Asymmetrical Information

I think its too early to say what this means, if anything. Last time, Bush was projected to have won a much larger share of the Latino vote and that number was reduced sharply downward in the days after the election as the final tallies were completed. I also wonder how much of Bush's support among hispanics is due to the fact that is he popular in Texas, and becaus of that, the Dems haven't been targeting Texas. A better test of whether the GOP has made permanent inroads in the hispanic community would be whether a GOP candidate from a state without a significant Hispanic population gets numbers similar to Bush. Perhaps someone like Bill Frist or Chuck Hagel, for example.

Absolutely correct. If the GOP can consistently draw in the mid 40s among latinos, to say nothing of drawing above 50, the Democrats have some hard work cut out for them.

I couldn't find a site with an easy-to-view breakdown, but it would be interesting to see how many Kerry electoral votes were delivered from states that still gave Bush at least 40% of their vote, or still gave Bush at least 45% of the vote, and how many Bush electoral votes came from states that gave Kerry at least 40% support,or at least 45% support. In other words, how large a percentage of each party's electoral votes came from competitive states, and how large a percentage came from states in which the other party was completely non-competitive?

If Colin Powell runs, they run someone with him who appeals to the right-side base, and they maintain their progress with Hispanics, the Republicans could send the Democrats the way of the Whigs.

Gosh, is their any indication that Powell wants the job? I would have thought that he would have sought the VP slot in 2000 if he wanted to be President.

I know NJ has a high Latino population so I pulled CNN's exit poll:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NJ/P/00/epolls.0.html

Kerry beat Bush by 56% to 43%. This would be consistent with the theory that Bush's popularity in Texas coupled with a lack of effort there by the Dems might distort the picture a bit.

As a Democrat, though, I do feel the party should not rely on achieving 90% margins with minority groups to win elections. In the long run it is more important to have broad based appeal.

We're fine, I suspect.

First, this election was primarily geographic and (local) cultural in nature. I took a quick glance at the state breakdowns - Texas, for example, gave Republicans 66% of the Latino vote. Florida gave Republicans 57% of the vote. I wouldn't be shocked to see similar numbers in the South (GA, NC, etc.). In Califonia and Colorado, the number was (IIRC) closer to 30%. In Illinois, it might have been under 20%. It was similar in Ohio. (NB: When I think about the campaigns, there was remarkably little discussion about coalition-building. I don't remember the campaigns bringing up race.)

Second, "Latino" is wildly bad rubric. I'm willing to bet that most of the "Latinos" in FL, for example, were Cubans. I'd want to see our split of the Mexicans and Central Americans in pullable states before I got worried. I'd bet we kept a pretty decent "Latino" - White gap outside of Florida and Texas.

Third, I"m worried only about getting to 270 and protecting the Blue states. ("blue states"?, "Blue States"?) If every Latino in Texas votes red for the rest of his or her life, I'm OK with that; we were never going to pick up Texas.

Fourth, as Latinos (Mexicans and Central Americans) become more important, political desires may run into conflict with Anglo desires; Pete Wilson saw something like this happen. If Republicans keep increasing their Latino base as these conflicts become more apparent, Democrats (and I admit this is unfortunate) will narrow the White - Latino split as some Anglos decamp from the Republicans for the Democrats. (There is, IIRC, pretty good evidence that Anglo males skew Republican in part (and for good and bad reasons - no judgment here) because of the past perception that the Democrats are too friendly to minorities and women).

Boontoon-- Kerry beating Bush by 56% to 43% among Latinos in NJ is not that auspicious a sign for Democrats. Not in a state that went for Kerry (although by more like 53% to 47%). It implies that the Hispanic vote, unlike the black vote, does not skew heavily towards the Democratic Party, but instead is pretty similar to the individual state. The NJ results are pretty similar to what's necessary for Republicans to pull mid-to-high 40s among Hispanics-- which blows apart a lot of Democratic hopes.

