Chicago Tribune falsely claimed Clinton, Obama, and McCain "essentially agree" on immigration
In an article on immigration as a campaign issue, the Chicago Tribune reported that Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain "essentially agree on the need for an overhaul of U.S. Immigration law that would combine increased border enforcement with a new guest-worker program and measures to permit the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country to eventually apply for citizenship." In fact, McCain has said he "would not" support his original comprehensive immigration proposal if it came to a vote on the Senate floor and now says that "we've got to secure the borders first."
I don't see how anyone could assume that these three politicians have the same views on the immigration policies in the United States. Clinton and Obama's views are somewhat similar, but McCain is definitely in the same boat as the two democrat hopefuls. Strict immigration policies and republican party values go hand in hand, it would be hard make the argument that McCain would every loosen his views. Even though he does have a tendancy to be sort of a political maverick, if he were elected I don't think Republican party leaders and constiuents would want MccCain to loosen border security. However, that's why the democrats need to get their act together and solidify a candidate. We need a strong candidate to run against a formidable McCain. I don't think I can handle another four years of republican fascism.
In a March 24 Chicago Tribune article on immigration as a campaign issue, correspondent Howard Witt claimed that Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain "have little to debate on the topic." As evidence, Witt falsely reported that the three presidential hopefuls "essentially agree on the need for an overhaul of U.S. Immigration law that would combine increased border enforcement with a new guest-worker program and measures to permit the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country to eventually apply for citizenship." In fact, unlike Clinton and Obama, McCain has abandoned his previous support for comprehensive immigration legislation. McCain asserted on January 30 that he "would not" support his original comprehensive immigration proposal if it came to a vote on the Senate floor and now says that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective.
McCain also reversed his position on the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, which would have allowed "illegal immigrants under age 30 to remain in the United States and gain legal status if they attend college or join the military." Clinton and Obama have both voted for the DREAM Act, and support its enactment.
While Witt wrote that "[i]mmigration reformers say the victory of the more moderate McCain over several Republican primary rivals who favored strict Immigration crackdowns proves that the campaign against illegal immigrants has backfired," he did not report McCain's reversal on a key aspect of comprehensive immigration reform -- whether border security can be addressed separately from other components -- which more closely aligned him with the base of the Republican Party. A November 4, 2007, Associated Press article on the change in McCain's position reported that his prior support for comprehensive immigration reform "hurt him politically" and quoted McCain as stating: "I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift. ... I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders." In his February 7 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), McCain also asserted that "[o]n the issue of illegal immigration, a position which provoked the outspoken opposition of many conservatives, I stood my ground aware that my position would imperil my campaign." After claiming that "we failed" on immigration, McCain stated: "I accept that, and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration."
Though Witt reported that "[m]embers of Congress tried and failed, in 2006 and 2007, to enact such immigration reforms, some of them co-sponsored by McCain and Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy," he did not mention that McCain said during CNN's January 30 Republican presidential debate that he "would not" support his own bill if it came to a vote in the Senate:
JANET HOOK (Los Angeles Times staff writer): What I'm wondering is, and you seem to be downplaying that part, at this point, if your original proposal came to a vote in the Senate floor, would you vote for it?
McCAIN: It won't. It won't. That's why we went through the debate.
HOOK: I know, but what if it did?
McCAIN: No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first. And so to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate, it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that ever, that proposal.
Numerous media outlets have noted McCain's previous support for comprehensive immigration reform without noting that he has since changed his position.
In contrast to the Tribune's and other reports, The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller reported on March 3 that McCain "moved from his original position on immigration" and "went so far at a debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in January to say that if his original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, he would not vote for it."
From the March 24 Chicago Tribune article:
Illegal Immigration, a hot-button populist issue that many experts had expected to top the nation's political concerns this year, has largely vanished from the presidential campaign amid waning interest from voters and mounting delays in constructing a 670-mile border fence between the United States and Mexico.
Moreover, primary results and opinion polls in recent months indicate that the Republican Party's emphasis on a crackdown against illegal immigrants may be driving many Hispanic voters -- a crucial electoral bloc in November's election -- into the Democratic fold.
"For any candidates anywhere in the country, I don't think it's demonstrated that combating illegal Immigration is an issue that controls people's votes," said David Hill, a leading Republican pollster in Houston who has termed illegal Immigration a "dud issue" for his party. "Immigration is unlike health care or the economy, both of which have a more intimate impact on people's lives."
