Obama Crushing Romney Among Latino Voters
Mitt Romney continues to trail the President very badly among Latino voters. That could be a big problem in November.
A new USA Today/Gallup Poll finds that President Obama’s support among Latino voters continues to grow, and Mitt Romney continues to have serious problems with a key demographic group as we get closer to the 2012 Election:
WASHINGTON - President Obama has built an overwhelming lead among Latino voters, a nationwide USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of Hispanics finds, as Republican challenger Mitt Romney faces a difficult path ahead to make inroads among what has been the nation’s fastest-growing ethnic group for a generation.
The president leads Romney 66%-25% among more than 1,000 Latino registered voters surveyed April 16 to May 31, matching his muscular showing in the 2008 election among Hispanics. Romney is in the weakest position among Latinos of any presidential contender since 1996 — and in those intervening 16 years their percentage of the electorate has doubled.
Since the poll was taken, Obama has fortified Hispanic enthusiasm by announcing he would block the deportation of an estimated 800,000 undocumented young Latinos who were brought to the United States as children. In a subsequent USA TODAY/Gallup survey, taken Wednesday-Saturday, more than eight in 10 Latinos approved of the president’s action, most of them strongly.
“I’ve seen that affect a lot of families, so that’s actually something I’m pretty much in favor of,” says Jonny Rozyla, 22, a college student from Anoka, Minn., a poll respondent who was interviewed by phone. His mother was born in the United States and his father emigrated from Mexico. Rozyla says he “strongly disagrees” with Romney’s statements about a controversial Arizona immigration law. “I don’t think he’s for the people, mostly,” he says of Romney. “He’s more for the rich than the poor.”
Romney’s troubles with Hispanic voters are likely to be spotlighted this week if the Supreme Court, as expected, rules on the constitutionality of the Arizona law, which requires police to check a person’s immigration status when there is reasonable doubt about it.
There is some hope for the Republicans in these numbers that suggests that, if they play their cards correctly, Latino voters are far from being permanently ensconced in the Democratic camp:
The USA TODAY Poll’s findings offer encouragement for Republicans down the road. Among second-generation Latinos — that is, those whose parents were born in the United States — attitudes about the role of government shift significantly and openness to conservative policies expand.
That doesn’t mean Republicans are guaranteed to gain Hispanic support over time, but it does mean there will be more opportunities for them to do so. That raises questions about the argument by some analysts that the nation’s changing demographics all but ensure Democratic majorities in the future.
Consider: On a list of a half-dozen issues, Latino registered voters who immigrated to theU.S. themselves rate immigration policies, a particular sore point with the GOP, as their highest priority. Latinos whose parents were born here rank immigration last.
Parker Maldonado, 43, a financial adviser from Goddard, Kan., who was called in the poll, is more concerned about pocketbook issues and argues that other Hispanics should be, too. His grandmother came from Puerto Rico and his grandfather emigrated from Spain. “Immigration is not going to mean anything if our economy doesn’t improve,” he says.
Asked about the issues most important to him, Joel Gomez, 31, who emigrated from Mexico 10 years ago, praises Obama’s recent step for young Hispanics. “That’s a relief for Latinos,” says the Maryland construction worker, who was surveyed in Spanish. “We can walk without fear through the streets.”
Gomez, who became a U.S. citizen three years ago, is inclined to cast his first presidential vote for Obama. Maldonado says he is likely to vote for Romney.
In the USA TODAY survey, Latino registered voters who immigrated say by almost 5-to-1 that the government should do more to solve our country’s problems (a generally liberal view) rather than saying the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses (a generally conservative view).
Among registered Hispanic voters who are the U.S.-born children of immigrants, that ratio narrows to nearly 2-1.
This difference between first and second generation immigrant, which is explored more broadly in Gallup’s own report about the poll, isn’t entirely surprising. Having been raised in different environments, it’s entirely logical that these two groups would see the world at least slightly differently and would have differences of opinion about what the most important issues facing their community are at a given time. People for whom the immigration experienced, and perhaps even living part of that time as an illegal immigration, are going to be concerned about immigration. Second generation immigrants are likely to be more concerned about the same kind of “pocketbook” issues that other Americans are concerned with. All of this is, in some sense, part of the entire assimilation process. For example, you don’t see many Italian-Americans for whom immigration is a big issue anymore.
