As Democrats go hard Left, Hispanics head to the Center

[citygator]

Social issues have no place in politics. We are electing stewards of the government not church leaders.

 

[Mac1958]

Social issues have no place in politics. We are electing stewards of the government not church leaders.

Correct, but they are now front and center. The Right is jumping on them because they sense opportunity, and I suspect they're right.

The social issues get and hold people's attentions far more effectively than the more wonky issues. So it therefore may be perceived that the Left is moving further left overall than it actually is.

But in politics, perceptions are reality.

 

[justoffal]

Funny, our mixed-race family was just talking about this last night.

The Democratic Party has long been depending on demographics to lead the way to a more progressive American future. My impression has always been that the party thought the elections of Obama in 2008 and 2012 were a sign that such a process had taken over. That was a major part of the shock of Trump's win.

This is why it's not a good idea to make long term assumptions. One large group has been virtually ignored by the Democratic Party for a long time (as it continues to push its PC/Identity Politics-soaked strategies), and it may not be a good idea for the party to keep making assumptions about the future:

As Democrats go hard left, Hispanics head to the center - Roll Call

OPINION — Hispanics, by and large, are not conservatives — at least not yet — but they are centrists behaving more like independents.

www.rollcall.com

In a recent New York Magazine interview, Democratic pollster David Shor weighed in on his party’s performance in the 2020 election. Based on the interview, it appears that Democrats continue to interpret 2022 in the context of demographics, race and class and less about voters’ belief systems and positions on issues.

Give him credit: Shor does recognize that white liberal elites are pushing the party to the left and alienating certain voter groups, including Hispanics.
“We’ve ended up in a situation where white liberals are more left wing than Black and Hispanic Democrats on pretty much every issue: taxes, health care, policing, and even on racial issues or various measures of ‘racial resentment,’” he told the magazine. “So as white liberals increasingly define the party’s image and messaging, that’s going to turn off nonwhite conservative Democrats and push them against us.”

Hispanics aren't even in the center....they are and always have been largely conservative.

JO

 

[justoffal]

Social issues have no place in politics. We are electing stewards of the government not church leaders.

Hmmmm.....I'm not used to agreeing with you....but on this....yep.

JO

 

[justoffal]

The headline of the article doesn’t reflect the story behind it. There is no evidence that the Democratic Party is going “hard left” and none was presented.

48% of Hispanics are Dems vs 20% for pubs with 32% being independent. Trump won 12 of the 32% in the election which is 37% of the independents. A slight pickup of independents since last election who went from 75% dem to 63% dem. It was almost exclusively a male Hispanic problem.

My bet is it has nothing to do with democratic governing ideas and entirely to do with male Hispanic attitudes on liberal social issues. I do think too much liberal social agenda is off putting to groups but the republicans are no better there.

I can only speak anecdotally, but I can say it's my experience that it has quite a bit to do with the social issues.

And I certainly don't expect the Democrats to heed any warnings, but with the insanity currently coming from the Right, it sure as hell concerns me.

It concerns me that you have to tag name a legitmate concern as insanity.....that is Alinskyism and leftward leaning to the Max...that's what lefties do. Keep up the good work....it's working. ( not in you favor btw )

JO

 

[Mac1958]

The headline of the article doesn’t reflect the story behind it. There is no evidence that the Democratic Party is going “hard left” and none was presented.

48% of Hispanics are Dems vs 20% for pubs with 32% being independent. Trump won 12 of the 32% in the election which is 37% of the independents. A slight pickup of independents since last election who went from 75% dem to 63% dem. It was almost exclusively a male Hispanic problem.

My bet is it has nothing to do with democratic governing ideas and entirely to do with male Hispanic attitudes on liberal social issues. I do think too much liberal social agenda is off putting to groups but the republicans are no better there.

I can only speak anecdotally, but I can say it's my experience that it has quite a bit to do with the social issues.

And I certainly don't expect the Democrats to heed any warnings, but with the insanity currently coming from the Right, it sure as hell concerns me.

It concerns me that you have to tag name a legitmate concern as insanity.....that is Alinskyism and leftward leaning to the Max...that's what lefties do. Keep up the good work....it's working. ( not in you favor btw )

JO

I don't care if it "concerns" you. Sorry.

 

[justoffal]

Funny, our mixed-race family was just talking about this last night.

The Democratic Party has long been depending on demographics to lead the way to a more progressive American future. My impression has always been that the party thought the elections of Obama in 2008 and 2012 were a sign that such a process had taken over. That was a major part of the shock of Trump's win.

This is why it's not a good idea to make long term assumptions. One large group has been virtually ignored by the Democratic Party for a long time (as it continues to push its PC/Identity Politics-soaked strategies), and it may not be a good idea for the party to keep making assumptions about the future:

As Democrats go hard left, Hispanics head to the center - Roll Call

OPINION — Hispanics, by and large, are not conservatives — at least not yet — but they are centrists behaving more like independents.

www.rollcall.com

In a recent New York Magazine interview, Democratic pollster David Shor weighed in on his party’s performance in the 2020 election. Based on the interview, it appears that Democrats continue to interpret 2022 in the context of demographics, race and class and less about voters’ belief systems and positions on issues.