As an aside, calling all people of European descent "Anglo" is really silly. I doubt it has to do with what language people speak, since you're not including people of African descent.

John:

Re "Anglo" - it's fairly standard usage in the Southwest and West in areas where there are large Hispanic populations. But I'm happy to accomodate (honestly). If you've got a preferred term for white non-Latinos, I'll be happy to use it.

Found some information regarding the competitiveness of each party's electoral votes.

Bush won 110 EV from states in which he received over 60% of the popular vote. He won 79 EV from states in which he received over 55% of the popular vote.

Kerry won 22 EV from states in which he received over 60% of the popular vote. He won 128 EV (107 from CA, IL, NY)from states in which he received over 55% of the vote.

Republicans thus started this race with 41% of the needed electoral votes with essentially zero effort, and 70% with only minimal effort. Kerry started the race with 8% of the needed EV with essentially zero effort, and 56% with minimal effort. To reflect on this fact is to perhaps conclude that Kerry's odds weren't too good going in, and that maybe Bush wasn't that strong a candidate, but then one gets into a chicken-or-egg question? Did Bush have such a great advantage going in because of his strengths, or due to Kerry's, or the Democratic Party's, weaknesses?

It is clear, however, that Democrats must figure out a way to make Republicans work harder for the first 41% of their electoral votes; it really allows the Republicans to pour all their resources elsewhere, and perhaps pick the few more percentage points they need in medium-to-large states like PA, WI, or MI.

The task for Republicans, beyond getting over the hump in the aforementioned states, is easier. If the Illinois Republican party can get it's act together, it shouldn't be too hard to make the Democrats exert much more efort in holding Illinois, and if Schwarzeneggar has any interest in party-building, Democrats may have to work again to keep California.

Will:

While I think that vote shares are a good way of identifying groups, and even states, that can be picked off, I'm not sure that it is a metric that works properly for the analysis that you're doing. For example, I'm in California, and I didn't vote b/c it seemed like a pointless pain in a state I knew was going Democratic. (And I wouldn't put too much stock in Schwartzeneggar - he's a very different Republican from the middle-of-the-country Republican; hell, I was a Guliani supporter when I lived in NYC).

I'd suggest that there are probably other metrics that are better at getting at states either side can pick off. For example, I'd note that NJ polled even for a long, long time, but Dems didn't seem to spend too much effort for what are, after all, a fair number of EVs. So they must have had some information that indicated they didn't need to worry about NJ (and the same for Reps, as I assume they'd have like to start nibbling at the Eastern Corridor).

I'd love to see a plot of money spent on ads, etc./ likely voter, as summed over time.

I agree, Tim, that it isn't a perfect metric. But when one party gets 41% of the needed EV by more than a 60% popular vote margin, the other party is letting them have things way, way, too easily. Sure, the right candidate with masterful political skills cures all problems, but the point is to be able to win even when your candidate is not partcularly masterful. The Republicans seem to have reached this destination for now, and the Democrats have not.

I saw a couple of interesting things in that poll, first, non college educated people voted for Bush by 53% while college educated people only voted for him at 49%, so do you actually get dumber after college?

Second, the poll showed respondents who thought the most important issue was that who "really cared about people" voted fro Kerry 75%. What the hell is that? Kerry cares about people? Could there have been a more pompous blowhard running for election other than Alec Baldwin? The guy has never had a real job in his life, I can't imagine that he has ever said more than five words to one of his maids or butlers. You could almost see him squirm each time he has to shake a farmer's hand. Should people this dumb be allowed to vote?

