City Journal Autumn 2014

Current Issue:

Autumn 2014
Table of Contents
Subscribe
Tablet Editions
Click to visit City Journal California

Readers’ Comments

Steven Malanga
More Hispanic Voting Myths « Back to Story

View Comments (64)

Add New Comment:

To send your message, please enter the words you see in the distorted image below, in order and separated by a space, and click "Submit." If you cannot read the words below, please click here to receive a new challenge.

Comments will appear online. Please do not submit comments containing advertising or obscene language. Comments containing certain content, such as URLs, may not appear online until they have been reviewed by a moderator.


 
Showing 64 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
"But in most cases, income is a far better determinant of voting patterns than race is (blacks are an exception, for historical reasons)."

No, they're not an exception. As a group, they vote not for race, but instead for the welfare state. It's just that virtually all black political candidates are welfare state Liberals that it seems otherwise.

In 2006, when Republican Conservative [and coincidentally black] Michael Steele ran for U.S. Senate in Maryland, and Republican Conservative [and coincidentally black] Ken Blackwell ran for governor of Ohio, the black electorate in both states voted overwhelmingly for the white liberal Democrat opponent. Both black men lost.

When Confederate forces evacuated Richmond in April 1865, Robert E. Lee and his legendary Army of Northern Virginia desperately trying to escape the overwhelming Federal forces that had broken through all his lines, President Lincoln boarded a Federal warship in Washington, steamed down the Potomac, up the James, and against the advice of all his security men rode his own carriage up from the landing through the streets of Richmond. Recently freed black slaves mobbed him, calling him Moses, because he was leading them from slavery to the promised land. From that time, for seventy years, blacks voted overwhelmingly Republican, the political party that had seen their liberation through, at the expense of 650,000 young American lives, in a population less than one tenth the present. That's 6,500,000 KIA today, an astronomical figure.

But in the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt and his Democrats in control of both houses of Congress created the federal welfare state, and blacks began to overwhelmingly vote Democratic, and have continued to do so to the present day, despite the catastrophic destruction of the black family caused by that welfare state.

They don't vote color. They vote the welfare state.
I hope City Journal will follow up on this with further analysis of this myth of the monolithic "Hispanic voting bloc". Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans flocked here for different reasons, under varied circumstances. To use one of the liberals' favorite words, Hispanics are quite DIVERSE. The first wave of Cubans tended to be well-educated people of that nation's middle & professional class. With the (over-)generous assistance they received in this country as refugees they did well in south Florida, and are often pretty conservative. Why would they want to be lumped in with recent Mexican mestizos, many of whom snuck into this country to work in the lowest tier jobs in agriculture and restaurants, etc.? They aren't the same PEOPLE, even if they or their recent ancestors were Spanish-speaking. And the Puerto Ricans have their own separate story too.
You mean like Jews? Poor analysis and a great deal of wishful thinking.
This rings true for Hispanics. But I'd argue that it is not universally true for other now-successful immigrant groups.

The outlier? Jews. Successful by any reasonable standard, Jews have remained wed to liberal ideas and politicians.

It used to be said, back in the day, that "Jews earned like Episcopalians but voted like Puerto Ricans." Today, it is Episcopalians who vote like Puerto Ricans used to. Jews seem not to have budged, and still tend to vote en bloc for liberals.

One may hope that Puerto Ricans, and other Hispanics, will soon earn like Episcopalians and vote like Baptists.
One of the reasons that regular attendants at church were less likely to vote for Romney (and this is so obvious that it should not need to be said) was that he is a Mormon, and a number of traditional Protestants and Evangelicals (not to mention a small but obdurate class of Catholics and Orthodox) view mormonism not as an eccentric denomination, but as a satanic cult. The devout rarely vote for the Devil's candidate. Call it unfair or intolerant or whatever you like, but Billy Graham's genial words are still not going to tempt that precious margin of 5 or 6 million to turn out to support a Mormon.
SUP MARK
Perry M writes, "As a Conservative I want ALL laws to apply to ALL citizens ALL the time EQUALLY."

I wonder, Mr. M, if, as a Conservative, you would include in your wish that all (criminal) laws apply to all of the Wall St. financiers who brought this current economic crisis upon us? If you do, then you seem to be a Conservative who is out-of-touch with many of your Conservative friends in Congress.

Of course, neither Obama nor Holder seem too interested in bringing these thieves to justice.

So much for living in a society governed by laws and not by individuals. As at least one Commenter has noted, we live in a society governed by neither laws nor individuals. We live in a society governed by Parties (or, as James Madison referred to them, "Factions").

So while Democrats rejoice and Republicans gaze at their navels, the rest of us--those who think for ourselves, who don't just toe a party line, and who are committed to treating all with respect and decency--cringe at the thought of another election in a country divided, as it is, between Reds and Blues.

After 8 years of Bush II, and after a second round with Obama, one wonders whether a majority of Americans will ever realize that neither Republicans nor Democrats care one bit for the good of the nation as-a-whole.

'Round-and-'round it goes, with party members thinking of nothing more than how THEIR party can win the next election.

