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.