At the presidential level, the three remaining contenders have little to debate on the topic. Sens. John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all essentially agree on the need for an overhaul of U.S. Immigration law that would combine increased border enforcement with a new guest-worker program and measures to permit the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country to eventually apply for citizenship.
Members of Congress tried and failed, in 2006 and 2007, to enact such Immigration reforms, some of them co-sponsored by McCain and Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy. The initiatives were derailed by strong grass-roots opposition to provisions that many conservatives regarded as amnesty for foreigners who have broken American Immigration laws.
Now, however, anti-Immigration activists, chagrined that their issue is sputtering at the national level as American voters turn their attention to the faltering economy, are resigning themselves to the likelihood that the next occupant of the White House, either Democrat or Republican, may well try to resurrect an Immigration compromise.
[...]
For their part, Immigration reformers say the victory of the more moderate McCain over several Republican primary rivals who favored strict Immigration crackdowns proves that the campaign against illegal immigrants has backfired.
"The whole point of the hard-core anti-immigrant stance was to galvanize Republican voters and turn them out," said Cecilia Munoz, senior vice president of the National Council of La Raza, a leading Hispanic civil rights group. "It did not galvanize the voters who were the intended targets, but it sure galvanized Latino voters. We have tripled our electoral turnout this year."
—E.H.H.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Puerto Rico’s Political Melodrama Plays On, With Its Governor in the Lead Role
Recently Aníbal S. Acevedo Vilá, governor of Puerto Rico, has come under investigation for accusations of violating campaign finance regulations. This story is of high relevance because Acevedo is up for reelection this year and because, according to the article and also what we have talked about in class, Puerto Rico is a place where politics infuses the culture and goes to the heart of Puerto Rican identity. Acevedo is a a Democrat who has recently endorsed democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. It has been speculated that this could possibly cause some problems for Obama.
It seems like corruption in politics is inevitable no matter what party, race or country is involved. However, I personally always tend to remember Republicans being more responsible for violating finance rules, not usually Democrats. It is interesting that Acevedo endorsed Obama. Maybe this was done hoping that if Obama is elected into office, Acevedo could receive help from Obama.
I personally get sick of hearing about constant corruption in government, it makes me wonder would it ever be possible to experience politics without corruption?
SAN JUAN, P.R. — The rumors wash up against the gray walls of La Fortaleza, the governor’s palace in this city’s quarter, with the regularity of the ocean’s waves. Every few weeks they seem to gather momentum, like a tidal surge, and threaten to overwhelm the place and its occupant, Gov. Aníbal S. Acevedo Vilá.
Enlarge This Image
Brennan Linsley/Associated Press
Gov. Aníbal S. Acevedo Vilá of Puerto Rico after delivering a speech last month on the state of the territory.
At one moment, the word on the street is that the governor will be arrested before the weekend. At the next, he will be spared, though several of his close associates will fall.
And so it has gone for more than two years while federal investigators have looked into accusations of campaign finance violations relating to Mr. Acevedo, a Democrat, who is up for re-election this year.
The case has captured the imagination of Puerto Rico’s political class and news media, which have tracked every microscopic development in the investigation with the intensity befitting a place where politics infuses the culture and goes to the heart of Puerto Rican identity.
No movement of the federal grand jury reviewing the evidence has gone undetected, the comings and goings of witnesses have been recorded by the media and analyzed ad nauseam, and leaks abound.
“You can’t spend half an hour in a meeting of politically minded people without someone saying, ‘O.K., who’s going to be indicted, when is he going to be indicted?’ ” said Juan Manuel García Passalacqua, a well-known political analyst and lawyer here. “It’s incredible. Every day, man. One gets sick of it. Ugh!”
Yet Mr. García is one of the engines of the gossip mill. The subject frequently crops up on his radio talk show, as it did during a broadcast earlier this month, when he mentioned an article from that morning in El Vocero. The newspaper had reported that Mary Butler, a Justice Department lawyer who had successfully prosecuted other high-profile public corruption cases on the island, had gotten involved in the Acevedo investigation.
“This is a total surprise for everyone in this country,” Mr. García said after the broadcast, in an interview at the radio station, WKAQ, 580 AM. “Everyone knows she is eminently capable. This is big!”
The governor’s endorsement of Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, earlier this month also generated a whirlwind of theories about how it might affect both men’s campaigns.
