Hispanic Romney Voters and 2016

[Potus]

Everyone is predicting this massive drop off in Hispanic support for the Republican, particularly if it's Donald Trump, and that stands the test of conventional wisdom.

But Romney was the toughest nominee on immigration since the Progressive era. He made comments that alienated him from Hispanics at every turn, whether it be self deportation or 47%. He still won the support of 27% of voting Hispanics.

I remember reading about the growth of evangelical faiths among Hispanics and the way that's influencing voting behavior. This all makes me think that these last 27% are just hardcore conservatives and partisan Republicans. They won't budge even if Trump is the nominee.

[Ljube]

Everyone is predicting this massive drop off in Hispanic support for the Republican, particularly if it's Donald Trump, and that stands the test of conventional wisdom.

Not me.

[Thomas D]

Maybe. But what if more Hispanics vote in 2016 then did in 2012? That could make that 27% into 22%.

[RI]

There could be some Hispanic Mormons who voted for Romney who might not like Trump. Not sure how many of those there are.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Maybe. But what if more Hispanics vote in 2016 then did in 2012? That could make that 27% into 22%.

Exactly this. That was why Obama did groundbreaking with African Americans.

[rob in cal]

   Potus, I would disagree with you on the assessment of Romney as the toughest nominee on immigration since the progressive era.  I would argue that all those Presidents who served in the era of low legal immigration, from 1922 or thereabouts to 1965 presided over a far, far more restrictive US immigration law atmosphere, in which legal immigration was only a few hundred thousand a year, and mostly restricted to Europe.  To my knowledge, only Kennedy campaigned against these laws, and his proposed changes where much closer the existing laws than they are to what we have now.

[Classic Conservative]

I hate to say it, but I think Trump will do pretty good with Hispanics as a lot of them that I know want to end illegal immigration.

[Redban]

I agree.

The 27% of Hispanics that Romney received is indeed low, but it's actually close to the usual support that Republicans receive from Hispanics every election.

Romney 27%
McCain 31%
Bush 40%
Bush 35%
Dole 21%
Bush 25%
Bush 30%
Reagan 37%
Reagan 35%

So you see here that Romney's 27% is close to the typical 30 - 35%.

That Romney did normally amongst Hispanics shows that immigration is not the defining issue for Hispanics. Consequently, I agree that Trump's comments about a border wall and deportatons will not hurt him with Hispanics.

[Likely Voter]

In 2012 Team Romney concluded after going from 44% with Bush to only 31% with McCain (who denounced his support for immigration reform) things couldn't get any worse with Latinos and the would hold that vote and participation would hold steady or even decline.  They were wrong, things got worse and more Latinos showed up.  Same story with Asians.     I suspect Trump will drive both higher turnout and lower GOP vote share with both groups.    Combined Latinos and Asians will probably be a bigger block than blacks.   And the way Trump has been they be headed to voting more like blacks.     


It was said back in 2012 that Romney's campaign would be the last to try to win solely by maximising the white vote.   It appears the GOP is going to give it another shot.   

[Ljube]

In 2012 Team Romney concluded after going from 44% with Bush to only 31% with McCain (who denounced his support for immigration reform) things couldn't get any worse with Latinos and the would hold that vote and participation would hold steady or even decline.  They were wrong, things got worse and more Latinos showed up.  Same story with Asians.     I suspect Trump will drive both higher turnout and lower GOP vote share with both groups.    Combined Latinos and Asians will probably be a bigger block than blacks.   And the way Trump has been they be headed to voting more like blacks.     


It was said back in 2012 that Romney's campaign would be the last to try to win solely by maximising the white vote.   It appears the GOP is going to give it another shot.   

But this time a realistic shot tailored for working class whites.

[Adam Griffin]

Maybe. But what if more Hispanics vote in 2016 then did in 2012? That could make that 27% into 22%.

Yeah, this is the correct answer. Unless you count Asian voters (which are still such a relatively small segment of the voting bloc that their numbers are bound to explode from cycle to cycle), Latinos are the fastest growing segment of actual voting bloc and population. Trump will likely cause magical things to happen with regards to Latino turnout; a 2-point increase in their share of the electorate fueled by fear of Trump could be enough to add 2-3 points to the overall Latino Democratic share of the vote (although it might also be a backstop to any shifts away from a non-Obama candidate).

Another way to look at it is this: as the Latino share of the electorate grows, Democrats can afford to lose support among them. Getting 70% of the Latino vote when they comprise 10% of the electorate has the same impact (margin-wise; nominal) as getting 66% of the Latino vote when they comprise 12% of the electorate; 63% at 15% of the electorate, and so forth.

[ProudModerate2]

In 2012 Team Romney concluded after going from 44% with Bush to only 31% with McCain (who denounced his support for immigration reform) things couldn't get any worse with Latinos and the would hold that vote and participation would hold steady or even decline.  They were wrong, things got worse and more Latinos showed up.  Same story with Asians.     I suspect Trump will drive both higher turnout and lower GOP vote share with both groups.    Combined Latinos and Asians will probably be a bigger block than blacks.   And the way Trump has been they be headed to voting more like blacks.     


