Democrats and Hispanics love affair -- is it based on income?

[cheesepizza]

What used to happen was that along with economic assimilation into the middle class (typically the result of formal education, entrepreneurial activity, and entry into skilled trades) came a tendency for people to vote increasingly for the conservative party (typically the Republican Party outside the South, the South long receiving rather few immigrants) out of self-interest -- tax cuts and deregulation. So it remained as long as the Republicans chose to pander to poor white people left behind by economic change (especially in the Mountain and Deep South).

But by pandering to mass ignorance and anti-rational religion, Republicans offended people who thought that such anti-intellectualism was an assault on the very thing that made themselves successful. Republican budget cuts have often been directed at education and research that heavily employ highly-educated people. That is one way to lose many people with advanced degrees -- and of course college students.

The Hispanic middle class sees its position shaky in America because much of it is new to the middle class. Any threat to its economic security, including ideological attacks upon its means of success, suggests a return to poverty. Republicans have thrust most educated Hispanics into a position in which they become loud and effective proponents of the Democratic Party.  They are able to enlist not-so-rich Hispanics into voting Democratic.

Note well that white Anglo prejudice against Hispanics has never and nowhere approached white prejudice against blacks. It is safe to say that much of the Hispanic middle class has white Anglo friends, and it is able to reach out to them on political issues. It is able to offer the message that what is bad for the Hispanic middle class is also bad for the white Anglo middle class -- personally. Cultural assimilation goes both ways with Anglos and Hispanics, and some of it is political.  

  

So what you're basically saying is that Republicans pushed Hispanics away by pandering to social conservatives who tend to be prejudice?

I despise it when liberals talk about the GOP "War on Science".  The kids who have the worst science education, by far, would come from the horrible urban public schools.  Those kids don't have the reading skills to even understand a concept when it's presented.  I guarantee you, if you go to a Chicago public school and ask 12th graders "If an element has a mass number of 13 and has 7 protons, how many neutrons and electrons does it have?", 80% at least would get that basic question wrong.  And liberals are blocking school choice to make things better for people in these areas.

EDIT:  Here's an example of ultra-liberal urban public schools with horrible science scores. 
http://www.uft.org/news-stories/test-results-science-neglected-urban-schools

The conservative parts of Upstate New York have much better science scores than the city itself.

[ag]

Aside from income and perceived GOP xenophobia, gender may play an important role as well. To the extent it is possible to interfere from Turkish immigrants into Germany on Latino immigrants into the US, the US should mean an opportunity for younger Latinas to liberate themselves from patriarchal traditions. As such, they may value social issues at least as high as economic ones, probably even higher, which should make them very solidly democratic. Among younger Latino men, there may be a push towards the opposite direction, as their traditional roles are getting questioned. However, in the absence of strong pull factors towards the Republicans, the "social push" is more likely to result in vote abstention than in actually voting GOP.

I haven't seen detailed analysis so far, but I would not be surprised if Hispanics under 45 showed an above-average gender gap, and a significantly higher female than male turnout rate.

I doubt. Parts of the US are, probably, more socially conservative than much of Mexico. Yes, abortion is illegal in many Mexican states and gay marriage has only been legalized in Mexico City and Quintana Roo (Cancun), but on many issues it is not a very conservative country at all. If anything, politically active Latinas are quite likely to be Evangelical.

[MalaspinaGold]

cheesepizza, I'm going to counter your unfounded assertion with one of my own. What about rural, poor , conservative whites in states like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Mississippi. Are you sure they would would be able to answer your Nitrogen-13 question better than your Chicago seniors?

Proficiency in science tends to be much more correlated with parent jobs and incomes. Therefore, black seniors in urban cities probably will not have high science grades. On the other hand, Asian students and children of scientists and engineers, who also lean democratic, will have the greatest knowledge of science.

I think income is a large reason why hispanics lean democratic. However, considering the curren low social mobility, it does not appear that republicans will be getting their votes anytime soon.

