Nate asks, "Can the Republicans win back the White House in 2012 or 2016 while losing further ground among Latinos?" I don't know about 2012 and 2016, but I can give my best estimates for 2008, based on my analysis with Yair using the Pew pre-election polls to get vote preferences (normalizing each state to line up with the actual election outcome) and the CPS post-election supplement to get voter turnout. (You'll get similar numbers using the exit polls, but I trust our analyses a little more, also they're consistent with our earlier graphs of voting by income and ethnicity.)
I'll show you what we found, then give some brief discussion.
Here's how Obama did among Hispanics in the states where there is a large Hispanic presence:
[In response to commenters, here are some numbers for McCain's estimated share of the two-party vote among Hispanics: NM 27%, CA 26%, TX 42%, FL 43%, AZ 35%, NV 24%, NY 25%, CO 27%, NJ 23%, IL 23%, CT 24%. Exit polls give slightly different answers. No data source is perfect and we have to acknowledge that there is uncertainty in our estimates.]
And here's a map showing our estimate of the Hispanic vote share by state (based on the CPS post-election supplement): Hispanics represented 31% of the vote in New Mexico, 22% in California, 20% in Texas, 15% in Florida, 13% in Arizona, 12% in Nevada, and less than 10% in all other states:
OK, so Obama dominated among Hispanics. How did he and McCain do among the rest of the voters? The following map shows our estimates from our model based on the Pew data:
This map looks suspiciously close to the map for all voters. And, in fact, it is.
Here's a scatterplot comparing McCain's vote share among non-Hispanics to his total vote share by state (excluding Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia):
The removal of the Hispanic vote wouldn't have changed the election outcome in any state (although New Mexico, Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina are within 1% of flipping, and small changes to the model (for example, using exit polls instead of the Pew surveys) might cause some of these to flip). The point is, except for the six or so states with lots of Hispanic voters, the changes are mostly tiny.
Now let's look at it another way. Instead of removing Hispanics from the equation (which helps the Republicans), let's try the counterfactual in which the Republicans give up on the Hispanic vote, which I'll operationalize by transferring half of McCain's Hispanic votes in every state to Obama. (For example, we estimate that McCain got 22.8% of the two-party vote among Hispanics in New Jersey. Under this counterfactual, we'll give him just 11.4%.) Here's what happens:
Again, not much difference. Ummm . . . Missouri moves to 50.3% for Obama. And here's the scatterplot:
The bottom line: Hispanics were not a key component in Obama's win. However, this is not to say that the Republicans should not try to contest the Hispanic vote. As the last scatterplot above shows, further losses of Hispanics would make the Democrats competitive in Georgia, Texas, and Arizona. In some sense this is no big deal, at least at the presidential level: If the Democrats remain at 53% or 54% of the vote, they'll win nationally in any case. If we imagine a national swing of 3% or so toward the Republicans, so they're competitive nationally, then their big risk if they lose Hispanic votes is to no longer be viable in Florida (where we estimate McCain to have won 43% of the two-party vote among Hispanics in 2008). That's the state where Republicans really can't afford to abandon the Hispanic vote.
P.S. Some commenters point out that the Hispanic vote is expected to vote. Following up on the above, I did some crude calculations, assumning that the Hispanic vote share increases by 20% in each state:
Again, the bottom line is that the biggest difference is in Florida, with its high Hispanic vote that is currently nearly evenly split between the two parties. Texas and Arizona show big potential shifts too, but, again, if these states are swinging without other big changes happening elsewhere, the national Republican party is in big trouble anyway.
41 comments
I think that last paragraph is the key. If Hispanic votes are essential in Florida then they are essential because the Republicans will not win the White House in 2012 or 2016 without Florida.
Awesome counterpost!
You and Nate seem to be using different data. Nate's post earlier said that NC and Indiana would have gone for McCain if there wasn't the Hispanic vote to push Obama past the 50% mark to win them, but now Andrew is saying that the Hispanic vote, if removed, wouldn't have flipped any state.
