Skip to main content

Latinos for Obama sign
There are two emerging camps within the conservative movement regarding immigration: One is led by people who know how to do math, and realize they're screwed if they can't reverse their losses on immigration. The other realizes they're screwed if the laws create millions more Democratic voters over the next several years.

And both sides are right.

As I recently wrote, Republicans are finished winning normal-turnout elections given the nation's dramatic demographic growth:

Republicans have reason to be freaked out. They continue to lose ground with Latinos, getting blown out 71-27 with one of the few groups to increase their raw vote and their share of the electorate this year. And there is little respite on the horizon—the median age of native-born Latinos is 18. Eighteen! Among all Latinos, including immigrants, it's just 27. That compares with 42 years old among non-Hispanic whites. In fact, Pew estimates that Latinos will double their share of the electorate by 2030, based strictly on birth and death rates.
Pew estimates that 66,000 Latinos turn 18 and over 100,000 elderly (and more conservative) Americans die every month. That means that by 2016, there will be about three million more voting-age Latinos and about five million fewer elderly voters. And that's going to be the case whether we get comprehensive immigration reform or not.

Or put yet another way, Texas will be a battleground state by 2024. So math-adept Republicans are correct that they'll be electorally irrelevant unless they can make inroads with the Latino vote. (And let's not forget the Asian vote, considering it's now the fastest growing in the country.)

On the other hand, conservatives are right that legalizing 12 million Latinos would gift Democrats a treasure trove of Democratic voters. As one National Review conservative put it:

Let’s assume that only two-thirds of former illegals become U.S. citizens — that’s 8 million new Americans with the vote [...] Since these voters are poorer and less assimilated than Latinos as a whole, they will likely skew more Democratic than their ethnic fellows. Republicans would be optimistic if they counted on winning more than one-fifth of them — i.e., 1.6 million voters. On a 100 percent turnout, that would give the Democrats a net advantage of 4.4 million votes. On a more realistic assumption that these new voters would have a lower than average turnout — say, 50 percent — that would give the Democrats an net additional 2.2 million votes over Republicans.
Those new Democratic voters would accelerate the competitiveness of Arizona, Georgia, and Texas, while padding Democratic advantages in Colorado and Nevada (not to mention California and New Mexico).

So yeah, if I'm a Republican worried about electability, neither option makes me feel any better.

The only difference is that as noted, Republicans are already screwed by the nation's demographic changes. They have two options. They can either solidify their opposition to immigration reform and destroy their ability to ever compete among Latinos, or they can hurt themselves in the short-term and allow reform to happen, but preserve their ability to make gains with Latinos in the mid- to long-term.

Both options screw them, and both options screw them hard. Just one gives them a long-term fighting chance.

Originally posted to kos on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 11:58 AM PST.

Also republished by LatinoKos and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  And they'll waver between both choices... (31+ / 0-)

    ...prolonging the pain. Problem is, both approaches seem to look at Latinos as a bloc, not as distinct groups. And the Republicans will never learn, since they're too busy polishing a fresh hot batch of turds for the nation.

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 12:08:04 PM PST

  •  So screw em' then, they're screwed either way (19+ / 0-)

    Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people, and by the way, enjoy your Wyoming, Repubs, for the next twenty years.

    I would only add that we should not be complacent about this voting bloc, which is to say keep reminding everyone about how it is the Democrats which are and always will be the forward thinking party which welcomes immigration as a part of the new American diversity. And that the considerable economic benefits of immigration should continue to be pushed

    An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head. -- Eric Hoffer

    by MichiganChet on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 12:09:18 PM PST

  •  Citizenship takes a long time (17+ / 0-)

    So some Republican politicians who plan to retire in the next 10 years might be less deterred from creating a path to citizenship based on the potential to create new Democratic voters. Maybe that will push some toward voting for it in fear of losing now if they oppose it.

  •  Well Legalizing 12 Million IMMEDIATELY Would (17+ / 0-)

    sink them.

    I'm sure they'll come up with a 10-15 year delay on voting and full citizenship to give themselves enough time to turn it around with Latinos.

    If they can't do it by then, they'll be a permanent minority party regardless of the citizenship question for this population.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 12:11:52 PM PST

  •  There is no way to reconcile hierarchy with (7+ / 0-)

    equality.  Some humans dominating by dint of physical force or psychological intimidation is just not going to survive, absent communal assent.  And there isn't any logical reason for people to put up with abuse.
    Why did they do so in the past? Because there was a consensus of fear. The lord that was familiar had to be obeyed, because the unknown one might be worse.
    It's my guess that modern communications have simply stripped the fear of the unknown away.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 12:22:02 PM PST

    •  Um, Faux Noise is all about ramping up the fear (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      IB JOHN, blueyedace2, hannah, JeffW, Odysseus

      and propaganda to 11.  Yes, this latest election didn't go their way, but there is still a majority of Republicans in the House because in many districts, fear and uncertainty still swayed the majority of voters.  That's the strongest tool for Republicans and they're going to play it as loud and as long as they can.

