By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
Recent headlines have trumpeted the fact that Hispanic voters supported Barack Obama by more than a 2-1 margin over John McCain on Election Day. But that support isn't as overwhelming as it first appears.
While Hispanic voters have high expectations for Obama, it's unclear how deep their enthusiasm really is.
Fact No 1: Obama received 67 percent of the Hispanic vote to 30 percent for McCain.
Fact No. 2: George Bush received 44 percent of the vote in 2004, far better than McCain did.
At first glance, McCain obviously did worse than Bush, in large part because Bush disappointed Hispanic voters with his four years of bungling in the White House since 2004, especially on immigration reform.
Hispanic voters say as much in polls, giving the president extremely low favorable ratings.
But here's Fact No. 3:
CNN Polling Director Keating Holland pointed out Democratic candidates have won an average of 64 percent of the Hispanic vote in the 10 presidential elections since 1972.
Bottom line: Obama's 67 percent rate of 2008 isn't that much higher than the average, meaning he barely beat the margin other Democrats had accumulated in recent years.
Obama does have important facts going for him. Hispanic voters were more confident he could handle the nation's major problems, such as dealing with the economy, education and health care costs.
But like all Americans, Hispanics will be waiting to see whether Obama delivers on his many promises.
If he doesn't, expect the GOP presidential candidate in 2012 to get a big boost in going after Hispanic votes.
Delicious
Digg
Back to darbyhunt's Comment...
On election night, I started to wonder along the same lines...did they just not have enough actual numbers at that time for anything other than the white sub-groups they were naming? That seems unlikely to me, but I suppose it's possible.
It would be interesting to get the complete picture, instead of tidbits like the minor increase of one group talked about here. It almost makes me think that there are either truly no actual "surprises" in the numbers regarding racial minority voters vs. white voters as a whole, or that the entire polling schematic is so unexpected they don't trust the results.
MRobert,
Thank you.
This "hack" said no such thing
mrobert3467 - I said no such thing. Bruingirl called me a racist based on nothing I said - other than I didn't agree with her. I said nothing about me being a minority. Where do you people (you people, as in liberal bloggers) get such crap? So someone doesn't buy your liberal crap and you slap a racist label on them. It's like you have nothing intelligent to respond with, so you drag out the label.
Typo....edit
"but they will never again be a ruling majority withOUT the Latino vote."
Great Post Bruingirl83
I find it almost comical when hacks that used to define our political landscape for the past 8 years are left grasping for ideas.
aphawkins and individuals that think like he/she will be in the minority. Not just for the foreseeable future...but they will never again be a ruling majority with the Latino vote.
Excellent,
I was done with you a long time ago.
I'm done with you.
You said a whole bunch of unrelated sh$*, but never answered the question. I had no idea what race your were, didn't care. All I knew was you were a liberal who was full of hate, and made the assumption that I was racist, and must have needed someone to take it out on. Glad to be of service.
Thanks.
Your assumed racist,
aph
Really?
You can't see it?
When it comes to "wrong assumptions," your remark that I must be "from California"--which I do not for a moment consider an insult, by the way--is somehow not one? That I'll just "pull the switch" for Obama again in 2012 regardless of his performance, because obviously anyone who thinks for themselves would have voted for McCain in the first place? That's not one? (I could probably find a "wrong assumption" in every substantive post you've written.)
Right, everyone can tell "what" I am, (when I stated long ago, when it was asked, that I am a minority).
I said before I frankly couldn't care less who you voted for--it doesn't define for me "what" YOU are. People I love and respect voted for McCain & Palin. I think they were wrong, but I don't love or respect them any less.
You've defined yourself. People didn't just vote for Obama, they're "Obamaniacs", "lemmings", "libs", "the blacks", they're "drinking the Kool-Aid." And you "have to wonder" about ME?
That's good to know
It's good to know you aren't a lemming like many of the Obamaniacs. You see, when you call someone a racist because I didn't vote for your guy, and you won't explain why you did that, I have to wonder about you. You did exactly what you accuse me of doing - making wrong assumptions.
By the way, why again do you think I am a racist? You lost me in your previous rantings?
Just Goes To Show, aph
How wrong you are...again. Your "guesses" and your "feelings" are so often off the mark. That's what happens when you leap to conclusions about other people.
Perhaps some facts, common sense, rational reasoning, perspective and a little less narcissism would reduce your error ratio.
But wouldn't affect you Bruingirl....
I get the feeling that there is no amount of broken promises that would make you even think about voting for the "other guy" - not if the guy that made the promises was "the messiah". You'd drink some more Kool Aid and pull the switch for him again.
I'm With You On This, darbyhunt...
If the previous Democrats received 64% of the Hispanic vote, and Obama received 67%, then Obama received a slight increase of the Hispanic vote. Not earth-shattering, either way.
And wouldn't the last two paragraphs just be common sense, applicable regardless of the percentages? I mean, if you disappoint a voting group, more of them are going to vote for the "other guy" next time. You could make that same statement about women voters, or single voters, or voters under 30.
Off the mark on Latinos and the GOP
I think you are really off the mark here. Had he not run a disgusting campaign, McCain may have surpassed Bush's Latino numbers -- assuming too, that he had not done a complete 180 on the immigration issue. So in terms of immigration reform, Bush at least held firm on principle and certainly did no worse than McCain.
Regarding your claim:
"If he doesn't, expect the GOP presidential candidate in 2012 to get a big boost in going after Hispanic votes."
Is this some sort of guess on your part? It is wrong in a very spectacular way.
The GOP has talked about courting Latinos for decades and they have failed miserably. There have been opportunities to make progress and they have shown just how committed they are to this.
I see very few reasons to believe that the GOP will gain Latino support over the next four years. In fact, I see them losing even more of the support they currently maintain.
I don't get it, someone please shed light-
I know people and media like to break down the "racial" numbers to figure percentages on votes, and also democrats vs republican vs every other political stance under the sun-
One thing I really didn't get, and maybe people can shed light on for me is this:
On Msnbc, they had election coverage on their screens broken down into categories like, "white religious" "white democrats" "white people under 30 over 60"- Ie the whole point was, "white this and that" and never did I see over three to four hours time anything that had other standings about black, hispanic, asian voters and how they were tending to vote.
Why the whole focus on the white populus prior to the final tally?
And now, after everything is said and done, all we hear about is black, hispanic, asian etc...
Is the media just trying to navigate away from the whole racial bias, are they trying to give a broader spectrum of other races to show where weaknesses were or are in white votes and stands?
Is the media trying to paint a pretty picture or cover up an uglier one?
Anyone care to comment about this? I would really like to hear what other people think.