Republicans, The Latino Vote, And Immigration
Republicans are going to get trounced among Latino voters tomorrow, and they only have themselves to blame.
For the past several months, I’ve been chronicling here at OTB the absolutely dismal performance of Mitt Romney, and Republicans in general, among Latino voters. Far from the days, when George W. Bush garnered 44% of the Latino vote, or even 2008 when John McCain garnered 31%, the numbers we’ve been seeing this year for Republicans have been positively abysmal. A poll in June found Romney getting only 25% of Latino voters, while the President got 66%. A June poll put Romney’s level of support as low as a pathetically abysmal 22%. Two polls in August put Romney’s numbers at 28% and 26% respectfully, slightly better than the low numbers of the early summer. However, by October, things had gotten worse. In that month, three polls showed Romney’s level of support among likely Latino voters at 21%, 21%, and 25% respectively. Today, Latino Decisions is out with its final Tracking Poll of likely Latino voters and, once again, it’s bad news for Mitt Romney:
During the course of the 11 weeks of tracking, there have been fluctuations in Obama’s favorability and attitudes about key issues among Latinos, but overall results indicate the President has retained consistent support and Latinos report they are likely to turn out in record numbers.
Sixteen percent of respondents indicated that they had already voted early, with another 73% saying they were certain to vote, reflecting increasing levels of enthusiasm over the course of this poll.
The President’s support continued its steady climb with 64% saying they are certain to vote for him on election day and another 8% leaning towards him. Romney’s supporters also remained consistent, but overall he was unable to make significant inroads with Latino voters. Week 11 polling found 22% said they were certain to or might vote for Romney, compared to 24% during Week 1 polling.
Among likely Latino voters, those with consistent vote history or have already voted, 73% say they plan to vote for Obama compared to 24% for Romney and 3% undecided. If Obama wins 73% or higher of the Latino vote, it would eclipse the 72% won by Bill Clintonin his landslide re-election in 1996, and mark the highest total ever for a Democratic presidential candidate.
More importantly, though, there appears to be an indication that Latino voters have become more enthusiastic about their vote than polls earlier in this election cycle have reflected:
“Voter enthusiasm in this election has increased significantly which is extremely encouraging” said Monica Lozano, CEO of impreMedia. “All indications are that Latinos are motivated and will turn out in record numbers proving once again that this electorate is critical for any national candidate to win.”
Among likely voters, 55% say they are more enthusiastic about voting in 2012 than in 2008, with only 22% saying they were more enthusiastic in 2008. In looking to the Tuesday election, 74% of likely Latino voters say they are “very enthusiastic.”
As I’ve noted before, the biggest caveat about the Latino vote and the Democratic advantage that has developed in that area this year is the fact that voter turnout among this group has been lower than pretty much all other ethnic and racial groups. The fact that the President has a huge advantage among Latinos doesn’t help him very much if the voters don’t turn out to cast their ballots, especially in states where they have a potential to make a difference. In recent polling, though, we’ve seen signs that Latinos have become more enthusiastic about voting this year, an indication that Latino turnout will be high enough to make a difference.
One of the states where this Democratic advantage is likely to make a difference is in Nevada, where Latinos make up some 26% of the population. There are many who believe that it was Harry Reid’s ability to rally the Latino vote, and Sharron Angle’s dumb statements about Latinos during the closing week of that campaign, that ended up winning the race for Reid. Something similar seems to be happening this year, with the President pulling ahead with a narrow but increasingly comfortable lead and where the Democrats appear to have done very well in the Early Voting battle. Other states where the Latino vote has a potential to have an impact include Colorado and Virginia, both of which are swing states where the polls remain close enough that a significant advantage in a small demographic group could make a big difference.
