You’re Doing Great!

A new poll from Latino Decisions finds that President Obama is maintaining a 43 point lead over Mitt Romney among Latino voters.

A new Latino Decisions national poll released June 8, 2012 finds Democrat President Barack Obama with a 43-point margin over Republican Mitt Romney among Latino voters heading in the 2012 Presidential election. Overall, 66% of Latino registered voters were certain or leaning towards Obama, while 23% were certain or leaning towards Romney. Since Latino Decisions began asking about an Obama-Romney match-up in November 2011, Romney has been unable to close the sizable gap.

Whether the Republicans want to admit it or not, this is a serious problem for them in the present and in the future.

This isolation of the Latino vote creates an electoral dilemma for the Republican party wherein certain states that in the past have been swing states or Red states will become reliably Democratic. And this isolation will last for generations because the Republican party and its local Tea Party subsidiaries have oppressed every age group of Latinos from grandmothers to school children.

The Republicans can forget winning Nevada or New Mexico for the foreseeable future and Arizona and Texas may come into play over the next several presidential cycles.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Poll and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • majii

    I guess this is why the GOP in TX changed its platform recently to show that they’re open to developing a guest worker program in the state. I think it’s good that they’re slowly changing their mind on the way they view and treat Latinos, but making this a plank in the state platform carries no force of law. I don’t trust republicans because I’ve observed them for 40 years, and they only act when there’s something they want. In this case, it’s the Latino vote. They’re probably thinking that if they change their position towards Latinos, it may peel off enough votes for a Romney win in November. I don’t think it will work though, because Latinos are not stupid. They treat them the same way that they treat us Black Americans. They scapegoat us and demonize us endlessly, and yet, in their delusional way they still seem to think we’ll vote for them in large numbers. Nope, not gonna happen.

  • joseph2004

    I don’t believe Democrats can count on the Hispanic vote to the extent you suggest here, “in the future.” For one thing, it relies upon the false premise that Latinos are largely united in their belief that illegal border crossing ought to be made legal, so to speak, and that they see Democrats supporting that agenda.
    Romney (and Republicans) talk tough on illegal immigration, not legal. Of course, the Left has tried very hard to conflate the two, but over the long term, for Hispanics in America to achieve the respect of which they claim to be so bereft, shilling for illegal immigration will not be a winning platform for them. There’s enough evidence (given polls showing American distaste for illegal immigration, support for AZ’s sb1070 and so on) that it’s already a losing proposition.
    That so many of the loudest voices from the Left and Latino advocacy camps make this such a big issue, is it any wonder Americans, not just die-hard Republicans, equate Hispanics with lawlessness (or at least a general disregard for the law)? This stigma no doubt angers a lot of Hispanics, rightfully.

    The Right didn’t do this to them. The Left did. Which makes me wonder why anyone thinks a block of voters that is otherwise quite conservative in nature (you know, the “family values” thing, religion etc), would see the Democratic party as their future.

    Time will tell, but Democrats shouldn’t get too comfortable.

    • bphoon

      The fact of the matter is that the GOP and its Tea Party allies have equated illegal immigration with Latinos “taking our jobs” for decades. It has been the right that has actively linked Latino heritage with illegal behavior. They routinely demonize people of color–these days Latinos in particular–with racist rhetoric and threats to round up and deport over 12 million people.

      While many Latinos may have socially conservative values, they, like most of the electorate, tend to vote their pocketbooks. The vast majority of them know their economic prospects are brighter with Democrats in office rather than with GOP hacks who appear to hate them. That’s why the GOP has lopsidedly lost the Latino vote for decades and why Romney lags behind Obama in this poll by 43 points.

      This nation is getting browner, not whiter, so it’s the GOP who should not feel so comfortable.

      • joseph2004

        Obama has, on the other hand, given Latinos all sorts of promises to no end. But he has been deporting them in record numbers.
        I’m just saying, if Democrats think that Hispanics are a lock for years and years to come (“generations” as Ashby put it), on what do they base this conclusion? Tradition? The Left telling them white conservatives hate them? The Left reminding them how needy they are? The nebulous concept of “inclusiveness”?

        There is a real attempt to turn Hispanics into a monolithic block, but I think many Latinos themselves question the legitimacy of this. What is a Latino exactly? The diversity among Hispanics (countries of origin, culture, politics etc) is too varied to lump them all together. Good luck trying.

        • bphoon

          The Latinos are no more a monolithic voting block than African Americans are, for example. Each demographic group is made up of individuals who, by large percentages, have many values in common. But, over all, they each continue to vote Democratic by large margins and have done so for several generations. Polls by diverse organizations indicate, over and over, that this is a trend likely to continue for some years. That’s fact.

          Democrats are no more trying to turn Latinos into a “monolithic block” than the GOP is attempting to turn white males into one. It’s the GOP noise machine says so, over and over ad, nauseum.

