Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
TriMT7, how do you see Hispanic or Latino/a votes going. All the folks I know, with the exception of a few Cubans, vote or talk Democratic. In NYC, with a very diversified population, I'd reckon as many as 85% vote straight party line.
And as for labels, well, I do have them in some clothes, like a new vest, or jacket, but generally I avoid them
Cubans are traditionally reliably Republican... Clinton pissed them off with Elian Gonzales.... but who knows if they've gotten over that yet.
I think the consensus is that "Latinos" (and/or Hispanics.... whatever that means) are going to vote Democratic this election. I think a major reason is immigration.... Hispanics are less apt to be annoyed by "Latinization" of America or culture accommodation (imagine that!)... but the problem is, independents ARE.
Another reason is that "Hispanics" don't have traditional conservative motivations this election. Last election, traditional culture war type stuff motivated many "Hispanics" to vote Republican - gays, abortion, etc. My step-grandmother is Colombian. She is very conservative, church every day... she used to be a Democrat, but has voted Republican for "abortion" reasons. (She also stopped watching Rosie O'Donnel after finding out she was a lesbian).
It's a problem to pigeon hole "Hispanics" - they are NOT "all the same," and don't share a common experience in this country that makes them a reliable voting bloc.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I don't think any of us should be pigeon-holed.
It will be a very interesting year watching the primaries, and the election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
Cubans are traditionally reliably Republican... Clinton pissed them off with Elian Gonzales.... but who knows if they've gotten over that yet.
I think the consensus is that "Latinos" (and/or Hispanics.... whatever that means) are going to vote Democratic this election. I think a major reason is immigration.... Hispanics are less apt to be annoyed by "Latinization" of America or culture accommodation (imagine that!)... but the problem is, independents ARE.
Another reason is that "Hispanics" don't have traditional conservative motivations this election. Last election, traditional culture war type stuff motivated many "Hispanics" to vote Republican - gays, abortion, etc. My step-grandmother is Colombian. She is very conservative, church every day... she used to be a Democrat, but has voted Republican for "abortion" reasons. (She also stopped watching Rosie O'Donnel after finding out she was a lesbian).
It's a problem to pigeon hole "Hispanics" - they are NOT "all the same," and don't share a common experience in this country that makes them a reliable voting bloc.
Actually... according to political surveys - the majority of all legal Hispanic voters are trending Democratic again. Does not matter if they come from a nationality representing "large illegal populations" or not.
A recent article I read cautions that "Hispanics" are twice as likely, however, to identify as independents that don't lean towards EITHER party than non-"Hispanics."
Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4
People have basic pride, and many Puerto Ricans, Cubans and others are finding they are being treated as if they are second class citizens due solely to their race or because they speak Spanish. They don't like it.
I really have no sympathy. You can't demand accommodation, and then expect that there WON'T be a backlash from the rest of the country that doesn't speak Spanish. I hate to say it, but they've brought it on themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4
Because of this, the Iraq War, and the fact the Republican party continues to pander to its traditional voting bloc to the exclusion of Hispanics in general, the gains Bush made in the last election are all being lost. The Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot in the long term.
I think most Hispanics do not confuse a comprehensive immigration solution with a "pro-illegal" position.
How would you suggest Republicans "pander" to Hispanics better? Support bi-lingual education? Suggest amnesty AGAIN?
It's a problem to pigeon hole "Hispanics" - they are NOT "all the same," and don't share a common experience in this country that makes them a reliable voting bloc.
100% correct.
Still, one cannot deny that certain communities trend in certain directions. While there are always exceptions (sometimes large blocs of exceptions) the overall trends are pretty consistent.
Like Tri said, Hispanics are unique in that their "experience" is far more varied on a person-to-person basis than, say, blacks.
Different culture, different social perceptions (both internal and external). The fact that there are native Spanish speaking "Hispanics" who are blonde-haired and blue eyed- far "whiter" than my Italian grandmother- yet they still technically qualify as a "minority" is a classic example of how unique the issue of Hispanics in America really is and how difficult it is to gauge them as a minority group.
Whatever party can unlock the commonality amongst them and then harp on it for their own gain will be the winner in the long run. It seems that immigration is a good starting point.
Interesting piece of information. I'll look into it further, and explore some additional resources. I have serious doubts about a strong corollary between this piece, those mentioned and the Leon Trotsky I remember.
And thanks for sharing this.
I would also suggest reading up on Leo Strauss from the University of Chicago as well. Strauss's early thoughts/work are said to have been based heavily in Plato's assertion that democracy would collapse from too much democracy, as the citizenry was not equipped to make the best decisions about choosing their rulers and would merely repeat what the leaders would tell them. This notion of an intellectual elite as the ruling body being the best foundation for governing is quite evident in much of his work. His views that are derived from Trotsky as you mentioned are not exactly as Trotsky saw then but as Leo Strauss thought Trotsky would see them.
Many of his ideas were carried forth through one of his students, Paul Wolfowitz and I believe Richard Perle if I remember correctly but don't quote on me on that.
Wasn't Strauss the subject of a series of videos you posted not too long ago. I watched several of them but they didn't have a complete series.
I loved Plato! I'm not sure I like any of these newer guys. I actually cringe when I see Bill Kristol, and Paul "Money" Wolfowitz.
So much is in the interpretation, and of course I always have my own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
I would also suggest reading up on Leo Strauss from the University of Chicago as well. Strauss's early thoughts/work are said to have been based heavily in Plato's assertion that democracy would collapse from too much democracy, as the citizenry was not equipped to make the best decisions about choosing their rulers and would merely repeat what the leaders would tell them. This notion of an intellectual elite as the ruling body being the best foundation for governing is quite evident in much of his work. His views that are derived from Trotsky as you mentioned are not exactly as Trotsky saw then but as Leo Strauss thought Trotsky would see them.