The reasons for the collapse in Latino support for the GOP aren’t really all that hard to figure out. Indeed, as previously indicated, Bill Clinton garnered 72% of the Latino vote back in 1996. However, after George Bush was able to revive Republican fortunes by getting 38% of the Latino vote in 2000 and, as I noted above, 44% in 2004, there were at least some Republicans who hoped that the party was finally making in roads among America’s fastest growing minority group. Then the debate over Immigration Reform began in Bush’s Second Term and conservatives dragged the party further to the right on this issue than it has ever been before, further right than even Ronald Reagan was. More recently, they’ve rejected any chance that they’d support anything like The DREAM Act, which remains highly popular among both Latino voters specifically and Americans in general and instead supported measures such as Arizona’s controversial SB 1070 immigration bill. Some Republicans, such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, have tried to warn their party about the consequences of these positions but they’ve largely been ignored. Now, if Romney ends up losing, there are many in the party who are going to point to immigration as a major reason why it happened:
As early as September 2011, when Romney was running to Rick Perry’s right on immigration — Romney’s most memorable line on the subject was that illegal immigrants should choose to “self-deport” to their native countries — Republicans privately fretted that Romney was digging himself a demographic hole.
They were right: Romney’s likely to lose Latinos by a wider gap than McCain’s 36-point margin of defeat. That could push states like Nevada, Virginia, Florida and Colorado into Obama’s column, and if Obama wins just a few of those battlegrounds, it will be exceptionally difficult for Romney to win nationally.
Should that scenario come to pass, Republican elites — who have long feared confinement to an aging and white voter base — will be ringing the alarm bells Wednesday morning. Some party leaders haven’t waited until after Election Day to raise the hue and cry.
In an interview with New York magazine, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush compared the party’s predicament with Latinos to Monty Python’s hapless Black Knight: “We’re competing with ninjas, you know, guys with big, sharp knives, and we have no weapon, and we’re playing like we’re fighting them, and we get an arm cut off — ‘Oh, it’s just a flesh wound’ — and we’re down to the trunk.
My personal guess is that Bush’s warnings are likely to fall on deaf ears, at least among the conservative base and the activists. The anti-immigration rhetoric, and that’s exactly what it is, is quite simply too ingrained in that sector of the party. If the GOP is going to start coming to its sense on immigration, it’s going to take the leadership — the Senators, the Governors, and the House Leadership — coming to their senses and realizing that alienating a group that constitutes 16%, and growing, of the population is a recipe for failure.
you guys are trying to give superdestroyer a stroke, arent you
Here’s the really odd thing: Immigration and globalization should be treated with equal suspicion.
That’s not to say that you should hate both, but if you hate one, you should hate the other. They are economically equivalent. Despite that though, we have parties that favor one over the other. Republicans are more free trade, and Democrats are more pro-immigration.
I’d suggest a little more balance.
The GOP strategy for 2012 for Latinos has been: hope they don’t vote, and make it more difficult for them to vote if necessary.
They’ve never had a game plan for winning those voters over. Never.
Which is why the Romney campaign’s b.s. about turnout models is so risible–these guys have NO CLUE about what makes Latinos tick, how to reach them, how to understand them, etc. They just don’t care about Latinos.
So, why would anyone believe that they and they alone have a good handle on how Latino turnout would be?
Look for Democrats to ram immigration reform directly into the Republicans’ bow in the next Congressional term. Republicans will face the choice of either caving or facing a really, really riled up Latino base of voters in 2014.
The 44% exit polling number has been discredited many times. If you are going to use incorrect numbers, then how can anyone take what you write seriously. Bush received less than 40% of the Hispanic vote and a 20% loss is called a rout in politics.
The idea that the Republicans can ever appeal to Hispanic is laughable. David Axelrod know that promising to tax the rich and give the money to poor Hispanic is a campaign issue that the Republicans cannot overcome.
Instead of writing about what the Republicans could do the stay relevant, why not make a few posts about what happens after the Republicans complete their collapse.
How willl the U.S. function as a one party state? Or are there enough groups inside the Democratic Party who would be willing to move to a more liberal party? Has David Axelrod found the magic formula of promsing to tax a small enough group to fund all of the entitlement for everyone else. Can the Democrats really tax enough from the top 5% to fund everythng else. How does the U.S. how a european style entitlement state with the population of Central and South America?
Instead o f thinking about irrelevant groups, why not focus on the groups that actually control governance and policy in the U.S.?
