« An idea to help stop Fat Crybaby | Main | Orlando is horrifying »

June 06, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Counter point? Competitive local GOP in states like Massachusetts and New York haven't depended, AFAIK, on Hispanic support. California still had the Governator, although under unusual circumstances. Did the California GOP need Hispanic support to stay competitive because it can't win over it's white voters in the same way that Republicans occasionally do in state races like in Massachusetts?

That's a reasonable counterpoint, Logan. I wish Kevin Drum would come around and make it.

I'd also think to add "Asian" to Hispanic there. California's more diverse than NY or MA as a whole, and while Prop 187 was targeted at undocumented immigrants from Latin America, like a lot of aspects of the immigration fight, it is a dog whistle other groups can hear, and cause them to vote Democratic, too.

Kevin Drum only looked at the Democratic share of Presidential vote in California. He specifically acknowledged he was doing so:

"This is just the presidential vote, and maybe things are different in other contests. But I’d be interested to see someone take a more detailed look at this."

1) Prop 187 is a marginal impact in killing the California GOP. California's electorate is only 23% Hispanic even now. In 2010 Whitman won 31% of Hispanics. Assuming the entire shift towards Democrats (16%) was due to Prop 187, that's <3% shift in the general election. Big freaking deal.

2) In 2010 all voters shifted heavily towards Democrats the largest shift was among white and Asian voters (26% and 39%). Since then white and Asian voters have remained at those levels of Democratic support. That's what killed the Republican Party, Noel.

Brown didn't need a single Hispanic vote to be elected Governor either time. If the California GOP is a completely marginalized than the white voter did it. Prop 187 was a bit player.

That's not the right time period, Dave. But I think you have a point.

Sticking with the Field Poll, you see that the Latino vote gave the Democratic candidate a 0.3% edge (net) in 1990, but 4.1% in 1994 and 8.5% in 1998.

Except that wasn't enough in either case! It wasn't enough to cost Wilson the election in 1994; nor was it required for Davis to win in 1998.

This is interesting ... it also means that Drum is still incorrect, but for a different reason.

Drum's larger point was that Trump wouldn't alter the Republican's (already constrained glidepath of) electoral opportunities because of racial determinism (as reflected in his linear graph).

That was the claim I found more unusual.

Anecdotally, Wisconsin has become more conservative in recent years following an influx of former residents of Chicago housing projects. They took their Section 8 vouchers to Wisconsin, attracted by welfare benefits that are more generous than in Illinois.
Wisconsin does seem to have made a turn toward the right, though no one's proven if this is the cause.

The comments to this entry are closed.