I'm curious also as to the breakdown in Hispanic voters. Cuban-Americans often have vastly different issue priorities than Dominican-Americans, like Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans don't neccessarily share the same motivations in voting. Lumping everybody together as "Latinos" doesn't give a clear picture of anything. The African American vote moved from 8% in 2000, to 10% in 2004, which means 9 out of 10 African Americans who went to the polls still rejected Bush.
Also, John Kerry isn't exactly as minority accessible as Bill Clinton was, who OWNED both demographics. Dems just need to run a Southern white guy with an easy smile, a heightened drawl, some Baptist church photo ops, and the abillity to dumb-down his message to a second grade reader sound-bite so that the ignorant, ill-read, television-addicted American mainstream might actually vote in their own best interests next time.

--Cobra

It is worth noting that the election wasn't very far from being a relative electoral vote blowout, either. (This is the flip side of the "starting out ahead" argument.)

If we assume a uniform swing, then since taking all three of Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada wouldn't have done it for Kerry, he had to get Ohio. But the same swing that would have given him those four, and a 289-249 victory, would give Bush New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota, for an impressive-looking 348-190 win.

The next Bush states, Florida, Colorado, and Missouri, had Bush edges as big as the Kerry leads in Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, and Delaware.

Cobra--

Bill Clinton would also be smart enough to realize that mentioning that Dick Cheney's daughter was gay wouldn't cost Bush evangelical support at all. But a Yankee Democrat who thinks all evangelicals and Southerners support Bush only because they're hateful racist rednecks wouldn't realize that. (Also, Dallas County elected a lesbian Latina sherriff and smear tactics backfired there, too. And Dallas is pro-Bush, not like Austin.)

So long as Democrats remain completely clueless of how Republicans, and especially evangelicals, think, they'll continue to lose races.

"The Bushies also were happy when Kerry referenced Vice President Cheney's lesbian daughter during a debate, Newsweek reported.
Rove was certain Kerry was trying to undermine the Christian right's support of Bush, and just as certain the ploy would backfire..."

Peter writes:

>>>The guy has never had a real job in his life, I can't imagine that he has ever said more than five words to one of his maids or butlers. You could almost see him squirm each time he has to shake a farmer's hand. Should people this dumb be allowed to vote?

First of all, John Kerry is a LAWYER, and was the top prosecutor in Middlesex County, MA. If that isn't a "real job", please give me your definition.

--Cobra

John,

No, Bill Clinton knew enough to publically rebuke Sistah Souljah, a black female rap artist for racially inflammatory statements, and to execute a mentally unstable black man in Arkansas during the campaign. These were messages designed to comfort white moderates, letting them know that Clinton "wasn't a Dukakis Democrat." It was the ANTITHESIS of the Willie Horton ad.

Second, evangelical Christians, if they truly believe their own tennets, believe lesbians are sinners, and unrepentant sinners are going to boil in a lake of fire for eternity. I believe any nuance is lost on that audience.

--Cobra

As you say, "they're demographic toast for the foreseeable future." And they are. They are also philosophically toast for the foreseeable future. They don't seem able to figure out that we have heard them and understood them and DON"T AGREE WITH THEM. Heaven help them, they have decided that this election was about gay marriage! That's idiotic, but they find the thought comforting. That way they can look at my vote (I am an Oxford and Princeton educated professional) and dismiss me as worthy of their contempt--a boor, a fool, an idiot, and a bigot. They don't get it. If they haven't gotten it after 24 years, they aren't going to get it "for the foreseeable future." And it's not a question of demographics, it's a question of decency.

I'm unimpressed by the election of a Lesbian to a local office in Dallas. Like most states, I suspect the big cities in Texas lean more Democratic so I wouldn't expect Dallas to be typical of the rest of Texas.

John, it should also be noted that NJ has a significant Cuban population. While not quite Florida, its possible that sub-population may distort the picture painted by exit polls of the larger Latino population.

I sympathize with the complaints about 'lumping everyone together' but it is a sensible thing to do. We, for example, have lumped Texas into a 'Republican state' on this list when in fact there are quite a few liberals and Democrats in Texas. Likewise California gets lumped into a Democratic state even though it has notable conservatives (hint, where did Ronald Reagan get his start in politics?).