Doug, do you think the Tea Partiers will allow that? Honest question, cause I just don’t see it happening before 2016.
See? That’s why I love OTB comments (as well as the headliners.) Because sometimes you come across a new way of seeing an issue. Obvious now that I think about it.
Thanks, man. I think I’ll go ride my bike now to a surfer’s breakfast burrito, that wonderful collision of cultures.
I don’t get the animosity towards Latinos, except through the same lens as “Irish and Italians Need Not Apply.”
Prior to Austin, I was in San Antonio for a number of years, which has been a Hispanic-majority city for as long as anyone alive can remember. In general, immigration and acculturation followed similar patterns as other ethnic groups – by the third generation, the odds of being bicultural are fairly high, but bilingual are fairly low.
Latinos really should be such an easy pickup for a socially conservative party. That they aren’t says so much more about the racist / xenophobic wings of the GOP than it does about Latinos.
@john personna: Libertarians favor both extensive free trade and liberalized immigration policies.
Right. The coherent breakdown would be:
Pro-globalization, Pro-open immigration. The libertarian position, at least theoretically.
Anti-globalization, restricted immigration.
Instead we have:
1) Pro-globalization (with intermittant anti-globalization rhetoric), pro-loosely controlled immigration.
2) Pro-globalization, pro-moderately controlled immigration (with constant anti-immigration and anti-immigrant rhetoric).
Something like that. So it’s a bit of a mess, really.
Since when have Democrats been anti-globalization and anti-trade?
Clinton brought home the NAFTA and GATT.
Obama has signed numerous free trade deals.
Certainly there are some Democrats who have opposed these measures, but they hold FAR less sway in the Democratic party than do the nativists in the Republican party.
I think that’s sorta JP’s point, Geek. The parties are both incoherent on this stuff.
There has been a split, right? It might even be similar. The far left riots in opposition to free trade. The elites support it.
I see myself as flexible, centrist, on these things. I think we could fudge tariffs up slightly without being protectionist, and I think we could manage our numbers of guest workers.
@Geek, Esq.: There’s a wing of the Democratic Party that opposes free trade because they view it as harmful to the interests of American labor. Clinton is a Democrat, yes, but he signed NAFTA in the face of strong opposition from his own party–a majority of Democrats in Congress voted against it.
@Rob in CT:
How so? The prevailing position amongst Democrats in office has been both pro-trade and pro-immigration.
It’s the Republicans that have the inherent contradiction—all for trade expansion, so long as it doesn’t mean that their gardener gets a green card.
What are you guys talking about? No outreach to Latino voters?? Haven’t you been paying attention
The GOP have a highly visible hunk named Marco Rubio in their party. They have put him front and center this whole season, even though the majority of what he says is cribbed from the wackos at townhall
But still, he’s Latino. What else can they do here??
I doubt if many middle class whites have Gardeners. However the coastal elites who vote overwhelmingly for Democrats love having the cheap labor provided by open borders and unlimited immigration. And those coastal elites can complete in a global information economy and the state university graduates in the fly over states cannot.
There’ll be a split over any issue inside both parties.
There is a healthy debate inside the Democratic party over immigration. But, generally the trade expansion side carries the day when it comes to making policy.
On the Republican side, the anti-immigrant wing completely owns the Republican party.
George W Bush tried to get immigration reform passed in his second term, and it was his own party that filibustered it to death.
Romney pummeled Rick Perry on immigration because Perry as governor treated undocumneted children as human beings. And it worked like a charm. Because today’s Republican party is an iteration of the Know Nothing party from centuries past.
Ah, I see what you’re saying. Ok. Fair enough: I am perhaps guity of over-weighing the lipservice paid to the anti-globalization wing of the party.
On policy, the Dems are clearly pro-globalization, pro-loose immigration, which is pretty coherent. It runs smack into their desire to champion the middle class, though. Which is probably where I was getting “incoherent!” from as I was thinking about it.
I know. I mean, why isn’t that charming token enough?
