Latino and Asian voters mostly sat out 2010 election, report says
By Shankar Vedantam, Tuesday, April 26, 6:07 PM
A record 14.7 million Latino voters sat out the 2010 midterm elections, according to a report by the Pew Hispanic Center that shows the nation’s fastest-growing minorities are largely failing to exercise their right to vote.
Along with Asian voters, who appear similarly disengaged, the absence of so many Latino voters at the polls means the political influence of these minority groups will fall short of their demographic strength by years, if not decades.
About 31 percent of eligible Latino and Asian voters cast ballots in the 2010 congressional elections, compared with 49 percent of eligible white voters and 44 percent of eligible blacks, according to the Pew report. ...
So, way back in 1986, 39% of Hispanics eligible to vote bothered to show up and vote. By 2010, voting was down to 31%, and only 25% looking at the marginal change from 2006 to 2010: a crazy four million more additional eligible voters (thanks George W. Bush!), but only one million more actual voters.
The snapshot of minority voting comes on the heels of a poll showing that support for President Obama among Latinos is down by more than 25 percentage points compared with the start of his administration — cause for serious concern among Democrats.
Obama needs Latinos to show up in force for him in 2012, as they did in 2008, political analysts say. But the administration has disappointed many Latinos by failing to win immigration reforms while increasing deportations among the country’s 11 million undocumented immigrants.
Because that's the only thing Latino voters care about: immigration. That's why the Arizona immigration law led to that widely predicted landslide of angry Hispanic voters in 2010 punishing the GOP for SB1070. I read dozens of interviews in 2010 with Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Earmuffs) saying that was going to happen, so it must have happened right?
Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.) ... blamed Obama’s immigration stance for lackluster turnout among Latinos. ...
Several Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.) were reelected last year with strong Latino support, but on the whole, GOP candidates fared better than expected among Latino voters. That was especially true of Latino GOP candidates.
“During the November 2010 midterm elections, the Republican Party had historic levels of Hispanic support,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “In fact, exit polls showed that 38 percent of Hispanic voters cast ballots for House Republican candidates. This is more than in 2008 and 2006. . . . All five Hispanics elected to Congress in 2010 were Republicans.”
Smith said that calls for strong border protection and enforcement had played well in Florida, Mexico and Nevada, including with Latino voters.“This is a good trend for the GOP,” he said.
So, Mexico is the 52nd state!
Clarissa Martinez, director of immigration and national campaigns at the National Council of La Raza, a pro-immigration group, said political candidates were not investing enough effort in reaching out to and mobilizing Latino voters.
I've got a great idea: they should reach out and invest more by hiring Clarissa Martinez! She probably has some relatives who would like jobs as ethnic consultants, too. Neither party should cease investing until all the Martinezes have nice Hispanic activist jobs. And Rep. Gutierrez probably has some nephews and nieces who are someday going to need jobs as well.
We must import more immigrants so all these Martinezes and Gutierrezes can be employed as their nominal leaders.
Posts
11 comments:
And Israel is the 51st state?
Do either of these newcomer states contribute tax revenues to the US Federal Government, which subsidizes them both, although in different ways?
Unfortunately this only shows that direct Latino influence won't be the tidal wave that their numbers would predict.
But as we see, for example, with the Southern Poverty Law Center, it's rarely the low-achieving NAM group itself that strikes the hardest blows.
Rather, it's moralistically preening whites (disproportionately Jews) who wage a crusade on behalf of the downtrodden, who provide a voice for the voiceless, etc.
If this was bad enough when the Hispanic population was smaller, it's only going to get worse as they grow, whether or not the Hispanics themselves make it worse by voting.
"Hispanic." Will we ever tire of that fake concept?
MIA now but they'll be coming home some time in the future.
Steve, could you write something about the gerrymandering taking place as a result of the 2010 census? The local papers here in NJ write about how new electoral districts must be carved out for Hispanics, due to their numerical increase.
Even when they are too lazy to vote, they still get special rotten boroughs (barrios?) to represent "the race."
This is zero-sum political dispossession of whites. I think it is also intellectually indefensible.
"...and Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.) were reelected last year with strong Latino support."
Um, that's actually not quite right.
Fiorina was a horrible candidate who had health issues and lacked the killer instinct necessary to go after Boxer, not to mention lingering suspicions about how much she really disagreed with Boxer on issues. Run a RINO against Boxer in a liberal state, and the result is utterly predictable.
This is EXACTLY what our Ruling Class had in mind when it set about replacing traditional Americans (black & white) with foreigners 45 years ago. It is even easier to rule a country when its citizens don't even TRY to vote you out.
This is EXACTLY what our Ruling Class had in mind when it set about replacing traditional Americans (black & white) with foreigners 45 years ago. It is even easier to rule a country when its citizens don't even TRY to vote you out.
It is? Does the ruling class get reincarnated, or something? Do they get to come back in another life and take advantage of this process that they began all these decades ago? Why would past and present ruling classes implement policies to benefit future ruling classes that will have little or nothing in common with them, either genetically or culturally?
The race replacement of whites IS an aim of the ruling class, or at least the forces which control the ruling class. But that's just becuase those guys just hate whites, period.
Why would past and present ruling classes implement policies to benefit future ruling classes that will have little or nothing in common with them, either genetically or culturally?
Do you seriously believe that the US Ruling Class reinvents itself every generation? Ivy League legacies? Bush family? Kennedy family?
"The local papers here in NJ write about how new electoral districts must be carved out for Hispanics, due to their numerical increase.
Even when they are too lazy to vote, they still get special rotten boroughs (barrios?) to represent "the race."
So which is better? Carve outs that concentrate them? or integration which dilutes them? I can sort of see pluses and negatives either way. Some have suggested integration/dilution is better when carving up districts. In Texas, they do both depending on geography etc, and end up red.
The reason for this is probably related to what happened during the million mexican march. The powers that be decided to keep the mask on rather than getting overeager and showing Americans what is happening.
Post a Comment