In the long term, then, there are potential openings for Republicans among second and third generation Latino voters who are more likely to be receptive an economy-based message and less concerned about immigration issues. However, it’s going to be some time before members of those second and third generations are going to amount to a significant part of the voting age population. For the time being, the majority of Latinos are likely to be far closer to that first generation, and far more interested in immigration issues. And that’s where the GOP has a problem.
It’s always worthwhile to note that these demographic group subgroup polls need to be taken with a grain of salt, and that the margin for error in these polls is often quite larger than it is for a normal poll. Nonetheless, a 66% to 25% gap in Latino support between President Obama and Mitt Romney is something that the Republicans need to be very concerned about. Romney’s number is far below the 31% that John McCain garnered in 2008, and even further below the 44% of the Latino vote that George W. Bush grabbed in 2004. If the numbers for Romney stay this low, then it is going to be hard for him to be competitive in swing states like Nevada and Colorado, and it’s even going to pose problems for him in a state like Virginia where the Latino population is relatively small, but where a huge advantage among a single demographic group could prove to be decisive. Two weeks ago, George Will said that Romney would lose if he falls below John McCain’s 31% of the Latino vote in November. Right now, he’s far below that number and, if this keeps up, it’s going to be hard for him to catch up.
George Will: If Romney can’t get 31% of the latin vote, he can’t win.
GW Bush did not receive 44% of the Hispanic vote. I have posted links to peer reviewed academic journal articles that say as much.
The first step for the Republicans is to admit that Bush did not get anywhere near 44% of the Hispanic vote and that McCain received around the same portion that Reagan and Nixon received. The second step would be to eliminate any government program that rewards Hispanics for isolating and separating themselves. Eliminate affirmative action and set asides for Hispanics and fewer of them will be wedded to the Democratic Party.
Also, the Republicans should support raising taxes until their is no budget deficit. When everyone is paying double their current rate of income taxes, there will be more Hispanics who will support politicians who want to cut the budget.
As long as Hispanics get ethnicity-based goodies from the government and get government at a steep discount due to deficit spending, Hispanics will remain very loyal Democratic Party voters because it is so easy for them to be liberals.
Obama can ‘si’ Mexico from his living room.
Character is fate, and the character of the Republican party when it comes to minorities isn’t very nice. Romney, an other-directed guy if ever there was one, did what he had to do to get the nomination. Now it’s going to hurt him and his party, just like Pete Wilson’s pyrrhic victory in California back in the 90’s. Nice work, Mitt, it couldn’t happen to a better guy.
Republicans have given non- Cuban Hispanics and Latinos no reason to vote Republican.
Unless Romney can effectively etch-a-sketch his last 8 months of of campaign statements and comments and convince Latinos that he didn’t really mean it, he’s not going to be anywhere near the 40% that he probably needs.
“Among registered Hispanic voters who are the U.S.-born children of immigrants, that ratio narrows to nearly 2-1.”
That is still an enormous tilt in favor of Democrats and liberals among Hispanics. It’s only considered acceptable because of an assumption that the GOP can do that poorly among Latinos and still win with their current electoral coalition.
Mike
I’ll buy that if the issue is really “immigration” but who here really believes that the GOP position has anything to do with immigration as opposed to, say, demonizing brown people? Yeah, that message, I suspect, doesn’t play with Hispanics of any generation…
@Stan:
“Character is fate, and the character of the Republican party when it comes to minorities isn’t very nice.”
That’s one of those generalities which is more judgmental than thoughtful or fairly parlayed.
Recently I saw a Marco Rubio interview in which he defined the republican party’s immigration policy as being for legal immigration. He reminded people that the U.S. has one of the most liberal immigration policies in the world, hosting roughly a million immigrants annually.
