by publius
The Latino vote is one of the biggest stories of the election. Kevin Drum notes that Obama’s general national swing was +9 from Kerry. The Latino vote, however, was +27. Anticipating this large swing the day before the election, Mickey Kaus (who has nothing much to say anymore other than to bash immigrants or unions) snarks:
Some [like Kaus] would argue this demonstrates the poverty of attempting to win the Latino vote by championing illegal immigrant legalization. [However], [t]he coveted kausfiles Tamar Jacoby Prize goes to the first writer to argue, as if it were self-evident, that McCain’s abject failure pursuing a Rovian Hispandering strategy dramatically vindicates the Rovian Hispandering strategy.
Can I nominate myself – because McCain’s failure actually does vindicate that strategy. I should note, though, that Kaus is playing with words a bit – it’s not really McCain’s fault one way or the other. He tried to show some basic humanity on immigration and it didn’t help.
But the reason it didn’t help him – and the reason for the massive massive pro-Dem swing – is because the GOP became the party of demonizing immigrants. There are difficult issues with immigration – no one is denying that. And many Republicans, to their credit (Bush, McCain), supported immigration reform. But the very large chunk of people actively demonizing immigrants came almost exclusively from the right (talk radio; House Republicans; Kaus’s BFFs at the Corner). The Democratic presidential candidates, by contrast, didn’t spend much time debating who was more “anti-illegal” and who worked on whose house.
Call me crazy – but Latinos tend to remember the people responsible for hurling racist unhinged rants at them. And they vote accordingly.
Kaus is just mad because the election completely decimates his argument that immigration reform is a political loser. He’s spent a good deal of the past two years angrily arguing that the politics of immigrant-bashing favor the nationalists. Well, read the numbers buddy – +27 ain’t nothin’ to sneeze at.
Maybe he can come with some brilliant contrarian argument as to why +27 has something other to do with the racist rage directed at the Latino community in the past few years. But I won’t hold my breath.
UPDATE: In the comments, TLTIA makes the key point that the GOP demagoguery on immigration will ultimately cost them Texas too (the next “New South” state to ultimately go blue, probably like Georgia). And without Texas, the electoral college math gets pretty tough — by which I mean impossible — for the GOP.
I recently came across your May 17th 2008 posting entitled “Let Joe Stay (or, The Most Painful Blog Post I’ve Ever Written).” Now that Harry Reid is threatening to strip Joe Lieberman of his chairmanship positions, I was wondering if you still feel (as I do) it is important for Joseph Lieberman to keep his posts. Please visit us at:
letjoestay.blogspot.com
nope – he simply went too far. i wrote a more recent post on this suggesting a two year stripping, with the promise for seniority to be restored.
but lieberman went too far. he rolled the dice, and now the debt has come due.
Agreed. His conduct at the RNC and on the trail in recent weeks was above and beyond reprehensible.
He said he would support McCain, but not disparage Obama and instead of staying true to his word, he hurled the most vile and baseless attacks in Obama’s direction.
Done.
Absolutely right about Latin@s remembering. Republicans went overboard on the issue of immigration. Instead of a sober assessment of the flaws in the system, and instead of seeking to engage Latin@s (whom are not all pro-illegal immigration) on the merits of a more humane system, Republicans decided to treat the issue monolithically, with meanness and “get-even-ness,” and even a “we’ll show you” attitude.
It is precisely that meanness that gets remembered. It assumed Latin@s cared nothing for the nation, it denigrated their struggles, it was blatantly racist, and it preyed (with raids, verbal assault, and constant demonization) on their worst fears of having their families split (a fear and actual practice, by the way, that was used against slaves in this country also). Republicans were giddy in their portrayal of Latin@s as agents of dissolution of the nation, leeches and parasites. This was a massive failure by Republicans — and they have solidified in people’s minds that they don’t know how to handle the issue sensibly and with sensitivity.
Republicans have not understood two simple tenets of communication campaigns: fear is a powerful appeal, but people do get tired of being afraid all the time, and of having to engage in constant negative self-evaluation. Republican approach directed at non-Latin@s re Latin@ immigration was essentially “be afraid, be very afraid of these parasites” , and the approach to Latin@s was “be afraid, be very afraid you vermin.”
There is great opportunity for Democrats to rise to the occasion and work hard on immigration reform (which is needed), but I suspect it will take a backseat to the other pressing problems we face.
Thanks for the great blog all,
N
Uh, duh.