      •  Also, they are creatures of habit and simply (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DeadHead, MaikeH, ljb, JeffW, ColoTim

        can't change.  But, if we know that, then we can be prepared and negate their efforts at the starting gate.

        We said Willard wasn't presidential material and the country agreed and we should capitalize on that. We knew what we were talking about.
        The instinct-driven also tend to be more aural than visual, so we need to tell the story of Obama's victory over and over again.
        Repetition is a drag, but it's what aural people need. FOX is really nothing but radio with pictures. It caters to people who don't see too good.

        We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:11:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, but don't forget gerrymadering! That had far (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        newpioneer, ljb, nocynicism, ColoTim

        more to do with Dems not taking back the house than Fox being able to get away with their fearmongering and lies.

        "On this train, dreams will not be thwarted, on this train faith will be rewarded" The Boss

        by mindara on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:37:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Compromise- Citizenship without voting! (13+ / 0-)

    The first Republican to propose this will be hailed by the punditocracy as a visionary, I promise you that.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 12:41:43 PM PST

  •  Democrats are killing old, white voters! (9+ / 0-)
    Pew estimates that 66,000 Latinos turn 18 and over 100,000 elderly (and more conservative) Americans die every month.
    Accident?

    I DON'T THINK SO!!!!!!!!

    WHAT IS KILLING OLDER, CONSERVATIVE AMERICANS!!!!!!

    It is another communist plot to destroy our freedoms and liberties by the Kenyan usurper and his minions!

    AND MARKOS MULE-ITIS IS IN ON IT!!!!!!!!!!!

    THESE MURDERERS MUST BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS!!!!!!

  •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueyedace2

    (R's) take those tired memes and shove 'em, Denise Velez Oliver, 11/7/2012.

    by a2nite on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:04:16 PM PST

  •  after the 2012 campaign it's hard not to support (3+ / 0-)

    complete amnesty

    yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:04:18 PM PST

  •  I'd like to thank former governor of California, (13+ / 0-)

    Pete Wilson for gifting California with Latino democrats for the rest of my lifetime with his immigration "reforms". His hard work has led to today's Latino democratic base in the US. The ripples from his anti-Latino boulder-in-the-pond will make waves from coast-to-coast leading to the drowning of the Republcan party.
    I thank you, the Democratic Party thanks you and America thanks you.
    And as you still assert, "I was right then and I'm still right now".

    "I'm gonna dance between the raindrops"

    by IB JOHN on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:04:43 PM PST

  •  You forgot Base Abandonment (11+ / 0-)

    If Republicans get soft enough on Immigration to actually make any gains their base will revolt. This is their real problem.

    Because they have staked their party's current life on winning the white male vote and gerrymandered their districts in as many states as possible to reflect this.

    This kind of locks them down to a hard line strategy if they want to compete at all.  Lest they find a primary challenger quickly flush with cash and ready to 'oust them. Boehner may even be losing his speakership over disciplining TP members.

    Truth is the G.O.P. is going to have to probably own the Southern Strategy right up until the end of their national relevance. Because it's only once their base gets small enough that they can risk losing them to court other blocs.

    •  True that. (5+ / 0-)

      And I wonder what percentage of their base would see the changing political/ethnic/cultural landscape and simply disengage electorally and stake their futures on the illusory securities offered by hardened bunkers in Idaho.

      And they also face the prospect of Neo-Dixiecrat splinter parties further diminishing their prospects.

      These eventualities are symtomatic of an inherent defect in movement conservativism which is a tendency toward Balkanization driven by xenophobic suspicion of the "other" and all those percieved to be rendering aid and comfort to such out groups.

      Back in the sixties, after the Goldwater debacle,  the consensus was that the Republicans were destined to become a minority party whose chief role would be to act as an anchor to excessive exuberance among the Democrats.  Then along came the Southern Strategy infusing the Republicans with a new optimism. But now, after a generation, we are seeing the end result of that agenda and it has amounted to them having painted themselves into an ideological corner. They are learning the hard way that grabbing the tiger of xenophobia by the tail is not the way to a viable political future in a world where communication between cultures is increasing exponentially.