The problems with our immigration system is not that we try to keep people out, as much as how cumbersome the process has become to become a citizen here legally. For instance, my father-in-law was a Greek immigrant, and it was a 5 year process for him. However, the two men we are sponsoring from Mexico have been in the system for 11 years! One was approved a few months ago, and the other is still waiting. This is not an unusual length of time to wait anymore. When legalities or governmental hoops become too tedious or onerous, like they have become today, more people look for ways around them. That’s what is happening here.
The democratic party’s solutions, though, are not aimed at addressing the fundamental problems, which are the backlog and ineptness of governmental processing people’s applications for citizenship. Instead, they wave a magic wand, basically granting waivers and favors to the highly publicized and polarized segment, detouring illegally around admittance into this country, as well as the log jam of those who are patiently following the law. It follows the ‘nice guys finish last’ that is sometimes all too common and promoted in this culture.
I guess this is what Stan thinks is so ‘nice’ and character building about the democrats versus the republican philosophy. I don’t agree. A fairer and more substantial approach would be to overhaul and streamline our entire immigration policy, taking into account the plight of not only illegals, but also those who are legally stalled in non-functioning bureaucratic red tape.
@MBunge: **and** this assumes that the GOP won’t keep doing what they’re doing. Their base has clearly defined ‘latino’ as ‘non-white’, meaning ‘not us’.
@jan: “Recently I saw a Marco Rubio interview in which he defined the republican party’s immigration policy as being for legal immigration.”
One can define GOP policies in many different ways to make oneself feel better about them. The Log Cabin Republicans are past masters of that. Rhetorical definitions, however, don’t change the facts and the fact is that it is Rubio’s party that has made it impossible to achieve ANY sort of meaningful immigration reform.
Mike
@MBunge:
“the fact is that it is Rubio’s party that has made it impossible to achieve ANY sort of meaningful immigration reform.”
That is hardly a fact, only your own partisan opinion.
@jan:
Much of the GOP seems to be for legal immigration in the same way DC was in favor of legal gun ownership–the statement is true, with the caveat that they think it should all be illegal.
@jan:
Snort. It IS a fact. The GOP has worked as hard as possible to keep any meaningful reform from happening, for my entire lifetime. For two reasons:
1, more hispanic voters means more Democratic victories, in large part b/c Dems don’t vilify them nearly as much as the GOP does; and
2, immigration reform means big trouble for businesses who rely upon illegal aliens for their workforce, which directly threatens the GOP base.
@jan:
Ummm… exactly which party filibusterer the DREAM act? And if we look back just a few years, you do remember what happened to the 2007 Kennedy/McCain Immigration act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007)?
And wasn’t it the party’s nominee, one M. Romney, who promised to veto anything looking like “the DREAM act” if it was to ever come to his desk?
I guess the bit of wiggle room here is the term “meaningful.” But I think it’s a HUGE stretch, based on looking across Conservative Media, to believe that the majority of the Republican base has the same concept of “meaningful” as Mr. Rubio.
Or perhaps a better question to ask is there anyway for “meaningful” not to include coming to terms with the vast number of long time, resident, illegal aliens in the country. I would humbly submit Jan, that most Republicans feel that anything short of Zero Tolerance would not be “meaningful” immigration reform.
That would also demonstrate how ultimately unserious the republicans are on this issue.
@Cycloptichorn: There’s a third reasons (and far less cynical, though no less problematic) — there is a significant amount of the base, as probably also leaders, who have accepted the idea of a zero tolerance policy on resident Illegal Immigrants. They see any path to citizenship as rewarding law breaking. Further, many have taken it as a statement of fact that Reagan was “fooled” into granting amnesty and that can never be allowed to happen again.*
* — Likewise there’s the accompanying wisdom that Saint Reagan’s other great mistake was being “fooled” on taxes. Since I’ve yet to find a really good documentation of the history of either fooling, one might argue that those oral histories are more about finding ways to explain moments where — in retrospect — we see that Reagan went off the Conservative Orthodoxy ranch.
