Hispanic voters don’t know any better, say leftists
Some changes might be happening concerning the attitude of Hispanic voters towards Trump, a development that surprises the left:
…Trump is making an aggressive play for Hispanic-American votes in Florida and beyond. Meanwhile, polls suggest Marist might have been onto something—and that Democrats should be worried that Hispanic voters could help reelect Trump and keep the Senate in Republican control. If so, it would be a cosmic twist of fate: A party that has staked its future on a belief that America’s demographic picture is changing decidedly in its favor could find itself losing to a man whose politics of fear should be driving precisely those voters into the Democrats’ waiting arms.
There’s a viewpoint on the left that people should vote as blocs and only in their own self-interest as defined by the left. The idea that people might vote for someone because that candidate might be seen as benefiting the country as a whole, or that people in a minority might interpret “benefit” differently from the left, is a foreign one. Anyone who doesn’t vote with a bloc as the left has decreed is either stupid and/or voting “against interest” and/or collaborating with the enemy.
The article quotes Trump as tweeting that his rising popularity with Hispanics “is because they know the Border issue better than anyone, and they want Security, which can only be gotten with a Wall.”
The article goes on to add this about the 2016 election:
Many expected Hispanics to vote overwhelmingly against Trump in 2016. A Latino Decisions poll conducted just before the 2016 presidential election found Trump had the support of just 18 percent of Hispanics. But the actual figure was 28 percent, which—given Trump’s incendiary rhetoric about immigrants—some analysts and pundits refused to believe from exit polls until further studies confirmed it. That was just as good as Mitt Romney, as the 2012 Republican nominee, did with Hispanics—and it was enough to help Trump squeak an Electoral College victory.
If Hillary Clinton had improved her share of the Hispanic vote by just 3 percentage points in Florida (from 62 percent to 65 percent of the Hispanic vote) and Michigan (from 59 percent to 62 percent), she would have won both states and their combined 45 Electoral College votes. That would have been enough to make her president.
And this is especially interesting, if true:
As a whole, Hispanic-Americans are becoming politically more and more like non-Hispanic white Americans. Two-thirds of the Hispanic electorate is now American-born, and Hispanic voters are far more likely to approve of Trump than naturalized immigrants, according to Pew Research Center data. They remain more Democratic than non-Hispanic white voters in part because so many of them are young adults and share many of their generation’s progressive views.
But as FiveThirtyEight recently noted, Hispanic Democrats are considerably less liberal than others in the party. Hispanics make up about 12 percent of those who identify as Democrats or who tend to lean Democratic; but they are 22 percent of Democrats who describe themselves as moderate or conservative. Hispanics, roughly half of whom are Catholic (and another quarter who are former Catholics), skew conservative on social issues…
I had always heard something of the sort—for example, that Hispanics are socially conservative. But it had never seemed to translate into many Republican votes. Also, the data on Hispanics born in this country is particularly interesting, and makes sense.
“. . .and makes sense”
It has always baffled me why some voting blocs can be relied upon to deliver their votes to one party — usually Democrats — when it just doesn’t make sense. Union members and blue collar workers just don’t seem to benefit much from their support for Democrats, for example. Jews and blacks are two other groups who have been reliable in their support for Democrats, and that makes less and less sense as Democrats take those groups for granted and pursue policies that no longer benefit them. If members of these different groups ever sit down and think about which candidate would best support their overall goals, perhaps the country’s voting patterns would change seismically — at which I think they would once again make sense.
A couple of observations. Prop 187 in California was passed by 63% overall, but still a majority in Hispanic districts. Hispanics tend to be blue collar and may resent illegal immigrants just as Caesar Chavez did in the 1960s. He was very hostile to illegals for the same reasons Hispanics now may be, competition for jobs.
Plus, a lot of Florida Hispanics may be Cuban and Venezuelan refugees.
“It has always baffled me why some voting blocs can be relied upon to deliver their votes to one party — usually Democrats — when it just doesn’t make sense. F
When someone seems to consistently act against their own self-interest, I’ve found it useful to understanding, to look for what I call “secondary gain or benefit”.
In one form or another, they all see themselves as victims and group cohesiveness yields greater leverage in gaining concessions from those they see as dominating society’s economic levers.
Seeing oneself as a victim limits perception and thus they ignore Asian American’s success. Which is partially due to IQ but far more because in general, Asian cultures fully embrace the Five Critical Virtues.
I think another aspect in play is that Hispanics tend to be devout Catholics and their beliefs are not what one sees at CINO universities like Georgetown et al
Hispanic is a category that includes multiple independent cultural, ethnic and racial sub-minorities.
In important ways, they tend to track closer to the ‘generic’ Asian minority (which resembles them, too), than to a generic African American minority. Asians don’t fit very well with the left, Democratic Party diversity gambit.
… And it is not very far beneath the surface, that many Hispanic persons & communities aren’t that well-served by it, either.
African Americans, in 2024?
Has any polling been done with Hispanics concerning the late term abortion issue or the “green new deal”? That would be interesting? Also, how did they make out with the new tax bill? Serious issues that the Rep may be able to work on. But then the Rep party is not known as the Stupid Party for nothing.
So, it’s the Communists old “false consciousness” at work here. Right?
Seems to me the Dems, socialists, the media, and the open borders GOPers conflate legal immigration and illegal aliens coming in. Most people, including Trump as far as I can tell, have little or no antagonism against those who come here legally (although there is abuse of temporary work visas that causes resentment too). It’s the competition for jobs, crime (MS-13, anyone?), social service costs, and breakdown of civic amenity the illegal aliens impose on the citizenry that breeds resentment. The indifference of the political and chattering classes to the experiences, culture, and needs of the people has fueled the “populism” of our current politics.