Good Luck, America. Because with this kind of a mind-set (i.e., "what do we, Republicans, need to do to get more votes?"; what do we, Democrats, need to do to keep turning out the vote?"), luck is about the only thing we may have going for us.
The final paragraph is suspect. It is simply untrue that voting patterns change with improvements in income. The Jews, anyone? Asians today are wealthier than in decades past, but they still vote reliably Democratic. Same for blacks (of course, Obama may be an outlier, given the racial pride that blacks obviously feel in his success, but I will wager that the 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee will a) not be black, and b) will still garner 90%+ of the black vote).

The immigrant groups from earlier times that Malanga is referring to were all European Christians. What evidence is there that nonwhites will assimilate exactly as whites did? That is a mere unfounded assumption. I have long predicted that eitherRepublicans end immigration, or the party is finished - CA today, USA tomorrow. If the GOP betrays its grassroots and amnesties the 20+ MILLION illegal aliens, it will not only have permanently lost my vote, but it will have committed electoral demographic suicide. For reasons too complex for me to explain here, nonwhites (and even white immigrants) are almost all leftists. The (white) American conservative movement is globally precious - and unique. Bringing in ANY foreigners in large numbers bolsters Democrats.

END IMMIGRATION NOW!
CB wrote: Seems interesting - but doesn't explain why Asians voted 65% in favor of Obama. If the argument holds, then given their income (higher than whites) they should have voted Republican. - In the end, they didn't. The larger issue unfortunately is 'values'.
--------Really? Or race?
That this emphasis on race is often mistaken doesn’t mean that Republicans don’t need to work with Democrats on, for example, comprehensive immigration reform that fixes our broken system.
----------Just what's "broken" about our system? That everyone in the world who wants to can't come here? That Americans should actually be the ones to benefit from immigration, not immigrants or illegal aliens? The only thing "broken" is the failure to enforce immigration law--and Obama can do that without needing new legislation. Unless and until we have several years of enforcement, there's no point in even talking amnesty.
Another 4 years of Obama and amnesty for the government lie of 11 to 12 million uneducated invading parasites will turn out to be closer to 20 million plus with chain immigration most of the ones still in Mexico. How people think this is a good thing in way beyond my limited thinking skill with 25 million American citizen unemployed and losing everything but guess votes are much more important than the welfare of American citizens or the future of this Nation to our corrupt ruling class.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

It is a sad thing to see this Nation move from our founding father ideal of a free people sink into a Nation of taker,s versus maker,s but the handwriting is clear the Leeches, Parasites, Criminals have won and most will sink into welfare bondage with the people of the ghetto,s and barrio,s.
Do you think Democrats really care that people, jobs, and taxes are leaving Calif. and the blue States are getting poorer and deeper in debt every day and the quality of life is decreasing and the misery index is increasing?

That is their plan!

The ones leaving are for the most part educated, tax payers and in many cases Republicans the ones they have been importing for years are Criminals, Uneducated Undocumented Mexicans and Welfare Democrats.

The Democrats policies has reduced the Black Race to welfare bondage, with a high crime rate, high school drop out rate, high breeding rate, high gang joining rate etc. but are the most dependable Democrat voters was not a accident!

The Illegal Mexicans that Democrats love so much, share and exceed many if not most of the same characteristics as the blacks in other words the prefect profile for a Welfare Democrat voter!

Normal people thinks no one would be diabolic and sick enough to purposely use policies to reduce the population to a state of Poverty, Crime, Misery and Corruption, but you would be wrong!

That is exactly the Democrat plan not only for Calif. but for this Nation!

The more Democrats can decrease education, thinking, reasoning ability and increase the Poverty, Welfare and the Entitlement mentality the more Democrat voters they make and the closer they get to a Third World Socialist Food Stamp Paradise controlled Lock, Stock and Barrel by the Democrat party!

The last piece to achieve their goals is nearly in place. Amnesty for the 12 to 30 million criminals and uneducated Illegal Aliens. That with chain Immigration for the ones still left in Mexico and Latin American and with a Prolific breeding rate will assure a Democrat majority forever and a Third World Slum here of Crime, Corruption, Poverty and Misery modeled on Mexico and controlled by the Socialist/Democrat party of Northern Mexico!

It is all about Power, Control and the Democrat party and how to use the people and citizens to achieve their goals!

Migrating to America legally is, and should be, a thorough procedure
meant to protect the interests of American citizens. It involves more than
simply jumping a fence and heading north in pursuit of free health care,
education, food stamps, and other handouts paid for by broke U.S. citizens
and a Bankrupt nation!

Legal immigration means enduring rigorous hurdles like background checks to
detect a criminal background or possible ties to terrorists; medical
examinations to detect diseases still prevalent in third-world nations, but
long since eradicated here; proof of financial solvency so as to prevent
newcomers from becoming a burden on U.S. taxpayers, and testing for
knowledge of American history and English skills.

Those who have jumped a fence into America in order to avoid our
immigration checks are not immigrants. Rather, they are invading criminals,
with no claim whatsoever to the welcome mat extended to legal immigrants.

Such people do not deserve recognition or sanction by the United States,
and should be rounded up and deported as soon as possible, alone with the corrupt politicians that support this invasion.