Am I misreading something?
Andrew: for your first two maps, once again you haven't provided a key to the colors, which is annoying. Can't you put one below the maps?
Bryce: Nate is right about Indiana. Andrew says no Hispanics would move it to 49.9% for McCain, which is a McCain victory, unless a huge percentage of Hispanics went for Bob Barr, who got 1.1% of the total vote. This is in agreement with Nate's post, so the logical conclusion is that they're both about right on the numbers, but Andrew's conclusion is wrong.
Don't have any numbers from either on NC, so no idea who's right there.
Juris: Agree completely on the first graph. I find it very confusing.
Do these models hold the number of Hispanic voters as constant? I would expect the number of voters to increase over the next 4-8 years, though the rate is up to debate.
A much harder question to answer, but just as important:
How does the hispanic vote impact on close Senate and House races around the country? How many seats would change hands depending on that voting block?
Benjamin hit on my thought exactly. It's reasonable to say that at this moment the Hispanic voting group isn't going to swing a Presidential election all by itself, but that's possibly the easier question to answer. The much more interesting question is if anti-Hispanic fearmongering is going to lock Republicans out of majority status in either house of Congress.
And whether or not these hypotheses are true or not, they're still unambiguously stupid strategy. You shouldn't persecute a major voting bloc unless you're going to go whole hog and persecute them out of the voting pool. Thankfully, I don't see that happening.
You're missing the fact that this election was a blowout for the Democrats. Giving more of the Hispanic vote to the Democrats may not make much of a difference for the 2008 map, but Missouri was just about the only state that Obama could have conceivably won that he lost.
I would be more interested in seeing the effect losing more of the Hispanic vote in a close election would have on the Republicans' chances of winning.
Don't dismiss the potential change overs in GA, TX, and AZ. Atlanta, Phoenix, Austin, San Antonio, Houston, and Dallas have been importing huge numbers of Latino immigrants and white collar blue state Democrats for about 3 decades, and their fair weather, low tax economies show no signs of slowing down. This group is about to enter it's 3rd generation of voters. This continual importation and breeding of Democrats will flip 2 of these states by 2016.
I actually read this data as saying there is no hispanic vote [different from the any-old-american vote] which is pretty interesting, over and above your reasons for compiling the information. I'm surprised...
I'm with Benjamin. While it may be interesting to see how Latino reaction to the treatment of Sottomayor will impact the 2012 Presidential election, I'd be more interested in seeing the impact on a much more near-term basis, i.e. the 2010 mid-terms.
John McCain has been awfully quiet on this. I'm guessing he wants to keep a low profile on this and will end up voting to confirm her nomination with little, if any, fanfare.
Solidifying the hispanic vote would give the dems an iron clad grip on Nevada, Colorado, and New mexico. Those three states + the kerry states = automatic win for obama in 2012...even under the WORST changes in the electoral college from the census.
If you're only interested in which states would flip, you underestimate the total vote swing from the GOP.
Surely for the GOP to lose that level of the Hispanic vote in just 4 years, the GOP would have to become uniformly anti- Latino in very dramatic and public ways over the next few years, and also run someone like Lou Dobbs or a Minuteman on the ticket, IMHO.
Simply opposing Sotomayor won't be enoughThat would affect the level of GOP voting among other immigrant groups, and affect even more of the "moderate" white Republicans to leave (if there are any left).
Not that they can't pull this. They ain't really that far from the Minutemen, I guess.
Just for the record, it's important to remember that the Florida hispanic vote is very different from the rest of the hispanic vote (though less so with every passing year): it is heavily Cuban, economically conservative and militaristic. The Cuban vote might be more turned off by Obama opening trade relations with Cuba than it would be by opposition to a Puerto Rican judicial nominee.
By the way, is a Puerto Rico referendum law already on the way? One went through the House in 2007 but was held up in the Senate...