Give him credit: Shor does recognize that white liberal elites are pushing the party to the left and alienating certain voter groups, including Hispanics.
“We’ve ended up in a situation where white liberals are more left wing than Black and Hispanic Democrats on pretty much every issue: taxes, health care, policing, and even on racial issues or various measures of ‘racial resentment,’” he told the magazine. “So as white liberals increasingly define the party’s image and messaging, that’s going to turn off nonwhite conservative Democrats and push them against us.”

Catholicism still holds a huge place in Hispanic culture and identity. Even the non church going spanish Catholics pretty much live their lives by it. The fact that Biden was just made uncomfortable by a recent church edict on abortion is a much larger blow to the democrats than they are smart enough to realize.

 

[JoeB131]

More on how the Left may be going too far:

Progressives’ Urgent Question: How to Win Over Voters of Color (Published 2021)

A yearslong challenge for the left was starkly illustrated this week as its hopes faded in the New York mayor’s race.

www.nytimes.com

Okay, let's look at this one.

A black man with a pro-police stance won 32% of the vote and might win the entire election because someone really thought ranked choice voting was a good idea. Let's forget for the moment that he wasn't the first choice of 68% of New Yorkers and might not be the second choice. Let's also forget that he kind of talked out of both sides of his mouth on the question of police reform, because he also said he wanted to clean up the NYPD and talked about how he experienced police racism before he became a cop.

Here's an interesting tidbit from Vichy Mac's article.

The limited public polling available showed nuanced opinions among voters of color on policing. A poll conducted for the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, found that just 17 percent of Black voters and 18 percent of Latinos wanted to decrease the number of police officers in their neighborhoods. But 62 percent of Black voters and 49 percent of Latino voters said they supported “defunding” the New York Police Department and spending the money on social workers instead, the poll found.

Obviously, you can't defund the police and get more cops in your neighborhood...

So I guess if you have a conflicted electorate and you get a candidate with an appealling backstory who is willing to talk out of both sides of his mouth, you can do well.

I would also be remiss if I fail to point out that Vichy Mac promoted Andrew Yang as the "Future" of the Democratic Party last year... and he got a whopping 12% of the vote.

 

[JoeB131]

The subtitle is absolutely the key here.

Trump’s gains with Hispanic voters should prompt some progressive rethinking

Racial politics doesn’t always work how white liberals think it should.

www.vox.com

Naw, man, what's interesting is that you read a bunch of stuff that isn't there.

Trump STILL lost the Hispanic vote nationally, despite being an incumbant, which is always a huge advantage.

In 2016, Trump got 29% of the Hispanic vote.

In 2020, he got 32% of the Hispanic vote

His supposed "increase" nationally was 3%.

It's just not that impressive.

Now, by way of comparison, George W. Bush got 35% of the Hispanic vote in 2000 and 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004....

In fact, Biden actually improved his standing with Hispanics over Hillary as well, getting 66% of the Hispanic vote. So both of them gained, as Hispanics realized that pissing away your vote on a third party is kind of useless.

In fact, Biden's 66% of the Hispanic vote was better than Hillary (66) Kerry (54), Gore (62) or even Bill Clinton in 1992.

the only candidate to do better than Biden with Hispanics was Barack Obama.

 

[JoeB131]

Catholicism still holds a huge place in Hispanic culture and identity. Even the non church going spanish Catholics pretty much live their lives by it. The fact that Biden was just made uncomfortable by a recent church edict on abortion is a much larger blow to the democrats than they are smart enough to realize.

Meh, not really.

Now, wait until the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, and these Catholics realize that getting an abortion to correct little Sally's mistake is going to cost more than five Hail Mary's.

 

[JoeB131]

Correct, but they are now front and center. The Right is jumping on them because they sense opportunity, and I suspect they're right.

The social issues get and hold people's attentions far more effectively than the more wonky issues. So it therefore may be perceived that the Left is moving further left overall than it actually is.

But in politics, perceptions are reality.

Not that I suspect an answer, but what's your solution?

Totally give up on social issues? Let the GOP impose the live-action version of A Handmaid's Tale on us?

Now, Vichy Mac, being a good liar, is on to a half truth.

Most Americans are in fact, economically liberal and socially conservative. That's why Republicans do well AFTER Democrats fix their economic mistakes and we aren't worried about the next paycheck.

So, um, yeah, after Biden fixes the economy, we are going to hear the Republicans talk us to death about Critical Race Theory and the supposed hoard of Trannies they think are waiting to burst into girl's locker rooms.

"They're coming to get you, Barbara!"

The GOP is very good on playing on the racial, sexual and religious fears of white people and SOME minorities.