In truth, illegal aliens have invaded our nation, leaving America
vulnerable to undetected crime, terrorism, disease, and financial
devastation at the hands of people with no legal or moral justification for
being here.
As a Conservative I want ALL laws to apply to ALL citizens ALL the time EQUALLY.

If you expect special treatment because of skin color, gender, nationality you have the wrong political party with the GOP.

If you want to be treated as all citizens then vote GOP, if you think you are special and demand special treatment then vote Dummycrat and see pit you against fellow citizens....
Actually, Romney won Asians making over $100,000, which would tend to keep with the analysis.
I realkly think the results of the election are more about american's tendency not to change horses in a crisis than a fundmental change in the electorate. After studying the Roosevelt results, and talking to people of the times, that was the message I got from people from that era. They were too afraid to go to another candidate for fear they would lose what they already had.
The Republican Party stands for nothing except ever increasing defense budgets and foreign entanglements. They lost when they cheated and browbeat the libertarians and Ron Paul. With libertarian support they would have won, but they would rather lose and keep feeding on defense contracts.
This article reads like a junior high school report. It totally lacks any substance. One mans poorly expressed opinion.
Steve Malanga you write: "But one-third of adult Hispanics are not U.S. citizens and consequently can’t vote."
News Flash for Steve: Undocumented workers (of whatever background) can and do vote. Evidence of citizenship are often not required and even more often go unverified. The Dem get out the vote strategy leverages the non-citizen voter.
Please keep telling yourself Latinos aren't citizens, won't turn out, and won't vote for Obama. When you see polls that show the Democrats are ahead, shrug them off because they assume "too high" a minority and youth voting rate. Thanks to you doing this I'll look forward to a Democrat in the WH for the next 20 years at least. Thanks!
Latinos voter in large numbers for CA governor Schwarzenneggar. GW Bush was probably helped because he spoke to Hispanics in their native language.

Also, most Hispanics are young, and we know that young people generally vote dem.
Don't you think your explanation ignores the illegals under 30 who were registered as they received their amnesty papers?
Some Americans may cling to their “guns and bibles” as President Obama once insisted but many more cling to traditional frontier beliefs advocating standing on your own two feet and rejecting all taxpayer funded handouts except in the event of catastrophes. But our American version of the socialist state, European model, has veered well away from such antiquated concepts. Now we witness many Americans pathetically grateful their income tax deductions are merely reduced rather than eliminated wholesale while, at the same time, other Americans paying little or no income taxes are enraged by the mere suggestion taxpayers should get a legislative break in their obligation to the so-called “less fortunate”.

Perhaps it’s time to reassess the situation by coming up with new ideas and ideas which aren’t as sadly out of fashion as hula hoops and vinyl records. Regardless of how minorities vote or whatever rationalizations pass for their voting patterns, a more activist approach by taxpayers is warranted. Stop apologizing for being permitted to retain your income and demand federal and state entitlements geared solely to the productive.

A rebate on gas prices and gas taxes, indexed to inflation, paid directly to taxpayers each month and paid only to certified taxpayers. Bypass the standard income tax return credit so beloved of progressive thinkers. Cash in hand, paid now and let H&R Block off the hook next April 15th when calculating your miniscule tax credit. Or paying families to have children and not just unmarried women without jobs. Or direct monthly Treasury payments to small business owners based on job creation and annual revenue increases, call it a “Stimulus” or a call it a “bail-out” if that will make it more palatable to some political factions.

Stop pretending only the less fortunate benefit from your money – it’s a fiction and a transparent one at that. Solyndra received half a billion taxpayer dollars and promptly made it disappear but someone benefitted financially and it certainly wasn’t those ubiquitous “unfortunates”. New thinking, new demands and an end to the party of appeasement and humbly apologizing for success. Work toward majority Congressional control over the budget committees and legislative changes and stop obsessing over whether every other American shares your personal values – they don’t.
The elephant in the room is not being discussed. The real issue is the organized crime nature of the two major political parties. People, read the Constitution. There is no mention in the Constitution of a political party running the government. Those entities (political parties and their members) commit the same acts for which organized crime members are regularly sent to prison. They are not exempt, the corrupt prosecutors are party members; so, they are not charged, let alone prosecuted or convicted. Now to the truth- those political crime bosses want an amnesty for the survival of their organized crime entity, not for the benefit of no-skill of low skill American citizens. Think about it.
The elephant in the room is not being discussed. The real issue is the organized crime nature of the two major political parties. People, read the Constitution. There is no mention in the Constitution of a political party running the government. Those entities (political paarties and their members) commit the same acts for which organized crime members are regularly sent to prison. They are not exempt, the corrupt prosecutors are party members; so, they are not charged, let alone prosecuted or convicted. No to the truth- those political crime bosses want an amnesty for
the survival of their organized crime entity, not for the benefit of no-skill of low skill American citizens. Think about it.
Seems interesting - but doesn't explain why Asians voted 65% in favor of Obama. If the argument holds, then given their income (higher than whites) they should have voted Republican. - In the end, they didn't. The larger issue unfortunately is 'values'.
Immigrants from Mexico come to this country with Conservative values, however, once they land in our 'ghettto's", they are taught all the easy ways to steal from the system. This leads quickly to their full support of the Democratics push towards Socialism.
Nonesense. Liberals have won the war. The only thing for Republicans to win on is minor battles like what marginal tax rates should be. With Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and other social welfare and support programs, combined with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Dodd-Frank banking rules and the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and with the addition of rule making by powerful regulatory agencies such as the EPA and the Labor Department, the federal government now controls or has significant influence over the health care, retirement, financial, investment, housing, energy, mining and drilling sectors of our economy. Who cares if another Reagan comes along? If marginal tax rates are all that's left to fight over do we really need the GOP?
Darren below has come closest to the truth, except that he forgot the point: lack of turnout by traditional white voters (see the link to the RealClearPolitics article in this article.