It was said back in 2012 that Romney's campaign would be the last to try to win solely by maximising the white vote.   It appears the GOP is going to give it another shot.   

But this time a realistic shot tailored for working class racist whites.

Fixed your quote for you. You made a small error.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In 2012 Team Romney concluded after going from 44% with Bush to only 31% with McCain (who denounced his support for immigration reform) things couldn't get any worse with Latinos and the would hold that vote and participation would hold steady or even decline.  They were wrong, things got worse and more Latinos showed up.  Same story with Asians.     I suspect Trump will drive both higher turnout and lower GOP vote share with both groups.    Combined Latinos and Asians will probably be a bigger block than blacks.   And the way Trump has been they be headed to voting more like blacks.     


It was said back in 2012 that Romney's campaign would be the last to try to win solely by maximising the white vote.   It appears the GOP is going to give it another shot.   

But this time a realistic shot tailored for working class racist whites.

Fixed your quote for you. You made a small error.

You both got it wrong. It's "hard working white Americans".

[ProudModerate2]

In 2012 Team Romney concluded after going from 44% with Bush to only 31% with McCain (who denounced his support for immigration reform) things couldn't get any worse with Latinos and the would hold that vote and participation would hold steady or even decline.  They were wrong, things got worse and more Latinos showed up.  Same story with Asians.     I suspect Trump will drive both higher turnout and lower GOP vote share with both groups.    Combined Latinos and Asians will probably be a bigger block than blacks.   And the way Trump has been they be headed to voting more like blacks.    


It was said back in 2012 that Romney's campaign would be the last to try to win solely by maximising the white vote.   It appears the GOP is going to give it another shot.  

But this time a realistic shot tailored for working class racist whites.

Fixed your quote for you. You made a small error.

You both got it wrong. It's "hard working white Americans".

LOL.
I'm not sure which comment sounds more "racist" ..... my correction or yours ?

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

It should be noted that 9.2 million Hispanics voted for Obama, and less than 3.5 million went for Romney. 1 million of those 3.5 million Hispanics were evangelicals. Even then, only 20% of Hispanic Evangelicals voted Republican. What few Hispanics still vote Republican are disproportionately evangelical, but even then they are still a significant minority within the Hispanic Evangelical community.

Hispanics, being more average on poor than the population as a whole, are still an economically sensitive class, and Republicans don't usually get their votes simply because of economics, in addition to perceived intolerance.

2004 was the exception, not the rule. I'm not entirely sure why Hispanics gave a much larger share of their vote to Bush, but I can guess:

Foreign policy was probably the biggest pull factor for Hispanics towards Bush (I mean, Hispanic people died during 9/11, did they not? Terrorists don't target white Americans exclusively; they target all Americans. Foreign policy matters a lot of minorities as well; our armed forces are less white than the country as a whole IIRC), and that was one of the defining issues of 2004.

Hispanics have roughly the same opinions on things like abortion, weed, and gay marriage (only a few points more conservative, but nothing significant) as the general population, and in 2004 support for gay marriage was only 30% and many anti-gay marriage laws made the ballot that year. I would guess that engagement and turnout was higher among Hispanic evangelicals in 2004 than against Mr. Corporate America & Self-Deportation Champion in 2012.

But as has been oft pointed out, Bush and the Republican Party made a concerted effort to reach out to Hispanic voters (actually, minority voters of all stripes), by specifically targeting them even in urban areas (something Romney never did). They didn't pitch just openness to immigration reform; they also pitched the homeowners' society Bush envisoned, two rounds of tax cuts, NCLB (which was still popular at the time), etc. It also helped Bush that year that he had increased funding for the sciences and championed environmental protection/clean-up laws, something that is toxic to the GOP today.

Rising affluence of Hispanics is correlated with decreased Republican voting; the last numbers I saw showed Hispanics becoming a plurality middle-class group in 2011, and Hispanic households making over $50,000 a year gave only about 52% of their votes to Obama in 2008 while those under regularly gave up to 80% of their votes to McCain. It is possible that Republicans could start winning more among more affluent and integrated Hispanics, but antagonism ala Romney and Trump will jeopardize that.

2004 was a very unique election with the issues and environment favoring the Republican Party on top of dedicated and intentional outreach to Hispanic voters (and not just them BTW). I seriously doubt Trump will improve on Romney's performance; they may gain more raw votes, but the percentage ain't goin' up.

[Virginiá]

Maybe. But what if more Hispanics vote in 2016 then did in 2012? That could make that 27% into 22%.

Yeah, this is the correct answer. Unless you count Asian voters (which are still such a relatively small segment of the voting bloc that their numbers are bound to explode from cycle to cycle), Latinos are the fastest growing segment of actual voting bloc and population. Trump will likely cause magical things to happen with regards to Latino turnout; a 2-point increase in their share of the electorate fueled by fear of Trump could be enough to add 2-3 points to the overall Latino Democratic share of the vote (although it might also be a backstop to any shifts away from a non-Obama candidate).