Many of his ideas were carried forth through one of his students, Paul Wolfowitz and I believe Richard Perle if I remember correctly but don't quote on me on that.
Wasn't Strauss the subject of a series of videos you posted not too long ago. I watched several of them but they didn't have a complete series.
I loved Plato! I'm not sure I like any of these newer guys. I actually cringe when I see Bill Kristol, and Paul "Money" Wolfowitz.
So much is in the interpretation, and of course I always have my own.
Yes indeed, and the first program of the three program series delved into a lot of the early history and philosophies that drove them. Like the man or not, Leo Strauss was a damn sharp fella and there are aspects of his views in which I am in agreement with. However, I have have said, it is more their methodology in most cases where I depart from the neoconservatives.
I don't much believe in the whole destined, divine right notion of global hegemony. I figure if you devise a better method of governing or implementing policy then it would stand on its own merits and would not require the might makes right to justify it.
There's the key for me, Topper, now all I need is the lock!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
I figure if you devise a better method of governing or implementing policy then it would stand on its own merits and would not require the might makes right to justify it.
A recent article I read cautions that "Hispanics" are twice as likely, however, to identify as independents that don't lean towards EITHER party than non-"Hispanics."
I really have no sympathy. You can't demand accommodation, and then expect that there WON'T be a backlash from the rest of the country that doesn't speak Spanish. I hate to say it, but they've brought it on themselves.
How would you suggest Republicans "pander" to Hispanics better? Support bi-lingual education? Suggest amnesty AGAIN?
Very true about Hispanics being swing votes. I read some recent material that in general they are mostly concerned about the same issues mainstream America is - education, economy, health care...not so much just the same old ad nauseum message about terrorism you get from the Republican side. They as a group are strongly opposed to Iraq. And they are looking for the racist rhetoric to drop from the immigration debate, and scale it back to a comprehensive solution that tightens borders, while realistically dealing with the millions here already. If you want to call paying thousands of dollars to become legitimate members of society "amnesty" that is fine. I think most people realize we will not in reality be sending storm troopers across the country to deport the millions here already.
A recent study -
Some 57% of Hispanic registered voters now call themselves Democrats or say they lean to the Democratic Party, while just 23% align with the Republican Party -- meaning there is now a 34-percentage-point gap in partisan affiliation among Latinos. In July 2006, the same gap measured just 21 percentage points -- whereas back in 1999, it had been 33 percentage points.
This U-turn in Hispanic partisan allegiance trends comes at a time when the issue of illegal immigration has become an intense focus of national attention and debate -- on the presidential campaign trail; in the corridors of federal, state and local governments; and on cable television and talk radio.
The new survey finds that a plurality of Hispanics view the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party as the one that shows more concern for Latinos and does a better job on the issue of illegal immigration (although a substantial minority of Latinos see no difference between the parties on these matters). Also, many more Latinos say the policies of the Bush Administration have been harmful to Latinos than say they have been helpful.
They as a group are strongly opposed to Iraq. And they are looking for the racist rhetoric to drop from the immigration debate, and scale it back to a comprehensive solution that tightens borders,
I'm sorry, but the "racist" rhetoric is inevitable when the most vocal proponents of illegal immigration are La Raza, MeCHA, etc. That and the whole, "accommodate me" attitude that DOES pervade Latin culture in the United States. Let's be real here.
Because regardless, even registered DEMOCRATS disagree with and are frustrated with the illegal immigration situation. The Democratic leaders, however, skilled in the art of apologizing and "not hurting anyone's feelings" WON'T take a hardline, even if the majority of democrats wouldn't care if they did, or actually support the hardline.
Republicans are less pretensious and coy with their feelings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4
while realistically dealing with the millions here already. If you want to call paying thousands of dollars to become legitimate members of society "amnesty" that is fine.
It's a futile proposition. "Illegals" are only attractive as workers because they are illegal. To give any sort of "shortcut to stay" or "shortcut to legalization" would simply mean that new illegals will be imported to replace the now less-attractive legal immigrants.
Besides, it's patently unfair to those waiting in line all around the world, who DON'T have the benefit of geography on their side.
Have we learned anything? Wasn't the 1980s supposed to be "the last time"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4
I think most people realize we will not in reality be sending storm troopers across the country to deport the millions here already.
Which is why I think employers need to be hit hard, so that illegal immigrants will "self deport" when the work dries up... OR (the horror!) employers have to comply with H-2? procedures!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4
Some 57% of Hispanic registered voters now call themselves Democrats or say they lean to the Democratic Party, while just 23% align with the Republican Party -- meaning there is now a 34-percentage-point gap in partisan affiliation among Latinos. In July 2006, the same gap measured just 21 percentage points -- whereas back in 1999, it had been 33 percentage points.
This U-turn in Hispanic partisan allegiance trends comes at a time when the issue of illegal immigration has become an intense focus of national attention and debate -- on the presidential campaign trail; in the corridors of federal, state and local governments; and on cable television and talk radio.
The new survey finds that a plurality of Hispanics view the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party as the one that shows more concern for Latinos and does a better job on the issue of illegal immigration (although a substantial minority of Latinos see no difference between the parties on these matters). Also, many more Latinos say the policies of the Bush Administration have been harmful to Latinos than say they have been helpful.
In reality, I dream of a day when "Latinos" stop pretending they're a demographic group because they speak the same language.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.