Republicans, many of whom have little knowledge or experience of Europe, have set up Europe as the straw man. The truth is that Europe is doing fine except for the southern fringe. Germany and many other countries are doing well.

More to the point, the European model is what other countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America are copying or aspire to. It is also what their emmigrants to the US aspire to.

It is not very different from the model of "blue" states in the US: gender equality, racial equality, less income inequality, access to education and healthcare.

Marginalized groups, like women, minorities, and the young get this. The Republicans think this is about Socialism, but it is really about culture and society. Yes, I am white and I even attend church regularly, so blessings on all and on the USA.
Steve M. says you can't project Hispanic trends 40 years into the future. So, who says that the GOP has a future as long as the next 40 years?

The salient lesson from this election, which I picked up well before the last 8 mweeks and the thick of polling was this: RADICALISM WORKS.

Obama radicalizes the majority and somehow characterizes the middle class as the 99% (which is not the middle of anything except the two half percents)because his rhetoric works. The GOP never got around to d4emonizing immigrants, the poor, or for that matter,the financial insiders who dominate Capitol Hill, and never even made headway with Benghazi and our real enemies thereabouts. Instead, we relied on talk radio to dish out a few "gotchas" against greenies, feminists, and progressive justices. Mark Levin hut-tutted about all of us being equals under the Founding Fathers, and now has little else to do but foam at the mouth against socialists like Teddy Roosevelt.

Meanwhile Obama counted and reorganized his minions, no matter how ridiculous his message. And what happened? Imagine what a few handshakes and "Thank you for voting" phone calls can do. The Guns 'n Religion crowd never thought of that in Ohio. (PS I voted Romney, but I canvassed and handed out leaflets for two democratic councilmen, and one dem councilman who became county freeholder -- all won. I know whereof I speak.)

I for one believe the plug should be pulled out from Boehner's GOP, and we should consider some grass roots radicalism, like this:

1. Let's have our own Occupy Washington, with the unemployed camped out at the Washington Monument. Beats a Glenn Beck pray-in, doesn't it?

2. Put every politician on YouTube by asking them the question: "Do you believe immigrants, legal or not, should receive scarce jobs at the expense of actual citizens? If not, how would you identify the jobs and the people relevant to establishing your policy?

3.Don't wait for the Senate to pass a balanced budget. Go to your state government and demand a constitutional convention to pass a balanced budget amendment. Beats complaining about a so called 'secession movement', which will no doubt obsess choir boy GOP consultants, who will go to the media, assuring us how sensible they are to oppose such a thing.

Stay tuned.
Income seems to play a lessor role in determining how one votes. Democrats have made major inroads with higher income voters. Look how Silicon Valley entrepreneurs vote. Also Jewish voters continue to vote democratic. Why are higher income voters voting more democratic? Why didn't Reagan's amnesty bill produce more Latino republican voters?
There are too many of you to name – just address this to the multiple innumerate posters below assuring us that racial demographics determine the political future. You are utterly clueless.

1) Let’s clarify something from the article above. He incorrectly states that “It’s possible that 5 million or more eligible whites didn’t vote, perhaps because of a lack of enthusiasm for either candidate.” Actually that 5 million estimate only represents the whites who did not vote in 2012 who did in 2008. Had they voted and voted in the same proportion as their counterparts, the election would have been decided by only about 1 million votes (not enough for a popular vote win for Romney but possibly enough for an electoral college win).

2) The number of eligible white voters who did not vote is actually somewhere in the 70-75 million range while eligible minorities who did not vote add up to about 18-20 million. Again, assuming the same proportion of Rep/Dem votes, had only 10 -12 million of those white voters turned out, the election would have gone to Romney. . Had 15 million more whites voted proportionately (or only 20% of the remaining eligible pool) the winning margin for Romney would have been about 1 million. This would not amount to an exceptional turnout total for a national election, given our current population. In short, it will be decades before the numbers change enough to fulfill the Democrat’s odd fantasy can come true (and much can change in the interim)

3) There is nothing preventing the Republican party from mastering the same selected turnout programs that Democrats do so well. 3 million additional Republican votes would have turned the election around – that is less than a 5% increase of voters and less than a 4% slice of the white voters who did not turn out. Democrats would have to achieve a 15% increase in minority votes to achieve the same effect.

4) Already the growth rates of minority populations in the US are slowing down. Central and South American countries having rapidly improving economies and the desire to emigrate is declining. The US may see growth in other demographic groups as the Hispanic wave subsides. In other words, CURRENT trends are just that – current and temporary.

