Rural Hispanics vs. Urban Hispanics

[ElectionsGuy]

Ochiltree County, Texas

90.8% Romney, 8.5% Obama
50.7% Hispanic, 47.1% White

Yoakum County, Texas

79.8% Romney, 19.2% Obama
60.8% Hispanic, 37.0% White

Texas County, Oklahoma

85.1% Romney, 14.9% Obama
48.6% White, 45.1% Hispanic

You see counties like this all over the place in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and New Mexico. Do these areas just have a lot of illegal immigrants? Or could it be very possible that rural Hispanics vote much more republican than urban Hispanics? Just look at Webb County (Laredo) an urban 95% Hispanic County that votes 77% Obama. Texas Hispanics all together voted about 68%/69% Obama in 2012, and I'm guessing Hispanics in Dallas, Houston, and Austin are just as democratic by the county results (although Travis County whites are much more democratic than ordinary Texas whites).

A lot of us always assume that all Blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities vote the same no matter where they are. That is somewhat true with Blacks, but just like rural whites vote more republican than urban whites, I believe that rural Hispanics, especially in western Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and southeastern New Mexico vote much more republican than urban Hispanics anyways, no matter how bad the turnout is in some of these places (Potter County vs. Randall County). It could also be that white turnout in these areas are outstanding and Hispanic turnout that is dismal too.

Whats your take on this? Is the turnout in these rural counties really this bad for Hispanics? Or are they more republican than a typical Hispanic that lives in a big city?

[freepcrusher]

rural hispanics tend to be the worst at voting - look at Central CA, West Kansas, West Texas as examples.

[ElectionsGuy]

More:

Tulare County, California

56.3% Romney, 41.3% Obama
61.8% Hispanic, 31.4% White

Yuma County, Arizona

55.5% Romney, 42.9% Obama
60.5% Hispanic, 34.3% White

Seward County, Kansas

69.9% Romney, 28.8% Obama
57.9% Hispanic, 34.3% White

Ford County, Kansas

67.0% Romney, 31.1% Obama
52.1% Hispanic, 42.2% White

Parmer County, Texas

78.7% Romney, 20.7% Obama
60.4% Hispanic, 37.7% White

Lea County, New Mexico

73.7% Romney, 24.0% Obama
53.3% Hispanic, 41.0% White

I can go on for days...

[Asian Nazi]

A lot of rural Hispanics just don't vote, period.  Look at Central WA.

[Asian Nazi]

Nixon thought that would happen with blacks.  Still waiting.

[barfbag]

Nixon thought that would happen with blacks.  Still waiting.

Blacks would've moved up the socio-economic ladder if it weren't for Democrats spoon feeding them through life. No one has ever gotten rich off of welfare unless it's through a fraud or scam.

[illegaloperation]

Are you sure those Hispanics even vote?

There are some districts in Texas that are about evenly split between African Americans and Hispanics. They always sent black representatives because Hispanics rarely vote.

[ElectionsGuy]

Are you sure those Hispanics even vote?

There are some districts in Texas that are about evenly split between African Americans and Hispanics. They always sent black representatives because Hispanics rarely vote.

Even if they don't vote, would you think they are more republican when rural anyways? As Redban noted, income matters to Hispanic vote, so would it make sense for rural or urban Hispanics to be richer? I don't know but I think the reason counties in Southern Texas vote more democratic than the Hispanic vote in general is because of above average poverty.

[Sol]

I would think rural Latinos would be quite poor, considering that many are working in agriculture or other such areas.

Really though, the reason for the voting pattern in these counties really is bad turnout. 60% is really not enough to elect the Hispanic candidate of choice if even half of them don't turn out. The turnout is usually much worse than even 50% in these places, and many of these locales have a very republican non-Hispanic white population, with various ethnic tensions.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Most Hispanics in these areas are noncitizen farm workers who are ineligible to vote.

[barfbag]

I'd like to see numbers on how rural Hispanics vote. It would make sense if they were more conservative than urban Hispanics. The closer people live together, the more political things get and the more political things get the more issues arise. Democrats tend to pick at every little issue while Republicans use their ideology to cover a broad base of issues. The latter does very poorly when dealing with a high number of voters.

[ElectionsGuy]

I would think rural Latinos would be quite poor, considering that many are working in agriculture or other such areas.

