The myth of the Latino voting bloc

Exit polls taken during 2004 also indicate Latino support for Bush may have been exaggerated. In different polls, Bush's share of the Latino vote ranged from a high of 44% to a low of 33%. Yet subsequent academic studies have estimated Bush's actual level of Latino support at the lower end, somewhere between 35% and 37%. Seen in this context, the "swing" of voters from Bob Dole, who garnered 21% of the Latino vote in 1996, to George W. Bush was hardly historic. In 1984, Ronald Reagan captured 37% of the Latino vote -- a performance at least equal to Bush's.

(snip)

Given what the voting numbers show us, it's unlikely that Latinos will become an important voting bloc in most places as soon as many predict. And by the time that they do, Latino citizens might find that an immigration policy based on enforcing borders and increasing the number of better-skilled immigrants, which many Republicans advocate, actually benefits them. Recent economic studies show that the country's current levels of immigration are hurting immigrants who are already here -- and hurting native-born Latinos more than most U.S. residents. A saner immigration flow is likely to boost the average wages of our current Latino population and free up resources, like housing, in Latino communities.

Any thoughts?

You are correct, oakespalding, Latinos tend to be culturally more conservative, but not necessarily politically. I think the problem consists on trying to bunch all the Latinos together. There are vast differences among the Latino constituency, starting with region of origin, generation, etc. You might find, for example, that Cuban Hispanics tend to be very conservative and vote Republican, whereas Latinos of Mexican origin might vote Democrat. However, second and third generation Mexican descendants in the USA, often vote Republican. I find, as well, that there are big differences according to socio-economic status, which isn't surprising, and something you accurately touched upon. I know many wealthy Latinos who vote Republican. As cultures go, some Latin American nations have a deep indigenous cultural influence, others have hardly any indigenous populations left after the Spanish conquest was done with them, and these issues have an influence on how that particular Latin American culture developed. So as it plays out in the USA political arena, with immigrants and their descendants, it can become fragmented and hardly a real "block" vote.

#2 wrote: "My only theory is that the Democrats have largely succeeded in the unfair and inacurate tarring of Republicans as the party of rich, out of touch white guys in suits. Why this strategy continues to work is beyond me."

one look at the stage in the republican presidential debates affirms this image of the republican party.

You have to be wealthy to run for president.

As for race, it's not a factor for me. I don't judge people that way. If you're keeping score, the Dems have not had many black candidates.

And you might recall what happened to Clarence Thomas when a black conservative attains power and visibility. He is lynched.

#4 is just another variation on "Republicans care about money, Democrats care about everything else."

Tiresome and false.

Mind-boggling to imagine how you would define the word 'lynch'.

Thomas used the word "lynch." So did Camille Paglia.

Two very different people.

How "conservative" you are, and how you vote, are only loosely coupled.

There are actually more Blacks (by a small margin) who call themselves "conservatives" than Blacks who call themselves "liberals", and yet Blacks vote 90% for the Democratic Party. At least according to the General Social Survey results for the last few years.

(Details available for them as want 'em.)

So did you: He is lynched.

It's mind-boggling to imagine how YOU would define the word 'lynch'. Based on your reply, i suppose it would be as inchoate as previous stabs at defining 'conservative'.

oakesspalding: It seems quite reasonable to think that by doing something gracious for another it would compel them to do you favors.

That may work at an individual level, but I'm not so sure at the population level.

Most of the Latino immigrants that come to this country are poor, illiterate, and highly fecund. Since these conditions generally trap a family in the pit of poverty, it's no surprised that those stuck in that environment would find the Democratic agenda quite appealing.

Survival trumps values.

Though the Latino population may thank Bush in their hearts, they're entirely rational and vote for their own self-interests on election day (those that vote, anyways).

Again, I have to agree with Oakesspalding. Most of the Latinos who come here do read and write, but not fluently in English. By that definition of illiterate, expat Americans living abroad would be illiterate if they cannot read/write the language of the country they are living in. But, not to quibble on definitions, if you cannot read/write the language of the majority in the country, such as those Latino immigrants in the USA who do not understand English, it could be argued that they are functionally illiterate, at least as pertains to the dominant language. Be it as it may, most second generation immigrants speak English fluently, and that's historic.

Most poor people receive some sort of government assistance in this country, be it in the way of food stamps or any other aid, and that includes the working poor. That includes, as well, a great majority of poor whites and even soldiers who rely on food stamps. Many ultra orthodox Jews and polygamous Mormons, for example, are on welfare, and we do not tend to associate Jews or white Mormons with welfare. Non-Caribbean Latinos, however, have strong biases against welfare and they tend to move fairly quickly into the middle classes. I cannot speak of Caribbean Latinos because I am not familiar with that population, but I live in South Florida, and most in the Cuban community here are strongly pro-Republican.

In general, socially and culturally, though, Latinos tend to have very conservative values. So why do a great majority of Latinos vote Democrat? That would be an interesting study, and not knowing the answer I would hazard an educated guess that it is because they feel that the Democrats look out for their interests more than Republicans do. The Republican party might do a better job of reaching out to the Latino population, but for some reason, they haven't. Though some Republicans such as Bush are known for trying to work out a solution that would legalize illegal immigrants (a great many of whom are NOT Latino, but French Canadian, Asian, Eastern European, etc.), I think that Republican political discourse tends to identify illegal immigrants as Latino, uneducated, and to make it worse, paints them as liabilities more than as assets to the country, and that tends to be perceived as hostile.

