Skip to main content

Home/ Dole Group/ Group items tagged latino

Rss Feed Group items tagged

miles henderson

Campaigns See Latino Voters as Deciders in 3 Key States - 3 views

  •  
    As the election approaches, each candidate is doing anything in his power to obtain more votes. In Colorado,Florida and Nevada the Latino voting population could possibly determine who wins the 2012 election. President Obama has a "leg up" on Romney with the Latino voters, but will Romney be able to do anything to make himself more appealing to Latino voters? If not, how devastating will the outcome be for his campaign?
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    In the research I've done for the issues project in our class, I've thought a lot about just how critical this voting bloc is in deciding the results of the election. From what I can tell, it's essential. It was key in Obama's victory in 2008, and I expect it to play a bigger role this year. In my opinion, Romney is going in the wrong direction for appealing to Latino voters, like you're saying. The red flag for me is the line in the article where he asserts that the economy is much more important to Latinos than immigration. This is the same mistake I think he's made with women's rights: if you look on his site, he talks about the Obama administration being "unkind" to women because of how many more are unemployed. In both issues, I feel like he is sticking too close to comfortable territory (the economy), rather than making tough statements about things he is not as experienced in. Lastly, it I don't feel like either candidate has done much to inspire confidence in Latino voters: immigration, an important issues for the voting bloc, has been a shady area for both candidates. Obama has conducted a record number of deportations and only introduced reform ideas right before the campaign, and Romney flipped his hardline policies entirely between the primaries and the presidential race.
  •  
    They are chasing the latino votes, definitely. Their discussion of this in the last debate was interesting - Obama accused Romney of considering the Arizona immigration law as a "model for the country," which as far as I can tell just isn't true. Who knows with Romney, though - he certainly has been associating with the guy who designed that law. In response to John's point, I think the Romney campaign is kind of forced to stick to the economic aspects of gender discrimination and Hispanic issues. The fact is that the Republican party has a worse record on rights for minorities, so they're playing up their statement that the improved economy under Romney would help get rid of the gender/racial inequities in the country.
  •  
    It's clear now that the Republicans have a serious problem with Latino support. I wonder how they will deal with this problem in the future. I think bipartisan immigration reform could be a big deal. I see that being the big issues in the next couple years. It seems like demographically, if the Republicans can't get any support from people of color, are going to have an issue as Latinos are the largest growing population in America.
John West

Week 7: Romney's demographic bind - CNN.com - 0 views

shared by John West on 10 Oct 12 - No Cached
  •  
    This article describes Romney's "demographic bind," which has him falling seriously behind in the non-white vote. The Latino and black electorate, the author describes, have begun the process of making strictly red states (like Georgia) into possibly competitive areas of the country in the future. The author points to the 2008 election, when McCain won a safe majority of America's white vote while Obama won 66% of the Latino vote and a whopping 95% of the black vote, as a signal for two different strategies for Romney. On the one hand, he can and is trying to woo thee Latino vote in states like Nevada and Florida (the RNC had really concrete evidence of this in its choice of speakers). Second, and a little more frightening, he can concentrate his efforts on winning an even greater majority of the white electorate. This is a significant challenge, because it would mean a serious effort at reconciling the generally more socially liberal views of white youth with the social conservatism of the Republican Party's. In the case of immigration reform, embracing a more liberal position would be a win-win for Romney: he could win a greater share of the Latino electorate, among which immigration is a serious concern, and a greater percentage of the younger, more socially liberal white vote that has traditionally voted Democrat. This would almost certainly come with consequences among older and less educated white voters, who would see immigration reform like this as a threat to legitimate control of illegal immigration in the future. Of the two, trying to expand the portion of the white vote seems like the losing option. While the example of immigration reform I mentioned could be a place for compromise, I have trouble seeing how Romney or a future Republican candidate could champion a pro-life and pro-choice stance at the same time, for instance. Rather than focusing on incredibly divisive issues, trying to appeal to the Latino electorate seems like a wiser choice. For Romn
John West

