[Marxism] Latinos sank the Republicans in the mid-term elections

Roger Baker rabaker at cox-internet.com
Wed Nov 8 08:32:13 MST 2006

Harv,  here's what pisses Joe and the right-wing about immigration:
Thank god for the Latinos. They do most of the dirty work and vote 

God, the Republicans are a dismal breed.  They swept Texas, but I would 
remind you that Austin is an oasis in a political desert, therefore it is OK 
for my to be a Longhorn.

The UT student government was the first to speak out and vote against the 
war in Iraq. Chomsky mentions this in one of his books.

Later,   roger

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo at bellsouth.net>
To: "Marxmail" <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 6:14 AM
Subject: [Marxism] Latinos sank the Republicans in the mid-term elections

> Here's the news neither the Faux News Channel nor the Corporate News
> Network nor even the august New York Times is willing to tell you about 
> what
> happened in the U.S. elections.
> A massive wave of Latino anti-Republican votes sunk the Grand Old
> Party.
> According to the corporate media's exit poll, two years ago the
> Republicans got 44% of the Latino vote, and the Democrats barely 53% --the
> first time Democrats had gotten less than 60% among Latinos in a national
> election since exit polls made such statistics possible.
> This year, according to exit poll figures apparently noticed only by
> CNN's Spanish-language network, the Republican vote among Latinos crashed 
> to
> 26%, and the Democrats got 73%, a full 20-point improvement on the 2004
> figure.
> The national Congressional exit poll indicates the election result
> was 54% Democrats, 46% Republicans. The increase in the Latino vote for
> Democrats was about 1-1/2%, which would have left the Democrats shy of the
> 53% that election wonks had calculated the Democrats would need to take 
> the
> House (53% because "structural advantages" --gerrymandering-- give the
> Republicans in effect a built-in lead).
> Of course, in any close election any number of groups can claim that
> they were the ones who made the difference. But even a 10% party shift in
> any demographic group on a national scale is virtually unheard of in the
> United States, where normally elections are decided not by who people 
> decide
> to vote for, but by which people decide to vote. Yes, there are sometimes
> changes in the electorate as a whole, but these tend to be spread across
> many sections of the population and tend to be either episodic [like
> Goldwater's crushing defeat in 1964] or gradual [like the consolidation of
> Republican dominance in the South].
> So clearly this was an exception. In state after state, many tens of
> thousands of Latinos who for whatever reason had gone Republican in 2004
> went Democrat instead. Moreover, this is a significant shift from the
> pattern well before the 2004 elections. In the three previous elections, 
> the
> percentage of the Hispanic vote for the Democrats had been 63%, 62%, and 
> 65%
> in 1998, 2000 and 2002. This cut into not just the "new" Hispanic 
> Republican
> voters of 2004, but habitual Hispanic Republican voters.
> And the shift if even a little bigger than it seems because the
> Cubans traditionally vote Republican and would not be directly affected by
> the changes in immigration law. This shift is almost entirely among
> non-Cuban Latinos. In other words, the Republicans start out with 
> something
> on the order of 8% or 10% of the Latino vote from the Cubans. So of the
> additional 34% they go in 2004, from the non-Cubans, they lost more than
> half.
> For a party that's already a single-digit fringe party in the Black
> community, to relegate itself to the same status in the rapidly growing
> Latino community is likely to be suicidal.
> As I write this, the control of the Senate is still up in the air.
> The two parties are tied, with 49 seats each, and two states --Virginia 
> and
> Montana-- still to be "called," although Democrats have razon-thin leads 
> in
> both. Given the number of close Senate races, it is obvious the *shift* in
> the Latino vote has made the difference in giving Democrats a very
> significant victory, and in this case whether they achieve full control of
> the Senate or not. Because there, 60 are votes needed to pass major
> legislation or confirm judges and high-level executive branch appointees. 
> In
> the Senate, it takes a super-majority to end debate, so each additional
> Democrat makes things that much more difficult for the Republicans.
> Andres Oppenheimer, a Miami Herald columnist appearing as an
> election-night commentator on CNN en Español, had a ready explanation,
> indeed, an obvious one, for the change in Latino voting patterns.
> This was the Latino community's punishment of the Republicans for
> having spearheaded a racist, anti-immigrant offensive since the 2004
> election.
> At the beginning of 2004, President Bush put forward the sketch of a
> plan for immigration reform that offered at least temporary legalization 
> to
> millions of undocumented workers in the country. In presenting his 
> proposal,
> Bush heaped praised on immigrants:
> "As a Texan, I have known many immigrant families, mainly from
> Mexico, and I have seen what they add to our country. They bring to 
> America
> the values of faith in God, love of family, hard work and self reliance --
> the values that made us a great nation to begin with....
> "As a nation that values immigration, and depends on immigration, we
> should have immigration laws that work and make us proud. Yet today we do
> not. Instead, we see many employers turning to the illegal labor market. 
> We
> see millions of hard-working men and women condemned to fear and 
> insecurity
> in a massive, undocumented economy."
> That helped Bush achieve his relatively high vote among Latinos
> (although many experts believe flaws in the design and execution of the 
> 2004
> poll exaggerated Bush's support, which was probably 40%, they said).
> But after the election, the Republicans thanked the Latino community
> by spearheading a campaign of repressive, anti-immigrant laws, the most
> notorious of which was the Sensenbrenner Bill in the House of
> Representatives which would have declared all undocumented immigrants to 
> be
> criminals. The White House specifically endorsed the Sensenbrenner Bill
> after the House passed it at the end of 2005.
> The bill seemed set to sail through the Senate with one or another
> cosmetic change when a series of mass mobilizations shook the country from
> March to May, the largest sustained series of such protests ever in U.S.
> history.
> This stopped the Sensenbrenner all-immigrants-are-criminals bill. It
> was DOA in the Senate, so hasty efforts were made to cook up a phony
> "compromise" which sought to find the middle ground between those who 
> sought
> to criminalize immigrants and those who claimed to be for legalizing them.
> This, of course, came to nothing legislatively, but it did have the effect
> if dividing the immigrants rights movement and stopping the mega-marches.
> Then at the last minute of the legislative session, snuck through in
> the middle of the night, the Republicans passed and sent to the president
> one provision of the Sensenbrenner Bill, to build a 1150 kilometer Great
> Wall of America along much of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Anglo press
> largely dismissed this as election-year grandstanding, since the bill 
> called
> for the wall to go up post-haste but did include the requisite funding.
> But in Latin America and especially Mexico, as well as in Latino
> media throughout the U.S., it was seen as one more gratuitous insult, and
> one more reason to give the Republicans a thrashing.
> I know some people will say, this mass Latino repudiation of the
> Republicans is meaningless, since many of the Democrats are just as bad. 
> In
> Georgia, for example, the Democrat gubernatorial candidate said he would
> have signed the same anti-immigrant bill that Rep. Gov. Sonny Perdue used 
> as
> a centerpiece in his re-election campaign.
> But when someone attacks your community they way that Republicans
> have been attacking Latinos, people are going to do something about it. 
> And
> if some Democrat politician is the only thing to hand that can be used as 
> a
> club, that's what people will use.
> Yes, I know all the problems and limitations with it. But I can't
> help feeling good about it.
> And a word to Democrat politiqueros: you don't own us, you owe us.
> If you think you can stab us in the back with impunity, just look at what
> happened to Bush and his friends this time around.
> Joaquín
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism

More information about the Marxism mailing list