[barfbag]

cheesepizza, I'm going to counter your unfounded assertion with one of my own. What about rural, poor , conservative whites in states like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Mississippi. Are you sure they would would be able to answer your Nitrogen-13 question better than your Chicago seniors?

Proficiency in science tends to be much more correlated with parent jobs and incomes. Therefore, black seniors in urban cities probably will not have high science grades. On the other hand, Asian students and children of scientists and engineers, who also lean democratic, will have the greatest knowledge of science.

I think income is a large reason why hispanics lean democratic. However, considering the curren low social mobility, it does not appear that republicans will be getting their votes anytime soon.

You've made a lot of good points about Chicago seniors being better able to discuss Nitrogen 13 than poor whites from the deep south. Another truth is that Asians are better at science and blacks tend to do poorly. It's just the way it is and stereotypes are made for a reason. However, the other side of the argument is that there is a war on religion. I'm sure poor whites from the deep south could quote scripture better than urban liberals. I myself am in the middle. As a college graduate with a degree in religion and philosophy, I see the Bible through literary and historical criticism. It's not on the left. It's not on the right. It's in the middle.

[cheesepizza]

cheesepizza, I'm going to counter your unfounded assertion with one of my own. What about rural, poor , conservative whites in states like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Mississippi. Are you sure they would would be able to answer your Nitrogen-13 question better than your Chicago seniors?

Proficiency in science tends to be much more correlated with parent jobs and incomes. Therefore, black seniors in urban cities probably will not have high science grades. On the other hand, Asian students and children of scientists and engineers, who also lean democratic, will have the greatest knowledge of science.

I think income is a large reason why hispanics lean democratic. However, considering the curren low social mobility, it does not appear that republicans will be getting their votes anytime soon.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/photos/worst-performing-public-schools/#!slide=3654762

Not a single high school from WV, KS, or MS was on this list of the 25 worst public schools in the country.  Those places don't have great education, but it's not as bad as the predominantly urban public schools on here.  That being said, high-% black areas in general, urban or rural, tend to do worse academically.   This explains many of the South Carolina schools on the list, a couple of which were rural-ish.   

Also, I was comparing high school students, not seniors.  Seniors, unless they had a job involving science or were deeply involved with their kids/grandkids in chemistry/science homework, probably have forgotten that info as they had little use for it.  This applies in well-educated areas as well as poor areas.

What I'm talking about is for students who are currently in high school and their scholastic performance.  A student's main job is to be a student (obviously).  At my school district, the majority of incoming juniors would get such a question right (mass number 13, 7 protons means 6 neutrons and 6 electrons).  Students in those public schools, as my first link showed (you called my claims "unsubstantiated" even though I provided a link and you did not, showing typical leftist hypocrisy) that urban schools are awful in science.

All I'm saying is that there are tons of D voters who don't have a clue about science and they're not some intellectual bunch like you may wish.

[MalaspinaGold]

Before you start throwing out "Leftist hypocrisy", I think I was under the minimum post count at the time.

I did read the article; it does not address my question; it compares New York City with upstate New York, whereas I want to compare New York City with West Virginia and rural Kentucky.

I suggest we move this to education.

More pertinent to the topic: I also think this is a major reason why blacks vote democratic as well.

[cheesepizza]

Before you start throwing out "Leftist hypocrisy", I think I was under the minimum post count at the time.

I did read the article; it does not address my question; it compares New York City with upstate New York, whereas I want to compare New York City with West Virginia and rural Kentucky.

I suggest we move this to education.

More pertinent to the topic: I also think this is a major reason why blacks vote democratic as well.

Fair enough, but that's what my 2nd link addressed.  The worst schools are generally urban, and if they're not, are almost certainly majority-minority.

[Franknburger]

http://www.dailyfinance.com/photos/worst-performing-public-schools/#!slide=3654762

Not a single high school from WV, KS, or MS was on this list of the 25 worst public schools in the country.  Those places don't have great education, but it's not as bad as the predominantly urban public schools on here.  That being said, high-% black areas in general, urban or rural, tend to do worse academically.   This explains many of the South Carolina schools on the list, a couple of which were rural-ish.   