If it’s true, as several people attempting to be reassuring say, that the White House chief of staff is not a policy-making or policy-shaping position, then there’s a bright spot in Rahm Emanuel’s ascension to the job. Because he’s been one of the most energetic proponents of the Kaus line, that support for immigration reform is a loser. He’s advised Democratic congressional candidates to run to the right on immigration.
Thankfully, few of them took his advice.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe that the chief of staff job is quite so policy-free. At a minimum, that person’s influence on which people and memos reach the president can stack the deck in favor of un-progressive approaches. And with Rahm Emanuel as gatekeeper, Barack Obama is going to be sealed off from progressive options unless he arranges for back-channels.
Good post publius, apart from deducting a few points off for a low degree of difficulty because mocking Kaus is like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel.
This demographic swing was very noticeable in New Mexico, and the bad news for the GOP is that McCain was their best positioned candidate with respect to the Latino vote – the others would have been worse.
If the GOP goes hard right on immigration to appeal to the nativists in the wake of this election, they will lose Arizona and may wake up in 2012 in shock to discover that Texas is a battleground state. That would be a disaster for them because TX is the single largest block of electoral votes remaining in their basket and an immensely expensive media market – putting it in play will magnify the advantage accruing to the campaign which has more money to spend (which I expect will be Obama in 2012).
And with Rahm Emanuel as gatekeeper, Barack Obama is going to be sealed off from progressive options unless he arranges for back-channels.
Does Obama’s past record suggest that he prefers to have a gatekeeper? I was under the vague impression that he leans the other way in terms of keeping channels of communication open.
My interpretation of the R.E. appointment is that Obama needs somebody to play the role of enforcer/fixer to get decisions implemented once they’ve been made – somebody to make the trains run on time. Picking a hardball operator to do that is I think a lesson learned from the Clinton and Carter administrations, specifically their struggles in working with Democrats in Congress.
Nothing makes a party look bad faster than controlling both ends of Penn. Ave. and still not being able to get things passed in Congress. Given that we are looking to come up a little bit short of 60 seats in the Senate the GOP will be tempted to obstruct anything and everything, so the discipline of the Democrats will be tested and on cloture votes it will be crucial to keep the Blue Dogs in line and pick up a few of the more moderate GOP senators. It looks to me like Obama recognizes this and is putting together a team to deal with that challenge.
It looks to me like Obama recognizes this and is putting together a team to deal with that challenge.
Well said, TLTIA (as usual).
I think it’s funny how many people fear that Obama is just going to cave in to RE’s views. From watching Obama’s campaign, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that this will happen. Obama is strong and confident enough to stand up to other strong people. I don’t think his selection of CoS is going to change his priorities.
I’m thinking this massive swing towards the Democrats isn’t going to make the Republicans any more Latino friend either.
Look at how Republicans treated black people during the run up to the election. They alternately lied to them and about them, waving those ridiculous “MLK was a Republican!” banners in the primaries while blaming blacks for every facet of the economic meltdown (black people bankrupted Freddie and Fannie!), the rising deficit (welfare queens!), and even the mere presence of Obama on the ticket (Affirmative Action Candidate!!) in the general.
They entrenched black support in the Democratic Party for another decade, if not another generation, because they were too proud.
What do you think the response will be to this Latino groundswell? My guess – they’re going to ramp up the immigrant bashing and fear mongering yet again. This 27 point swing will be trotted out to accuse Obama of being in the pocket of Big Mexican any time he attempts immigration reform. We can expect any attempts to lend student aid, medical assistance, or other social services to immigrants – legal or illegal – will turn Latinos into the new generation of Reagen Welfare Queens.
I’m betting this gets worse for the Republicans before it ever gets any better.
Can I just say how much I love “Latin@” (incorporating the “o” and the “a”) for a group of mixed-gender people?
Nothing more to add, for now.
“Can I just say how much I love “Latin@” (incorporating the “o” and the “a”) for a group of mixed-gender people?”
Yes, especially because it is such an Anglo thing to do to the word. Spanish already has a grammatcial rule for gendering the adjective for a gender-mixed group – masculine plural. Spanish is kind of hopeless that way when to comes to gender equality .
In Spanish, would it be Angl@, just to be edgy.
@publius – OT – I’d love to hear your thoughts on the FCC’s unanimous decision re “white space” spectrum. via Lessig.
