June 10, 2007

Would a tough stand on illegal immigration be deadly in Florida in the 2008 Presidential election?

Mickey Kaus, who has been indispensable over the last few weeks, writes:


"Immigrant Bill Hurts Martinez at Poll": Senate GOP Grand Bargaineer Mel Martinez's approval ratings have "plunged" from 48 to 37 percent approval in his state, Florida--an all-time low for him, reports the Orlando Sentinel. ... P.S.: Isn't Florida, with its large Hispanic population, supposed to be one of the more comprehensive-friendly states? [More]


Florida's 27 electoral votes went to the GOP by five points in 2004, but, of course, 2000 was rather close. (Most of the bigger states that were close in 2004 were either old-fashioned black and white industrial states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.) But I doubt that amnesty for largely Mexican illegal immigrants would be a strong vote-getter in Florida.

While Florida is above average in its percentage of Hispanic voters, it's actually below the national average in its share of Hispanics of immigrant nationalities.

According to the Census Bureau's 2004 survey of 50,000 households right after the election, Hispanics cast only 11.2% of the vote in that state. Further, Florida's Hispanic electorate is led by Cubans and, increasingly, Puerto Ricans, neither of whom have a direct interest in immigration policy. New arrivals from Cuba are treated by current law as refugees, not immigrants, and Puerto Ricans are born U.S. citizens. In 2003, 68% of Hispanic citizens in Florida were Cuban or Puerto Rican, and probably at least 75% of Hispanic voters. Only 7% of Florida Hispanic citizens are Mexican.

In a Florida newspaper poll of 600 likely voters, Hispanics were just as hostile toward immigration as the general populace.


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Unlike The Southwestern states, Florida has wealthier, whiter Hispanics from South America, such as Argentines, Venezuelans and Colombians, who have little politically in common with darker skinned Central American and Mexican immigrants. Even Mexican Americans tend to segregate among themselves depending on how dark or light their skin is and how wealthy they are.

This would explain why Florida Hispanics in that poll you cite are disinclined to support mass immigration ie, for wealthier Hispanics, current immigration policy is just letting in the riff raff they tried to escape from in their home countries.

Keeping Hispanics divided along economic, ethnic and national lines is a boon to the GOP, and civil discourse in general because internal divisions in the Hispanic community prevent Hispanics from mobilizing effectively as a political bloc like blacks do.

Internal Hispanic divisions help to suppress vote turnout which is excellent news for Republicans. Without a sense of community, it is hard to get groups of people to effectively unite around political issues.

The Bush/Rove strategy of treating Hispanics as a voting bloc like Blacks or suburban whites will absolutely backfire because if Latinos start thinking as a bloc they will turn out in mass for the Democrats.

The best long term GOP strategy is to cut off low skill Hispanic immigration now and make sure the economy is in generally good shape so poorer Hispanics don’t have much to complain about politically and don’t turn up at the polls.

Old Right

Mark said...

The deliberate obfuscation - comparing conservative Cubans in Florida to leftist Mexicans in California; suggesting that Hispanics are "natural" conservatives when 20 out of 23 Hispanic congressworms are left-wing Democrats - indicates to me that Bush, Rove, & Co. aren't being delusional; they're flat-out lying. Their aim is nothing more than the destruction of any sort of conservative party in the United States.

Just yesterday in his "weakly" radio address, Bush suggested that immigration is about "family values." Does anyone in their right mind think that Bush even gives a flying #$%^ about family values? How often does he even mention it? When's the last time he did anything about it? The "family values" schtick is about nothing more than getting social conservatives - for whome he has done nothingto impulsively back his neofeudalist agenda, and nothing more.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan won re-election with 525 votes, winning every state but Mondale's native Minnesota (which he didn't bother to contest - he came within 3800 votes of winning that state.) George W's father won 426 electoral votes and 40 states (including Californa) in his 1988 election.

Immigration has so harmed conservative chances that its impossible to imagine any Republican winning by those margins today. More and more, it's impossible to imagine them winning at all.

Mr. Spog said...

I know very little about conditions in Florida specifically, but more generally it occurs to me that just because citizens from ethnic group x are opposed to further immigration by x (as seems to be the case in Florida) does not mean that they will support politicians who are also opposed to it. Group x might perceive those politicians as hostile to itself on ethnic grounds, rather than merely to further immigration. This belief is also likely to be encouraged as much as possible by the MSM. So one might have the paradox of the election of pro-immigration representatives by an anti-immigration electorate. To avoid it, candidates would have to successfully convey that they were anti-immigration but non-"racist." Probably only candidates drawn from group x itself could do this.
-- Mr. Spog (Canada)

karen said...

in reply to above statement...

that's why the Republican's only hope is probably (Rudy)... he's moderate, and believes in abortion..

also popular.. he may stand a chance against the likes of Hillary, and Obama...

He may get the independent vote, along with the conservative vote, though most are horrified on his stance on abortion.

karen said...

in reply to above statement...

that's why the Republican's only hope is probably (Rudy)... he's moderate, and believes in abortion..

also popular.. he may stand a chance against the likes of Hillary, and Obama...

He may get the independent vote, along with the conservative vote, though most are horrified on his stance on abortion.

william morris said...

Senator Martinez ,I believe, is incorrectly identified as a Cuban in your column. He claims to be descended from the original Spanish settlers of Florida.gp

Anonymous said...

George W's father won 426 electoral votes and 40 states (including Californa) in his 1988 election.

Yes, and by 1992, CA, the late great golden state, was lost. Due in large part to the hispanic influx. A sixth grader could've told you that. But not Rush Limbaugh!

And what was the reaction from the GOP? Was it to cashier every empty suit in the state machinery who presided over the debacle, and then make sure mass immigration didn't cause the same catastrophic shift in other states?

Hell no. All anti-immigration sentiment within the party was ruthlessly suppressed. All the big names in the conservative intellectual movement were bought off. Buchanan and George Will basically represented conservatism on television at the time. Limbaugh, the radio. And it was National Review in print. Remember, this was before the internet and the rise of FOXnews.

Limbaugh and George Will took the money and said absolutely nothing. Buchanan sounded the alarm and was regularly derided as a kook by beltway insiders, but remained popular with the people as a commentator. Go figure.

Meantime National Review viciously purged the anti-immigration intellectuals. Also, the Sierra Club was bought, paid for and completely silenced by a single billionaire. What a coincidence!

With Limbaugh, Buchanan, National Review and Sierra Club on board, immigration likely would've been controlled a long time ago. But it didn't happen. And it didn't happen not because of various coincidences, and the luck of the draw.

No. Immigration was never controlled because the America Haters targeted the choke points of resistance and neutralized those points with bribes, blackmail, threats, character assassination and purges.

And past is prologue if we don't wake the hell up, close ranks and start kicking ass.

Mark said...

To avoid it, candidates would have to successfully convey that they were anti-immigration but non-"racist." Probably only candidates drawn from group x itself could do this.

I guess it would also depend on how many people from groups y, z, etc. were tired of immigration from people of group x, too.

In a state with not much immigration at all, many people would be indifferent to the issue. In a place like Florida, however, there are lots of people willing to cast their votes on the issue - probably more than enough to offset any loss of hispanic voters.

Mark said...

that's why the Republican's only hope is probably (Rudy)... he's moderate, and believes in abortion..also popular.. he may stand a chance against the likes of Hillary, and Obama...

The truth is, even obscure second-tier Republicans do well against Obama and CLinton - they ain't all that popular with the public.

My own observation is that, this go-round, there are 2 traits that matter alot to GOP voters: competence and fidelity.

First, conservatives want a leader who has demonstrated competence. To ask why, just look at the guy in charge now. There are only two guys in the field who have demonstrated that: Romney and Giuliani. Romney proved himself at Bain, the Olympics, and in Massachusetts; Giuliani at Justice and at Gracie Manor.

Many of the others - McCain, Brownback, Paul, Hunter, Tancredo, etc. - have mostly just been doing time. There is no way to determine the competence of a career pol, even though I basically like the last 2.

The other is fidelity. People want a candidate who they can trust is conservative. To ask why, look at the current occupant again. Romney doesn't do well on trust. Giuliani has his worries to - though when he says something, people believe it.

daveg said...

The other is fidelity. People want a candidate who they can trust is conservative. To ask why, look at the current occupant again. Romney doesn't do well on trust. Giuliani has his worries to - though when he says something, people believe it.

Giulani is NOT conservative in any sense of the word. He is Bush super-lite. The only "conservative" position held by Giuliliani is the Iraq war, and that is not even conservative, but neocon.

I "trust" Giulani to be not conservative, just like I trust Hillary to do the same.

Mark said...

Giulani is NOT conservative in any sense of the word. He is Bush super-lite. - daveg

Would Bush super-lite be a good thing or a bad thing?

I think people trust Giuliani on what he says. No, he's not superconservative. No, he's not against abortion. Yes, he's basically open borders. He is basically a law & order type (sans amnesty, of course).

Whether or not people trust his conservative convictions and whether they should trust those convictions are two entirely different questions.

I certainly don't support him.

daveg said...

Whether or not people trust his conservative convictions and whether they should trust those convictions are two entirely different questions.

They may trust that Guiliani has convictions, but I don't think the think those convictions are conservative.

Convictions != conservative.

If we still have more that 50% of our current troop level in 08 the Republicans will be destroyed in the next election. Look what happened in 06 and the war was still somewhat popular then.

It will be a massacre regardless as to who is running for either party. It will be at least a decade for the R's to recover.

However, everyone sees this and the R's will almost certainly lower the troop levels.

The question is, will it be enough to "fool" the average voter so that he will re-up for more of the same abuse.

Mark said...

It will be a massacre regardless as to who is running for either party. It will be at least a decade for the R's to recover.

The GOP has bounced back before. So long as there remains a large, viable conservative base in this country, the GOP will keep coming back to God (I mean that in a good and secular sense) after each disaster. They did so in 1994, after having been trounced in '92, and they did so (I believe) in '76, after the Watergate retaliation of '74.

It's a matter of finding good leaders (ala Gingrich) who are able to control the worst, pro-business fanatics of the traditional Republican arse-istocracy.

Mark said...

Convictions != conservative.

I was referring to his alleged newfound convictions on immigration. They aren't entirely conservative, but they are moreso than his old warmed-over Emma Lazarus crap.

(You know how in all those aliens/meteor movies it's always the big landmarks that get destroyed? Well, if it actually happened to dear old Lady Liberty I'm not sure that I'd mind much, given what the neocons and leftists have done with her. By any chance is NYC in an earthquake zone?)