But you know what, sticking up for a woman's right to choose, or a gay person's right to be accepted, or fair treatment of undocumented workers, isn't the popular position.

But it is the right position.

Getting back to Obama, when he opposed the War in Iraq in 2002 and 2004, it wasn't the POPULAR position. By 2008, history proved him right.

If the right position isn't the popular one, then you keep arguing it until you've made the point.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Hillary lost because so many self-righteous assholes voted for third parties.

She was a terrible candidate, and I've been called far worse.

 

[JoeB131]

She was a terrible candidate, and I've been called far worse.

She was a terrible candidate.

But the election should be about who can best run the country, not who was the 'best candidate" - i.e., who was more personable and ran the better campaign.

 

[Harry Dresden]

She was a terrible candidate, and I've been called far worse.

She was a terrible candidate.

But the election should be about who can best run the country, not who was the 'best candidate" - i.e., who was more personable and ran the better campaign.

so if you think both candidates would be a disaster and you vote for someone running in a third party who you think would be 10x better .....you are still wasting your vote?.....

 

[JoeB131]

so if you think both candidates would be a disaster and you vote for someone running in a third party who you think would be 10x better .....you are still wasting your vote?.....

Yes. Absolutely. Because that person will never be president.

Like it or not, we have two political parties that are centuries old. They spent that time building up loyal bases over generations. The constituent groups have changed over the years, which is why the "Party of Lincoln" now flies Confederate Flags.

The point is, they did the hard work.

Do I think that Hillary was an awful candidate? Yup. I fully expected if she was elected, she and her husband would pull the same kind of shit they pulled last time they were in.

But compared to Trump, there was no real choice. Trump pretty much screamed "I AM UNFIT FOR OFFICE", but too many mitlaufers in the GOP establishment thought they could control him.

(For those who miss the reference, a "mitlaufer" was the post WWII designation given to people who weren't Nazis in Germany, but went along wit them.)

The problem with third parties is that they are generally a bunch of loons. If they were serious about building a national political movement, start out small, build your base and then become a national force. Not, "Let's find some dope-smoking former governor and put him up while he looks for his Bong."

 

[Harry Dresden]

so if you think both candidates would be a disaster and you vote for someone running in a third party who you think would be 10x better .....you are still wasting your vote?.....

Yes. Absolutely. Because that person will never be president.

Like it or not, we have two political parties that are centuries old. They spent that time building up loyal bases over generations. The constituent groups have changed over the years, which is why the "Party of Lincoln" now flies Confederate Flags.

View attachment 505870

The point is, they did the hard work.

Do I think that Hillary was an awful candidate? Yup. I fully expected if she was elected, she and her husband would pull the same kind of shit they pulled last time they were in.

But compared to Trump, there was no real choice. Trump pretty much screamed "I AM UNFIT FOR OFFICE", but too many mitlaufers in the GOP establishment thought they could control him.

(For those who miss the reference, a "mitlaufer" was the post WWII designation given to people who weren't Nazis in Germany, but went along wit them.)

The problem with third parties is that they are generally a bunch of loons. If they were serious about building a national political movement, start out small, build your base and then become a national force. Not, "Let's find some dope-smoking former governor and put him up while he looks for his Bong."

so your idea is to vote for that stupid lessor of 2 evils bullshit?......you know what joe?.....if you vote for Dracula over Satan he is still going to suck the life out of you....knowing that....why the hell would one vote for him?....

 

[JoeB131]

so your idea is to vote for that stupid lessor of 2 evils bullshit?......you know what joe?.....if you vote for Dracula over Satan he is still going to suck the life out of you....knowing that....why the hell would one vote for him?....

Okay, let's look at the Dracula vs. Satan campaign.

Keeping in mind that I've read the bible many times, and just don't see Satan as that bad of a guy. He only kills 10 people in the entire bible, and that was on a wager with God, who let it happen, so why is Satan the bad guy again.

Point is, Dracula actually had executive experience, he was King of Wallachia in the 15th century. He wasn't a particularly good king, having been deposed three times. There was also that whole "Impaler" thing...

Of course, Dracula and Satan weren't on the ballot in 2016.

Hillary and Trump were. And I am reminded of Voltaire's admonition that the world is divided between scoundrels and fanatics, but you can reason with a scoundrel.

Hillary has a bunch of strikes against her, but at the end of the day, she'd have run the country more or less competently.

I didn't like Mitt Romney much, but I had no doubt he could run the country.

I voted for McCain over Obama the first time, but had no doubt Obama would do an okay job.

Trump was in a completely different category. His gross incompetence caused people to DIE!

But let's be self-righteous and vote for Dope Smoking Gary.

 

[Mac1958]

Latinos and the Progressive Movement

The Hispanic communities’ civic engagement present opportunities and challenges for the progressive movement.

www.americanprogress.org

 

[Mac1958]

What Liberals Don’t Understand About Pro-Trump Latinos

They all have one very important thing in common.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Harry Dresden]

all i see you doing is trying to justify your wasted vote.....