Posted on 01/07/2003 7:48:20 AM PST by xsysmgr
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:39:40 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Until recently, Republican strategists were inclined to write off the Hispanic vote. Turnouts were low, and those who did largely voted Democratic. Even George W. Bush's efforts to woo Mexican-Americans in his first gubernatorial bid in 1994
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
For many years there was a pattern of immigration from Mexico in which all immigrating from a particular place, locale, town, etc in Mexico would end up in the same place. And this was consistant thru time. If the immigrants from a particular valley in Mexico had ties in Texas, those coming from a different place might have ties in SoCal. These differing groups would have different backgrounds and attitudes. Mexicans are not one large homogeneous group. Its as if Mexicans in Texas would be contemptous of California and the Mexicans that went there.
Also consider when TX and CA shifted from being rural to urban and when large numbers of people from other parts of the US arrived in each of these states. Some how I think that this has some bearing on it.
So you think state governments should give full benefits to illegal aliens?
BTW, Pete Wilson was a political success. Both he and proposition 187 won by a landslide in 1994. And he got about the same % of the California hispanic vote as did Bush.
I suppose that's why Hispanics have higher illegitimacy and abortion rates than the general population.
This is simply a lie. There is not a single race for any statewide or federal office where a Republican got a majority of the Hispanic vote.
Funny how the editorial fails to mention the fact that only 1/4 identified themselves as Americans.
This is one of the fallacies of the public opinion polls regarding immigration that get thrown around.
Texas Lations who were here for generations tend to be thoroughly assimlated, patriotic Americans. Many don't speak Spanish. However, because they look like the current rabble pouring across our southern border, people often assume they are part of it, and they don't like it one bit.
Wilson got 25% (source). Bush only got 22% (source) .
These exit poll results have margins of error bigger than 3%, so statsitically Wilson's and Bush's showings are about the same. However, the point still stands: the notion that Wilson alienated California hispanic voters and that Bush is winning the back is pure myth.
Immigration wage reduction and crime more heavily impact Hispanics than other groups. This issue could be such a major winner, but alas we are the stupid party.
If Hispanics aren't showing up to vote for republicans its because we have not demonstrated in a meaning way any significant difference between the two parties. As it stands today, on the immigration issue there isn't any.
Bush never campaigned in CA. He wrote the state off. Its the 187 thingy.
The same CNN exit polls that you linked to show Bush recieving 35% nationally.
The CNN exit polls that you linked to wouldn't show Texas results but in the 1988 Gubernatorial VNS polls Bush recieved 49%.
BTW, don't believe everything you read in Time magazine.
Write it off and deport it when possible. Most want welfare its simply not possible to get the Hispanic vote without turning into a leftist robbing Peter to pay Paul Dem.
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.