As promised, here – from December 28, 2019, while Trump was in the third year of his first term, is a second retrospective blog:
ARE DEMOCRATS LOSING (SOME OF) THE LATINO VOTE?
Sean Sullivan’s article in the Washington Post asks the above question. And it is a very, very good one.
Until now, Democrats have pretty much ignored Latino voters, presumably on the grounds that they already “own” most of them, so why bother much with this population segment. A little reinforcement that the party is on board with open borders/illegal immigration, a couple of well-placed Latino appointments, that should do the trick.
But if this is where they are, does it make sense? Is it, instead, a huge miscalculation?
These three paragraphs from Mr. Sullivan’s article both outline the problem Democrats are self-creating, and demonstrate that Sullivan himself has a problem with the dynamics of Latino voting. Please pay special attention to the segment I put in bold print:
Hispanics are increasingly influential in the Democratic Party and in general election contests, but leaders and activists say they feel ignored and misunderstood by candidates who have spent much of their time focusing on Iowa and New Hampshire, predominantly white states at the top of the nominating calendar. They are bluntly calling on party leaders to reconsider the voting order of the states in four years.
Last week’s Democratic presidential debate in California, an important primary state where the population is nearly 40 percent Latino, put an exclamation point on their outrage. Many had hoped it would showcase the rising influence of Hispanics. Instead, the only Hispanic in the race, former housing and urban development secretary Julián Castro, failed to qualify to be on the debate stage, and the participating candidates devoted little time to highlighting how their ideas would affect Latino communities.
Many fear that Democrats are also squandering a unique opportunity to boost Hispanic voter turnout in the general election. Shifting demographics and a backlash against President Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies have given Democrats an opening in diversifying battleground states from Arizona to Pennsylvania. But Latino officials fear that a primary contest that often feels far removed from Hispanic communities could blunt excitement for the November election.
First off, the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire – both with minimal Latino and Black populations – is a function of when those states decide to have their primaries. Other states can do the same, and hold them even earlier.
If Latinos feel more diversified, ethnically/ancestrally represented states should be in the front of the line, that’s what they should be petitioning for; that’s what they should be demanding Democrats petition for.
Next, we have the lack of any Latino presidential candidate in the California debate.
The same rules for inclusion or exclusion applied to every candidate, including Julián Castro. No one stacked the deck against him. If he wasn’t on that debate stage, it was because Democrat voters and donors didn’t see enough in him to make the cut. That’s not the fault of the party, that’s how Democrat voters see Mr. Castro.
And now we come to the claim that “Shifting demographics and a backlash against President Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies have given Democrats an opening in diversifying battleground states from Arizona to Pennsylvania”.
With all due respect to Sean Sullivan, and Democrats who see things the way he does, I think this may be a misread – a potentially disastrous misread – of Latino voters.
Right now, political polls show President Trump with in the neighborhood of 30% Latino support. Several polls over the past months have shown Trump with even higher levels. And, as we saw in 2016, polls tend to understate Trump’s popularity with voters (little wonder, given the fact that, to openly state support Trump, is to go up against over 90% negative media coverage).
So how does Trump solidify his position with Latinos and boom support up even further?
I have talked numbers of times about the message President Trump can bring to Latino populations, including just a few days ago. But, for the purposes of explaining myself here, I’ll repost once more:
If I were a Republican operative, this would be my message:
-Democrats support open borders with Mexico, which would mean a great many central and south American illegals will come into the country.
-As President Trump has pointed out, they will include members of drug cartels and organized gangs.
-Whose neighborhoods do you think those drug cartels and gangs will be operating from? What do you think that will do to those neighborhoods?
-Whose children do you think they will be recruiting to join them?
-And what do you think they will do to parents who tell them to get lost?
Do you think that might resonate? Do you think it might build support in the Latino community?
I know I do.
Let’s think about this.
If Democrats offer Latino voters open borders, thus unlimited entry – complete with lots of free goodies – to every Latino who shows up at the Mexican border…
…and Republicans offer selective immigration with vetting that would protect their neighborhoods and their children from the conditions – corruption, drugs, violence – in the places so many of them came here to escape…
…is there any doubt that the Republican message will resonate with at least some Latino voters?
And how many Latino voters would it have to resonate with to turn the tide in close states with large Latino populations?
In Latino voters, Democrats have a tiger by the tail. Depending on how they address Latinos politically, Democrats have the potential to lock up a strong majority of the growing, ever more important Latino vote, or to bungle things and give Republicans a huge boost in that community instead.
Make no mistake: this can go either way.
If I could see this five years ago (and, as you are aware, this was NOT my first blog on the subject nor was it anywhere near my last), how could Democrats have been so blind to it in 2024?
Do you think that, maybe, either the current Democrat “leaders” or the ones they select after dumping these “leaders” (and boy do they ever need dumping) will finally catch on?
Your guess is as good as mine.