Quite interesting, but not necessarily the best source to base an argumentation upon. It uses a study from 2009. That study has been redone (unfortunately, I have problems finding out when exactly), to come out with completely different results. None of the three worst schools from 2009 (including the Chicago one you base your argumentation on) is on the current "Worst 100" list anymore. Moreover, the state ranking appears to have changed fundamentally: 18 of the current "Worst 100" schools are in California. Other states with more than 3 schools among the "worst 100" include WI, AK, AZ, PA, OH, OK, and IN, but not anymore IL (2 entries) and SC (no entry), which had come out pretty poorly in the 2009 study cited by you. KS and MS have in meantime managed to each get one school into the "worst 100".

Such a strong variation in findings raises questions on the reliability of the overall methodology and data used. The fact that the methodology is quite poorly documented, and underlying data is only made available to members, does not help in this respect.

May I suggest that you in future do some background check on your sources, in order to at least come up with the most recent data, ideally combined with some assessment of the reliability of the source?

[barfbag]

There are so many ways to measure the quality of schools though.

[pbrower2a]

What used to happen was that along with economic assimilation into the middle class (typically the result of formal education, entrepreneurial activity, and entry into skilled trades) came a tendency for people to vote increasingly for the conservative party (typically the Republican Party outside the South, the South long receiving rather few immigrants) out of self-interest -- tax cuts and deregulation. So it remained as long as the Republicans chose to pander to poor white people left behind by economic change (especially in the Mountain and Deep South).

But by pandering to mass ignorance and anti-rational religion, Republicans offended people who thought that such anti-intellectualism was an assault on the very thing that made themselves successful. Republican budget cuts have often been directed at education and research that heavily employ highly-educated people. That is one way to lose many people with advanced degrees -- and of course college students.

The Hispanic middle class sees its position shaky in America because much of it is new to the middle class. Any threat to its economic security, including ideological attacks upon its means of success, suggests a return to poverty. Republicans have thrust most educated Hispanics into a position in which they become loud and effective proponents of the Democratic Party.  They are able to enlist not-so-rich Hispanics into voting Democratic.

Note well that white Anglo prejudice against Hispanics has never and nowhere approached white prejudice against blacks. It is safe to say that much of the Hispanic middle class has white Anglo friends, and it is able to reach out to them on political issues. It is able to offer the message that what is bad for the Hispanic middle class is also bad for the white Anglo middle class -- personally. Cultural assimilation goes both ways with Anglos and Hispanics, and some of it is political.  

  

So what you're basically saying is that Republicans pushed Hispanics away by pandering to social conservatives who tend to be prejudice?

That is a small part of it. Republicans have doubled down in Arizona on "anti-illegal-immigrant" agendas, but even worse -- they have pushed economic policies intended to help only those who are already super-rich.  But that is one state, and the Republicans could face a political implosion in Arizona and still win the Presidency if they get compensation in Rust Belt states that become disgruntled with bad economics and begin to vote for lower wages and harsher working conditions for economic growth. 

The big ones are that the Hispanic middle class has nothing to gain from GOP economics -- and that the Republican Party has endorsed a severe anti-intellectualism likely to hurt children. By pushing pseudoscience and falsified history with reactionary economics as 'education' the GOP/'Tea Party threatens to worsen education. Likewise one is not going to get better schools by cutbacks to education.

The Republicans offer Hispanics the sorts of economic realities that they or their recent ancestors fled -- a heritage of extreme inequality in which those not born into the Right Family had no chance except to be a farm laborer  or domestic servant. One can work, but with a travesty of pay.   

I despise it when liberals talk about the GOP "War on Science".  The kids who have the worst science education, by far, would come from the horrible urban public schools.  Those kids don't have the reading skills to even understand a concept when it's presented.  I guarantee you, if you go to a Chicago public school and ask 12th graders "If an element has a mass number of 13 and has 7 protons, how many neutrons and electrons does it have?", 80% at least would get that basic question wrong.  And liberals are blocking school choice to make things better for people in these areas.