Week 11: When will we know who won the election? - The Washington Post - 2 views

  •  
    * This article gets at the heart of what confused me tonight: when will we know exactly who one? The entire night, I feel like we kept getting told by various outlets that Obama had won: it was projected as a sure thing, almost as if the papers and sites were racing to see who could be the most current in preemptively calling the results. CNN, for instance, kept releasing its projection as "breaking news," rather than the real-time analysis it actually was. Ohio and Florida (which to my knowledge could have shifted the results entirely) continued to flux after these "official" announcements. I wish I had come across this article earlier in the evening: it highlights the moment that projections receive the "green light" (after polls have closed) and when they start pouring in. When I finally heard that Obama had won for certain, I still had these lingering doubts and wondered exactly when this went from projected to official. The author also suggests that the same elements that contributed to the Florida scandal in 2000 are in place tonight. This interests me, particularly because the state has been hovering around ~90% for most of the night. I hope not, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to stir up controversy around it. Lastly, the article and election results leave me with the obvious big questions. Now that he's presiding in his last term, will there be a relaxation of efforts to block him? Will he find the bipartisan Washington he failed to reach in his first term? How did what news groups call his "demographic gamble" play out, particularly with the Latino vote?
Anna Schutte

The Party of Work - 1 views

  •  
    This column by David Brooks about the changing nature of the American electorate and the Republican's inability to understand it seems to nail many of the issues Republicans have with minority voters. The old days of white male Protestant individualism is a mindset that is slipping away as our country is made up of more cultures who believe both in the commitment to hard work and to the idea that government programs can insight work and enhance opportunity. It's funny to hear the Republicans now talk only about immigration reform as they try to reach Latino and Asian voters. David Brooks shows that there is much more listening and understanding the Republicans still have to do.
  •  
    I don't want to sound naive, but I feel like the "small government" argument is beginning to be an outdated argument. Obviously, there will always be conservatives, but I think they are going to need to start fitting the desire of the electorate. For example, in California, a state that votes very fiscally conservative on its propositions, we passed a bill that raises taxes to pay for education. I don't have any stats on this, but I feel pretty comfortable saying that if most people in America were asked the question, "would you raise taxes on wealthy people to help pay for education?" I believe people would say yes.
  •  
    I think that the Republicans were able to go into the mind set of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" in the past few elections as this change started to happen. Now they clearly cannot have that mind set or they will not go far as a political party. If they can embrace this change and allow themselves to work to attract a broader demographic they will be able to make the 2016 election and interesting one. I do believe though that it is hard to let go of because it has been their "status quo" of sorts for awhile.
Anna Schutte

The Remaking of the President - 0 views

  •  
    This article in The Economist does a good job of summing up where Obama had the edge over Romney. It was clear, as we've talked about, that his message resonated most with young women, minorities, the educated, and the young. He won female voters by eleven points, which was more than enough to beat Romney's seven point advantage among men, especially because women make up more of the population than men. I thought it was also interesting to learn that Obama enjoyed a lead of 13% among voters who had post-graduate degrees. The article does imply that Obama past legislation in order to reach certain groups. Their examples include the Lilly Ledbetter Act to reach women, the Dream Act for Latinos. They also acuse Obama's campaign for being unnecessarily negative about Romney's business background implying that he only cared about the rich. I didn't know that Obama's campaign opened three times as many field offices as Romney. Though it is disillusioning to consider all the things a good man like Obama must do to get elected, it's obvious his campaign was smart, and up to date. The graphs of who voted for each candidate are worth taking a look at. It's particularly interesting to me that Romney won the votes of people whose annual income in under $50,000 and Obama won with those making over $50,000.
cody s

The Chris Christie Backlash Machine Revs Into High Gear - David A. Graham - The Atlantic - 2 views