I'm wondering what motivates Cuban-American support for the Republicans? The fastest answer that comes to mind is Cuban-Americans hate communism, especially Castro and view the Republicans as the most tough on Cuba. Yet we should also include immigration in this mix. America has essentially open borders with Cuba. If a Cuban lands in America he can automatically stay by law.

When it comes to immigration, other Latinos who may desire Cubans to be treated on a par with Mexicans and others will be 'anti-immigrant' from a Cuban-American point of view. What happens when Castro falls? Will the US Gov't close the 'open door' policy? Will Cuban-Americans continue to support the GOP as the memory of Castro and communism fades? When they no longer have anti-communism as their most pressing concern will they lean towards Democratic friendly issues like healthcare, education, immigration and so on?

Boonton-- Dallas County voted
majority Bush. Not by much compared to the rest of Texas, certainly, but they did.

Cobra-- Yet, you're still wrong, and have always been wrong, about people. Clinton won because he, unlike you, didn't come off as filled with hate. The Democrats had plenty of their loonies front and center hosting concerts, making movies, writing newspaper columns, etc. this year. (And being special guests at their convention, like Michale Moore.) Republicans, God knows, have loonies too, but they were at least hidden this year.

I've known plenty of Republicans, and plenty of Democrats. Most people, of course, are nice and polite, but I've definitely known more angry, bitter, condescending and hateful bigots among the Democrats I know, or at least more who are willing to be perfectly open about it in public and in person. There are so many who hate evangelicals without knowing any or knowing anything more about them than what they read in the New York Times. Democrats will continue to lose until they get over their anger and hatred, and make some attempt to understand their opponents.

T've lived and worked in conservative areas in the South as well as liberal areas in the North, too.

Cobra:

For a good reason as to why the Black community might want to reconsider automatic support of the Democratic party, read some of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's work. Moynihan is hardly a Republican propagandist. His article in The American Spectator (Winter 1993) entitled "Defining Deviancy Down" is a good start. You can find it on-line at
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/formans/DefiningDeviancy.htm

After you've read it, ask yourself two questions: (1) which party's policies have contributed most over the last 30 years to the decay he describes, and (2) what has this decay done to America's Black community?

If you are honest with yourself, you just may change your mind.

Actually the 4 point shift to Bush among white voters was over 4 times as damaging to Kerry. The Democrats could compensate for share losses among latinos by appealing more to white voters possibly by opposing illegal immigration.

One might note as well that there is a substantial Pentacostal and evangical movement within the Hispanic communities across the United States and a substantial exurban and rural dimension to the Hispanic population distribution across the United States. Hispanic workers in the construction industry across the United States have been relatively immune to the efforts to organize them into the world of union construction. The Democrats will have to improve their access to and communications with these strands within the Hispanic communities if they hope to obtain more of their political support.

Hondo:

Right on. I have a hypothesis that the biggest racists in this country are actually the liberals. For all their talk they compeltely look down on the black community as one that is incapable of taking care of itself, so the community must be saved. And who best to save them than the liberals who care so much about others. With that of course comes the concept that if the black communities of this country were to be a whole lot better off then the democrats would lose their total monopoly on the black vote. So in reality the democrats have a vested interest in not seeing improvements among minorities.

As for the biggest racist in this country, it is by far Jessee Jackson. Without racism he has nothing, so he creates it and fosters it whenever he can.

There is also an interesting trend in urban voters that some may find counterintuitive: http://camprrm.typepad.com/coyote_blog/2004/11/cnn_has_some_pr.html

...Tim,

If you've got a preferred term for white non-Latinos, I'll be happy to use it.

Great! In case he doesn't get back to you, let me suggest my preferred term. The neat thing about it is, it works pretty well for Latinos and Blacks as well. It's: "American".