EDIT:  Here's an example of ultra-liberal urban public schools with horrible science scores. 
http://www.uft.org/news-stories/test-results-science-neglected-urban-schools

The conservative parts of Upstate New York have much better science scores than the city itself.

I do not deny the poor performance of children in core-city public schools. There may be more than 'liberal teachers' unions'. Consider what I learned from one school principal about underperforming children in his school:

"They go home".

The reference was not to poverty, but it was to the households of those kids. Many of the kids have a single mother as the head of household, and she is often grossly immature even if she is 40 years old. Their apartments are crowded and loud, allowing none of the solitude that allows one to read and problem-solve without distraction. Mass low culture permeates their world. Children need to see the Adult mode of behavior if they are to model it, a mode that one associates with people who promote learning for its own sake, eschew drugs and drunkenness, expect that household chores and homework be done before the electronic entertainments are turned on, negotiate disputes instead of going to blows, has a critical attitude toward mass media, put adding to the college fund a priority at the expense of buying flashy clothes for themselves and their children, and watch their kids instead of going to the nightclub or casino. Such is very different from what that school principal saw as my middle-class assumptions. That Adult mode can make poverty a chrysalis for the middle class. Anything less with poverty creates a 'loser' tradition.

Much of America's current middle class descends from the harsh slums of Little Italy, Chinatown, and "Russian" Jewish and Polish neighborhoods. Many Latinos and recent Asian immigrants (another parallel) now fit the pattern. Maybe some people can select how their kids assimilate to American life... and they succeed.  But for them to succeed they need to show that work itself pays off.  The idea of a permanent underclass of people who toil to exhaustion for starvation wages so that some distant elite can live in unimaginable indulgence is not consistent with the hopes of many Latinos. 

 

[barfbag]

There are members of the Tea Party who push for a false history lesson to be taught in schools and want to eliminate or cut programs which help the poor. Unfortunately this is what's seen in most media as opposed to the more moderate positions of Republicans like Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, and John McCain. A Republican as president who reaches out to the Hispanic Community will help our party more than anything. Until then we're going to be at a huge disadvantage.

[pbrower2a]

There are members of the Tea Party who push for a false history lesson to be taught in schools and want to eliminate or cut programs which help the poor. Unfortunately this is what's seen in most media as opposed to the more moderate positions of Republicans like Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, and John McCain. A Republican as president who reaches out to the Hispanic Community will help our party more than anything. Until then we're going to be at a huge disadvantage.

Chris Christie seems like a moderate in contrast to almost every other Republican now in the top Federal and State elected offices. Mitt Romney lost because he relied upon his experience as a businessman as evidence of his ability to solve economic problems -- and he proved more a part of the problem than of the solution. Basically the company downsizes with the agent of downsizing getting a huge piece of the action -- and when someone like Romney says that he will create more jobs he also says "Trust me!"

Middle-class Hispanics are the vanguard of political change, and that change may bode ill for Republicans. If middle-class Hispanics develop the voting habits that we associate with Jews, then the game is up for the Republican Right.

Firing millions and cutting the pay of those who still have jobs while cracking the whip on those who are told "You are just lucky to have a job!" with the promise of even more prosperity based on jobs might create prosperity for a few executives and tycoons. Trickle-down might work after forty years or so -- but in the meantime people will starve.

 

[hopper]

What used to happen was that along with economic assimilation into the middle class (typically the result of formal education, entrepreneurial activity, and entry into skilled trades) came a tendency for people to vote increasingly for the conservative party (typically the Republican Party outside the South, the South long receiving rather few immigrants) out of self-interest -- tax cuts and deregulation. So it remained as long as the Republicans chose to pander to poor white people left behind by economic change (especially in the Mountain and Deep South).

But by pandering to mass ignorance and anti-rational religion, Republicans offended people who thought that such anti-intellectualism was an assault on the very thing that made themselves successful. Republican budget cuts have often been directed at education and research that heavily employ highly-educated people. That is one way to lose many people with advanced degrees -- and of course college students.

