3 ms·

You're correct that GWB received 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, but that was somewhat of an anomaly. From: http://latinovotematters.org/stats/ http://latinov

by kxyvr 10y ago

You're correct that GWB received 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, but that was somewhat of an anomaly. From: http://latinovotematters.org/stats/ http://latinovotematters.org/stats/ 1980 Jimmy Carter, 56% Ronald Reagan, 35% +21 1984 Walter Mondale, 61% Ronald Reagan, 37% +24 1988 Michael Dukakis, 69% George H.W. Bush, 30% +39 1992 Bill Clinton, 61% George H.W. Bush, 25% +36 1996 Bill Clinton, 72% Bob Dole, 21% +51 2000 Al Gore, 62% George W. Bush, 35% +27 2004 John Kerry, 58% George W. Bush, 40% +18 2008 Barack Obama, 67% John McCain, 31% +36 2012 Barack Obama, 71% Mitt Romney, 27% +44 More importantly, the recent trend has been for the Latino vote to be more heavily toward Democrats. Certainly, I agree that Latinos as a whole tend to be conservative, largely due to a Catholic background. However, in current times, Latinos vote more heavily Democratic and by a large margin. Though, less of a margin than African-American voters.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
Nice find, thanks. I'd love to see that broken down by race and or nationality.
- kxyvr 10y ago
  I think it'd be fascinating to look at as well, but I think it'll be hard to find one. Or, at least a quick search turns of nothing. Part of the reason why it's hard is how certain Latino populations identify regionally. In New Mexico, we do not use the word Chicano as many families have been here for 400 years and are a mix of local native and Spanish. Do we count them as of Mexican descent? Similarly, in Texas, many people identify as Tejano. Don't let Wikipedia fool you; we do not safely call someone who identifies as Tejano a Mexican. I can go on and on, but the problem is that the Latino population is just a mix and much of it is indigenous. Often, I think the conversation about Latinos centers around us being immigrants and where we came from, but it's more complicated than that especially with the mixing that occurs even if a family were to immigrate.
simplemath 10y ago
The GOP faces an existential demography problem. Their base is a shrinking circle whose circumference is defined by an ourobouros

by kxyvr 10y ago

aaron-lebo 10y ago

Nice find, thanks. I'd love to see that broken down by race and or nationality.

kxyvr 10y ago
I think it'd be fascinating to look at as well, but I think it'll be hard to find one. Or, at least a quick search turns of nothing. Part of the reason why it's hard is how certain Latino populations identify regionally. In New Mexico, we do not use the word Chicano as many families have been here for 400 years and are a mix of local native and Spanish. Do we count them as of Mexican descent? Similarly, in Texas, many people identify as Tejano. Don't let Wikipedia fool you; we do not safely call someone who identifies as Tejano a Mexican. I can go on and on, but the problem is that the Latino population is just a mix and much of it is indigenous. Often, I think the conversation about Latinos centers around us being immigrants and where we came from, but it's more complicated than that especially with the mixing that occurs even if a family were to immigrate.

simplemath 10y ago

The GOP faces an existential demography problem. Their base is a shrinking circle whose circumference is defined by an ourobouros