Really though, the reason for the voting pattern in these counties really is bad turnout. 60% is really not enough to elect the Hispanic candidate of choice if even half of them don't turn out. The turnout is usually much worse than even 50% in these places, and many of these locales have a very republican non-Hispanic white population, with various ethnic tensions.

It does make the most sense that rural Hispanics would be poor, but you wonder if even they turnout a little bit in places like Ochiltree County, TX, how republican is the white population? I guess it would be at least what the county is or higher. Some of these places must have close to 100% white republicans if Hispanics do turnout. White voters in Texas have a stronger margin than Hispanic voters in Texas so if they were tied in population and they turned out the same there would be a slight republican advantage, but as you can see there are Hispanic majority counties that are full blown >80% R, and that's when we know there's a problem.

[MalaspinaGold]

Democrats tend to pick at every little issue while Republicans use their ideology to cover a broad base of issues.

I'm not sure where that came from. Can you support this?

[barfbag]

Democrats tend to pick at every little issue while Republicans use their ideology to cover a broad base of issues.

I'm not sure where that came from. Can you support this?

I take it you watch politics? Republicans are pretty much a group of people who share the same vision for America based on a conservative ideology. Democrats are the party of special interest groups so they have to go issue by issue to reach out to their bases such as environmentalists, unions, seniors, young voters, minorities, immigrants, the public sector. Most people in these special interest groups only care about the issue they're behind as it effects them personally.

[ag]

Democrats tend to pick at every little issue while Republicans use their ideology to cover a broad base of issues.

I'm not sure where that came from. Can you support this?

I take it you watch politics? Republicans are pretty much a group of people who share the same vision for America based on a conservative ideology. Democrats are the party of special interest groups so they have to go issue by issue to reach out to their bases such as environmentalists, unions, seniors, young voters, minorities, immigrants, the public sector. Most people in these special interest groups only care about the issue they're behind as it effects them personally.

Unless you stop taking yourself and your partisan affiliation that seriously, you will wind up converting a few of the independents into Democrats. I do not believe this happens to be your objective, but it, surely, will be the outcome.

[MalaspinaGold]

Democrats tend to pick at every little issue while Republicans use their ideology to cover a broad base of issues.

I'm not sure where that came from. Can you support this?

I take it you watch politics? Republicans are pretty much a group of people who share the same vision for America based on a conservative ideology. Democrats are the party of special interest groups so they have to go issue by issue to reach out to their bases such as environmentalists, unions, seniors, young voters, minorities, immigrants, the public sector. Most people in these special interest groups only care about the issue they're behind as it effects them personally.

Not necessarily, I consider myself a environmentalist, a strong supporter of good unions, a young voter, and to a certain extent a New Deal Democrat. There are few democrats who only care about one issue.
I could turn the same question on its head and point out that the republicans are the party of the Koch Brother types, the Christian Coalition, libertarians, neocons, states-righters, etc. That didn't really prove anything. All parties are built of coalitions. In addition, all the groups above that I mentioned above seem to have conflicting interest goals. Libertarians and neocons spar over Israel, war, foreign aid. Business and anti-immigration types spar over immigration reform (businesses support it because it will lead to a larger workforce). Christian Coalition and (young) libertarians also  spar over the role of the federal government in issues such as gay marriage and abortion. Hardly a united front. (Not to say the democratic agenda is completely unified but still; this is the result of coalition parties.)

[barfbag]

Democrats tend to pick at every little issue while Republicans use their ideology to cover a broad base of issues.

I'm not sure where that came from. Can you support this?

I take it you watch politics? Republicans are pretty much a group of people who share the same vision for America based on a conservative ideology. Democrats are the party of special interest groups so they have to go issue by issue to reach out to their bases such as environmentalists, unions, seniors, young voters, minorities, immigrants, the public sector. Most people in these special interest groups only care about the issue they're behind as it effects them personally.

Not necessarily, I consider myself a environmentalist, a strong supporter of good unions, a young voter, and to a certain extent a New Deal Democrat. There are few democrats who only care about one issue.
I could turn the same question on its head and point out that the republicans are the party of the Koch Brother types, the Christian Coalition, libertarians, neocons, states-righters, etc. That didn't really prove anything. All parties are built of coalitions. In addition, all the groups above that I mentioned above seem to have conflicting interest goals. Libertarians and neocons spar over Israel, war, foreign aid. Business and anti-immigration types spar over immigration reform (businesses support it because it will lead to a larger workforce). Christian Coalition and (young) libertarians also  spar over the role of the federal government in issues such as gay marriage and abortion. Hardly a united front. (Not to say the democratic agenda is completely unified but still; this is the result of coalition parties.)