      The world is a den of thieves and night is falling. -Ingmar Bergman

      by Pirogue on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:23:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Drowning in a bathtub - not just for government (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rikon Snow, mindara, JeffW, a2nite

      It's good for your own base.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

      by sacrelicious on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:51:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe the rethuglican party will shrink down.. (0+ / 0-)

      so small we can drown it in Grover's bathtub?  
      :)

      "Republicans are the party that says that government doesn't work, then they get elected and prove it."-- PJ O'Rourke

      by nocynicism on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 09:07:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent article - dealing with facts - Period! (3+ / 0-)

    Is Jeb "competitive" with Latinos? Can he get say 35-40% of that vote?

    What of Rubio  - the empty suit full of hot air an idiotic public policies?

    2024 is just a decade or so away - I cant wait for Tx to be a battle ground state - wow! What battle royal will that be!!

  •  Big corporations are evil (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    The same big evil corporations that donate to Republicans, dodge taxes, pollute, outsource and practice racism and sexism aren't going to start a program of Labor Arbitrage once they have a few million new potential employees?

  •  Dem takeaway (8+ / 0-)

    1. Make sure you earn the Latino vote.
    2. Make sure you turn out the Latino vote.
    3. Keep Ann Coulter talking.

  •  Kos, how does Latino effect gerrymander+v.versa? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dopper0189

    Are Latinos going to help us gain anywhere other than in the states you mention of AZ, TX, and GA ?
    How do they effect the gerrymander/census/House question?

    "Are you bluish? You don't look bluish," attributed to poet Roger Joseph McGough, for the Beatles' Yellow Submarine (1968).

    by BlueStateRedhead on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 02:51:56 PM PST

  •  Or they can take the Bennett advice (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, Egalitare

    And try to set Latinos and African Americans against one another.

    Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

    by blue aardvark on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:38:14 PM PST

  •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuco35

    We need the Dems to rise up and become the party of the Latino community, just as it became the party of the African-American and LGBT communities.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:22:01 PM PST

    •  In other words, the party's path to the future (0+ / 0-)

      is not to take minorities for granted. If they fight for Hispanics, Ds will get 70-80% of our vote. If they fall back to GOP-lite, the GOP will have an opportunity to poach 40-45% of the vote.

      “I’m able to fly, do what I want, essentially. I guess that’s what freedom is — no limits.” Marybeth Onyeukwu -- Dreamer.

      by chuco35 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:21:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not as optimistic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    astrogeology girl

    about the favorable demographic destiny.  There's no guarantee that 1) Latinos will continue to prefer Democratic candidates by such large margins and especially 2) It won't polarize whites to vote more Republican, as they currently do in Mississippi with its large black population.  Gaah it makes me embarrassed as a white person just to write that sentence, but exit polls don't lie (well not to that extent).

    As for young voters being more liberal, 'twas ever thus.  The problem is that people tend to drift rightwards as they age, especially on social issues.  That's why building the party brand is so important.

    All these demographic trends mean is that Republicans will either need to intensify their racial-backlash efforts or shift focus.  Which could make it marginally more likely to get comprehensive immigration reform maybe.  But I don't see electoral dominance.

    •  Hispanics in NYC vote over 90% D (0+ / 0-)

      If we can figure out why, and clone that....

      (For reasons I don't quite understand, they are "Hispanics" and not "Latinos" here. Use the word "Latino" and people look at you kind of funny.)

    •  are you looking at the ideological make (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lawrence

      up of the Latino vote?

      You should. It makes your first point highly improbable.

      As for your second, the rest of the country isn't like Mississippi. Part of these things are cultural and history rather than just demographic shifts. Whites do not vote and will not vote the way you describe.

    •  Voters (0+ / 0-)

      don't get more conservative as they get older. I know that's the CW, but the data shows otherwise.

      •  Wow that's some quality stuff. (0+ / 0-)

        Although it would have been easier to see the trend if the graphs were adjusted for comparison to the electorate as a whole rather than just the D vote %.

        I hereby renounce the CW.  Thing is, something must be propping up the R numbers among age categories.  While we cannot know for sure if individual voters' ideology changes because there are no multi-election-spanning tracking polls, the turnout picture seems pretty clear.  From dreamingonempty's post:

        Increasing participation also explains why exit polls can't tell us if individuals within a generation or even the generation as a whole becomes more conservative as they age. Simply put, participation increases greatly as an age group gets older. For example, crude turnout of Baby Boomers increased by about 20 points between 1972 and 2008. It's entirely possible that those who were non-voters when young were more conservative than those who were voters
        I still don't think it fortells Democratic dominance because of the powerful reversion-to-the-mean force in a two-party winner-take-all system.  There's a reason our national elections have such close popular vote totals.  The main benefit is more likely to move the "center" of discourse to the left somewhat on many issues.   It's already done so dramatically with gay rights.
  •  Like the way this either/or option is presenting (0+ / 0-)

    itself.