@mattb:
“Or perhaps a better question to ask is there anyway for “meaningful” not to include coming to terms with the vast number of long time, resident, illegal aliens in the country. I would humbly submit Jan, that most Republicans feel that anything short of Zero Tolerance would not be “meaningful” immigration reform.
That would also demonstrate how ultimately unserious the republicans are on this issue.”
There is a segment of republicans who want nothing less than the letter of the law to be followed. It’s not because they ‘hate’ immigrants. It’s more of a territorial behavior, where they don’t want the floodgates opened to everyone. They support and are comfortable with a specified, orderly manner in which immigration is managed, via current immigration laws. For them, anybody not abiding with these laws are considered ‘illegal’ and have no legal standing in this country. In their opinion the implementation of such laws will ease, not only the flow of people of different cultures into this country, but also the economic burden they might temporarily impose on a new country. That kind of reasoning is one adhered to by the majority of countries around the world. Just look at the immigration standards of Australia, Mexico, Europe.
There are also many other republicans who have varying degrees of comfort zones and ideas dealing specifically with illegal immigration. George Bush, McCain, Lindsey Graham, now Marco Rubio and others, have been on board with varying ideas and plans. Obama’s latest unilateral act only preempted Rubio’s more substantial one, along with allowing for further Congressional bipartisan discussion of this very complex problem.
So, the republican party is far from ‘unserious’ about this issue, but rather conflicted, as it is far from a monolithic group in it’s mind-think. What I believe is most unhelpful, though, is how one party (republicans) is painted with such a partisan brushstroke from the opposition party (democrats), demonizing them and making racist charges that really are hyperbolic rather than accurate, in trying to attract the immigrant demographic to their side of the political ledger.
Ironically, from a ‘values’ perspective, many of these ‘new arrivals’ to this country have more in common with conservatives that their liberal wooers. Regarding religion, family, abortion, marriage, jobs they sync more with conservatives. However, with the fear mongering going on, and the offensive/defensive rhetoric that is used in immigration discussions, from both sides, they migrate over to the left side for what is perceived their own good and safety.
BTW, Obama’s Dream Act, which so many of you put up as a representation of his compassionate, sincere policies, was introduced for a vote right before the midterms — a leveraged type of insertion, rather than one that was promoted in earnest earlier, where it might have had a better chance for bipartisan discussion, compromises, and possible bipartisan passage.
translation- there’s no way in hell we’d vote for something if it lets the dem president look good but we’re also totally serious about immigration reform!
That you don’t see how blatantly contradictory these two statements are does not speak well
of you..
@Cycloptichorn:
The Democrats also promise to tax the rich (read whites) and give the money to them in the form of more entitlements. The real question for Hispanics is who will pay the taxes for the welfare state as the demographics of the U.S. change.
@ Super
Of course there are a vast number of minority citizens of this country that could buy your sorry ass out of petty cash, but you won’t admit that will you? What a sad little man you are.
So you are saying immigrants talk incessantly about family values but tend not to practice them?
Nice. In other words, you think Hispanics, like blacks, are too stupid to know where there own best interests lie. No surprise here, this is stock wingnut boilerplate.
@jan:
The issue Jan, that you so conviently side step, is what has happened to each of those moderate/nuanced plans (with the exception of Rubio’s which has yet to be recieved)? Each has been defeated by the Republican hard line base.
I’m not claiming the Dems are perfect. But to pretend, as you do, that we are at a point where moderate Republicans will be allowed to successfully tackle the issue of resident Illegal Immigrants with anything other than a zero tolerance policy is laughably naive.
I mean did you watch the debates and then listen to the follow up? All of the candidates that voiced anything that sounded remotely like “we have to seriously consider a path to citizenship for some resident illegals” were strongly attacked. Remember the attacks levied at Rick Scott from the right?! Further look at Mitt Romney’s tack to the FAR right on Illegal Immigrants.
And I note that you still have yet to acknowledge that it has been the Republicans that have killed the last serious attempts at Immigration Reform (and in the one case a measure being pushed by a few of those “progressive voices” in the party like GWB).