The Hispanic middle class sees its position shaky in America because much of it is new to the middle class. Any threat to its economic security, including ideological attacks upon its means of success, suggests a return to poverty. Republicans have thrust most educated Hispanics into a position in which they become loud and effective proponents of the Democratic Party.  They are able to enlist not-so-rich Hispanics into voting Democratic.

Note well that white Anglo prejudice against Hispanics has never and nowhere approached white prejudice against blacks. It is safe to say that much of the Hispanic middle class has white Anglo friends, and it is able to reach out to them on political issues. It is able to offer the message that what is bad for the Hispanic middle class is also bad for the white Anglo middle class -- personally. Cultural assimilation goes both ways with Anglos and Hispanics, and some of it is political.  

  

So what you're basically saying is that Republicans pushed Hispanics away by pandering to social conservatives who tend to be prejudice?

That is a small part of it. Republicans have doubled down in Arizona on "anti-illegal-immigrant" agendas, but even worse -- they have pushed economic policies intended to help only those who are already super-rich. But that is one state, and the Republicans could face a political implosion in Arizona and still win the Presidency if they get compensation in Rust Belt states that become disgruntled with bad economics and begin to vote for lower wages and harsher working conditions for economic growth.  

The big ones are that the Hispanic middle class has nothing to gain from GOP economics -- and that the Republican Party has endorsed a severe anti-intellectualism likely to hurt children. By pushing pseudoscience and falsified history with reactionary economics as 'education' the GOP/'Tea Party threatens to worsen education. Likewise one is not going to get better schools by cutbacks to education.

The Republicans offer Hispanics the sorts of economic realities that they or their recent ancestors fled -- a heritage of extreme inequality in which those not born into the Right Family had no chance except to be a farm laborer  or domestic servant. One can work, but with a travesty of pay.  

I despise it when liberals talk about the GOP "War on Science".  The kids who have the worst science education, by far, would come from the horrible urban public schools.  Those kids don't have the reading skills to even understand a concept when it's presented.  I guarantee you, if you go to a Chicago public school and ask 12th graders "If an element has a mass number of 13 and has 7 protons, how many neutrons and electrons does it have?", 80% at least would get that basic question wrong.  And liberals are blocking school choice to make things better for people in these areas.

EDIT:  Here's an example of ultra-liberal urban public schools with horrible science scores.  
http://www.uft.org/news-stories/test-results-science-neglected-urban-schools

The conservative parts of Upstate New York have much better science scores than the city itself.

I do not deny the poor performance of children in core-city public schools. There may be more than 'liberal teachers' unions'. Consider what I learned from one school principal about underperforming children in his school:

"They go home".

The reference was not to poverty, but it was to the households of those kids. Many of the kids have a single mother as the head of household, and she is often grossly immature even if she is 40 years old. Their apartments are crowded and loud, allowing none of the solitude that allows one to read and problem-solve without distraction. Mass low culture permeates their world. Children need to see the Adult mode of behavior if they are to model it, a mode that one associates with people who promote learning for its own sake, eschew drugs and drunkenness, expect that household chores and homework be done before the electronic entertainments are turned on, negotiate disputes instead of going to blows, has a critical attitude toward mass media, put adding to the college fund a priority at the expense of buying flashy clothes for themselves and their children, and watch their kids instead of going to the nightclub or casino. Such is very different from what that school principal saw as my middle-class assumptions. That Adult mode can make poverty a chrysalis for the middle class. Anything less with poverty creates a 'loser' tradition.

Much of America's current middle class descends from the harsh slums of Little Italy, Chinatown, and "Russian" Jewish and Polish neighborhoods. Many Latinos and recent Asian immigrants (another parallel) now fit the pattern. Maybe some people can select how their kids assimilate to American life... and they succeed.  But for them to succeed they need to show that work itself pays off.  The idea of a permanent underclass of people who toil to exhaustion for starvation wages so that some distant elite can live in unimaginable indulgence is not consistent with the hopes of many Latinos.  

 

Even Romney won Arizona. Dems winning Arizona these days is like Republicans thinking they were gonna win Minnesota in 2012.