Some people speculated that the Obama campaign, mindful of the cloud hanging over Mr. Acevedo’s head, might distance itself from the governor. Others contended that the governor, betting on an Obama victory in the primaries and in the general election, was laying the groundwork for help from the White House should he be indicted.
Residents of the commonwealth do not vote in general elections, but the final Democratic caucus is in Puerto Rico, on June 7, with 63 delegates at stake.
Luis Russi, a public defender and law professor here, said that deep down most people did not really care what happened to the governor. They simply enjoyed throwing a few punches in this political brawl.
“Politics is like sport here,” Mr. Russi said. “Here everyone has something to say. Everyone knows. Everyone wants to participate. Everyone has an opinion.”
“We’re Latino,” he continued. “We have a lot of passion. We love! We hate! A lot!”
The federal authorities have refused to make any statements about the case; what is known publicly about the investigation has been gleaned through leaks and the scant information provided by witnesses who have testified before the grand jury. According to those witnesses, investigators have asked about the finances of Mr. Acevedo’s 2004 race for governor and about his successful campaign in 2000 to become the resident commissioner, Puerto Rico’s nonvoting delegate to Congress. (Mr. Acevedo has said that if there were improprieties in his campaigns, he was not aware of them.)
According to news reports in Puerto Rico and Philadelphia, investigators are examining whether major donors laundered contributions by listing them under other people’s names in order to circumvent contribution limits. In addition, they are looking into accusations that some companies were given government contracts in exchange for campaign contributions. The Philadelphia Inquirer has reported that investigators have focused some of their inquiry in Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey, where Mr. Acevedo received large contributions.
The island’s political parties and politicians have exuberantly used the fact of the investigation to further their ambitions.
It seems like corruption in politics is inevitable no matter what party, race or country is involved. However, I personally always tend to remember Republicans being more responsible for violating finance rules, not usually Democrats. It is interesting that Acevedo endorsed Obama. Maybe this was done hoping that if Obama is elected into office, Acevedo could receive help from Obama.
I personally get sick of hearing about constant corruption in government, it makes me wonder would it ever be possible to experience politics without corruption?
SAN JUAN, P.R. — The rumors wash up against the gray walls of La Fortaleza, the governor’s palace in this city’s quarter, with the regularity of the ocean’s waves. Every few weeks they seem to gather momentum, like a tidal surge, and threaten to overwhelm the place and its occupant, Gov. Aníbal S. Acevedo Vilá.
Enlarge This Image
Brennan Linsley/Associated Press
Gov. Aníbal S. Acevedo Vilá of Puerto Rico after delivering a speech last month on the state of the territory.
At one moment, the word on the street is that the governor will be arrested before the weekend. At the next, he will be spared, though several of his close associates will fall.
And so it has gone for more than two years while federal investigators have looked into accusations of campaign finance violations relating to Mr. Acevedo, a Democrat, who is up for re-election this year.
The case has captured the imagination of Puerto Rico’s political class and news media, which have tracked every microscopic development in the investigation with the intensity befitting a place where politics infuses the culture and goes to the heart of Puerto Rican identity.
No movement of the federal grand jury reviewing the evidence has gone undetected, the comings and goings of witnesses have been recorded by the media and analyzed ad nauseam, and leaks abound.
“You can’t spend half an hour in a meeting of politically minded people without someone saying, ‘O.K., who’s going to be indicted, when is he going to be indicted?’ ” said Juan Manuel García Passalacqua, a well-known political analyst and lawyer here. “It’s incredible. Every day, man. One gets sick of it. Ugh!”
Yet Mr. García is one of the engines of the gossip mill. The subject frequently crops up on his radio talk show, as it did during a broadcast earlier this month, when he mentioned an article from that morning in El Vocero. The newspaper had reported that Mary Butler, a Justice Department lawyer who had successfully prosecuted other high-profile public corruption cases on the island, had gotten involved in the Acevedo investigation.
“This is a total surprise for everyone in this country,” Mr. García said after the broadcast, in an interview at the radio station, WKAQ, 580 AM. “Everyone knows she is eminently capable. This is big!”
The governor’s endorsement of Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, earlier this month also generated a whirlwind of theories about how it might affect both men’s campaigns.
