Iâ€™m not good at forecasting elections, but I am confident in my prediction of how it will be spun.Maybe I'm clairvoyant, because no sooner had the polls closed were we treated to articles like â€?A Major Swing by Latino Voters Back to the Democratic Foldâ€? in US News and World Report, â€?Hispanic vote grows, shifts to Democratsâ€? in USA Today, â€?Big Turnout of Latino Voters Boosted Obamaâ€? in the Wall Street Journal, and â€?In Big Shift, Latino Vote Was Heavily for Obamaâ€? in the New York Times
If John McCain gets the GOP nomination, he will still lose the Hispanic vote by a large margin.
If he wins, the chattering classes will compare how he well he did among Hispanics compared to the GOPâ€™s performance in the 2006 midterms, proving that the Hispanic vote won him the election.
If he loses, they will compare his low numbers to George Bushâ€™s phony success among Hispanics in 2004. His defeat will be attributed to his toned down his support for open borders and/or the xenophobia of other Republicans.
Every single one of these articles cites the long debunked 44% Bush received among Hispanics in 2004, and claims that the Hispanic vote helped win the election, and blames Republican stands on immigration for the shift.
Hereâ€™s a few highlights: From US News and World Report:
"Bush was the pro-Latino Republican in the '90s," says Gonzalez." And who was at his side? His brother Jebâ€”and John McCain. They said, 'We're pro-Hispanic; we're for affirmative action; we're for quotas; we love Mexico." But instead, both Bush and McCain deserted Latinos, Gonzalez says. Partly as a result, a recent Pew study shows that 55 percent of Hispanic voters say the Democratic Party has more concern for their community, opposed to 6 percent who say the same of RepublicansFrom USA Today:
Making matters worse was the Republican stance on immigration. The issue hit headlines in 2006, with Republicans in Congress fighting against illegal immigration and for firm English-only policies. To some voters, that felt like a betrayal.USA Today misleadingly compared Obamaâ€™s showing among Hispanics to Bushâ€™s in 2004; so they could say "He won 67% of the Hispanic vote â€” 23 percentage points higher than President Bush's showing in 2004."
It is a signal about the kind of American political map that will take shape later in the 21st century, as Hispanic voters come to outnumber all others. It is very bad long-term news for the Republicans, whose immigration policies are costing them dear.From the San Diego Union Tribune:
In spite of Bush and McCain advocating reforms that called for guest workers and a path to legalization, some of the loudest proponents of restrictions have been Republicans, among them Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., and Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. McCain suffered from guilt by association, said Frank Sharry, director of the Washington, D.C., immigrant advocacy group America's Voice.A quick reality check: John McCain lost the Hispanic Vote by 66-32%. This was better than the 29% the GOP received in 2006, and worse than 38% (not 44%) Bush got in 2004. As usual, it fluctuated around 15-20% below the white vote. Bush got 58% of the white vote in 2004, and McCain got 55% this year, so the Latino vote did fall three percentage points more than the the white vote. My guess is this had more to do with the prospect of a non-white president rather than immigration.
While Latinos showed up in record numbers, they still only made up 8% of the electorate. So this relative 3% drop among the numbers makes a grand total of 0.24% of the vote from Hispanics. I'm sure the number of white and African American voters who stayed home or didn't vote for McCain because of amnesty would more than make up for that infinitesimal number.