@superdestroyer: “The idea that the Republicans can ever appeal to Hispanic is laughable.”/strong>
Not as laughable as proposing in 1945 that blacks would one day vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic party. It is true that the GOP can’t appeal to Latinos without dealing with the issues of particular concern to Latino-Americans, but that’s true or every voting block, including angry white males.
It is hard to believe just 8 years ago, GWB got 44% of Latino voters…………
Ever been to Dallas? It is chock full of them coastal elites!
@Rob in CT:
Under one narrative, it’s a conflict.
But, it’s not necessarily so. If one views cross-border mobility of goods and labor as interwoven, the theory is that the US creates wealth via exports and via production of premium goods and services, leveraging superior R&D, infrastructure, education, innovation, etc.
We have to compete with the European Union as well as China and India.
The iPads are made in China, but that’s not where the wealth they generate goes.
The anti-immigration side does not own the Republican Party. There are a large number of open border cheap labor Republicans who fail to realize the long term impacts. Cheap labor means fewer Republicans but people like Jeb Bush seem incapable of understanding that.
I doubt if all of the people living in Allen or Plano really like the idea of living in the far suburban because of open borders and unlimited immigration. The same goes for the Republcians living in Sugarland outside of Houston of Smithson Valley outside of San Antonio.
The majority of Blacks were voting for Democrats in 1945. Blacks have been very loyal Democratic Party voters since FDR was in office.
@superdestroyer: “Cheap labor means fewer Republicans”
So, what is the genetic market that connects “being cheap labor” with “voting Democrat”?
Off topic, but if Latino’s come out in the numbers that this poll suggest. Then Obama is winning in a landslide. FL, CO, VA are all gone for Romney if this is true, the only state he may hold is NC. On top of that, Romney isn’t getting enough white support to offset that.(Obama in recent polls is around 37-40% and Mitt needs 61%+)
@superdestroyer: “The majority of Blacks were voting for Democrats in 1945.”
According to FactCheck.org.
“It wasn’t until Harry Truman garnered 77 percent of the black vote in 1948 that a majority of blacks reported that they thought of themselves as Democrats. Earlier that year Truman had issued an order desegregating the armed services and an executive order setting up regulations against racial bias in federal employment.
Even after that, Republican nominees continued to get a large slice of the black vote for several elections. Dwight D. Eisenhower got 39 percent in 1956, and Richard Nixon got 32 percent in his narrow loss to John F. Kennedy in 1960.”
Man, if only those Southern Democrats had known that blacks were just itchin’ to vote for them!
While Democrat leaders support free trade, it is us center and left who continue to tie it to wage stagnation.
@MBunge: Poor people vote for the party that promises to tax others and give them more benefits. As the cheap labor Republicans have pursued the goal of more poor people and fewer middle class people, those same Republicans have pursued their own extinction.
That is why the U.S. will soon be a one party state. Without a middle class, the U.S. will only need one political party. See how Mexico function with one relevant political party for 70 years.
@superdestroyer: “Poor people vote for the party that promises to tax others and give them more benefits.”
Even if that were true, then why is Obama’s biggest problem with LOWER INCOME WHITES?
Ah, but El Presidente Bush actually spoke to them…en Espanol. Maybe his time in Texas made him recognize that much of this country can be fairly called “Latin America” without even having to bring up the immigration issue at all.
Which is why “Juan” McCain (as the Freepers called him) had to recant his entire legislative career’s record on immigration in order to get the Republican nomination in 2008.
And why he had to run the “Build the dang fence” ad to save his own Senate seat from a primary challenge from JD “free government money” Hayworth, possibly the greatest buffoon in politics from the past 25 years.
And yet the main reason these people immigrate is to join the middle class, so your theory about the “cheap labor Republicans” contributing to poverty is bunk.
The Republicans are pursuing their own extinction on this issue because they have a bigoted position on a growing demographic.
Cheap labor is not a matter restricted to coastal elites. It´s very difficult to compete with Foreign countries when you have a very expensive labor force. Just closing everything to the rest of the world is not an option. And many professions that requires a college degree can be easily outsourced, specially in this global information economy. Note that I´m writing from Brazil, I never traveled to the United States and my writing makes more sense than the writing of a bunch of people that comments in this blog.
