The Nation: Blue States, Latino Voters

[La_Serpiente]

Blue States, Latino Voters

For almost forty years now, the white South has been moving steadily into the Republican ranks. Indeed, white Southerners now run the GOP and provide a very high proportion of its cultural shock troops. Given these facts, we believe it's past time to target the electoral map in a different way. The new path to the White House runs through the Latino Southwest, not the former Confederacy, especially for a Northern nominee. Hope blooms as a cactus flower, not a magnolia blossom.

We say this although we fully agree with the recent argument made by our friends Jesse Jackson Jr. and Frank Watkins that a strategy based on economic issues is critical for uniting African-American and white voters--and, we would add, Latino voters--over the long term. There is no doubt that Southern whites have been victimized by conservative bait-and-switch tactics--losing ground on jobs, wages, healthcare and retirement security while being polarized on racial issues and diverted on cultural issues (and, of course, when Southern whites are diverted, Southern blacks pay the heaviest price). Outside Florida, though, there is very little chance that enough Southern whites can be convinced of this logic to carry any Confederate electoral votes next year.

Consider this simple point by analyst Charlie Cook in The Almanac of American Politics 2002 concerning the swing suburban vote in the 2000 election: "Importantly, Bush's scant two-point victory in suburbs this year was driven by carrying Southern suburbs by 20 points, while losing non-Southern suburbs by about 15 points." Now balance that comment against Bush pollster Matthew Dowd's revealing insight that if the Bush 2004 percentage remains the same with every ethnic group he won in 2000, then the Democrats could win by 3 million votes rather than half a million. Most of this increase would come from Latinos.

more...

Blue States, Latino Voters

[demvoter]

1. Why do you think

That Bu$h is giving blanket amnesty and sending our Social security to mexico for? V.O.T.E.S. Is he that INSECURE?
:kick: !!!!!

[PDittie]

2. Required reading for anyone who's feeling morose

about our chances in November.

Please remember:

-- We won by 550,000 votes three years ago. (I simply don't think more people who voted for Gore have switched to Bush for 2004, than vice versa.) Bush won't pull as many votes as he did in 2000.

-- Between 2.5 and 3 million people have lost work in the last three years. How many of them will be voting for Bush?

-- the demographics are already in the Democrats' favor.

Want to do something to ensure we get rid of Bush?

Register a Hispanic voter -- one -- a week between now and election Day in November. Someone at work, someone at church, someone on the street...

[ochazuke]

3. Great Jesse Jackson Quote

From the end of that article:

As the Rev. Jesse Jackson often says, the hands that picked the cotton, plus the hands that picked the lettuce, are the hands that can pick the next President--for years to come.

[Bombtrack]

4. all the the states that Clinton one, I believe are possibilities

With a Clark ticket anyway. Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, and Montana are extremely unlikely even for him however, although either he or Edwards would be the most likely to win them.

1992 (Clinton red, Bush blue)

1996 (Clinton red, Dole blue)

[dusty64]

6. Agree with

these with the possible exception of Tennessee.

[dusty64]

5. Interesting

and hopeful. While we shouldn't write off any region except some Deep South and Rocky Mountain states, the key really will be the SouthWest this coming year.

[jsw_81]

7. Excellent article

Like I've said before, the key to the 2004 isn't the south, it's the southwest. All we have to do to win is hold the Gore states and take AZ and NV. And we can do that by nominating NM Gov. Bill Richardson for Vice President. Mark my words: If Howard Dean selects Richardson for the second slot they will be elected in November.