5) There is no reason to assume that these minority populations will not become more conservative as time passes. It happened to other waves of immigrants and it happens as people grow older – bear in mind that youth is a common element in the immigrant communities. They move to this country when young and have children right away – these same immigrant populations will not only assimilate over time but age as well.

6) Special PS to JB13 – your question smacks of ignorance of the American reaction to each new wave of immigrants. Lots of politicians of both parties did call for wide-scale roundups of illegal immigrants over the generations and they tended to overstate the proportion if illegality – look up the meaning behind “W.O.P.” for a little perspective. Unfortunately, the proportions have changed to a level that warrants serious crack downs. If you think we are too hard on the vast numbers of people in this country illegally, take a look at what happens to you if you try to live in the other industrialized countries without proper applications (here is a hint – liberal and beneficent Canada throws you in the slammer for a year before deporting you).

7) I am disappointed in the results of the last election but I still see that Democrats lost 7 million voters including over 1 million African Americans. As far as I can tell Obama’s Hispanic vote total is either the same or slightly less than 2008. Does anyone really expect minority turnout to stay the same for Dems in 2016 when they trot out Old Angry White candidates Clinton and Biden??? Get serious.

The basic message of the GOP will be even stronger after 4 more years of Obama. We moved the electorate by 5 points with a weak candidate - 2016 will mark the end of this leftist speed bump in the political road.
No chance. Hispanics are as government dependent as all the other minority groups--this election demonstrated that.
Darren, where have you been living? Immigrants as a whole perfer Democrats 60 to 40 percent!!! Wrong! "Immigrants", perfer the democrat party 100 percent. That's what the democrats have figured out Darren that you haven't.
Here is why the republicans lost in order of most to least importance:

1. Turnout of young and minorities.

- Obama has seemingly perfected his 'get out the vote' machine. His side is organized and they target market specific groups with specific messages. His race likely helps with turning out minorities too.

2. Culture is shifting towards non-traditional morality.

- Our traditional culture as it relates to marriage and ideas of equality is changing. If you identify with any non-traditional idea, you are a lot more likely to favor the liberal party verses the conservative party. A study I read the other day showed that people who attend religious services once a week, vote conservative by +25%; people who never attend religious services, vote for liberal party by +20%; people who go occasionally to religous services, vote in equal proportion for conservative and liberal party.

3. Immigration

Immigrants as a whole prefer democrats by 60- 40%. Hispanics, the fastest growing immigrant group, favor democrats at a slightly higher rate.

4. Obama is the incumbent.

- Usually a president won't win with the economy in this sort of shape; however, a large majority believe Obama inherited the economy. It is pretty clear that they don't believe he is responsible for the economy. A slim majority believe that he could have done a better job, but it wasn't enough to motivate more than half to remove him.
Amen! This is an article that is sorely needed, and should be read by a Republican establishment that does not deserve the millions of men and women who struggled so mightily the last eight or so months.

The problem is that people like Boehner, Rove, Jeb Bush et als are looking to destroy the Republican Party by embracing issues like amnesty. Are these people crazy? Have they forgotten what the amnesty debate did to George W. Bush, and how it led directly to the 2008 Democratic blowout as Republican voters sought to punish the Republican leadership for its endless stupidity!? Have these people no brains? Are they stealth Democrats?

Of all these names, the one that rankles the most is Karl Rove. I actually read his book - page after page of self justification of a man who more than anyone else destroyed what had looked to be a permanent Republican majority. Rove was the one who said "deficits don't count" as Bush grew the size of government beyond any other President, Republican or Democratic. When Bush was being blasted by Democrats in 2005, as we struggled to defend him, Rove was the fool responsible for the policy of not fighting back, which left the entire media going after Bush - during an unpopular war! It was left to talk radio and the rank and file to try to defend Bush since Rove and "W" just couldn't be bothered.

Both Rove and Bush decided to support amnesty, and it was the last straw for the Republican rank and file. Like most of the Republican establishment, these people are utterly divorced from the average Republican voter - heck the average American. It was with relief that we saw Rove cravenly flee from the White House after narrowly escaping indictment over the bizarre Plame incident.

Now like a bad penny Rove is back, once again intent on destroying the Republican Party, and this time he has Boehner, the weakest man to ever sit in the Speaker's chair, and other non-entities like Jeb Bush, a former governor and the brother of the man who paved the way for Obama, plus the usual cast of Fox Republican media consultants, all of whom have been utter failures at electing Republicans. These people speak for practically no one - it isn't just the majority of Republicans who don't share their views - it is ALL Republicans. Rove et als have NO constituency, NONE - in my own town, the ENTIRE Republican club - every single one of them rejects Boehner, Rove et als views. And it wouldn't surprise me if all of them became independents if the party goes with amnesty.

It will be interesting to see how the Republican establishment have a party without people.

Four years ago the Democrats won an overwhelming victory, taking the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. Two years ago, after seeing just how bad Democrats are, the Republican rank and file got to work and took back the House - no thanks to "W", Rove, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, or anyone else. This election Obama, an incumbent, won, taking not much else with him - a few Senate and House seats.

