New York Times (Room for Debate- Opinion)
By Gary Segura
November 9, 2014
The
president and his advisers bet against Latinos in this last election —
and they lost. Whatever the claims to the contrary, the administration
delayed executive action on immigration to
protect Democratic Senate candidates in red states. The decision to
delay executive action on immigration was premised on two erroneous
assumptions. First, that a meaningful population of voters would regard
executive action on immigration as a deal-breaker.
Second, the calculus in the White House was that Latino voters would
dutifully turn out for Democrats anyway, accepting the bad over the
worse. The interests of candidates like Mark Udall, Charlie Crist, Pete
Gallego and Joe Garcia were set aside for those
of Kay Hagan and Mark Pryor.
Democrats
spent little on Spanish-language outreach and voter mobilization, and
avoided immigration, despite broad support for reform.
As
we now know, the Democrats bet wrong. Latino Decisions polling this
summer suggested that another broken promise would have negative effects
on enthusiasm — 57 percent of Latino voters
said a delay would make them less enthusiastic to vote Democrat in
2014, and that is exactly what came to pass. Our Election Eve Poll
reflects significant decline in the Latino vote share going for
Democrats. Latino support for Hagan, who lost by 1.7 points,
was the lowest among all Democrats at 63 percent and 9 points lower
than 2012 when Obama won 72 percent of the North Carolina Latino vote.
In 2012, Obama’s "deferred action for childhood arrivals" was the single
driving force behind Latino turnout and support
for Democrats. Meanwhile, declines in Latino enthusiasm — and likely
share of the electorate — significantly undermined the chances of folks
running in Latino-heavy constituencies whose losses could have been
reversed with better Latino numbers.
Bad
electioneering to Latino voters continues, with low expenditure on
Spanish-language outreach and voter registration/mobilization by the
Democrats, and a bizarre unwillingness to talk about
immigration, despite national polls suggesting broad-based support for
comprehensive immigration reform, severely undermining Latino turnout
and enthusiasm. Latino Decisions' Election Eve Poll in Colorado, for
example, found a majority of Latino voters did
not know Udall’s and Gardner’s positions on immigration reform. Udall’s
campaign did not advertise on the issue. It is beyond unforgivable
that, because of a messaging failure, Latino voters in a state with a
sizable and influential Latino electorate had no
idea where these candidates stood.
News
reports suggest that Democrats are wringing their hands about white
voters, but the exit polls suggest Democrats’ share of the white vote
was stable – or actually up 1 point – comparing
2010 and 2014. The "missing" Democratic vote was overwhelmingly racial
and ethnic minority voters and young people, and it is here where
Democratic investment, and willingness to embrace Democratic principles,
must grow.
Latinos
represent the fastest growing demographic in the electorate and the
best opportunity Democrats have for building an overwhelming electoral
coalition that could reliably defeat G.O.P.
monetary and turnout advantages. But Democrats are not entitled to
Latino votes. Like voters of all racial and ethnic groups, Latinos have
the right to ask that candidates address their concerns directly. And
like other new segments of the electorate in American
history, Latino incorporation requires the active engagement of
political parties rather than merely a reliance on population growth and
crossed fingers.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment