand Old Party’s politics (Gimpel 2007). Notably, where you do find Latinos living among Republican majorities, they are stronger in their support for GOP candidates, but the gap in party identification stems precisely from the fact that there are far fewer of them residing in such locations.
The upshot of the steadiness of Latino support for the Democratic Party is that a campaign cannot sway Latinos, or any other group, by simply broadcasting a few ads, making an extra campaign stop, or by announcing a new policy vision — nor does it help much if you do it in a foreign language. The vast majority of voters, Latino or otherwise, are not sufficiently attentive to campaign activities for those efforts to pay significant dividends.
Among those who are most attentive to campaigns, outreach messages fall on unsympathetic ears. Some have suggested that voters are selectively attentive when they view campaign-related information, commonly screening out or sharply discounting news and advertising content that is discrepant with what they already believe (Taber and Lodge 2006; Taber, Lodge, and Glathar 2002; Faber and Storey 1984). This may be true, but a simpler account suggests that incoming content is filtered through the application of prior beliefs. A campaign ad for a candidate, for instance, is simply evaluated using different criteria by Republicans than it is by Democrats (Gerber and Green 1999, 206). Prior feelings and prejudices always come into play.
Whichever theory of biased learning is used to explicate it, the result is the same: stability in political attitudes rather than change even in the face of vigorous campaigning. No voter begins an election year as a blank slate, and one does not have to be a zealot to be resistant to new political arguments (Taber and Lodge 2006, 767).
Considering the entrenched Democratic Party loyalties of Latino registrants, the legions of Latinos who are noncitizens, and those who are citizens but remain unregistered and do not vote, surprisingly few Latinos are persuadable targets of campaign outreach. This is why no reasonable amount of party effort will turn them in any short amount of time.
Republicans and the Latino Vote in Battleground States
Latino support for the McCain-Palin ticket varies by state because this population does not have the same socioeconomic profile at every location. Moreover, Latino voters are no different from any other voter, subject to favorite son appeals, as McCain did best in Arizona, winning an estimated 41 percent of the Hispanic vote, while losing to Obama in the Illinois Senator’s home state: 72 percent to 27 percent (see Table 1). The fact that McCain won as much as 27 percent of Latino votes in Illinois testifies to the durability of party identification in determining vote choice. Republicans can count on a small but loyal base of Hispanic supporters year in and year out even when the playing field is tilted against them.
Most campaigning occurred, however, in battleground states, and not in Arizona and Illinois. If any Latino votes were up-for-grabs, they should have been subject to campaign persuasion efforts in the highly competitive states.
Among the battleground states for which exit polling tabulations for Latino voters are listed, the results were not encouraging for Republicans awaiting a big payoff for efforts aimed at attracting Latinos. McCain’s worst performance among Latinos was in Nevada, a state George W. Bush won in both 2004 and 2000. There McCain managed to garner just 22 percent of the Hispanic vote, compared with Bush’s estimated 39 percent four years earlier. In Texas, considered a safe Republican state in presidential elections, McCain captured just 34 percent of the Latino vote (see Table 1), compared with Bush’s estimated 49 percent in 2004.
The Pew Research Center Survey, conducted from October 29 to November 1, closely predicted the final outcome on Election Day. Results from this survey suggest that the Republican ticket fared badly among Latinos across Battleground States; with Obama winning 72 percent of the vote (see Figure 1).
Surprisingly, this was a bit better than his performance in the safest Democratic states, where he won an estimated 71 percent! Fortunately for Republicans in the heavily GOP states, Latinos split more evenly, and Obama was held to 58 percent. But this was still far more Democratic support than he received among non-Latinos in the safe GOP states, at just 43 percent.
In 2008, Latino voters supported the GOP ticket at levels above the usual 30 percent only when they resided in states that were already safely in GOP hands. In competitive and Democratic states, they predictably supported Obama. The excitement of Latinos for the Obama-Biden ticket ran consistently strong even in states that were not in question. The only conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is that there were few Latino votes that were in play by October when the major campaigns were gearing up for their final push.
Latino Voting and Other Contests
Further down the ballot, Republicans did not fare any better among Latino voters in 2008 than in previous years. According to the exit polling for the U.S. House races, Latinos favored Democrats 68 percent to 29 percent.
Latinos were significant large voting blocs in four states with contested U.S. Senate seats: Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Virginia. In all four, Latinos cast over 61 percent of their votes for the Democratic candidates with the total reaching 71 percent for Mark Warner in Virginia.
Latino Evangelicals?
A number of studies have shown that Republicans fare better among Evangelical and “born-again” Latinos than they do among traditional Catholics or the non-religious (Kelly and Kelly 2005; Kelly and Morgan 2008; Lee and Pachon 2007). There is certainly support for this contention in the pre-election Pew Research Center Survey. Latinos identifying themselves as “born-again” supported Obama 57 percent to 43 percent, compared with the 67 percent he won among the broader Latino electorate.
Further statistical analysis reveals that these born-again Latinos were Republicans to begin with so it’s not at all clear that their religious adherence is the source of their support for John McCain. Once you account for their political party identification, the impact of their religious confession does not make a statistically significant difference to their vote choice.
A mass religious conversion of Latinos to Evangelical Christian tenets might be one dream of Republican strategists, but apparently it will only work if that effort makes these Latino conversion targets Republican Party supporters first. What consultants commonly identify as “pro-Republican values” among an ethnic population, are the values most strongly held by the already Republican segments of that population. Latino Evangelicals may be more pro-traditional family and pro-life than the legions who are nominally Catholic or not religious at all, but they are also more likely to be found worshipping in Republican-leaning congregations, and identifying as Republicans in the first place.
An Across the Board Drop In Republican Support
By now, a number of post-mortem analyses have shown that the drop in support among Latinos was part of a broad-based electoral movement away from the Republican ticket compared with four years ago, and was hardly specific to that demographic group. As Table 2 shows, Latino support for the GOP nominee dropped from where it was in 2004, but support for John McCain dropped among most other segments of the electorate as well; most significantly among young voters (-13 percent), the very wealthy (-17 percent), those without high school diplomas (-13 percent), and those earning less than $15,000 per year (-11 percent) — many of whom are also students.
Comparisons of the exit polls for the two election years also suggest that President Bush outperformed McCain across a wide variety of cultural groups thought to be well entrenched behind the GOP, including those who had previously served in the military (-3 percent); among born-again Christians (-4 percent); rural residents (-4 percent); and those who attend church weekly (-6 percent) (see Table 2).[snip]
Conclusions
Those who want their readers to believe that the election hinged on a single issue will commonly misuse polling data by showing that a difference in support for a policy viewpoint is associated with voting for the candidates. This simplified kind of analysis ignores several realities: First, few voters care enough about a single issue to make it the sole determinant of their vote. Second, party identification remains the overriding cue for vote choice, and issue positions are often only spuriously related to support for candidates. Finally, such evidence vastly over-intellectualizes the vote decision, portraying voters as far more knowledgeable and engaged than they are. Most voters are paying only intermittent attention to the campaign, not studying every campaign ad and attending every local event.
What stays the same across multiple election cycles is far more impressive than what changes (Huckfeldt and Sprague 2005). But stability and loyalty in political choice do not make for very exciting news stories. Consultants become much less important if voters are inattentive and content to let most campaign advertising pass them by. Interest group elites look politically irrelevant if their positions are not somehow found in mass preferences. For all of these reasons, those residing inside the Washington Beltway greatly exaggerate the connection between public opinion and policy issues.
In summary, the 2008 election has no clear implications for immigration policy making and for a very straightforward reason: Neither candidate campaigned on the issue, nor was it clear that their positions were appreciably different.
Over the long term, Republicans can expect to enlarge upon their voting margins among Latinos as Latinos become more prosperous and move into areas of existing Republican Party strength where they can develop ties to other GOP adherents. As it stands, what separates Republican-identifying Latinos from Democrats is primarily religion and income. Involvement in Evangelical church circles is clearly associated with Republican Party gains among Latinos, but promoting religious conversion seems like an unusual and possibly controversial way to go about building a base of party support.
As long as Latinos remain in lower income brackets, an outcome virtually assured by sustained high levels of unskilled immigration, the Democrats will continue to maintain their lopsided edge. American ethnic history has shown that the path to Republican Party identification is a slow and multi-generational one. The greater the education and skills deficit new immigrants arrive with, the longer this political migration process will take.
James G. Gimpel is a professor of government at the University of Maryland, College Park. He can be reached at jgimpel@gvpt.umd.edu.
Yes, it is part of a larger movement, 1/3 of Obama’s campaign contributions came from foreign sources.
Yeah, and how many of those “Latino votes” came from illegals that were not eligible, since most states REFUSE to pass laws requiring valid identification to vote.
Another article:
Will illegal immigrants take the stimulus jobs?
http://www.examiner.com/x-1470-DC-Progressive-Examiner%7Ey2009m1d25-Will-illegal-immigrants-take-the-stimulus-jobs
Will Obama insist Americans get the new infrastructure jobs?
Bush was fond of saying of illegal immigrants that they do the jobs that Americans won’t. (I’ve always felt that had more to do with what companies pay for those jobs.) Now, with so few jobs out there, many Americans are willing to reconsider what they’re willing to do, how hard they’re willing to work and how much money they’re willing to work for. Many are willing to consider new career options – any option, as long as they can get a job. They’re hoping to get the infrastructure jobs that will come with the stimulus plan.
But will they?
Roads need repaired. Bridges need to be built. Wind turbines need to be put up. Schools need to be renovated. There will be public transportations projects. Thousands, perhaps millions of people will be newly employed by the companies and contractors that win the bids to take on these projects. But who’s to say those businesses will be employing Americans at decent salaries?
Greed is a powerful motivating force and these employers may be tempted to hire illegal immigrants, as they often do, for these labor-intensive jobs with the intention of saving money on labor and thereby increasing their bottom line. These projects are a potential gold mine for businesses big and small. Why would they waste that money paying high wages to Americans when they can get illegal immigrants to do the work for less, and without benefits? What makes us think these businesses will act in the same interest that the stimulus is intended? Greed, after all, did get us here.
If, ultimately, American taxpayers are supporting and paying for this stimulus under the promise that it will create jobs for American workers, shouldn’t they receive a guarantee that they will, in fact, go to American workers? Will there be fine print in the bill that requires companies that win these contracts to employ only American citizens?
I say this now, not because I hate illegal immigrants – I don’t. (I’m for giving them a quick path to citizenship and getting them on the books as soon as possible.) I say this now because I can imagine the repercussions if Obama fails to include the “Americans only” disclaimer in the stimulus.
Imagine, we spend a trillion dollars of taxpayer money on this stimulus package. Roads are being improved, bridges are going up, but many Americans are still unable to get jobs, and are now seriously disgruntled because they know that they (and their children) are paying for a stimulus package that didn’t help them. So, one day, some poor unemployed soul drives by one of these construction sites. Now, you and I know that you can’t tell an illegal immigrant by looking, and Hispanic Americans are represented in higher proportions in these manual-labor fields. In fact, these Americans are some of the hardest hit by the recession as fewer and fewer projects break ground. But this unemployed spectator is angered by what he thinks he sees and goes home to call the local investigative reporter. You know the sort. Every Wednesday night they’re surprising some crooked small business owner in a parking lot with badgering questions about whatever scheme they were getting away with until “9News Investigates” got on the case.
Anyway, this enterprising and ambitious investigator does some digging and, sure enough, it turns out that illegal immigrants are being employed by the very contractors that won bids to build bridges and roads under the stimulus plan. It makes national news. Two nights later, Lou Dobbs does a special. The talking points go out and Fox News develops some clever phrase like “The Stimulagration Scandal” or “Stimugate” that they repeat over and over and over. And, like most things that conservatives introduce into the political lexicon, it gets picked up by the mainstream media. You hear it repeated on the Today Show, the Daily Show and the Tonight Show. America is good and pissed off, and Obama’s approval ratings plummet. He loses credibility and trust. He loses his political capital.
And that’s it. He’s done. Forget about re-election. And we can say goodbye to Progress.
We need to head this off NOW. Making sure these stimulus jobs go to American citizens is the right thing to do. And if we don’t do it, the consequences are dire
The reason Latino voters voted so strongly for Obama was because he sank in thousands of dollars to sway their votes with Spanish-speaking commercials!
When will the Republicans EVER understand -
Wooing Minority voters - whether Hispanic, Black, or Asian voters - comes down to courting them like you would court a future spouse!
You can’t expect a person to marry a stranger who only showed up every four years - with a puny bouquet of wilted flowers and still expect the person to say Yes - enthusiastically!
We have four years to Start NOW - and not just with left-overs and token bouquets - or worse with empty words - Let’s DO it right this time!
The headline says Latinos, but if you look at the numbers, there was only a 7% drop between Bush (39%) and McCain (32%).
The bigger story in the study is how McCain turned off white male voters (6% drop) and church-goers (5% drop) both of which are a much, much larger demographic than the Latino voters.
Assimilated Latino voters are only slightly impressed or turned off by immigration crackdowns - they’re legal and Americans - it doesn’t affect them other than relatives. They have more important issues to worry about just like other Americans - jobs, schools, wars, taxes.
For Republicans to cast off all their values and respect for laws to pander to that 7% of Latino voters who changed from 2004 (less than a million votes!!) and thereby turn off the conservative base is stupid and hurtful. McCain’s loss shows the results.
And I don’t mean - pandering -
A real relationship with minorities just like a future mate!
“The bigger story in the study is how McCain turned off white male voters (6% drop) and church-goers (5% drop) both of which are a much, much larger demographic than the Latino voters.”
Exactly...McCain turned off just about everyone. Without Sarah, he could have really given Obama an overwhelming mandate!
George Prescott Bush?
The entire article quotes percentages!
There's going to be a huge multiplier effect when the many thousands of ineligible, ACORN-pushed, new voters get factored in.
“A real relationship with minorities just like a future mate!”
You are right. This is important because the Hispanic population is growing much more quickly than the white population. Hispanics tend to be natural conservatives, mostly because of religion and family values. Hispanics are not all illegals, nor do they all support illegal immigration. There is a huge potential for political gains in the Hispanic community, but the GOP is going to have to work for it. I am not convinced they want to. Read through a couple posts on immigration or English only and it doesn’t appear that conservatives have any interest in courting Hispanics, no matter what their legal status.
LMAO...yeah, let’s do it right and promote racist GPB!
“This is a President who represents the diversity of our society, who we can count on to change the Republican Party to represent our views,” said [George P. Bush] the 24-year old son of Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his Mexican-born wife Columba.
He told the rally his mother had instilled him the values of Cesar Chavez, the Chicano activist who fought for the rights of migrant farmworkers in the United States.
“She told me we have to fight for our race, we have to find the leaders who represent us,” he said in fluent Spanish.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/865000/images/_865697_10_300.jpg
You’re right. I have no interest in courting ANY “race”.
There is no stimulus in paying money to illegal immigrants. They wire it back home to their extended families.
The money LEAVE the US economy.
Some wise politicians have said that if we had a federal surcharge on all wiretransfers out of the country, we could at least keep SOME of those billions sent to Mexico and elsewhere in this country.
“The money LEAVE the US economy.”
That is ridiculous. There are billions of dollars that leave the economy every year for many different reasons. We have global trade, and everytime we buy a product produced overseas, it is money leaving our economy. Illegals are not the only ones that send money to families in other countries. Many citizens with family outside the US, wire money to them. Businesses also send money overseas. Since a surcharge cannot be charged to only those who are illegal, it becomes an additional tax, which fuels more government programs. It is a bad idea, that hasn’t been completely thought through.
I don’t think there is any reason to give stimulus to those who are here illegally, and I pray that isn’t the case.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-migrant-archive26feb26,0,6097510.story
Illegal immigrants wiring money have an amigo: the Fed
By Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 26, 2007
Even as the federal government is starting to crack down on companies that hire illegal immigrants, it’s been helping those same workers send money home, cheap.
Dubbed Directo a Mexico, the Federal Reserve-sponsored service allows customers without Social Security numbers to wire money through the Fed system to Mexico’s central bank at little cost. In September, the Fed expanded the remittance program by allowing immigrants, legal or not, to open accounts at participating banks and credit unions in the U.S. or Mexico. About 27,000 transfers are made through the program each month...
Philip Martin, chairman of the Comparative Immigration and Integration Program at UC Davis, said remittances sent to Mexico last year were just a fraction of the U.S. economy, $23 billion out of a gross domestic product of more than $13 trillion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