If we are going to be self-interested, I would argue that as we age--and I am getting there!--we are going to find the vaults depleted thanks to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly soon Iran as well, and we will lack a lot in the way of social security to care for our old age. Legalizing illegal immigrants so that their incomes can be legitimately taxed would do a lot towards helping out with that problem. From what I see in the way of naturalized new citizens, they tend to be very patriotic and appreciative, they move quickly into the professional and entrepreneurial middle classes, so in that sense, and for many other reasons that don't pertain to this thread, I favor a solution that legitimizes the status of immigrants who are here illegally. The Democrats have taken that platform--though not all Democrats, mind you!--and perhaps that is one of the reasons that they pull more Latino voters than the Republicans do. But until somebody runs an in-depth statistical study, it is all in the realm of opinion.

10 -- You want me so bad.

The Democrat Party agenda tends to cater to those they perceive to be weak: the poor, the least educated, and the struggling families.

Would I be out of line in claiming that Democrats, broadly speaking, support redistributionist policies, expanded educational programs, and comprehensive family planning?

If that's the case, then what speaks of the following data?

Poverty:

Percentage of people below the poverty line in 2006 by race.

All races: 12.3%

White: 10.3%
Black: 24.3%
Hispanic: 20.6

Median Income:

Median household income by race for 2006.

Whites: $50,673
Blacks: $31,969
Hispanics: $37,781

Literacy:

Percentage of dropouts by race in 2003 and 2004 as a proxy for illiteracy.

Race: 2003/2004

White: 6.3/6.8
Black: 10.9/11.8
Hispanic: 23.5/23.8

Fertility

Number of live births per 1000 by race in 2002

White: 57.4
Black: 67.4
Hispanic: 94.4

As for the claim that Hispanics tend to have conservative values, strong family values in particular, it simply isn't the case.

1) I'll do more digging tomorrow afternoon, but from the statistics that I've seen in the past, Hispanics have historically trailed whites both educationally and economically and are likely to do so in the future. New Mexico is one of the most Hispanic states in the union, with family lineages that trace back a few hundred years. Unfortunately, the Hispanics in New Mexico have continued to lag behind whites.

2) Overly fecund peoples aren't necessarily against birth control or abortion. Consider the following:

The number of induced abortions per 1000 women in 1999 and 2000 by race.

Race: 1999/2000

Whites: 11.9/11.7
Blacks: 57.2/57.4
Hispanics: 31.4/30.6

And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you.

Isn't Anita Hill black, too?

2) Overly fecund peoples aren't necessarily against birth control or abortion.

I think we are being overly reductionist if we are going to judge a group of people's support of family values only by the fact that they support abortion (or not). Hispanics tend to maintain strong intergenerational and extended ties with family members and relatives, to the extent that other cultures would deem as "too much." It is not surprising to find that Hispanic families are cohesive and consider third and fourth cousins as close family. That speaks to family values too. I don't know about abortion rates and frankly, I am completely uninterested in the topic, but I am very familiar with the Hispanic culture and if you claim that Hispanics don't tend to have storng family values, you would do well to support your arguments better than just citing educational or abortion stats. Superficial correlation does not proof make.

I agree with you, however, on education. Sadly, Hispanics have a high drop out rate and have not been strong on education, precisely because going out to work and bringing money back to the family has always taken priority and it takes many generations to change such perspectives. It still remains that Hispanics tend to move into the middle classes relatively fast.

The statistics you cite, you need to also see what percentage of the overall population each group is. That is, if Hispanics, for example, are more numerous than African-Americans and/or whites in this nation (again, just to give an example, I am not saying that is how it is), that might account, exponentially speaking, for high numbers as well. I always tell my students you need to parse the data and the stats as well as place them against the larger picture. In the end, poverty may account for many social ills that destroy the fabric and values of any poor population, be it white, black or Hispanic. The reason there are less poor whites are based on historical socioeconomic factors more than whites having stronger family values or anything of the sort. I am leery of the term "family values" just because so many different people are going to give it so many different meanings, but I am using it in the context of strong and cohesive intergenerational family ties.

MissTrudy: I'm aghast that you would disregard the statistics I cited in favor of your own personal anecdotes. What really bothers me is that you seem to think that high levels of poverty, illiteracy, abortion, and crime don't, in any way, correlate with the break down of the Hispanic family.

How exactly would you describe a hypothetical break down?

I too am familiar with Hispanics and know some that have done well economically and socially. But that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a tremendous problem with the Hispanic population of America.

In the statistics I cited, poverty and literacy are percentages of populations. The median income statistic should be obvious.

The fertility and induced abortions statistics are given relative to each group. That is, the percentage of a group is calculated and then multiplied by 1000, placing each group on an equal footing.

Jeez, calm down. Please read the last part of my post. I am just saying we need to look at stats not only at face value, but across the whole picture. There are many stats from different studies, governmental and institutional, and often they don't agree. Stats tend to lump everything together and there is much to parse in each batch. Either way, I did agree with you on poverty causing social ills, breakdowns in value, and with Hispanics lagging behind in education and this being probably a long term future problem. BTW, I suggest linden tea. I hear it works wonders when one is tired and/or feeling edgy. Been meaning to get some for myself as well. ;o)