Contrary to what Boehner says, it's far from the end of the world.

In 2006, when Republicans lost the House and Senate thanks to Rove and "W"'s lack of 'splaining for the war effort, Bush, in an act of complete cowardice, fired his defense secretary. Bush and Rove's continued failure to defend their policies led directly to Obama - without Bush and Rove's incompetence there would be no Obama.

However, in 2010 Republicans won, no thanks to "W" who is off somewhere doing God knows what (thanks the Lord) or Rove, who was similarly in hiding. After their shellacking did Democrats admit defeat? No, they claimed THEY didn't do enough 'splaining, and went on to win in 2012 - but just barely.

And after the loss, in what looked like a rehearsed speech, Boehner basically told his own base to go to hell, and him and the rest of the Republican establishment started talking about amnesty - right after a hard fought defeat. No words of encouragement or thanks to the millions of Republican rank and file who worked long hours and spent hard earned money to elect Republicans, just a complete cave in.

Way to be a leader John Boehner! Way to destroy your own party!

The leadership's action were so cowardly, so un-American, so Democrat. It's like these people are operating from the Democratic playbook that it's never good to waste a crisis.

As for the substance of this article, we should never forget that Latinos are much closer ideologically to Republicans than Democrats. Republicans SHOULD do with Latinos what they did in the south - not the Democrat racist myth, but to point out that Latinos, like all or most Republicans, place a high importance on family and religion hard work and being independent of government. Heck the same applies to black Americans - at the end of the day only a very tiny minority of Americans truly follow Democratic ideology. The problem is combination of Republican establishment stupidity (this group of fools would never have won the south), Democratic institutional corruption and the Democratic dominance of the media. But all it takes is hard work, and leaders who are willing to fight for principles not bend for expediency.

Plus the current Republican establishment is simply incapable of doing what needs to be done. They need to move aside - and they need to do it now before they destroy the party.

After all this is OUR country, we don't and shouldn't leave it to those who would adopt policies that would ruin it. And Rove, Boehner, J. Bush and all the rest don't understand that they should get out of the way and let the real people who make up the party do their job for them.

Because, post election, Boehner. Rove, and all the rest have been disgraceful. Did we spend the last eight months making phone calls, knocking on doors, spending money and all the rest so that these people can tell us we should all be Democrats?
As I read the comments here, I'm realizing that the GOP won't win again in 2016. When you lose an electon when the incumbent has 7.9% unemployment, a $16 trillon debt, no budget in several years, and no plan to reduce the deficit and instead of looking within, you simply state, "they voted for him because they wanted free stuff", you are repeating the same mistakes that were made during the last two presidential cycles.

The vast majority of people that voted for Obama didn't vote him because they "wanted free stuff" and the vast majority of people didn't vote for Obama because they were stupid. Until the Republicans come to terms with this, they will never look at their platform and make changes to encourage voters to want a Republican president.
How long ago was the Reagan coalition again?
"In 1984, President Reagan won re-election despite losing Hispanics 2-to-1. In 1986, Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants. In 1988, Hispanics rewarded the Republican party by voting ... even more heavily Democratic. President Bush lost Hispanics by 40 points, 70 percent to 30 percent. So much for amnesty as the "single policy change" capable of "fixing the Latino problem."

Join the FAIR fight for American jobs: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageNavigator/FAIRChanceAtJobs.html
You exemplify the problem right here: within the GOP, it's always 1980.

The rest of the world has continued to turn.
The GOP needs to figure out what happened in the voting patterns of whites. There are many possible explanations:mine-simplistically-is that Romney relied too heavily on the premise the economy would by itself be sufficient. He didn't give the electorate anything to vote FOR, presuming they would vote AGAINST the incumbent. He was almost right (Obama lost 7 million votes). But perhaps his relative moderation resulted in a decline of right hard votes. Perhaps his Mormonism resulted in evangelical no shows. Perhaps his Wall Street pedigree resulted in working class voters turning off to his candidacy (hint: Mitt your shirts need to have visible seams). Perhaps his policy perscriptions-tax code simplification-went over the head of a less than economically literate electorate. The GOP needs to find out who the voters were, where they were, and why they didn't show. But your point is excellent: the urge to rush the GOP pell mell into a fast track citizenship for undocumented workers isn't wise or benighn.
Jeebus on a Crutch November 14, 2012 at 5:06 PM
2016 GOP platform: More unnecessary wars, more tax cuts for the wealthiest, more trans-vaginal probes, more free trade BUT IN SPANISH!
Nonsense. It's easy to prove that Mexicans and Central Americans vote based on race. And the fact that many Central Americans are social conservatives is not an indicator that they will ever be GOP. Social issues are not determining issues in any election. The GOP is impotent as far as social issues go. Why would they join a party that can't or won't do anything about social issues? It's about race, and Free Stuff. Being against gay marriage or abortion does not get in the way of voting for whitey to give you more free stuff.
Excellent article - and sorely needed since there are a lot of credit-claiming arguments that Hispanics won the election for Obama. In fact, Twitter is alight with comments pertaining to same. The only issue I would ask about pertains to whether there should be a footnote because in the last paragraph Mr. Malanga simply writes that "blacks are an exception, for historical reasons." What comes to mind mind is the old saying that the GOP is the party of Lincoln and the Democrats are the party of the Klan. Other readers, however, might want to know the historical reasons being cited.
Nice breakdown Steven. Could you please expand upon the reasons black voting patterns are resistant to income changes?
Thanks
Offered with the best of intentions but this author is engaging in pure flights of fantasy. Obama not only captured the Hispanic vote, but he also swept the Asian vote, the Jewish vote, the young American vote and scored much better among white women than among white men. Malanga rationalizes the black vote going overwhelmingly Obama as based on historical reasons without explaining why America’s so-called center-right principles are so easily trumped by history. Our interminable political campaigns have become popularity contests and Mr. Obama was obviously the more popular and for reasons equally obvious.