@Herb: The Republicans are pursuing their own extinction because they think they can appeal to poor people when the Democrats have promised to promvide race and ethnic based government goodies to. There is no way that the Republcians can outpander the Democrats in the pursuit of non-voters.
When progressives are promoting that the idea that the Republicans should pander to non-whites, those progressives know that it will make the DEmocratic Party stronger. Open borders makes the Democratic Party stronger. Having a growing percentage of the population poor makes the Democratic Party stronger. Having more children born to poor single mothers makes the Democratic Party stronger. Why should the Republicans do anything that makes the Democratic Party and thus the government bigger, stronger, and more invasive?
Not only that. As a Texan Bush had Mexican maids, he *understood* Hispanics.
So why don’t they get their elected Republican officials to do something about it?
Too bad R. Crumb’s not working anymore (as far as I know), he could do a panel on When the Spιcs Take Over America along these lines and these lines and supply Supe with masturbation material for years.
Even if that were true, then why is Obama’s biggest problem with LOWER INCOME WHITES?
Because like superdestroyer, many of them blame brown people for all of their problems.
More or less. Democratic Senators like Byron Doorgan and Robert Byrd were fundamental in this filibustering. But the Republicans were so happy that the Legislation failed that they took all the blame.
Sometimes I wonder why you use English phrases when you speak your own language.
Things do not work the way you apparently think they do, so your fears about a poor population and single mothers are pointless. You should be very worried about a stronger Democratic party though. Especially if you insist the Republicans get dumber on this issue.
What BS. Is there anything more invasive than anti-abortion laws? Or Anti-gay rights laws? Or voter suppression efforts? Republicans talk a lot…never, ever, back it up.
@superdestroyer: “The Republicans are pursuing their own extinction because they think they can appeal to poor people when the Democrats have promised to promvide race and ethnic based government goodies to.”
The suggestion that either the GOP or Dems are falling all over themselves to appeal to poor people is laugh-out-loud funny.
If Republicans would just stop being aggressively racist, they could probably get 20 to 30% of the black vote and 30 to 40% of the Latino vote.
Because he’s black.
There is a deep cultural issue regarding that. In 2007, when Elvira Arellano was deported to Mexico while his son, an American citizen, remained in Chicago, I saw newspapers in Argentina talking about the episode. For Hispanics the idea of the “mother” is sacred, you don´t separate a child from his mother. That´s one of the reasons that “deportation” is such a bad word for Hispanics, even among Hispanics that defends immigration restrictions. There is a lack of sensibility among Republican about that.
As stated above the 44% is wrong, the real number is 40% for 2004.
Dude, you can throw 4% in the street and not miss it.
@superdestroyer: If the GOP falls another party will take its place. Nature abhors a vacuum. Why not treat the possible demise of the GOP outside of the deep south as an opportunity for creative destruction? The successor would be national and free of all of the Republican’s post-LBJ slogans and racial baggage.
FDR received over 70% of the black vote in 1936. A 40 point loss in 1936 shows that the Republicans have not had the black vote for over 70 years. Most blacks today have probably never for a single Republican candidate in any election. The Republicans have dealt with black voters by putting as many as possible into majority black districts and then ignoring the districts. However, as the number of white voters goes down, the redistricting and other limiting the impact tricks have stopped working.
Because too many elected Republicans are cheap labor, open borders Republicans. That is why the middle class white voters who want families have evacuated from most cities. Being a liberal while living in an urban core is a luxury good that the middle class cannot afford.
Progressives would love the Republican Party to support open borders and unlimited immigration. Such policy moves as amnesty, open borders, free movement of people will make the Democratic Party much stronger and will cause the complete collapse of the Republican Party occur faster.
The only question for the Democratic Party is how is plans on financing a much higher level of entitlements (or safety net as progressives like to call it) while maintaining open borders and unlimited immigration. With white middle class tax payer shrinking as a portion of the population, how are liberals going to fund the coming entitlement state?