Listen to the rhetoric, look at the actions, and read the comment threads. The Dem’s are by no means perfect. But until the Republicans decide that they’re going to not give in to the excesses of the anti-illegals wing of the party, whatever weak tea the Dems serve will still be light years ahead of what the Republicans offer.
@Tlaloc:
“translation- there’s no way in hell we’d vote for something if it lets the dem president look good but we’re also totally serious about immigration reform!”
I don’t know what language you speak, however, it certainly isn’t mine. The translation for what I said was that Obama had two years to introduce any kind of immigration reform he deemed important, including the Dream Act. However, he waited until the midterms to do so, making it a political football, rather than a serious discussion.
His patterns are the same for the second Dream Act II, in making a political stand for them months before the GE. Say what you may, but this is just a case of political posturing, at it’s finest and most obvious! There’s nothing compassionate or genuine about the stances he is making. It’s all self serving BS.
@mattb:
“I mean did you watch the debates and then listen to the follow up? All of the candidates that voiced anything that sounded remotely like “we have to seriously consider a path to citizenship for some resident illegals” were strongly attacked. “
I watched some of the debates, and heard some of the comments about immigration, which were mainly parlayed in terse terms. What we are arguing about and attempting to find some kind of middle ground for are how to deal with people who have come over here illegally. You can’t dismiss the harsh reality that these people have no legal grounds for being here, no matter how sympathetic their circumstances are. Other countries would not be willy nilly about what to do about them. They would be told to leave…period.
In this country, though, this segment of our society floats like smoke — stretching economic resources, using infrastructure, some committing crimes, and yet they are like human ghosts who are here, but not here. The republicans might be too harsh regarding their plight. However, the democrats are too permissive and dismissive as to some of the burdens they impose by their multitudes here. And because of this intolerance of right/left philosophies, the gap of realistic solutions is only widened.
I think both parties need to reach a consensus that laws have been broken. These are not politically correct ‘undocumented workers,’ but are ‘illegal aliens,’ who need resolution for people already here, without giving more encouragement and leeway for others to follow…until we have more economic stability in this country, and direction in our immigration policy.
Democrats, however, just seem to hurl inflammatory rhetoric to the right, without really offering any sensible, substantial solutions. The Dream Act II, that Obama implusively laid out last Friday, has no real structure to it, nor no long term effects. It’s just waylaying a problem for two years and appeasing a constituency in order to secure their support and votes.
That’s not a plan. That’s a bribe!
@anjin-san:
“Nice. In other words, you think Hispanics, like blacks, are too stupid to know where there own best interests lie. No surprise here, this is stock wingnut boilerplate.”
Of course this has nothing to do with stupidity. But, that is an example of boiler-plate exaggeration for you to dig into and respond in an ignorant way.
When people are in a vulnerable position, like many illegal people are in this country, they are constantly watching their back in order to avoid being found out, caught, with the possibility of deportation always there as a repercussion of them being in a country without proper papers or documentation.
Therefore, if a political party offers them tidbits of safety, short term measures assuring them a little peace of mind, like democrats do; when they give them platitudes of, “we feel your pain,’ then of course they are going to be attracted to them as the party looking out for them. It’s similar to the plight of captives who become enjoined to a group by the solicitations of the people holding them captive.
But, none of this is real. And, for long term problem solving, democrats are a failure in their policy achievements.
Again, Obama had 2 long years, and a democratic Congress to boot, in which to initiate serious comprehensive immigration reform. Why didn’t he do it? When he had a golden opportunity, why did he wait until the last minute, creating a dust-up with the republicans in order for him to come out like a knight in shinning armor to appeal to the fears of illegal populations? That, to me, is cruel and indecent!
@anjin-san:
I thought progressives were the reality based community. Then on one day you tell me how poor Hispanics are and how little wealth that they have when progressives are promoting redistribution programs but then the next day you are telling me how successful that they are and how happy minorities are to pay high levels of taxes.