Ask yourself what George Bush is doing at this moment and if anyone actually cares? But Bill Clinton remains immensely popular despite his recognized financial status as one of the Republican type “rich people”. Obama, in 4 years, will also enter the ranks of the 1% despite his clever tactics of demonizing the wealthy. But George Bush remains singularly obscure, eagerly signing autographs for his ranch hands and any lost motorists stopping by the spread and seeking directions to the nearest town.

Obama will cash in on his popularity just as Clinton did, penning royalty rich books like: “Lessons I Learned from Myself” and giving speeches at $125,000 a pop. His lovely wife will be invited to join the boards of at least 5 prominent social foundations, each one at a modest salary – but modest by NFL quarterback standards.

George Bush and his equally unpopular dad are destined to become obscure answers to future questions on Final Jeopardy while Clinton and Obama will reap the rewards of popularity as related to their celebrity status. For a simple, barefoot community organizer from Chicago, Mr. Obama’s success will become the stuff of legends with his widely recognized fame based primarily on whimsical accomplishments.

As America moves rapidly toward European style socialism, the need for multiple, and legitimate, political parties to share elective power is becoming undeniable. Winner take all 2 party elections must eventually devolve into popularity contests while parliamentary forms of multi-party government offer the unpopular and miserable a chance to achieve a small share of the power and with a realistic claim on many government handouts.
JB13,

The Italians that came to the US came through Ellis Island and followed the laws. They became citizens as a result. If you're having trouble understanding the distinction, it could be that your ideology is getting in the way.
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.
--------
You can also say that Asians are an exception (almost as Democratic as blacks while their incomes are probably higher than those of whites). Same goes for Jews. And Indian/Pakistani immigrants if by Asians we mean Chinese an their neighbors to the East and South.
Tribalism for those play higher role than for Hispanics.
There is a reason that car insurance companies charge more for young drivers. They are inexperienced, emotional, believe they are immortal, and are impulsive. Kind of like the profile of the 18-29 year old voters who voted for Obama in throngs. And by the way: it needs to be said that a much higher percentage of young black and Latino voters have dropped out of school, are poorly educated, and are unemployed.

Welcome to the dropout-handout presidency.
Mr. Malanga, would you research into the Cuban-American vote? It seems, according to the stats, that almost half of us (I came from Cuba, and I voted for Romney)voted for the same policies we escaped from. I doubt that half of a block traditionally Republican all of a sudden turns 'Democrat' I don't buy it. Who count the votes? Who supply the voting machines? What about odds and irregularities (Ohio, Pennsylvania and Allen West)?
Reagan received 37% of the Hispanic vote in 1984. He signed the amnesty bill in 1986. Bush, after amnesty, only received 30% of the Hispanic in 1988. So much for amnesty pandering. Truth is it is ideology. Many come from central and South America where Che Guevera is still a populist hero. Hence their Marxist home cultur makes them a natural fit fot today's Democrat party. Add to that Democrats are running radio ads in Mexico with instructions on how to get food stamps in America. Those who respond to the ad are "placed" in the US where their votes will best offset Republicans. Bottom line: it's ideology, stupid. And that won't change any time soon and certainly not byRepublicans caving to amnesty II.
Two questions: 1) How many people in the mainstream of a major political party in the mid-20th Century were demanding that Italian-Americans be rounded up and shipped back to where they came from? And, 2) Think such rhetoric might have made a difference in slowing down or preventing altogether the assimilation of those Italians and their descendants into both American culture and the Republican Party? I can't imagine how little I would care about what you have to say about fiscal policy if prominent voices in your party believe it is proper to deny those who look like me the same rights and opportunities afforded to all my neighbors. We cannot win by attracting only voters with white skin. If you think this, your career as a political analyst will be short-lived, and your cause is doomed.
About 60% of non-white latino children are born out of wedlock. Most latinos of primarily European origin ( including most cuban-americans) get married before having children. That is the defining social marker for class in America. The majority of children born out of wedlock ( unless their parents are liberal hollywood stars) end up growing up in poverty and go on to have children of their own out of wedlock who also grow up in poverty. That is unfortunately the future of America. You must have a support system when raising children if you want a gaurentee of your children succeeding. Even if that is a divorced husband,his family and his child support helps a great deal. Just 5 % of children born to married parents end up growing up in poverty.
Asians voted for Obama. Asians.