Some people speculated that the Obama campaign, mindful of the cloud hanging over Mr. Acevedo’s head, might distance itself from the governor. Others contended that the governor, betting on an Obama victory in the primaries and in the general election, was laying the groundwork for help from the White House should he be indicted.
Residents of the commonwealth do not vote in general elections, but the final Democratic caucus is in Puerto Rico, on June 7, with 63 delegates at stake.
Luis Russi, a public defender and law professor here, said that deep down most people did not really care what happened to the governor. They simply enjoyed throwing a few punches in this political brawl.
“Politics is like sport here,” Mr. Russi said. “Here everyone has something to say. Everyone knows. Everyone wants to participate. Everyone has an opinion.”
“We’re Latino,” he continued. “We have a lot of passion. We love! We hate! A lot!”
The federal authorities have refused to make any statements about the case; what is known publicly about the investigation has been gleaned through leaks and the scant information provided by witnesses who have testified before the grand jury. According to those witnesses, investigators have asked about the finances of Mr. Acevedo’s 2004 race for governor and about his successful campaign in 2000 to become the resident commissioner, Puerto Rico’s nonvoting delegate to Congress. (Mr. Acevedo has said that if there were improprieties in his campaigns, he was not aware of them.)
According to news reports in Puerto Rico and Philadelphia, investigators are examining whether major donors laundered contributions by listing them under other people’s names in order to circumvent contribution limits. In addition, they are looking into accusations that some companies were given government contracts in exchange for campaign contributions. The Philadelphia Inquirer has reported that investigators have focused some of their inquiry in Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey, where Mr. Acevedo received large contributions.
The island’s political parties and politicians have exuberantly used the fact of the investigation to further their ambitions.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Latinos Should Vote for Obama
I a previous blog, I wrote that Latinos should consider Presidential candidate Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. Now, as the race for nomination is winding down, Latino voters in both Texas and Ohio could play a major role in deciding who wins the nomination. Obama is currently ahead and looks like the favorite, but if Clinton could somehow pull of upsets in these two states and will a little help from the super delegates, she just might be able to comeback and beat Obama. While I definitely don't want this to happen, it seems that some Latino voters are now changing their minds as well. Do you guys think that Clinton will be able to win in Texas and or Ohio? If she doesn't, then Barack will surely win the nomination.
Why Have Latinos Started Voting For Obama?
Connecticut, the first state where they did, provides some instructive clues.
By Melinda Tuhus
Share Digg del.icio.us Reddit Newsvine
As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton head into the key Ohio and Texas primaries on Tuesday, March 4, each candidate is looking to shore up the support of Latinos, whose votes will be crucial to victory. Latino supporters of Obama in Connecticut say they have valuable lessons to share, since they pulled off the first victory among Latinos for Obama in a primary, back on Feb. 5, Super Tuesday.
The big Latino push for Obama in Connecticut started late in the game, only a couple of weeks before the primary, when it became clear that Connecticut would matter in the race for delegates and for bragging rights in racking up state victories. Clinton and Obama went into Super Tuesday evenly matched, but since then he’s made a clean sweep of successive primaries, making Ohio and Texas must-wins for Clinton, and the Latino vote even more critical.
When Latinos in Connecticut realized the state was in play, elected and appointed officials at the state and city level, as well as well-known Latinos in the private sector, initiated a grassroots effort in which they localized, and in some cases translated into Spanish, some standard campaign material.
Kica Matos, a top mayoral aide in New Haven, is well-known and respected in the Latino community for her leading role in creating the Elm City I.D., the nation’s first municipal resident card that specifically covers the undocumented. She and others believed that outreach by local Latinos to other Latinos would be key to turnout. “The story wasn’t some national mailing that you got that came from the campaign,” Matos says. “It really was dialogue and communications from people who live in this community about why it was that we supported Barack. We talked to people, we went in the neighborhoods.”
From the Obama campaign’s Hartford office, volunteer organizer Ed Vargas coordinated the state’s Latinos for Obama group, which he called a mostly home-grown effort. “African Americans reached out to us, and we decided to do what we could do help them,” Vargas says. A 35-year educator in Hartford public schools, which have an overwhelmingly black and Latino student body, Vargas saw the Obama campaign as a historic opportunity for young people to see that anybody could grow up to become president. Latino for Obama’s goal was to counteract the presumed Latino support for Clinton, which he said was based in large part on endorsements from well-known Hispanics at the national level. Vargas says the Obama campaign in the state was short on all kinds of materials, and specifically on outreach to Latinos. “One of the complaints by the Spanish media was that Hillary had been advertising for weeks, and the Obama campaign was putting nothing in Spanish.”
