Posted on 10/21/2007 4:26:34 PM PDT by bilhosty
When President Bush's immigration reform bill collapsed this summer, largely because of objections from his own party, open-borders advocates warned that the GOP would pay a harsh political price for killing the bill. Latino support had been crucial in electing Bush, the argument went, and Latino voters represented a rising electoral tide that Republicans were ignoring at their peril. But such commentary is based on an inaccurate picture of the Latino voting public that emerged after the 2004 election and persists today. Just days after the election, for instance, Dick Morris, a former pollster and advisor to President Clinton, declared that Latinos had elected Bush; they represented 12% of the electorate, Morris reasoned, and 45% of them had pulled the levers for the president, enough to be decisive. The Latino vote for Bush was far from decisive, however, and it may be years before it plays a pivotal role in a national election. Latinos may represent about 14% of the U.S. population, but they constituted just 6% of the 2004 electorate -- 7.5 million voters out of 125 million. According to Census Bureau data, only 34% of the nation's adult Latino population registered to vote in 2004, and 28% voted. By contrast, 67% of the country's adult white, non-Latino population and 56% of its adult black population voted in 2004. Black voters outnumbered Latino voters nearly 2 to 1 in 2004.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Yes. The LA Times has lately been printing some real campaign finance exposes of Hillary Clinton.
Still, the point being made is a very well known political one. That is, even if your group is a small minority, all you have to do to have some influence is get a higher percentage of your supporters to vote than is normal with the larger groups.
Jews in New York City, although a minority, have been able to control politics there for several generations through the simple expedient of getting out a very large number of voters ~ I have read that at times it approaches 98% (and that's not just Detroit-style counting).
At the same time a minority, e.g. Hispanics, might end up with no influence at all simply because they can't get out enough voters to sway an election.
These are mathematical certainties ~ and the LA Times only rarely challenges the old 2+2=4 sort of thing.
If there was a poll of Hispanics that showed support for amnesty we would have seen the results. There wasn’t, so the results we3re not shown. So Rove and the wage depression business lobbies with their liberal ethnic front group useful idiots continued pushing the racist memes that appeal to white liberals - that “Hispanics” support amnesty, “polls” showed the this or that, while forgetting to say the votes of all ethnic groups for GOP declines, polls said corruption and economy were the major issues, and new Dems who won mostly took anti-Amnesty positions.
The week or so after the amnesty bill was canned Rove changed his tune and told back to GOP Congressional critics that the polls showed 2006 losses were due to perception of corruption, which is what they actually did show.
Well Bush was first elected in 2000 by the Hispanic vote in FL. That is, CUBANS who tend to be Republican. Mexicans and all the others tend to be Democrat. All Hispanics are NOT the same.
Gee does this mean lil dick morris was WRONG AGAIN? How could THAT be? lil dick is a political genius.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.