I wasn't being negative towards either party. Studies do show that people who agree with one party on an issue are extremely likely to agree with them on another. People who are pro-life are more likely to support lower taxes for example. Those who are advocates of environmental protection tend to be pro-choice. The Republicans have their special interest groups too. Libertarians aren't Republicans though. There are plenty of Libertarians who are against the government being involved in banning gay marriage and abortion and therefore vote Democrat based on social issues.

[MalaspinaGold]

There are many libertarians in the Republicans however, and many, such as Ron Paul and Justin Amash, clash with the religious right on the gay marriage issue. so, I don't really see how your original point holds, that Republicans have a united policy while democrats have a fractured policy.

Back to the main topic, I think Hispanics in rural areas are more conservative for the obvious reasons: they are probably more tradition-oriented that hispanics in cities and suburbs, and thus religious beliefs may matter more to them. Also, the turnout issue.

[barfbag]

There are many libertarians in the Republicans however, and many, such as Ron Paul and Justin Amash, clash with the religious right on the gay marriage issue. so, I don't really see how your original point holds, that Republicans have a united policy while democrats have a fractured policy.

Back to the main topic, I think Hispanics in rural areas are more conservative for the obvious reasons: they are probably more tradition-oriented that hispanics in cities and suburbs, and thus religious beliefs may matter more to them. Also, the turnout issue.

Very true and I agree. It's normally whites who come to mind when thinking of rural living but other races are no different. People who live in rural areas tend to be more religious and family oriented. Our party does have many Libertarian leaners, but both parties do. If there are more in the GOP, it maybe the fact that economic issues tend to take precedent over social issues unless the economy is superb and Libertarians are more like Republicans on economics.

[stevekamp]

Ochiltree in Texas has usually been one of the top five Republican percentage counties in the US.  It's near the Oklahoma border and is closer to Kansas than DFW.  Most of the Hispanics are likely not registered, but it would be interesting to contact the county elections office and check the registered voter list.

[cheesepizza]

There are many libertarians in the Republicans however, and many, such as Ron Paul and Justin Amash, clash with the religious right on the gay marriage issue. so, I don't really see how your original point holds, that Republicans have a united policy while democrats have a fractured policy.

Back to the main topic, I think Hispanics in rural areas are more conservative for the obvious reasons: they are probably more tradition-oriented that hispanics in cities and suburbs, and thus religious beliefs may matter more to them. Also, the turnout issue.

Very true and I agree. It's normally whites who come to mind when thinking of rural living but other races are no different. People who live in rural areas tend to be more religious and family oriented. Our party does have many Libertarian leaners, but both parties do. If there are more in the GOP, it maybe the fact that economic issues tend to take precedent over social issues unless the economy is superb and Libertarians are more like Republicans on economics.

Indeed.  Also, many people have experienced their land being owned by the federal government in some of these Western states.  They've seen these loony environmentalist nutty laws like the spotted owl stopping timber production in Oregon when its decline had nothing to do with logging and was actually related to its larger cousin predator.

[ElectionsGuy]

There are many libertarians in the Republicans however, and many, such as Ron Paul and Justin Amash, clash with the religious right on the gay marriage issue. so, I don't really see how your original point holds, that Republicans have a united policy while democrats have a fractured policy.

Back to the main topic, I think Hispanics in rural areas are more conservative for the obvious reasons: they are probably more tradition-oriented that hispanics in cities and suburbs, and thus religious beliefs may matter more to them. Also, the turnout issue.

Very true and I agree. It's normally whites who come to mind when thinking of rural living but other races are no different. People who live in rural areas tend to be more religious and family oriented. Our party does have many Libertarian leaners, but both parties do. If there are more in the GOP, it maybe the fact that economic issues tend to take precedent over social issues unless the economy is superb and Libertarians are more like Republicans on economics.

This describes a person like myself perfectly, I'm very economically conservative and mostly socially liberal, but since I view economic issues much more important, I simply refer to myself as a republican, I have been willing to switch though.

[barfbag]

There are many libertarians in the Republicans however, and many, such as Ron Paul and Justin Amash, clash with the religious right on the gay marriage issue. so, I don't really see how your original point holds, that Republicans have a united policy while democrats have a fractured policy.