Speech laws, forced busing, hate crime legislation, banning food, etc. Progressives want a large nanny state to control others. Progressives want to be the order givers in the coming entitlement state. Also, progressives want the government to be the backstop for every bad decision people make in the future.
The only two items that progressives seem to be civil libertarians on are sex and drugs.
Yes, the Republicans have only themselves to blame.
But the Democrats also have to show some backbone. Promises were made and not kept in the first term. If Obama gets a second term and nothing gets done with immigration, I only see lower turnout for Latinos in general. If they can get some immigration policies, however, it’s possible that Latinos become as Democratic as African-Americans are. If that happens, you can forget the Southwest and Texas. Good luck winning the Presidency then, GOP.
David Axelrod has pushed the idea that the Democrats can survive by taxing the crap out of the top 5% or more while transferring more money to the bottom 90%.
No conservative party can survive in a country where most people do not pay income taxes. No conservative party can survive in a country where most children are born to single mothers. No conservative party can survive in a country where more than 50% of the population qualifies for affirmative action. The only question is what will happen as the U.S. becomes a one party state.
The Democrats can count on the majority votes for all non-whites no matter their performance. Look at places like the District of Columbia where the Democratic Party is incompetent and corrupt. Where the taxes are high but where 90% of the voters will vote for the Democratic Party. That is what the U.S. has to look forward to in the future.
What about rock ‘n roll?
Ian Dury – Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll
Maybe rock and roll but not speech, association, food, what you drive, or even where you can live.
Eventually, as the U.S. becomes a one party state, the Democrats will not be able to resist regulating sex and drugs since the government will be paying all of the bills for the health issues involved.
I have to take some issue with those who would align globalization and immigration, at least in real world terms. There’s a difference between regulating the flow of capital, and putting automated gun towers on the border.
Polls over at 538 show the popular vote may be split 50% to 49%. I guess you think that means we’re halfway there….
Of course, FICA is levied on income (and is a flat tax). That isn’t convenient for the narrative, so it doesn’t count I guess.
But anyway, the % of households with no or negative income tax responsibility is indeed worrisome. It means roughly half the country has, in any given year, an income of roughly bupkiss. Some of that is actually non-problematic (students, retirees, folks who just had 1 down year, folks who earn nothing but capital gains…). But the chunk of people in that number who work and just don’t earn much money, or who are long-term unemployed: yeah, that’s a problem. Duh. It’s a reflection of the strugges of the US middle class.
The twin pressures of globalization and automation have taken their toll. It’s been going on since roughly 1970 (as much as I’d like to blame it all on the “Reagan revolution” that simply accelerated things. The process had already begun a decade earlier, from what I can tell from some internet research).
One irony I see is that the gold bug “OMG the dollar loses value! Candy used to be a nickel!” crowd is mostly on the Right. Yet a weaker dollar would help US products and hamper imports. US employees would be relatively cheaper. If anything the dollar is too strong.
Immigrants aren’t the problem. A massive, multi-decade trade deficit is.
The Republican Party is irrelevant in California today. As the demographics of the U.S. of tomorrow become more like the demographics of California today, then politics will go the same way. The election is tight because turnout in states like California will be low. However, as the U.S. become majority non-whites, no conservative party will survive.
@Rob in CT:
But how can the U.S. complete in the global market. If we raise taxes to subsidize business for exports, then everyone’s standard of living goes down. If we start trade wars with high tarriffs then some business are winners but some like Boeing and Caterpillar will be losers.
Also, if imports become more expensive, then the cost of living in the U.S. goes up and fewer people can afford the nice neighborhoods and nice schools.
And yes, if uncontrolled, unlimited immigration leads to longer commutes, higher housing prices, private school tuition, higher insurance premiums, and higher taxes, it does take a toll.
Well, then, I guess we’re just plain screwed. You sure don’t have any answers.
One more word about the impact of a weaker dollar: sure, cost of living will rise, as imported goods will be more expensive (as will traveling internationally). This should also result in more consumption of domestically-produced goods/services and so at least some of the impact would be mitigated by US firms doing better, and thus being better able to pay more workers or pay those they have better (who will, in turn, pay taxes, purchase goods, etc). It should also avoid the trade war problem overt protectionism has.