  •  GOP would like to fake "caring" somehow, but it (0+ / 0-)

    just doesn't come across as authentic somehow.

    Obama is authentic and pragmatic and smart and cool.

    •  The Rs are only good at faking it; everyone who (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nocynicism

      Voted for Rs in 2010 screwed us & now is getting screwed in OH, WI, PA, FL, MI.

      (R's) take those tired memes and shove 'em, Denise Velez Oliver, 11/7/2012.

      by a2nite on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:05:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Taken further. The Democratic Party comes across (0+ / 0-)

      as authentic and caring on immigration matters. The GOP as racist and xenophobic.

      The cutting edge of the immigration debate is that it reveals the racism inherent in the Southern Strategy. That's why I'm not concerned with Hispanics changing their party preference, and why Kos is right-on in pointing out the either/or agony of the GOP.

      “I’m able to fly, do what I want, essentially. I guess that’s what freedom is — no limits.” Marybeth Onyeukwu -- Dreamer.

      by chuco35 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:26:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  don't forget the Puerto Rico Statehood !!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, a2nite, Lawrence

    This could be a big test for the GOP. If the GOP run house turns such a request down, it will deteriorate the situation with Latinos, but if they allow it. they may face 5 more democratic house representatives and 2 more Dem senators. Should be interesting. A potential win win situation for Democrats.

  •  And there is another loss to factor (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, kos

    If they embrace Latinos, they lose their base, if they don't, they lose the moderates. This isn't lose-lose, it's lose-lose-lose-lose!

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:40:48 PM PST

  •  The third option (0+ / 0-)

    There is a third alternative for the Rs.  

    Yes, they can continue to not get an even close to even share of existing Hispanic voters by continuing to be against a path to citizenship for the undocumented, or they can allow that path to citizenship, and see tons of new Hispanic voters, unlikely to vote for them for all sorts of reasons, added to the rolls.  Either way, yes, they lose.

    The only way they can avoid losing is to decouple citizenship from voting.  And, conveneintly enough for them -- voting is controlled by the states, and they not infrequently control states that tend to vote blue at the national level.

    Keep existing Hispanic voters from voting, keep the new Hispanic ctiizens from voting, and they win.  And the means of voter suppression they choose don't have to discriminate against just Hispanics.  They can be big tent, equal opportunity, vote suppressors, as long as they suppress likely D voters disproportionally.  By all means , they will welcome blacks and working class whites to join Hispanics in the big tent of the disenfranchised.

    If they can figure some way that isn't too extreme for their SCOTUS majority to swallow, to keep people systematically from voting who tend to vote D, they've got it made.  Worse, much worse for the likelihood that they will give this systematic voter suppression scheme the old college try -- is that they have no alternative that doesn't see them systematically losing.

    We should have destroyed the presidency before Obama took office. Too late now.

    by gtomkins on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:54:08 PM PST

    •  Rhode Island did this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gtomkins

      until the 1930s by keeping naturalized citizens from voting. A malapportioned state senate also helped. It took what is literally known as the Bloodless Revolution to change that:

      http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/...

      It involved refusing to allow two Republican senators to be seated, and impeaching and removing from office the entire state supreme court.

      •  They probably wouldn't be that open about it (0+ / 0-)

        I doubt that they would go for an overt franchise exclusion based openly on source of citizenship, any more than they would go for one based overtly on wealth or property ownership.  

        Both would probably pass Constitutional muster, unless a SCOTUS majority was willing to find racial discrimination behind these bars to voting.  At one time, many states allowed only people whose property exceeded a certain value to vote, so to original intention enthusiasts, a property restriction would be as Constitutional as church on Sunday.

        But I suspect that either sort of overt exclusion would cause them to lose their majorities, even among the new restricted electorate, in states like PA and OH and VA and FL.  They control the state govt in such states, and so could pass exclusions, and want to pass exclusions because these states tend to go blue in national elections, but they can't risk being too overtly radical in these swing states.  They can do what they want in UT or MI without fear of a backlash, but they don't need exclusions in those states that are solid red anyway.

        As the sort of exception that proves the rule, I could imagine AZ passing a restriction that would deny the vote to people whose citizenship derives from their ancestors' undocumented entry, in a "fruit of the forbidden tree" sort of analogy.  But I don't think that would fly in PA or VA.