      • joseph2004

        We should consider some other things. One, the Black community has complained as much as anyone about Latinos “taking our jobs.” Two, the GOP does not “these days” routinely demonize people of color. If you think, for example, that opposition to illegal immigration is the same thing as demonizing people of color – Latinos in particular – then you’ve willfully ignored the behavior in favor of pushing the long established left-wing talking point that if a minority of color is scrutinized, it must only be because of their color end of story. (Look, if AZ instead bordered Canada and had enacted SB1070 to combat a flood of Canadian illegals, would Rachel Maddow have had a fit about it? Would Al Sharpton have raced out there to lead protests? Not likely. They might even have applauded it. But hey, it’s Mexicans of color coming across, therefore AZ is a RACIST STATE %($)#@&)%(# ).
        Further, just what is it about the Democratic party that promises a better economic future to Latinos? Free Healthcare? If their financial well-being is, as you say, their primary concern (and I’d agree), then what’s to stop some or many of them from jumping over to the GOP and its model?
        And just who are the GOP’ers who hate them? Marco Rubio? New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez? Other GOP’ers of color Bobby Jindal? South Carolina’s Nikki Haley?

        Sorry but I don’t see the basis going forward for your argument.

        • bphoon

          The GOP has nakedly used race as a wedge in American politics since Nixon’s Southern Strategy. One minority group complaining about the other (“…Black community has complained as much as anyone about Latinos “taking our jobs.”) simply shows this to be a moderately successful tactic.

          Arizona’s SB 1070–and HB 56 in Alabama as well–are worded so as to encourage, if not require, police to racially profile people on the street. I know this because the erstwhile Secretary of State of my home state of Kansas, Kris Kobach, helped write both of those laws and is attempting the same thing in Kansas. That the people who were behind SB 1070 did so out of racial motivation is validated by video footage that shows Russell Pearce, the prime proponent of it, palling around with JT Ready, a notorious Arizona neo-Nazi who recently murdered his family and committed suicide. Many of Pearce’s public statements on immigration issues back this up, too.

          “…what is it about the Democratic party that promises a better economic future…” Hmm…the ARRA which saved up to 3 million jobs and prevented the Great Recession from becoming the Great Depression II. Obama’s jobs bill which would have put millions of Americans back to work if not for GOP obstruction in Congress. The Affordable Care Act which is providing health insurance to millions who were previously without it for minimal overall additional cost, according to the CBO. The fact that GM and Chrysler are producing at nearly full capacity today. The list goes on.

          It occurs to me that you must have some vested interest in promoting GOP talking points. Else, I expect you’d take a more measured tone in your analysis rather than engaging in exaggeration that borders on falsehood to underpin your argument. The phrase, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” comes to mind.

          • joseph2004

            There’s a lot of dispute over just how many jobs were “saved” by the Recovery Act. Many of us believed that, especially when it came to state and local government jobs, all the act was doing was kicking the can down the road. The view has since been vindicated as now the public sector finds itself facing the same fiscal problems (and resulting labor cuts) merely postponed until now. No problem was solved.
            Wisconsin became a lab test of how some conservative principles (such as introducing competition into the healthcare system) can actually work, and how it has resulted in really saving the very jobs the Left and Obama seem so concerned about – teachers, firefighters, cops… while showing that screaming bloody murder at the top of one’s lungs about the injustice of it all by liberals/progressives proved that, at the very least, they had zero clue about change, were in fact defending the status quo (which was not working), and in any case behaved every bit the obstructionists they accuse the Republicans of being.
            It cuts both ways, does it not?
            Good day.

          • bphoon

            There’s a lot of dispute over just how many jobs were “saved” by the Recovery Act.

            Among Republicans, sure. Among objective analysts, not so much.

            Many of us believed that, especially when it came to state and local government jobs, all the act was doing was kicking the can down the road.

            Because the ARRA wasn’t big enough. How do you fill a $1.3 trillion hole with $800 billion?

            It cuts both ways, does it not?

            Only if y0u want it to. You obviously want it to.

    • mrbrink

      Hilarious. So right wing conservatives scapegoating non-white men and minorities are the fault of manipulative Democrats?

      That’s great.

      • joseph2004

        Another Left-wing talking point the basis for which is that Latinos today are merely hapless victims that need your help. You’ve no doubt reminded them of this on a regular basis.

        • mrbrink

          Republicans use minorities in electoral politics like the British Royalists recruiting slaves and the poor to fight against American independence by promising them their freedom.

          I’m sure they’re weighing Marco Rubio very heavily right about now. They can put him right there on the shelf with Alberto Gonzales and Miguel Estrada. Viva La One of The Good Ones!

          • joseph2004

            My goodness, Brink. Do you really think of Republicans of color as mere tools – mindless, easily duped, not too bright, easily fooled and led?

            For shame.

          • mrbrink

            Opportunism is color blind.

  • bphoon

    When did it become generally acceptable to refer to a Democratic politician as “Democrat President…” or “Democrat Senator…”? The proper terminology is “Democratic“. Frank Luntz seems to be taking over the English language, at least as used by what passes for mainstream American journalists these days.

    “Obamacare”, anyone?