Back to the main topic, I think Hispanics in rural areas are more conservative for the obvious reasons: they are probably more tradition-oriented that hispanics in cities and suburbs, and thus religious beliefs may matter more to them. Also, the turnout issue.

Very true and I agree. It's normally whites who come to mind when thinking of rural living but other races are no different. People who live in rural areas tend to be more religious and family oriented. Our party does have many Libertarian leaners, but both parties do. If there are more in the GOP, it maybe the fact that economic issues tend to take precedent over social issues unless the economy is superb and Libertarians are more like Republicans on economics.

Indeed.  Also, many people have experienced their land being owned by the federal government in some of these Western states.  They've seen these loony environmentalist nutty laws like the spotted owl stopping timber production in Oregon when its decline had nothing to do with logging and was actually related to its larger cousin predator.

What are you talking about?

[cheesepizza]

There are many libertarians in the Republicans however, and many, such as Ron Paul and Justin Amash, clash with the religious right on the gay marriage issue. so, I don't really see how your original point holds, that Republicans have a united policy while democrats have a fractured policy.

Back to the main topic, I think Hispanics in rural areas are more conservative for the obvious reasons: they are probably more tradition-oriented that hispanics in cities and suburbs, and thus religious beliefs may matter more to them. Also, the turnout issue.

Very true and I agree. It's normally whites who come to mind when thinking of rural living but other races are no different. People who live in rural areas tend to be more religious and family oriented. Our party does have many Libertarian leaners, but both parties do. If there are more in the GOP, it maybe the fact that economic issues tend to take precedent over social issues unless the economy is superb and Libertarians are more like Republicans on economics.

Indeed.  Also, many people have experienced their land being owned by the federal government in some of these Western states.  They've seen these loony environmentalist nutty laws like the spotted owl stopping timber production in Oregon when its decline had nothing to do with logging and was actually related to its larger cousin predator.

What are you talking about?

Many Western states have the majority of their land owned by the federal government, which enacts restrictive laws that hurt timber, ranching, and other industries.  I was specifically referencing the incident in Oregon with the Spotted Owl. 

This article describes the incidence.  It basically shows how much radical leftist environmentalist policies hurt people in these areas.  It's despicable. 
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/260150/killing-owls-save-owls-lou-dolinar

[MalaspinaGold]

There are many libertarians in the Republicans however, and many, such as Ron Paul and Justin Amash, clash with the religious right on the gay marriage issue. so, I don't really see how your original point holds, that Republicans have a united policy while democrats have a fractured policy.

Back to the main topic, I think Hispanics in rural areas are more conservative for the obvious reasons: they are probably more tradition-oriented that hispanics in cities and suburbs, and thus religious beliefs may matter more to them. Also, the turnout issue.

Very true and I agree. It's normally whites who come to mind when thinking of rural living but other races are no different. People who live in rural areas tend to be more religious and family oriented. Our party does have many Libertarian leaners, but both parties do. If there are more in the GOP, it maybe the fact that economic issues tend to take precedent over social issues unless the economy is superb and Libertarians are more like Republicans on economics.

Indeed.  Also, many people have experienced their land being owned by the federal government in some of these Western states.  They've seen these loony environmentalist nutty laws like the spotted owl stopping timber production in Oregon when its decline had nothing to do with logging and was actually related to its larger cousin predator.

What are you talking about?

Many Western states have the majority of their land owned by the federal government, which enacts restrictive laws that hurt timber, ranching, and other industries.  I was specifically referencing the incident in Oregon with the Spotted Owl. 

This article describes the incidence.  It basically shows how much radical leftist environmentalist policies hurt people in these areas.  It's despicable. 

I would just like to say I'm a birdwatcher right now, and I have studied birds for a while. The Spotted Owl's larger cousin, the Barred Owl (Strix varia) lives primarily in transitional woodland, which is basically forest with some of the trees taken out; so it is more than likely that the barred owl intrusion into spotted owl territory (which require extensive tracts of old-growth forest) can be directly tied to the logging industry removing trees, creating prime barred owl habitat.

In addition, I could bring up the case of powder river basin natural gas, where ranchers are essentially forced of their land due to oil companies having subsurface rights. I would provide a link but I don't have the post count yet.

I concede there may be a few nutty environmentalists but the majority that I have spoken to are realists.