        But they might be able to get to an effective property restriction covertly.  I would expect them to present it as a fraud protection scheme, and this might be why they went with voter ID this cycle.  The "threat" that voter ID addresses is the theoretical potential for fraud created by the fact that the voter rolls are not purged in a timely manner of the names of the recently deceased, and you have to rely on impersonating the recently deceased to be at all safe when you try to vote as somebody you're not.  If they ain't dead, they might have voted before you got a chance to vote in their name, and then you're in trouble when you pretend to be them.

        Well, compared to the numbers of recently dead still in the voter rolls, the numbers of inaccuracies due to recent address changes is much larger.  But, of course, it's the working poor and the young who change address most often, have the most transient housing.  So a prolonged waiting period after a change of address, or onerous verification requirements that it is your address, while it could be presented as necessary for fraud prevention, would have the effect of throwing a barrier in the way of apartment dwellers to keep them from voting.  To keep from upsetting the home-owners who they want to vote, they could provide automatic verification of address for title or mortgage holders, but require apartment renters or condo owners to jump through hoops, and perhaps pay hefty user fees, to be allowed to register to vote.

        They don't need to categorically exclude non-home-owners from voting, just create even more and more difficult barriers to add to the many we already have that make it difficult to vote, and thus favor the wealthier.

        We should have destroyed the presidency before Obama took office. Too late now.

        by gtomkins on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 07:56:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  13th-14th amendment problem (0+ / 0-)

        constitution gives the same rights to persons "born or naturalized" -- except running for President.

        In the 1930s, there wasn't as robust a tradition of legal challenges to voting rights infringements. I think today there'd be a federal court injunction in a heartbeat.

        •  Voting rights aren't a part of US citizenship (0+ / 0-)

          The simplest way to see that, is that it was thought that we needed the 15th, that the 14th's grant of US citizenship and all its privileges and immunities to all persons born or naturalized in the US, was not thought to cover the franchise.  That needed the 15th, and the 15th did not extend the franchise to all citizens, it merely prohibited states from exercising their control over who gets to vote to deny the franchise on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

          A state could still have a property qualification for voting after the 14th, as the 15th didn't prohibit discrimination based on wealth.  That property qualification isn't an abridgment of citizenship, it's merely a qualification a citizen must possess in addition to being a ctiizen before he or she is allowed to perform the function of voting.  A state can demand the proof of visual ability up to a certain standard as a qualification for driving, and it does not thereby abridge a privilege or immunity of the blind citizen it refuses the driver's license to.

          A state could not have a prohibition on naturalized citizens voting if that ban were judged to be actually a ban on certain ethnic groups voting.  That's more likely to be the legal difficulty that the old RI denial of the franchise to immigrants would face more recently than 1932.  Well, more recently than 1932, right up to the Roberts court.  That doesn't seem such a sure bet now, that the Court would see racial animus in a ban on naturalized citizens voting.

          The steeper barrier would be public opinion.  I think that's the main reason we won't see an overt ban on immigrants voting, or an overt property qualification.  But I'm not so sure the other side couldn't come up with rationalizations and cover stories that would float an effective property qualification past the courts and past public opinion.

          We should have destroyed the presidency before Obama took office. Too late now.

          by gtomkins on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 10:25:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Even bigger problem... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    newpioneer, Lawrence

    ...is their gross and deep misunderstanding of Latino cultures.

    To put up Marco Rubio's face (a Cuban whose parents were Castro supporters) and have him say he favors letting undocumenteds stay but never get citizenship or voting rights, and to believe that Latinos will fall for that is so bigoted I can't express it.

    There is great diversity in our residents of Spanish/Latino heritage and until they try to understand that, they remain stupid and lost.

  •  Maybe, but W made a strong showing among (0+ / 0-)

    latinos.

    Sensible position on immigration, but more than that, he appointed latinos to high office and comes from a family that has a Mexican-born daughter of migrant workers among its members.  It was more than a political strategy for him.

    It can be done.
    Can Republicans who are likely to run for President in the coming elections do it?

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:55:16 PM PST

    •  Actually he didn't (0+ / 0-)

      that's been proven to be a myth

      •  Really? Not from anything I've seen (0+ / 0-)

        Got links?

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:49:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's some (0+ / 0-)

          "The media have also exaggerated Bush’s Hispanic support. Exit polls taken during 2004 showed a wide variation in Bush’s share of the Hispanic vote, ranging from a high of 44 percent in some polls to a low of 33 percent. Most in the media have gone with the higher number. Yet subsequent academic studies have discredited it and have since estimated Bush’s actual level of Hispanic support at somewhere between 35 percent and 37 percent. "

          http://www.city-journal.org/...

          More here

          http://www.latimes.com/...