Immigration is not the only issue for Latinos, of course. The economy helped Obama in ’08, and I’m quite sure abortion hurt Kerry in ’04. (How did the Latino vote break on Prop 8 in CA? Haven’t seen numbers.)
yep, white spaces post coming — probably over the weekend at some point. but it’s big big. i think people have to be generally pleased with the Martin tenure (particularly adjusting for “start value” of actors involved)
Publius (or anyone else): Any early speculation on Obama’s choice for FCC?
Publius (or anyone else): Any early speculation on Obama’s choice for FCC?
Feh. The real news is going to be who Obama picks for Commissioner of the IRS, Chief Counsel of the IRS, and the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at Treasury. Who will then confiscate all your money and give it to terrorists.
Jeff, thanks for explaining the “@” thing. I’d never seen that, and I was feeling really stupid trying to figure it out. And I speak Spanish, more or less.
AS a former Californian now residing in FL, may I just say that since the time of Pete Wilson’s nativist amendment against Latinos, Republican treatment of this demographic group (hardworking Americans, many of whom have been in this country before their GOP brethren) has been so poor that I am almost tempted to say it will cost them the future. It is like the epic fail on top of epic fail. And judging the Palin crowds and what is left of the GOP, I don’t see it getting better any time soon. If I was kind, I would tell the GOP that the secret to winning elections is to not be such assholes, but as a Dem, it feels good to win!
Yeah, the @ has been in use for a short time, but it is a good way to capture that gender difference (and reaffirmation that Latin@ instead of Hispanic has been much preferred by many).
I saw Obama speak in Oregon, and he directly addressed a group of Latin@ supporters with respect, but not wavering in his affirmation of not breaking the law. He managed to convey both understanding of the difficulties that would lead folks to come seeking survival for their families — and opportunity, and the need for policies, especially in terms of security, that would not foster lawbreaking and exploitation. The group of Latin@s responded quite positively to not being treated badly, and to his candor and forthrightness. As a Latin@ myself I thought he could have spent more time dismantling the lies and attacks on immigrants, but I recognized that it was not the best strategic move.
To my mind, the question isn’t so much why Obama did so well among Latinos as why Kerry did so badly. Clinton and Gore got percentages of the Latino vote comparable to Obama’s. Of course, that doesn’t invalidate what publius has said; Democratic performance seemed to be trending downward among Latinos.
“it’s not really McCain’s fault one way or the other. He tried to show some basic humanity on immigration and it didn’t help.”
I’m not sure I agree. In general the leadership of the Republican party has tried not to demonize Hispanics. It may have helped him but not enough to make up for just how base the base of the Republican party is.
“Unfortunately, I don’t believe that the chief of staff job is quite so policy-free. At a minimum, that person’s influence on which people and memos reach the president can stack the deck in favor of un-progressive approaches. And with Rahm Emanuel as gatekeeper, Barack Obama is going to be sealed off from progressive options unless he arranges for back-channels.”
Nell, I completely agree with the first two sentences, but don’t see how they lead to the third. Do you have some evidence to support the third? Because if you’re simply assuming that just because a person might have a given policy preference, therefore that person is going to slant how it is presented to the president, well, that strikes me as a strong presumption. It might be warranted as a fear, based on general human nature, and it might well be warranted based on specific knowledge about the person, but I’d be interested in seeing some supporting evidence, rather than a declaration of fact with no support.
I’m perfectly prepared to believe you have specific stuff about RE to cite that you’ve elided.
I’m willing to take TLTIA’s point that Obama is not easily sealed off; Axelrod and many other sources can be avenues to non-Rahm-approved p.o.v.’s.
Emanuel’s political instincts are conservative. I don’t need to call on my own experience with him to support that, but my own experience does support it. But he’s agreed to work for a political enterprise that may or may not be.
He has an enormous amount of earned influence over the Blue Dogs in the Democratic caucus. (Some of the more progressive Dems who got elected without his brand of help, not so much: Eric Massa and Tom Perriello come to mind.) That influence can be used for good. That’s more likely with RE operating from the WH end than withi him as caucus leader.
I don’t like him, and I don’t trust the little m.f. as far as I could throw him. But Barack Obama has a working relationship with him, and he’s the one who will live with the political results. I’ll keep my mouth shut and see how things go.
Thanks, Nell. We’ll all see how it goes. Gosh, if only the new admin would be as filled with socialists as the McCain campaign and crazed supporters claim(ed). 🙂