A couple of things people are missing:
The Hispanic vote is increasing, and looks like it will continue to increase for many years into the future. Already Hispanics are the largest minority group in the population, having passed African-Americans within the last decade. Because so many are recent immigrants (both legal and illegal), they don't vote in quite a high a per cent as AAs, but within a few years, that probably will not be the case.
Also, when a political party disses an ethnic group to the point they leave the party, it is a long-term departure. The GOOPers got the AA vote in the aftermath of the Civil War, and kept it until the 1932 election. It was an almost solid GOOPer vote for the AAs through that period.
There is a story (not known if true or not) that an AA in Baltimore City accidentally voted for Wilson in the 1912 Presidential election. She was so angry she literally twisted the voting lever off the machine.
In the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, Herbert Hoover was put in charge of the rescue and recovery effort, making many promises to the AAs in the affected areas. When he took office in 1929, he 'conveniently' forgot all those promises. Then the Great Depression hit, and the AAs were the last remembered, if remembered at all, by the GOOPer legislators and the Hoover administration. It even was to the point that sometimes they were only remembered when someone needed a scapegoat, and the AAs were the most convenient group to place the blame on. In the 1932 election, Democrats won the AA vote for the first time, and has not lost that vote in any election since.
Could Lush Rimbaugh and the rest of the wing-nuttery crowd alienate the Hispanic voters to the same extent the GOOPers of the late 20s/early 30s did with the AAs? Let's encourage them to try to get to that level, and it should assure a solid Hispanic vote for the Democratic Party for several decades, at least.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
...operationalize? Come on! That's not regular English.
Rob1606 said...
...operationalize? Come on! That's not regular English.
Dictionary.com gives two definitions:
Main Entry: operationalize
Part of Speech: v
Definition: to define a concept or variable so that it can be measured or expressed quantitatively
Main Entry: operationalize
Part of Speech: v
Definition: to put into operation, start working
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
"There is a story (not known if true or not) that an AA in Baltimore City accidentally voted for Wilson in the 1912 Presidential election. She was so angry she literally twisted the voting lever off the machine."
Women's suffrage wasn't granted until 1920.
A comment on Andrew’s calculations for Indiana: because Andrew is predicting the results based on a 2-party vote, a 49.9% vote for McCain is still a win for Obama, as there is no Bob Barr (or other) to get any of the votes.
In 2006, Indiana's Hispanic population was estimated to be 4%-5%. However, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated the percent of eligible Hispanic voters was only 2.4%. Further - due to lower (national) Hispanic voter turnout than non-Hispanic turnout - they estimated the percent of actual voters to be only 1.7% of the total Indiana voters.
The Hispanic percent population increased by maybe 10% in Indiana between 2006 and 2008 voting. If we accept the estimates of PHC above, and assume the increase in actual voter percent from 2006 to 2008 was about 10%, Hispanics only make up 1.9% of the 2008 election vote. Performing a 2-party, no-Hispanic prediction yields almost exactly a 50% - 50% voting between Obama and McCain. A slight change in any of the above assumptions would yield a flip or non-flip in the election. So I believe that both Nate and Andrew made reasonable assumptions and proper data reduction and came up with opposing results. This state’s 2008 electoral votes could have gone either way without any Hispanics votes…it is just too close to ever really know.
I wonder if we aren't being a touch patronizing to the Hispanic community to assume that they will all think badly of the GOP for opposing Sotomayor? It seems to. E that the Hispanic community is far less homogenous than say the African-American community. I think perhaps a reasoned sensible critique of Judge Sotomayor may be seen as reasonable and not alienate every Latino voter. And I would hope that a petty race and gender based attack on her would always yield anger and derision fro. Any right thinking bank of voters.
Markymark: The problem with that statement is I have yet to see a reasoned critique of Sotomayor from the right.
This whole issue is so ironic. The democrats always scream about race but now if you dare to oppose a minority you are somehow racist?