  •  
         This is a kind-of-funny article about the many conservatives who are criticizing Chris Christie as being responsible for Romney's loss. They call him some funny names, and it's interesting to see this especially considering his potential for a presidential run in 2016.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    The conservative critics in this article are so brutal. While it is kind of funny to see their reactions, as you said, I also feel like it's pretty important to the elections cycle four years from now. I noticed something interesting in our discussion group on Wednesday when 2016 came up: names like Rubio, Ryan, and Christie were easy to come up with, but a Democrat team was much more difficult to assemble. The fact that Christie has fallen from grace and might even be blamed for Romney's loss, like you suggest, could have huge bearing on the election or, given the strength of the Republican pool, not much of one at all. It'll be interesting to see.
  •  
    I feel bad for Chris Christie, as the article says, "These critics seem to believe that Christie ought to have put national-party ambitions before his state's well-being. In other words, he ought to have committed dereliction of elected duty -- hardly a good move for any official." This is a pretty great example of political desires gone astray and to blame the election on Christie, who neither deserves the criticism and should be respected for fulfilling his duties, is just ridiculous. Good point John about 2016, but I wonder how long this event will impact Christie's career?
  •  
    It is funny to think that the Republican's need a whipping boy for the Romney loss when there's so much information about the Republican's inability to reach Latinos, women and other groups. My guess is that Chris Christie will be able to use his conduct during Sandy to his benefit. All he has to do is spin it to highlight his leadership and his ability to "reach across the aisle."
  •  
    I like Chris Christie so much after his dealing with Hurricane Sandy. He clearly put his state first and did what he needed to do. I doubt this will have much weight in 2016. If Chris Christie runs for president, I doubt this will eve be on the table. He is one of the stronger candidates that the GOP has and it would be dumb of them to discredit him for helping his state in a time of need by working with the president.
mabel taylor

For President, a Complex Calculus of Race and Politics - 3 views

  •  
    This article discusses Obama's presidency in terms of the racial legacy he leaves behind and the front he presents to the public as well as his inner-struggle to grapple with his own race. The idea that Obama has become increasingly comfortable as the first black president, but is still strapped down by the unspoken rules about how he campaigns and supports African Americans is especially relevant to the election. I wonder what prejudice and assumptions Obama is able to deal with in 2012 that he would have struggled with in 2008, given the more serious air that he didn't have then. The boundaries Obama must abide by in order to not seem like he is giving favors to his own race are exceedingly limited and the pull he feels to leave a strong, aware legacy but to also normalize the situation is convoluted and difficult. This article talks about how Obama's public discussion of race basically mirrors his internal understanding and relationship with his racial identity and that in many ways he "feels boxed in by his blackness," an idea I am really curious about. I have read a lot about how Obama's presidency is not the indication of the post-racial society many thought it would be, but is actually a sign that the country is moving in a positive direction and this article reminds me that the expectations many carry for Obama make it difficult for him to naturally find his place as an African American and in history. Also, for those who watched The Choice, this piece is especially interesting in the context of Obama's early life.
  •  
    I liked this article I thought it brought up good points. Reading it thought I realized I have never really thought of Obama as the first black president, aside from when he was elected in 2008. I view him as just another president, which is a hard thing to do for a lot of people in the country. Four years (or eight if reelected) is not nearly enough time to break down those racial barriers because these things take time. No matter how long this takes and no matter how much grief he gets for potentially being bias to African Americans Obama being elected is a step forward for this nation and four more years is only going to help more. "We have to deal with the specific problems of different groups - blacks, women, gays and lesbians, immigrants - in a way that doesn't allow people to put these wedges in,". I think that quote by Obama is the reason why he should be president for another four years. He is attempting to make us even more united as a nation and I 100% respect and support that. "To blacks who accuse him of not being aggressive on race, Mr. Obama has a reply: "I'm not the president of black America," he has said. "I'm the president of the United States of America." ".
  •  
    Mabel, I agree with what you're saying about the efforts he has to go through to not "favor his own race," and I'm particularly interested in how this interacts with the presidential race and the fact that the majority of black American's are likely to vote for him. In that sense, he is not obligated to woo them in the same way that he is courting the Latino vote in Nevada, Florida, etc. I totally agree with the writing you mention that suggests Obama's election isn't the sign of a post-racial society. Frankly, claims like that seem like a shallow and easy way to treat racial discrimination as if it isn't a problem in the US. In that sense I agree with Jonah: it will take a very long time, and a very, very easy way to stall the progress on racial issues entirely is to pretend like they aren't a big deal. This is specifically where I wonder if Obama could do more. Embracing his racial identity in the moments where it is easiest (like the meetings with leaders, etc.) would be a good step.
mabel taylor

One for All and All for One - 5 views

  •  
    This article stood out to me since it discusses a topic that I often find myself drawn to, which is the appropriateness of identity politics and how they affect not only Democrats, but politics more broadly. While this is a rather brief overview of a large issue, it efficiently mentions where the legacy of identity politics has its roots and how the Democratic focus on minorities has been successful in creating policies that strive for more equality. The article then goes on to discuss how identity politics can alienate key voters who are supporters of the party, but find themselves "excluded from" the focus on topics and issues they, as generally white and older citizens, cannot relate to. Though identity politics began as a way to bring in a more diverse audience of supporters and voters who were often left marginalized by other parties and politicians, the Democrats can easily make their campaigns and policies too specific and exclusive, leaving those not affected by more common forms of prejudice forgotten. I like that this article finishes with the idea that shifting the Democratic focus from tailored appeals to minorities to broader campaigns about unity would avoid the problem Democrats face, but I find it hard to imagine Democrats giving up a type of campaigning that their Republican rivals really struggle with when it gives them such an advantage, even with the alleged cost of forgotten white voters.
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    I think the efforts by both Obama and Romney to focus on minorities and identity groups is as much about tapping into wider voting groups as it is about creating equal policy (Jeb's comment about widening the appeal). I agree with you, though, that the Obama approach to identity politics is probably here to stay and worth the sacrifices he has to make in terms of old white voters. This is one of the ways, at least it seems to me, that "conventional" Democrats are not going to be all that important in deciding the election this year. This article reminds me of that infographic Anna posted: not only are some of the concerns of these smaller sections of the party outside of the bubble of typical Democrat issues, some of them actually contradict these views.
  •  
    According to Joe Klein, Obama and the democratic party have focused so much in supporting the minority groups that they have ignored the needs of white middle class voters. It's interesting to think about how this actually excludes a huge portion of the country. I wonder specifically which white voters Klein is referring to. Watching the crowd at the Democratic Convention I was struck by the diversity of the group. It seemed to reflect the US much more than the white crowd at the Republican Convention. There seemed to be many white, democratic delegates. Were these delegates from coastal states? Were they from cities? Did the majority of them connect to groups like women's rights, LGBT rights and other identity groups? I am concerned that the democrat's position on social issues could upset middle class voters who share other values with the democrats. However, I cannot imagine supporting issues of social justice and not highlighting them. They are just too important.
  •  
    This article brings up an interesting division in the Democratic party between white, middle class voters and the various minority groups. It's odd to think that a white construction worker in Texas or California, though he would probably agree with the Democratic party's stance on unions and worker rights, minimum wages, universal health care, etc, would probably be alienated by the party's stance on immigration. Ultimately, though, I feel like the democrats are right to court minority voters - every day, more old white men die and more minority voters become voting age. That is the direction that the country is heading, and I'm sure that if the Dems are consciously choosing minority voters over a more traditional voter base they're doing so with good reason.
  •  
    While I was reading this article, something about it didn't resonate with me. This is the line that really threw me off, "But if I'm a plain old white insurance salesman, I look at the Democratic Party and say, What's in it for me?" Well, for this salesman what's in it for him is a more fair tax code, a medicare system that will guarantee him health care longer into his life, the list goes on. I don't see how "identity politics" are hurting the Democratic Party, because there are so many issues in politics. I really don't believe the equal rights stance of the Democratic Party would alienate middle-class white men, because the Republican Party's economic policy will hurt these middle class men more. Now, all of my views on this issue are completely biased by my liberal politics, but I just disagreed with what this article was trying to get at.
  •  
    Interesting article and a great discussion. Identity does impact political leanings, and middle class white men more often vote Republican. I agree that it seems like the Democrats would have a lot to offer the "plain old white insurance salesman," but working class white guys don't seem to see it that way. If only women voted in this country, Republicans would not have a chance. Indeed, you can say the same about Latinos, Jews, African-Americans, immigrants, the poor ... And Republicans have their base groups as well -- white men, evangelical Christians, rural voters and those in the ex-urbs, etc. It turns out that how you vote is enormously impacted by citizenship status, race, ethnicity, class, gender, etc.
1 - 8 of 8
Showing 20 items per page