The few Hispanics I know are hard working people (Mexicans who entered legally) and they oppose the illegal aliens that drag down wages. They came north for a more prosperous life and a sense the rule of law was not corrupted. Good people, good neighbours. And I am in Iowa, far away from the southern tier of the invasion zone.
I’m in the Midwest and, from my experience, the roofing crews are frequently Mexican, bossed by a non-Mexican whose Spanish is good.
The work is excellent. After a complete roofing job, I found only one nail on the ground.
RE: Post of Mike K, above.
“Hispanics tend to be blue collar and may resent illegal immigrants just as Caesar Chavez did in the 1960s. He was very hostile to illegals for the same reasons Hispanics now may be, competition for jobs.”
Very true.
In fact Cesar Chavez referred to illegal Mexican immigrants as “wet backs.”
Not sure he coined the term, but he sure used it.
Recall that Cesar Chavez was the leader and organizer of the United Farm Workers Union.
Geoffrey, no idea you have a weblog! Interesting-looking stuff there: Bookmarked. And thanks!
One note on Pride. In my view Pride is best understood as satisfaction in the knowledge that one has accomplished something large or small (the 5-year-old masters tying his shoelaces!) in an ethical way, depending on the developmental stage of the person and the degree to which an accomplishment can be judged on ethical grounds (which learning to tie your shoelaces cannot). The Biblical sin, after all, is called False Pride, which at best is “getting above yourself” (looking down on or deriding beings lesser in wealth, status, or power — even at the grade-school level) and at worst is taking pride in the outcome of unethical actions.
This is my understanding of the virtue (virtue) of Pride. Rightly earned, it is one of Nature’s rewards for knowing we have acted well.
Humility, on the other hand, is above all the willingness to bow to the facts of reality. It is also not “looking down on or deriding others” for being lesser in wealth, status, or power.
That, at any rate, is how I see things.
Your article is interesting, and I hope to get to some of the other juicy-looking ones later today. :>))
As identity politics, social media data farming, and trolling gets more intense, one needs to factor in “honesty” in any survey/poll. Why would anyone honestly tell a voice on the phone or an online survey what they really think? It was a factor in the 2016 elections, right? When I decide to answer any poll, I always try to figure out how to play the game.
People are such complex beings that one cannot just take one or two identity points and attach a label on them and then assume that that person will follow your notion of where they should go!
I’m trying to come up with an illustration and the best I have is a lake and the periodic turnover. This post is the best explanation of lake turnover that I have seen – https://onthelake.net/fishing/turnover.htm . There are so many things which impact a lake – air & water temperature, depth, wind as well as physical surroundings which play off all the previous mentioned features. Sailors all know about these features which impact a race. (Why are the locals going in that direction when the wind says I should be going in this direction? Oh – that’s why, as a 90 degree shift hits us…).
So, there are so many things which impact our lives and what floats up to the surface at a point in time will impact how I feel and how I will vote. And, that is also why media is important because it may impact us at a vulnerable point in time. Think of media like the wind and waves in the lake example. Media stirs up all of us and it will determine the voting result.
I really wish I could figure out how to model this concept to determine what actually bubbles to the top at a point in time to determine final behavior.
This sort of analysis may be premature, and I think it’s more likely to take several election cycles to figure out predominant Hispanic voting trends. Besides, things may be very different soon as America loses its majority white status (from 90% white in 1965 to maybe 45% white in 2040, all in around 75 years, and all that due to immigration of all sorts, not just illegals).
It’s also interesting to note that we are coming right up on the 500th anniversary of the conquest of Mexico by Hernan Cortes in 1519. And next year will be the 400th anniversary of the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock. Would they have expected their descendants to be a minority in a land ruled by Spaniards?
as America loses its majority white status
Not happening, depending on the definition of “white”. Most Hispanics define themselves as “white” precisely because that’s how they think of themselves. If they define themselves as such, they probably are that.
You’re assuming that third and fourth generation Mexicans are going to be still Spanish speaking and with a fondness for the “home” country of their grandparents. But they don’t and won’t. They will regard themselves as fully white, given that they will be English speaking and with all their relatives also English speaking and born in the US.
Moreover much of the rest will be Asians, who aren’t going to be siding with blacks and newly arrived Hispanics over much at all.
The percentage of blacks in the population is not growing much. The percentage of recent Hispanics won’t grow much either, precisely because it’s already high and they don’t stay recent for fifty years. It may well even drop if, or rather when, voters start insisting on resisting the wave of illegal immigration.
The US isn’t going to be over-whelmed by immigration in the next decades. Not a chance.
Chester: “They will regard themselves as fully white, given that they will be English speaking and with all their relatives also English speaking and born in the US”
The Latin American concept of “social race” might become increasingly relevant here, as an effect of Hispanic immigration. Race is not just your ancestry, it’s how you function in society (i.e. working a stereotypically “white” job, marrying white, acting/dressing white, etc)
I also think the talk about America losing its white majority is premature. America will stay mostly white, but it will be a somewhat duskier white than what we’ve been used to.
Re voting blocs, it has always dismayed me that the groups who have historically had the worst experiences with statism (Jews, Blacks, women, and Gays) have always fallen in lockstep when the “liberal” Hive beats its drums and issues marching orders to its followers. It would be nice if Hispanics marched to a different drummer.
It is not about the benefit they accrue from the Leftist alliance but being trapped on the slave plantation. Slaves don’t want to be slaves working on the plantation because they like being slaves. That’s just the power dynamic hierarchy of humanity.