Please me up you mind. I suggest looking up the demographics data. Any groups where more than 50% of the children are born to single mothers is not a very wealthy group. Given the lack of academic success of Hispanics, the lack of advancement in industry and government, and the high birthrates, Hispanics is the demographic group most open to redistribution policies that are promoted by the Democrats.
Any Republicans who thinks that they can outpander the Democrats is a fool.
@mattb:
The difference in the Republican Party is between the cheap labor Repulcians who believe that they will get cheaper wages but do not care about higher insurance bills, higher taxes, private school tuition because they already live in high tax states, they already send their children to all white private schools, they already live in exclusive communities.
However, for the mddle class Republicans, amnesty, open borders,and unlimited immigration is a horrible idea. Lower wages, poorer schools, fewer careers, higher taxes, worse traffic, more crime, and more sprawl. Why would any middle class Republicans support that just so that elite Republicans will not be called racist.
@jan: “That’s one of those generalities which is more judgmental than thoughtful or fairly parlayed.”
In this case, we just saw the GOP base live down to that generalization.
@jan: “BTW, Obama’s Dream Act, which so many of you put up as a representation of his compassionate, sincere policies, was introduced for a vote right before the midterms — a leveraged type of insertion, rather than one that was promoted in earnest earlier, where it might have had a better chance for bipartisan discussion, compromises, and possible bipartisan passage. ”
So what? If the GOP supported it, they could have voted for it, and taken credit.
That’s just an excuse.
@jan: “The translation for what I said was that Obama had two years to introduce any kind of immigration reform he deemed important, including the Dream Act. However, he waited until the midterms to do so, making it a political football, rather than a serious discussion. ”
This is a flat-out lie:
1) Obama was a bit busy, dealing with your trashing of the country.
2) The GOP has set new records for fillibustering; it’s a rare thing which they don’t think is a political football.
3) What has the GOP done since then? Have they introduced a DREAM II bill?
@ Jan
Your “two long years” argument is a real winner. You should put clean coal on the B side. Sure to be a hit record on the wingnut top 20.
I have to applaud Jan for her courage to repeatedly take the ass kicking her arguments engender.
She seems to be sincere in her ignorance and rationalizations for the flawed and failed policies of a party hopelessly caught in the timewarp of history.
i hope she keeps posting, because, a la Clarence Darrow, she gamely tries to defend the lost cause of senseless wingnut dogma.
@the Q:
“I have to applaud Jan for her courage to repeatedly take the ass kicking her arguments engender.”
What I have found “Q” is that squeaky wheel ass-kicking, more times than not, is caused by those who have stayed and rusted-out ideas. Their wheels make noises because all they have to offer is aspersions and partisan talking points which eventually crystallize into non-porous, hardened dogma.
As for this thread, the democrats have only been a clever but flaccid ‘mouth’ for immigration reform, and little else. That is hardly anything to be proud of, nor put one’s party up as some kind of magnificent counter-point.
@jan:
Jan,
I think the your have completely identified the challenge. So we are in agreement on that.
It’s everything that follows were you ignore reality…
Ok, the issue here is that the current core Republican stance is that there can be NO AMNESTY. 0. ZIP. NADA. This was continually the “winning” opinion in the debates. It’s continually the only “winning” opinion in Right Wing Media. And it’s currently the position of core Tea Party/Conservative Darlings like Jim DeMint.
To be fair, if beyond Rubio you can point to any other Republicans pushing legitimate “Path’s to Citizenship” please let me know. I will be that for ever one of them, I can find at least 10 statements from Republicans about how any such path represents Amnesty and is a step to far.
Second issue here is that you are assuming the Democrats are arguing from a position of 100% AMNESTY. They’re not. That hasn’t been in any bill that has made it to a vote. It wasn’t in the 2008 bill that Bush backed. It wasn’t in the DREAM act.
So pretending that both parties are taking an equal position is disengenous at best and smoking dope at worst.
Fair, and to a point I agree. However, I think that Republicans need to come to terms with the idea that while a law might have been broken, it was not a *criminal* act. Which takes a while to wrap ones head around. Illegal Immigrants/UndocumentedWorkers are NOT criminals in the judicial sense of the word.