Activists went door to door with a localized flyer that focused on the themes of health care and immigration. New Haven alderman Joey Rodriguez says they also distributed a flyer featuring Obama’s story of how he came to embrace Christianity. “We went out on Sundays and tried to flood as many churches as possible,” he says, “from putting flyers on the windshields of cars to actually speaking to individuals walking out of church, to let them know where we stand as Hispanic leaders, and where we stand as far as endorsing a presidential candidate.”
While some of the organizers said it was easy to win over Latino voters to the Obama column, once they knew about his positions calling for health care and immigration reform, Rodriguez says otherwise. “It wasn’t like every door I knocked on they were pro-Obama and I moved on,” he says. “There were quite a few doors where residents said, ‘I’m leaning toward Clinton.’ They wanted to support Clinton, but when I sat down with them as a person they trust, because they put their trust in me last election, they knew I was going to tell them straight-forward.”
Edwin Martinez is a case in point. Asked over e-mail why he switched to Obama, Martinez wrote, “I think both Democratic candidates are the right candidates and I would love to see a combination of both leading this country. At first I was leaning towards Mrs. Clinton especially because of her health care plan. When Joey and I spoke he made me aware that Mr. Obama too has a health care plan and that Obama will fight to keep jobs in this country verses sending them overseas. Mr. Obama wants to give tax breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America. As a person in the manufacturing sector myself, I’ve seen first-hand jobs lost here because they were exported. It is a serious issue that deserves national attention. I know the change Mr. Obama promises would not be done overnight but I but believe it is time for change and he’s the person for the job.”
Yale political scientist Donald Green did the first studies back in the 1980s showing that people tend to respond better to get out the vote efforts when reached out to by local people who may have more in common with them than, say, hundreds of activists bused in from other states, as Howard Dean learned to his dismay in Iowa in 2004. Green says that this kind of localized outreach could be most effective in mobilizing the Latino vote.
“Oftentimes, Latino voters are left out of voter mobilization drives because they are considered low propensity voters, and campaigns want to talk to high propensity voters, they want to persuade people who are very likely to vote,” Green says. “But what differentiates low propensity voters from high propensity voters is sometimes the attention that is paid to them over a series of elections.”
Ultimately, Obama won 53 percent of the Latino vote in Connecticut. For the microcosmic view, in the two most heavily (and neighboring) Latino wards of New Haven, voters went 180 to 159 for Obama in Rodriguez’s ward, and 190 to 135 for Clinton in a ward where little or no outreach was done, which is suggestive that the outreach by local leaders works.
According to a Feb. 15 blog post by ABC News pollster Gary Langer, exit polls indicate that Hispanics accounted for 14 percent of all votes cast in 2008 primaries up to that time (and helped Obama win Virginia a week after Connecticut). He added that in 2004 they accounted for a quarter of the 2004 Democratic primary turnout in Texas.
On Feb. 22, Obama was endorsed by the Change to Win Coalition, many of whose seven constituent members have significant Latino participation. These developments—along with the momentum his 11 consecutive wins since Super Tuesday provides—could help Obama score victories in Texas and Ohio.
Why Have Latinos Started Voting For Obama?
Connecticut, the first state where they did, provides some instructive clues.
By Melinda Tuhus
Share Digg del.icio.us Reddit Newsvine
As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton head into the key Ohio and Texas primaries on Tuesday, March 4, each candidate is looking to shore up the support of Latinos, whose votes will be crucial to victory. Latino supporters of Obama in Connecticut say they have valuable lessons to share, since they pulled off the first victory among Latinos for Obama in a primary, back on Feb. 5, Super Tuesday.
The big Latino push for Obama in Connecticut started late in the game, only a couple of weeks before the primary, when it became clear that Connecticut would matter in the race for delegates and for bragging rights in racking up state victories. Clinton and Obama went into Super Tuesday evenly matched, but since then he’s made a clean sweep of successive primaries, making Ohio and Texas must-wins for Clinton, and the Latino vote even more critical.
When Latinos in Connecticut realized the state was in play, elected and appointed officials at the state and city level, as well as well-known Latinos in the private sector, initiated a grassroots effort in which they localized, and in some cases translated into Spanish, some standard campaign material.