          Google Myth of the Bush Latino vote

          While better than Romney, its not a huge growth considering the one issue involved. The assumption often all one has to do is do immigration reform, but the shift is small.

          In fact, if Latino Decision is to believed, Bush's numbers was about the same as what Cruz received of the Latino vote this cycle, which brings up another issue. Being Latino is not enough to secure Latino votes. Even if its of the same nationality. Eg Rubio of florida performed worse with Cubans than Bush did by 8 points.  Remember CUbans are the most Republican in voting pattern.

          In other states, exit polls showed- even worse results:

          "Nevada Governor, featuring Reid’s son against Hispanic Republican Brian Sandoval.  Sandoval received 33% of the Hispanic vote, whereas Angle received 30%.  That surprised me.  A Hispanic Republican received 33% in his winning bid, yet Angle won 30%, despite her anti-immigration ad that was perceived by many as anti-Mexican American immigrant. [11]  I consider myself a moderate Republican, and Angle’s ad featuring a map of Mexico and dark-skinned border crossers makes me cringe.  It was a textbook case of how to alienate many Latinos.  Yet, Sandoval only polled a 3% increment of Hispanic voters over Angle."

          http://econscius.wordpress.com/...

          In short, the GOP doesn't have an easy route to get to the Latino vote. Its not just immigration. Its a shift of the ideological spectrum, and its one that may affect the Democratic Party too.

          •  Didn't Nixon get 40% of the Hispanic vote? (0+ / 0-)

            "Republicans are the party that says that government doesn't work, then they get elected and prove it."-- PJ O'Rourke

            by nocynicism on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 09:24:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  According to this- for just Mexican vote (0+ / 0-)

              No. He only got 35 percent.

              http://www.hispanicvista.com/...

              There's a lot of data out there. What's interesting int his is that the data underscores that the numbers remain about the same.

              The lowest point was Dole in the modern era.

              But what's clear is that a large percentage went to independent candidates (which is danger for the Democratic party). That they are willing to vote a third party, especially given their left leaning ideological bent.

              eg favor socialism more, favor big government more etc

              The GOp isn't the only party facing changes.

              In terms of historic numbers, while Obama's numbers are impressive, they aren't the highest percentage ever received.

              That goes to LBJ  who is theorized to have gotten 90 percent of the Latino vote.

              Also Humpert Humphrey got 87 percent.

              Obama's number reflects Dukais's numbers- the later got 70 percent.

              The history tends to bring into question whether Obama has really done anything unique other than maintain and already strong long term historic tie with a growing demographic

              The main different historically is that the latino percentages only have started to matter with demographic shifts in the composition of the voters rather than just percentages voting Democratics.

              I have thought to write about this, but decided against it, because the reality is that people here are Democrats, and don't much seem interested in a more complicated picture

              10 percent in 1997 went to independents.

              If Democrats fail to move left as the demographic shifts occurs, the question I would be raising is not just whether the GOP faces a challenge, but whether the Democratic Party does as well?

              I don't have answer to that question, but I also know raising that here would bring out the true believers who think only i n terms of partisans scales of Democratic v REpublicans rather than what may be a more complicated future as what is likely tob e an ideological reallignment will shift away from both parties.

              That's an issue that right now the whole Grand Bargain is trying to get ahead of.

              They won't be able to pull this shit so easily even 4 years form now, much less 10. The demographics in questions- make that clear. I suppose they c ould somehow do so, but the way they have won over such nw demographics inthe past is to buy th em off through government action, which is self defeating of the goal of trying to cut government benefits. Again, not sure that's a conversation for here.

            •  By the way, this data link demonstrates (0+ / 0-)

              even people here to do not understand the Latino numbers

              Someone below claims a much higher percentage for Bush Senior than what actually occurred.

      •  Just did a little checking, and it says no myth (0+ / 0-)

        http://elections.nytimes.com/...

        He won 35% of Latinos in 2000 and 44% in 2004.

        That's one hell of a lot better than Romney's 27%.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:57:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The claim was that he won 45 percent in 2004 (0+ / 0-)

          So yes, myth

          And I  linked above to multiple articles discussing it. You can also fi nd by simply googling the subject.

          Finally, you are looking at the numbers wrong. Look over time at th enumbers rather than  one or two cyle or with one candidate.

          •  Who made that claim? Not me. (0+ / 0-)

            Between putting words in my mouth and trying to cling to 1% point, you seem pretty desperate to avoid the truth.  Why is that?

            And what in the hell do you mean that I am looking at the numbers wrong?

            Looking at the numbers for McCain or Romney have nothing to do with the performance of Bush, which was my point of comparison.