As for the list of things you lay at the feet of immigration: oh please. You were just recently lamenting a decline in white people reproducing. If you shut down immigration and crank out the white babies, you’ll have the same lengthening of commutes, increases in housing costs, increases in tuition… not sure how you’re even getting to higher insurance premiums (mostly that’s about putting aside for CAT losses). Higher taxes as compared to what? Now, when income taxes are at a post-WWII low or thereabouts, particularly at the top of the ladder? Come on.
@Rob in CT: I believe we’ve actually been engaging in a
“weak dollar” policy since the latter part of the Bush administration. For several years we’ve essentially had parity with the Canadian dollar and 1 euro has held around 1.25 US dollars (there have been some fluctuations, but not very far). Not to mention what’s happened to the price of gasoline.
Having traveled to Germany just a couple months ago, I can assure you it is, in fact, very expensive. Fortunately we had relatives to stay with, I can’t imagine having had to fork over for lodging while we were there. Plane tickets were expensive too.
On the other hand, my in-laws tend to do cash transfers to us for Christmas presents, and the conversion from euros to dollars is pretty nice…
Yes, I know. It’s hard to know if it’s working as I hope, since so many other economies remain weak (and we keep looking like the tallest midget). Or it could be that I’m just wrong and that a weaker dollar isn’t enough (or the downside equals or outweights the upside). That’s entirely possible.
In theory, if the dollar weakened vs the Euro, we would see more US exports to the Eurozone. Hard to imagine that kicking in now, though, because the Eurozone’s economy makes ours look good (yes, I know, it depends on which countries – some are doing ok and others are totally screwed like Spain).
@Rob in CT: Yeah, Europe is a mixed bag, pretty much “Germany and everyone else.” And there probably isn’t a whole lot we’re going to export to Germany.
Speaking of Germany, if my experience there a couple months back is any indicator, the economy is doing pretty well. Stores were always busy the two weeks we were there, restaurants bustling, outdoor recreation was well-used (although the last might have been because the weather was so nice at that point).
Still, if you look at bea.gov, you see U. S. exports increasing every quarter for the last couple years, although it’s hard for me to tell if that’s due to the “weak dollar” policy or just the natural course of things.
GOP – You Reaped what you sowed!
We had a decisive re-election of our President due, in part, to the majority of Latin America US Citizens voted for him and not the GOP.
I think back to the May Day March or what some called a day without an immigrant and all the hate and disparaging name calling from the GOP Tea Baggers and the far conservative religious right (Did we see the GOP leadership try to stop it?, no, they thought this meant votes for them). I saw children, parents and grand parents together in solidarity, my people the working class, they may not be sophisticated but they got the message heard. In the demonstrations I saw our beloved “Stars and Stripes” flag, the flag from Mexico and some flags from other countries (not many complaints about these flags). I saw the flags being a sign of solidarity as when I see German flags flying during October Fest and Ireland Flags flying during St. Patrick’s Day. From publish reports the demonstrations included both US citizens and those without legal residency. This brought me a smile because I always enjoy seeing brothers helping brothers.
That day and now our election day reminded me of a parable from the good book where a Levite and Priest come upon a man who fell among thieves and they both individually passed by and didn’t stop to help him. Finally a man of another race came by, he got down from his beast, decided not to be compassionate by proxy and got down with the injured man, administered first aid, and helped the man in need. Jesus ended up saying, this was the good man, this was the great man, because he had the capacity to project the “I” into the “thou,” and to be concerned about his brother.
You see, the Levite and the Priest were afraid, they asked themselves, “If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?”
But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: “If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?”
That’s the question before us back on May Day and it continued on to election day. The question is not, “If I stop to help the un -documented workers in need, what will happen to me?” The question is, “If I do not stop to help the un-documented workers, what will happen to him or her?” That’s was always the question.
God bless all my brothers and sister that stood side by side with our brothers and sisters in need on May Day, on Election Day and on all days to come!