Malanga's analysis is wrong. To be a minority in America is to disparage and distrust "white society" and to correspondingly distrust Republicans.
Don't underestimate the power of race and ideology. Racial group identity is extremely powerful (for non-whites). Being a minority in America creates huge pressures to be liberal. One must vote with their in-group or be considered a sell out. It takes extraordinary courage to buck racial group-think.
The only hope for freedom-loving people is to limit the number of minorities gaining entry into this country.
Previous waves of immigrants were white. White Latinos ( the marco rubios, cameron diazes etc..) are probably going to be absorbed into the mainstream population very quickly. 1 in 3 of them marry a non-hispanic white partner. The mostly native-american in origin people from Mexico and Central America will not be absorbed. They are already developing a race consciousness and victim status. Most will never be Republicans or firmly in the middle class.
This does not bode well. 1) The ‘optimistic presidential candidate who campaigned on a convincing pro-growth agenda’ managed to get only 35 percent of a voting bloc that is growing steadily. 2) As Heather MacDonald and others have pointed out, that bloc for various reasons (our skill-based economy, poor education system, multi-culturalism) is not assimilating and climbing the income ladder like previous immigrant groups. Rather than becoming the new Italian-Americans, Hispanics show more signs of becoming the new African-Americans: disproportionately undereducated, poor and disaffected. What sort of conservative governing philosophy will appeal to them and to white lower-income voters (whose numbers Hispanics’ own growing numbers will only increase, since they will compete for lower-skill jobs)? If liberty is the most vulnerable virtue (more so than equality), is it not even more vulnerable in a nation whose lower-middle-class is growing, and falling further behind the rich? State-heavy policies have a big and growing advantage. Democrats need only a demagogue. Republicans need a statesman even greater than Reagan.
When an ethnic group becomes dependent on government largesse,their voting patterns are less likely to change.
Here's another example of GOP fantasy: "their voting patterns will probably change as well."

"Probably" while the likes of Jan Brewer, Mitt "My Job Is Not To Care About Them" Romney, and the dozens of active state-level anti-democracy vote suppressors are leading the GOP ?????

This is beyond fantasy. It's communal delusion spawned by listening to your own propaganda. Look to the historical trends to see where things are going. The GOP's choices for leaders -- driven by Far Right money -- are what is killing the party.
No DREAM Act! No amnesty! That will wake up the "Reagan Democrats", and thus GOP will have a path to win in OH, FL, VA.
Gilbert W. Chapman November 14, 2012 at 4:48 AM
Let us not forget that long before Obama's people were projecting Romney as a Wall Street exploiter, such 'friends' of the cause as Gingrich, Perry, Bachman and Santorum were doing a number on him.

This, in turn, among other factors, is what caused the drop off of the white vote at the polls.
It amazes me how not many people mention how Barack Obama won 66% of the votes of 18-24 and 25-29 year-olds in 2008 and 60% in 2012. it is clear that on a range of issues, the democratic party are winning the ‘culture war’ and the Republican party in my opinion are retrogressive dinosaurs.

New media such as Twitter and Facebook has changed how we vote and the democratic party has benefited from this. .

If you think the republican outreach to its rabid base played no role in latins voting against the GOP, your career as a political analyst is hereby over.
If you think this isn't a serious issue for future elections, your career as a math teacher is also over.
We can't have that group grow every election and consistently vote like African Americans and think we can win nationally anymore. We also cant wait for 50 years for their supposedly wealthier americanized grandkids to float away from their democratic moorings. Last election we lost cuban grandkids, so this thing is getting worse.
Your idea about all latins not belonging to democrats forever is correct though. I'd like to start the turnover next election, and not wait for Reagan II. We just cant ignore this problem.
My father, born in Cuba, came to the US before the Castro Communist take over. As a disaffected Latino - he nevertheless, appreciated American open opportunity to attaining prosperity. But he said there is a price - 2, in fact. One was to pay taxes, regardless of your income - because "it cost money to run a democracy and all that benefit need to have a stake in process". The second is to vote,..."lest we forget the tyranny of a single ruling class". The Hispanic vote will grow in significance, as Hispanic income/wealth grows. The question is - which party of the two, will covet the most votes? The answer may lie in this Jeffersonian observation -

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
"Even Latinos who are citizens don"t vote as reliably as whites and blacks do, and as a result, their population growth rate doesn't translate into commensurate voting power." Is this your personal opinion? or is this data extracted from a reputable research based study source?
One point you failed to shed light on is the fact that the media's role in communicating how the Latino vote gave Barack Obama victory in this past election has awaken a sense of political power that the Latino population had never experienced before, therefore, in future elections this will motivate even more Latino voters to let their voice be heard. The fact of the matter is that in order to get the Latino votes, Democrats, as well as, Republicans must think twice before taking any concerns that affect the Latino population lightly, why? simply because their actions will depend on whether they will get the Latino vote or not. The Latino population in the United Stated is often called, the sleeping giant. That sleeping giant is waking up.
Another factor: Hispanic Americans from twenty years ago were more likely to assimilated, having been here a long time, whereas those who have come here recently are obviously not assimilated, and also come from some different countries.