            If you'd like, however, go back a little further and you'll see that Mr. Conservative, Ronald Reagan, did nearly as well as Bush.

            It's stupid for the GOP to write of Latino voters.
            First, it's a recipe for defeat.
            Second,  a good GOP candidate can win enough to matter.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 07:39:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You didn't state a number (0+ / 0-)

              and in historic context, the number that Bush did receive, according to the links I provided you were not all that impressive.

              So yes, if you are going to look at numbers, compare them to others. Not just two election cycles that validate your position.

              You also misstate the data in relationship to that history. Here's an accurate statement of it:

              "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. "

              http://www.latimes.com/...

              The best outcome is Bush tied Reagan, and more likely outperformed Bush, and not that Bush outperformed Reagan.

              The reason why the academic studies matter is that it provides a better review of the data than right after an election when counting is still going on amongst other issues.

              Let's also place this data into context. Reagan did this with immigration amnesty, as was something that Bush promised.

              My point is not about the GOP. Its about the latino voter.

              This is a core problem of being a partisan. You read everything- especially if you are a Democrat- in terms of us versus the GOP and specifically how to react to the GOP or the GOP reacting to Democrats.

              The point I am making is that the GOP will have a harder time than even Daily Kos is willing to state. Not just because of the polling data regarding Latino votes and GOP shifting its position on immigration. See the Nevada example for an example of Mexican voters (the biggest Latino voting block to affect outcomes and how Sandoval , a Latino REpublican, lose their vote by 67 points. He only received 33. Doing only slightly better than the anti-Latino immigration vote of the Republican candidate in 2010.

              The problem is deeper than immigration. Its ideological spectrum.

              The Latino vote, and Kos touched on this because the Conservatives are aware of this, are to the left of the GOP,a nd franky it seems the Democratic party and its base,

              The shifting demographics are likely to shift both the GOP AND the Democrats to the left. The Democrats it seems will resist this. One can see that in CA in the direct vote ballots.

              My point is this: the GOP has a lot of work cut out for it beyond immigration to win the Latino vote. Even with immigration they can may be shave a few points, but that's not so clear even with Latino candidates running pro immigration issues.

              It may be that the Latino vote is becoming solidly Democratic, but also that due to ideological make up that they are choosing the Democrats as the default not reactiionary party.

              That means the GOP has a problem, bu talso the Democratic establishment, which is used to playing off the reactionary right. That playbook  may be going ou tthe window. Thats the point of lookinig at all the data over time and what issues have affected outcomes.

              •  Latino voters are not monolithic, but I agree that (0+ / 0-)

                the GOP isn't likely to win a majority any time soon.

                On the other hand, there is fertile ground.  Where I live, a lot of the local latinos start businesses, and small business is a traditional strong spot for the GOP.

                But...you don't win votes with a message that says, "We support small business, but not your kind."

                Fortunately for the GOP, the Democrats are content to lose white votes, so they have a little time to get that worked out.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 04:42:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  The Republican party is "full of racists," (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, Lawrence

    Lawrence Wilkerson confirmed it. The hate Obama crowd also hates, hates Mexicans in particular, and Mexicans clearly dominate the Latino population ("beaners," "tacos," "wetbacks," "greaseballs," you know the words). I'm in California in the L.A. area, I know. Until I see major reductions in this hatred, Latinos will vote Democratic.

    "There's a lot to be said for making people laugh. Did you know that that's all some people have? It isn't much, but it's better than nothing in this cockeyed caravan." --Joel McCrea as "Sully," in "Sullivan's Travels."

    by Wildthumb on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:56:03 PM PST

    •  Not everywhere (0+ / 0-)

      Here in NYC the Hispanic population is mostly Puerto Rican and Dominican. There is a neighborhood near me where there are always far more posters for DR elections than for US elections. We've finally started getting some immigration from Mexico in the past ten years.

      •  In the U.S., in total, Mexicans overwhelmingly (0+ / 0-)

        dominate. According to Wikipedia, there are 31 million Latins
        of Mexican heritage in the U.S. The next group is Puerto Rican, with 4 million. Check it out. California and Texas have HALF the Latino population (Mexican heritage). Huge numbers of our neighbor to the south.

        "There's a lot to be said for making people laugh. Did you know that that's all some people have? It isn't much, but it's better than nothing in this cockeyed caravan." --Joel McCrea as "Sully," in "Sullivan's Travels."

        by Wildthumb on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 10:07:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wildthumb

          Mexico's population is only 114 million, so 21% of persons of Mexican ethnicity are in the US.

          But the population of Puerto Rico is under 4 million, so that means there are as many (or more) Puerto Ricans on the US mainland as there are in Puerto Rico! That will create some chaos should Puerto Rico ever become independent.