Kica Matos, a top mayoral aide in New Haven, is well-known and respected in the Latino community for her leading role in creating the Elm City I.D., the nation’s first municipal resident card that specifically covers the undocumented. She and others believed that outreach by local Latinos to other Latinos would be key to turnout. “The story wasn’t some national mailing that you got that came from the campaign,” Matos says. “It really was dialogue and communications from people who live in this community about why it was that we supported Barack. We talked to people, we went in the neighborhoods.”
From the Obama campaign’s Hartford office, volunteer organizer Ed Vargas coordinated the state’s Latinos for Obama group, which he called a mostly home-grown effort. “African Americans reached out to us, and we decided to do what we could do help them,” Vargas says. A 35-year educator in Hartford public schools, which have an overwhelmingly black and Latino student body, Vargas saw the Obama campaign as a historic opportunity for young people to see that anybody could grow up to become president. Latino for Obama’s goal was to counteract the presumed Latino support for Clinton, which he said was based in large part on endorsements from well-known Hispanics at the national level. Vargas says the Obama campaign in the state was short on all kinds of materials, and specifically on outreach to Latinos. “One of the complaints by the Spanish media was that Hillary had been advertising for weeks, and the Obama campaign was putting nothing in Spanish.”
Activists went door to door with a localized flyer that focused on the themes of health care and immigration. New Haven alderman Joey Rodriguez says they also distributed a flyer featuring Obama’s story of how he came to embrace Christianity. “We went out on Sundays and tried to flood as many churches as possible,” he says, “from putting flyers on the windshields of cars to actually speaking to individuals walking out of church, to let them know where we stand as Hispanic leaders, and where we stand as far as endorsing a presidential candidate.”
While some of the organizers said it was easy to win over Latino voters to the Obama column, once they knew about his positions calling for health care and immigration reform, Rodriguez says otherwise. “It wasn’t like every door I knocked on they were pro-Obama and I moved on,” he says. “There were quite a few doors where residents said, ‘I’m leaning toward Clinton.’ They wanted to support Clinton, but when I sat down with them as a person they trust, because they put their trust in me last election, they knew I was going to tell them straight-forward.”
Edwin Martinez is a case in point. Asked over e-mail why he switched to Obama, Martinez wrote, “I think both Democratic candidates are the right candidates and I would love to see a combination of both leading this country. At first I was leaning towards Mrs. Clinton especially because of her health care plan. When Joey and I spoke he made me aware that Mr. Obama too has a health care plan and that Obama will fight to keep jobs in this country verses sending them overseas. Mr. Obama wants to give tax breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America. As a person in the manufacturing sector myself, I’ve seen first-hand jobs lost here because they were exported. It is a serious issue that deserves national attention. I know the change Mr. Obama promises would not be done overnight but I but believe it is time for change and he’s the person for the job.”
Yale political scientist Donald Green did the first studies back in the 1980s showing that people tend to respond better to get out the vote efforts when reached out to by local people who may have more in common with them than, say, hundreds of activists bused in from other states, as Howard Dean learned to his dismay in Iowa in 2004. Green says that this kind of localized outreach could be most effective in mobilizing the Latino vote.
“Oftentimes, Latino voters are left out of voter mobilization drives because they are considered low propensity voters, and campaigns want to talk to high propensity voters, they want to persuade people who are very likely to vote,” Green says. “But what differentiates low propensity voters from high propensity voters is sometimes the attention that is paid to them over a series of elections.”
Ultimately, Obama won 53 percent of the Latino vote in Connecticut. For the microcosmic view, in the two most heavily (and neighboring) Latino wards of New Haven, voters went 180 to 159 for Obama in Rodriguez’s ward, and 190 to 135 for Clinton in a ward where little or no outreach was done, which is suggestive that the outreach by local leaders works.
According to a Feb. 15 blog post by ABC News pollster Gary Langer, exit polls indicate that Hispanics accounted for 14 percent of all votes cast in 2008 primaries up to that time (and helped Obama win Virginia a week after Connecticut). He added that in 2004 they accounted for a quarter of the 2004 Democratic primary turnout in Texas.
On Feb. 22, Obama was endorsed by the Change to Win Coalition, many of whose seven constituent members have significant Latino participation. These developments—along with the momentum his 11 consecutive wins since Super Tuesday provides—could help Obama score victories in Texas and Ohio.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)