Soudamyer is a liberal justice. All the major papers have said so. If you are a conservative of course you are going to oppose here just like you would oppose the person with the same positions if they were purple or green or blue.
I look forward to the day as MLK says when we will be truly colorblind and judged not by the color of our skin but by our merits and ideals.
Much of the blame is placed on the partisan MSM. They should actually focus on the issues and her rulings instead of her race and sex. Its pathetic.
Back to on topic. One of these days could someone do an in depth analysis of Indiana. North Carolina flipped due to African Americans.
Another idea for analysis is running the congressional districts with a lower African American turnout because there is no Obama in 2010. In Virginia there are two seats that will most likely switch back to Republican VA (2nd and 5th) since African Americans should return to their regular abysmal turnout rates
@ theonlysane one - universal women's suffrage did not come until 1920. Many states allowed women to vote well before then.
2 things to note about the Hispanic vote: As baby boomers retire to the South/Southwest(which has the highest proportion of Hispanics), Hispanics' proportion of the vote and therefore their voting power will fall. However, were Obama to grant a blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants, the Hispanic vote would become much larger and much more Democratic, though that might lose him support among Cubans, who tend to prioritize national security because they equate it with being anti-Castro- and Obama's already fallen short there.
The Republican challenge concerning Latinos is not as simple as adding up voters and subtracting x number of Latinos. There are broader, strategic concerns.
A rising Hispanic population can make previously safe red states (NV, AZ, CO, TX, GA) into places where the GOP needs to fight for the vote. They may very well continue to win those states, but statewide ad buys in big Western states' media markets become phenomenally expensive very quickly, plus the cost of an expanded ground game. Every day that a GOP candidate spends wooing the evangelical vote in Lubbock, Colorado Springs or Macon is one less day spent wooing moderates in Minneapolis, Dayton or Harrisburg.
Plus, the GOP needs to look at what the loss of Latinos does to their coalition.
Will they still receive a rubber stamp approval from the Conference of Catholic Bishops when the church is even more heavily Latino? A majority of American Catholics under 25 is currently Latino, if they age in place and maintain high birth rates, the church may be on it's way back to being an ethnic church the way it was ethnically Irish and French in the mid-19th century. (see http://www.usccb.org/hispanicaffairs/demo.shtml )
The same demographic shift in the Catholic church is at work, albeit in a much reduced and less obvious form, among Pentecostals and Evangelicals. Find me a city in this country over 100k that doesn't have an Hispanic conservative Christian church. At the moment, this is a real opportunity for the GOP, but if Tancredo, Dobbs, Limbaugh and the others don't moderate their stance against immigration... well let's just say a mass deportation plan would include some Latino Pentecostals. I wonder how Anglo and Black Pentecostals will feel about that.
Hispanics, despite being Democratic voters, may still keep a pro-life stance. If their greater involvement in Democratic party organizations leads to a softening of the Dems on abortion, the way the party has softened on guns as they regained some support in rural areas and the South, Democratic dominance among Latinos could indirectly neutralize the pro-life vote. Will there be a day when white, pro-life voters see little advantage in either party and split their vote nearly fifty-fifty, shifting to support individual pro-life candidates of either party? It would certainly make the pro-life voters strategically more powerful and the GOP less powerful.
Drive across the Southwest, Florida or the Northeast, and see how many bodegas, florists, bars, restaurants, machine shops and garages are owned by Latinos... how long will the Chamber of Commerce be willing to support the GOP at the risk of alienating a potential member base?
And don't forget those non-Hispanic whites sympathetic to Hispanics. Hispanics have a fairly high rate of inter-marriage with non-Hispanics in places where Anglos would ordinarily vote solidly Republican, like Texas, Colorado and Florida. Is a white conservative to moderate guy in Phoenix, going to vote for a party that wants to deport his wife's family back to Mexico?