Hondo and Peter,

Would you like to review the historical and on going treatment of African Americans at the hands of whites? Or Native Americans? I doubt you'd believe the facts of American history on the attrocities, anyway, but trust me, I'd fill your database with horror stories. But it would be to no end. You have an agenda against mine.
So let's call it a disagreement. I as an African American want justice for people who look like ME, and you want to continue the advantages white people took for themselves in America. At least we'd then be intellectually honest.

--Cobra

Peter, I have a hypothesis, too. Mine is that the biggest racists are white conservatives like you. To you, we blacks are easily bought off by the Democratic party and aren't capable of thinking for ourselves. You and your ilk usually use slave imagery, claiming we've been "bought off" by social programs like welfare. We are on a "plantation". And you oh so dutifully trot out the "Jesse'a racist" mantra, simply because you guys have never produced a black conservtive who's done a damn thing for our community. You overlook the fact that most of the Democrats we vote for by CHOICE, not by being bought off, are black themselves. Are THEY racist? Face it, we can think for ourselves too and we have seen that conservatives, particularly white conservatives have never done anything at all for us, and quite frankly, don't want to. Read what GOP strategists write about us. They don't want to win all or even most of our votes, they want to siphon off 20% of us, simply to ensure their own election. Language like that tells me all I need to know about white conservative contempt for black America and let me assure you that the feeling is mutual.

William,

That's what you get for thinking these white conservatives actually view us as equals.
Hell, William Rhenquist STILL thinks the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was "bad law."
I take great solace in knowing that we minorities are rapidly becoming the majority, and if the white conservatives continue their antagonizing, discriminatory posture, their children and grandchildren will staring at a "brown American majority" in 2050 that may not be very accomodating.
I say that with a slight grin on my face, of course.

--Cobra

Cobra, William:

Enjoy fantasies and Kool-Aid. The two of you are apparently so far lost in hate - and unwilling to think for yourselfes - that there's little hope for you.

Hondo, you need some new material. The "Kool Aide" line was never very clever even when it was new. Oh, and try actually addressing some of the very legitimate complaints about racism among whtie conservatives, instead of making childish personal attacks. Or is that too much to ask from you?

All of you are making childing remarks.

er, childish.

I'd suggest learning the lessons from Prop. 200 in Arizona. Tell me where the divide is. If you don't know what Prop. 200 is, read this first.

Just a little less than Arnold got last year. The Dems like you say face a serious problem. Which "minority" do they go after. The things that Latinos want are very different from what Blacks want. Hard to attact both groups.
Rod Stanton
Cerritos

Rod writes:

>>>The things that Latinos want are very different from what Blacks want. Hard to attact both groups.

Black Latinos or White Latinos?

--Cobra

Cobra et al. if any:

What would define success for you? I can't get a handle on it. What is your goal, and how will you know you've reached it? If you don't believe it's actually achievable, and if you're interested in educating me at all (not your responsibility and I bear you no ill will if you take a pass on it), would you mind imagining success and describing it to me?

I ask because it seems simultaneously obvious that (a) things are never going to be perfect, for anyone, but also (b) things have improved dramatically for people of color, women, and other groups that did not historically enjoy equality of opportunity in the past 30 or 40 years (somewhere between one and two generations, which is very fast societal change). We should never stop striving for elusive perfection, but surely it's reasonable to recognize progress, too?

Jamie,

It depends on whose ox is being gored. It would be wrong for me to say there hasn't been any progress on civil rights in America for minorities and women. It would also be wrong for me to say that civil rights for minorities and women was a conservative "red state" platform.
What would "success" mean for me? I don't look at it as a destination, but a journey. Along the way, the travel conditions are improving (after all, it couldn't get worse) but there is a ways to go. When we get to the point on the trip where race, gender and creed makes absolutely no difference in the societal treatment, we'll be closer to the "success" I would consider, but I'm afraid that will be generations down the road.

--Cobra

Comments are Closed.