          Incidently, Hispanics in NYC who do vote in US elections vote Democratic in far greater fractions than just about any other ethnic group anywhere. We have two D+41 congressional districts!

  •  yes, only one gives them a fighting chance (0+ / 0-)

    and it needs to be combined with actually trying to solve national problems... instead of being slaves to the uber-rich in this country.

    Change is coming one way or the other.

  •  Does Rubio change all this? (0+ / 0-)

    He is got to be a serious possibility in 2016.  Just wonder how much it will matter to Latinos and the racist faction?

    PBO is doing a competent job, but he needs to be more liberal.

    by jimgilliamv2 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:03:20 PM PST

    •  Not by much. (0+ / 0-)

      Rubio is a white hispanic of Cuban origin, from the time when Cubans were privileged in immigration vs. other hispanics.  Only 5% of hispanics in the U.S. are of Cuban origin, and even they are becoming more liberal with the rise of the Millennial generation.

      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

      by Lawrence on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 07:13:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  When will they ever learn? (0+ / 0-)

    The California GOP screwed themselves 18 years ago by jumping on the anti-immigrant bandwagon by supporting Proposition 187.  Latinos turned heavily towards the Democratic Party back then, and haven't gone back to the GOP since.  In the meantime many Green Card holders became citizens and didn't vote for the GOP either.  Younger Latinos have gone overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party like other Millennial voters.  There are more voting Latinos in California than 18 years ago, and they vote significantly in favor of the Democratic Party.

    This pattern repeated itself somewhat across the nation with dire long term consequences for the GOP.

  •  This makes sense. Alot of sense. The messages (0+ / 0-)

    coming from the GOP after the election have been disjointed at best. I think Markos has put it into perspective. They know they are screwed for a generation. whith that in mind they need to now go after "earned benefit" programs with a zealous zeal to get what they can. They know time is running out on them if that can't change their policies. I suspect that they are in crash and burn mode right now to extricate what they can and then start the rebuilding.

    I understand about the GOP being in the majority in the house for the next 10 years because of gerrymandering of districts, but how long can you keep representing the upper 2% before it costs you more seats.

    " The whole world is about three drinks behind" Humphrey Bogart.

    by flatford39 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:08:50 PM PST

  •  The shift is also ideological (0+ / 0-)

    So, I don't see either option helping the present GOP, and the current Democratic establishment has something to worry about too.

    That's why both are trying to lock in conservative agendas into the law now because later it becomes increasingly not possible to do so.

  •  In Spanish, How Do You Say...? (0+ / 0-)

    BWA-HA-HA-HA-hahahahaha-haa!

    We will never have the elite, smart people on our side. - Rick Santorum

    by easong on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 07:03:58 PM PST

  •  I take Kos' major point here, but... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nocynicism

    his demographics are way off. True that 66,000 Latinos turn 18 while over 100,000 elderly (and more conservative) Americans die every month. However, beginning on Jan. 1, 2011 and on every day for the next 19 years after that, 10,000 baby boomers will reach age 65. That's about 300K who reach elderly status each month versus 100K elderly who die monthly, or a net gain each month of 200K elderly versus a net gain of 66K new Latino voters. Therefore, in the 48 months from the 2012 to the 2016 election there will actually be about 9.6 million more elderly versus about 3 million new Latino voters. (And this reasoning ignores the fact that some of the 100,000 elderly projected to die each month are themselves Latinos).

    True, these new elderly voters are not likely to be as conservative as the cohort that preceded them. And given that Republicans yearn to decimate Social Security and Medicare they will likely not be as amenable to Republican solicitations as the previous elderly cohort. Still, the numbers Kos projected here are significantly off.

  •  It would be quite interesting to watch if Texas (0+ / 0-)

    supplanted Ohio as the prime swing state.

    It might be interesting what kind of politicians would be elected both as governor and to congress.  The idea of despicable Louie Gohmert-types being phased out is appealing to me.  They would do well with a few more Lyndon Johnson-types at both federal and state level (minus the hawkishness, of course).

  •  Immigration also can save Social Security (0+ / 0-)

    The projections about what trouble Social Security is in all assume an aging population, with a much higher ratio of retirees to workers than we've had in the past. Immigrants are largely younger people in their prime working years, so they shift that ratio towards more workers per retiree. If you truly want to "save" Social Security (instead of using the hyped-up crisis as an excuse to slash it), you'd loosen up on immigration for people under age 60.

    But of course logic and number-crunching aren't especially relevant to nativists, and don't lend themselves to hyped-up scare-tactics about immigrants.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site