This goes way beyond numbers, this is about long term strategy and vision.
nova_middle_man said...
This whole issue is so ironic. The democrats always scream about race but now if you dare to oppose a minority you are somehow racist?
n_m_m, you cut the legs off your argument with the very next sentence:
Soudamyer is a liberal justice.
1. Disrespect for a person is very often shown when the spelling of the person's name is incorrect. It is a very common trait among GOOPers and conservatives to want to 'Americanize' a non-Anglo name. The nominee is Sonia Sotomayor, not the mangled spelling you gave her.
2. Reasoned and factual arguments against a nominee are valid, no matter their sex, ethnicity, religion, etc. Statements that "so and so is a liberal" without factual backup arguments are not.
3. I thought the GOOPers and conservatives were all in favor of state's rights. I must be mistaken. The city of New Haven decided that the test was flawed, and therefore withdrew the results. When the case went to the Second District Court of Appeals, Ms. Sotomayor agreed with the city of New Haven that they had the right to take a look at the test to see if it WAS appropriate. She was not 'legislating from the bench', but stating that the city, which gave the test, had the right to take another look at the test to see if it could determine if there was any bias in the test. She didn't state that the firemen could never get a job (it was a promotion test, so they were already had a job with the fire department). She didn't tell the city of New Haven they had to fire the fire men. She didn't prohibit the city of New Haven from ever using the results of the test at any time in the future, no matter if the city found the tests fair or not. All she did was agree with the city that the test provided results that didn't seem fair, and the city had the right to look at the test to see if in fact it WAS a fair test.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Isn't one of the most statistically signicant features of the data that the Hispanic vote skews Democrat in Democratic states and Republican in Republican states? doesn't this explain the insensitivity of the vote to other political factors?
As some states trend Democrat e.g.
NV, CO, AZ doesn't it become that much harder for the GOP to win the
greater share of the Hispanic vote it requires. As more states are trending Democrat than Republican doesn't this impact on the electoral maths?
Mike in Maryland anyone who constantly uses the term Goopers has no room to talk
You are a liberal left wing hack incapable of original thought
Why are the critiques racist? Because right wingers are criticizing her for being an unqualified affirmative action quota. Even though she was first in her class at Princeton, Fox News insists she must have gotten into law school only as a quota. Clearly she was qualified, since she was an editor on the Yale Law Journal (which is only for the top students at the school.
The Limbaugh segment of society simply can't accept that a minority woman might really be more competent and qualified than they are. Indeed, their inability to accept it -- when they have all the facts in front of them -- is itself the best reason for affirmative action I've ever seen.
P.S. And as for the New Haven fire fighter case, it was decided with a narrow focus on precedent, not personal feeling, which is what all the conservatives say they want in a judge. Yet white men feel so threatened that they compare her to the KKK.
Gelman spends a long time proving, "The removal of the Hispanic vote wouldn't have changed the election outcome in any state... Hispanics were not a key component in Obama's win." Bravo! Mr. Gelman just proved that Romney will lose just as badly as McCain did 2012 even if Romney loses Hispanics entirely. He should be asking, "What would happen if the GOP won even more Hispanics in 2012 than their rather pathetic showing in 2008?" 2008 was a disaster for the GOP, and it seems clear that winning more Hispanics than they did could be a good thing. Gelman's argument is kind of analogous to saying. "I had six drinks last night and got a DWI. When my wife gave me grief for drinking, I told her, 'Look, I would have gotten a DWI even if I had twelve drinks, so don't tell me that my drinking has anything to do with my DWI."
http://laughingthinkingwritingpolitics.blogspot.com/
Very good post.
I said much the same things immediately after the 2000 and 2004 election. Hispanics are not a crucial "swing" vote. They're more of a "flow" vote in that they tend to go with the flow of their white neighbors, just consistently farther to the left. (For example, the high point for the GOP in share of Hispanic vote in House elections was Newt Gingrich's 1994.)