Another way to look at it is this: as the Latino share of the electorate grows, Democrats can afford to lose support among them. Getting 70% of the Latino vote when they comprise 10% of the electorate has the same impact (margin-wise; nominal) as getting 66% of the Latino vote when they comprise 12% of the electorate; 63% at 15% of the electorate, and so forth.

Quoting because this is good stuff.

Also, the premise of this argument that somehow Trump can't lose anymore than Romney did is so flawed. This isn't just about immigration now, it is about common decency and his offensive nature. He has threatened them with deportation - A lot of these people have family and friends who are undocumented, or know people in their community that they don't want deported for no reason other than to please a bunch of white people. On top of this, all this talk about walls and deporting 11 million people is pitting white people against Hispanics because Trump is effectively scapegoating Hispanics for the economic problems of whites. The animosity he is stirring up is going to persist beyond this election and will definitely manifest itself in the daily life of these people.

I'm sorry, but don't be surprised here if he bottoms out around 15% - 18%, or perhaps even lower. The idea that he will maintain Romney numbers is ridiculous. The two are hardly the same and Trump has made scapegoating undocumented immigrants the centerpiece of his campaign, whereas Romney just stuck to a specific policy and made some poor comments from time to time. Trump does this on a regular basis as part of strategy, and with great joy.

Looking back at how little (relative to now) it took for Obama to get 71% of their vote in 2012 and then comparing it to this cycle, combined with Hispanics liking Clinton, it's hard to see how she won't easily score 80%+ of their vote, combined with significantly increased turnout.

[Redban]

Also, the premise of this argument that somehow Trump can't lose anymore than Romney did is so flawed. This isn't just about immigration now, it is about common decency and his offensive nature. He has threatened them with deportation - A lot of these people have family and friends who are undocumented, or know people in their community that they don't want deported for no reason other than to please a bunch of white people. On top of this, all this talk about walls and deporting 11 million people is pitting white people against Hispanics because Trump is effectively scapegoating Hispanics for the economic problems of whites. The animosity he is stirring up is going to persist beyond this election and will definitely manifest itself in the daily life of these people.

I'm sorry, but don't be surprised here if he bottoms out around 15% - 18%, or perhaps even lower. The idea that he will maintain Romney numbers is ridiculous. The two are hardly the same and Trump has made scapegoating undocumented immigrants the centerpiece of his campaign, whereas Romney just stuck to a specific policy and made some poor comments from time to time. Trump does this on a regular basis as part of strategy, and with great joy.

You're making the mistake (which many others have made) that immigration is the reason Hispanics won't vote Republican; it's not.

Again, Romney's 27% is near the Republican's average among Hispanics since 1980. That means he did just as well as other Republicans who did not promote self-deportation did. Therefore, even if Romney supported a pathway to citizenship or amnesty from the start, there is no evidence suggesting he would have done better.

 John McCain, for example, supported the 2007 bill and made no incendiary remarks about Latinos. Regardless, he got just 31%, hardly better than Romney.

George W. Bush, likewise, supported a pathway to citizenship and conducted outreach towards Latinos; he sometimes spoke Spanish in his speeches. Regardless, he got just 35% of the Latino vote in 2000.

Go further back: Reagan and Bush 41 gave amnesty in 1986, yet Bush 41 got 30% and 25% vote from Latinos -- worse than Romney!

If immigration is the cause of the GOP's performance with Hispanics, as you say, then McCain, Bush 43, and Bush 41 wouldn't have done so poorly.

It's not immigration!!!!

[Virginiá]

You're making the mistake (which many others have made) that immigration is the reason Hispanics won't vote Republican; it's not.

Again, Romney's 27% is near the Republican's average among Hispanics since 1980. That means he did just as well as other Republicans who did not promote self-deportation did. Therefore, even if Romney supported a pathway to citizenship or amnesty from the start, there is no evidence suggesting he would have done better.

......

It's not immigration!!!!

Oh, I know that. There is a reason Democratic performance among Hispanics has been consistently 60%+ since as long as they have been polled/monitored. Education, healthcare and other policies play big factors in guaranteeing Democrats that 60% - 65%.

However, as I was trying to say, Trump has made deporting 11 million people and building a wall the main premise of his campaign. That says a lot, and the perception among a lot of Hispanics is a full-on attack on their community. I live in FL and I do live near quite a lot of Hispanics/interact with them very often. The perception here is absolutely toxic for the reasons I specified. He's highly offensive and rude. There are just so many problems with him and his campaign that justify his 80%+ unfavorable rating among Hispanics.

It's also been said, somewhat correctly I think, that Republicans can maintain a stricter immigration policy and still get Hispanic votes, such as in Texas. The key is not going at that voting bloc with machine guns blazing while calling them rapists and threatening to deport 11 million people (aka, a lot of people they know, or even their family members).

I don't get why this isn't obvious.

[Adam Griffin]

Just posting this here to "show my work" from my previous comment. Based on a constant pool of 130,000,000 voters.