We hear much obsessing over the Hispanic vote, but some of that was a smoke screen made up by Karl Rove. Rove's two big successes -- 2002 and 2004 -- stemmed from mobilizing heavy turnout among white voters and winning a high share of whites. But you aren't supposed to talk about appealing to whites, so Rove did a lot of hand-waving about how Republicans were going to win via Hispanics, and a lot of innumerate journalists bought it.
McCain did poorly in motivating whites to show up and vote, and did mediocre in attracting whites votes, so he lost.
nova_middle_man said...
Mike in Maryland anyone who constantly uses the term Goopers has no room to talk
You are a liberal left wing hack incapable of original thought
n-m-m:
I do not hide my disdain for the GOOPers.
You tried to pretend that you were the 'sane, reasonable' one in the room by your "The democrats always scream about race but now if you dare to oppose a minority you are somehow racist?"
And then the very next sentence, you spell nominee Sotomayor's name as 'Soudamyer'.
I can understand an unintentional mangling of a name - I've done it myself many times. But I've always tried to correct the mistake when it's pointed out to me.
You didn't and you don't. Typical GOOPer hypocrite and hypocrisy with the 'we should be a color-blind society, so why do we need affirmative action laws?'. Then throw in the ad hominem 'She's a LIBERAL!' without showing any examples (that anyone would believe), and you show your true colors.
BTW - n_m_m, your screen name indicates that you are in the middle. Middle of what? Middle of the GOOPers, midway between the far right and the lunatic extreme far right?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
theonlysaneone said (in referring to the incident with the Baltimore voting machine) ...
Women's suffrage wasn't granted until 1920.
My bad. Not a woman who twisted the lever off the voting machine, but a man.
Source was http://www.cresswellslist.com/ballots2/1912_odd.htm , under the 'Sounds Like Palm Beach County!' heading.
And in my defense, I've already told people that I have an eye disease that causes me problems at times - I saw the word 'he', and misread it as 'she'.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Steve Sailer,
Even if your premise of 'Hispanics didn't win any elections for the GOOPers, and therefore won't have any effect in the future' is correct (it isn't - if Cuban-Americans in Florida hadn't voted in such high numbers for little shrub in 2000, there would have never been a need for a recount, as Gore would have easily won outside the recount margin), you're wrong.
Rove was (admittedly) lip flapping in support of Hispanics (especially in 2004), but he definitely wasn't disparaging them. Operation Gringo is a definite disparagement of Hispanics.
Many Hispanics saw through Rove's lip flapping, but still voted for the GOOPers. Many were voting for the GOOPer 'social issues', not for the GOOPer candidate.
With Operation Gringo, the anti-Hispanic noises are VERY sincere by the noise making GOOPers. Hispanics of all backgrounds will notice. I expect that the per cent of Cuban-American vote for the GOOPers will drop for a number of reasons:
- Generational change
- Anti-immigrant, and especially anti-Hispanic sentiment being loudly proclaimed by the GOOPers
- Obama's gradual loosening of certain sanctions on trade and visits to Cuba
- Recognition by the Hispanics that the GOOPer base doesn't want Hispanics in the US, let alone in the GOOPer party. Most Hispanics will not develop a Stockholm syndrome with the GOOPers - they'll vote with and for the party that actually accepts them as they are and as American citizens, namely the Democratic party.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
The core problem is the GOP comes off as negative to a large number of ethnic groups, women as well as people of color.
It is difficult to see how the GOP can be nationally relevant without appealing to the broad base of American voters.
The GOP feels compelled to be highly negative on every issue and do so without consideration to how it is perceived.
Cheney, Rove, Rush and Newt come off as arrogant jerks and their name calling is destructive. Unless the tone changes the GOP will not be attractive to women, hispanics, people of color and younger voters. Try and win a national election with white old men who are mean. I don't think so. And if the GOP believes that a candidate like Palin is the answer they have taken all leave of their senses.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment