4um: Dear Conservatives: You Won’t Win the Latino Vote

Let’s forget the name calling, forget we called you a cuck. Just listen to me, alright? Latinos don’t care about you or your politics. They don’t care about this country’s founding principles or ideas. Maybe no one has told you what I’m about to tell you, but I’m going to show you in a straightforward manner why you simply won’t get them to vote for you. Please accompany me in a brief tour of the countries of the people you are so eager to court. We’ll do it from South to North.

In a way Argentinians already lived in the United States. Back at the end of the nineteenth century they decided to copy the American model and constitution, and they even had massive European immigration from pretty much the same places that the United States did. The results of such policies propelled them to become the seventh wealthiest nation in the world and at the start of the twentieth century to be ahead of countries like Germany and Austria.

So they then of course had a military coup, and installed a ‘social justice’ populist dictator who ended up in exile. They never recovered again.

Since 2003 Argentina has been ruled by the Kirchners: from 2003 to 2007 by Nestor Kirchner and since 2007 by his wife Cristina Kirchner, both of them friends and partners of Hugo Chavez (you know him, right?) and followers of his model. Currently Argentina bans books, goes after newspapers, and has numerous price controls in effect.

Chile is famous for Augusto Pinochet and his coup against the communist government of Salvador Allende.

The lesson you need to take from Chile is that Chileans elected communism of their own volition but they had to literally be coerced into free market capitalism. Thanks to Pinochet’s deep institutional reforms the country’s free market system was able to survive despite Chileans repeatedly voting for socialists, those socialists trying to change the constitution to suit them, having (communist) students protesting for free stuff, and electing said communist students to parliament. Chile will obviously not remain the free market capitalist country it has been for decades. Chileans don’t want it to.

Bolivia’s most important political party during the twentieth century was the “Nationalist Revolutionary Party" a center left party that then split into several other more radical versions.

Its current president –Evo Morales- is a socialist belonging to the “Movement For Socialism" party. He recently dedicated his THIRD reelection to Castro and Chavez.

Brazil’s main political adversaries are the Democratic Socialist and the other Democratic Socialist party.

Brazil is also responsible for the infamous Sao Paolo Forum an international support platform for socialist, communist and generally leftist political parties in Latin America. It is the most powerful political force in Latin America, yet remained suspiciously unknown to Americans for a long time. Its members are the ruling parties of Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. Here, check the full member list. It screams free market, individual responsibility and capitalism.

Other than the more than fifty year conflict involving communist guerrillas, Colombia seems to buck the trend and have a somewhat stable center-right process going on. But really, forget about all the communist militias.

You must surely know about Venezuela and its last 16 years in glorious communism. You probably know about how thanks to Hugo Chavez and his legacy the country has rampant inflation, how shortages and scarcity is so bad that standing in line has become a profession, how crime is out of control etc…I don’t need to tell you any of this, you probably know, it’s in the news.

Chavez was reelected with wide margins four times FOUR TIMES! But forget about Chavez, Venezuela’s main political party during its entire pre-Chavez democratic history was, yet again, another democratic socialist party; Democratic Action.

I could devote a lot of words and paragraphs to Mexico, but there’s no need. All you need to know about Mexico is that the same party won every election for more than fifty years (from 1929 to the 80s) with a margin near 70%, and that party –the “Institutional Revolutionary Party"- is, yet again, another socialist/social democrat party. Seriously, you can’t make this up.

Latinos simply don’t vote Republican. Even when you put Latino candidates like Marco Rubio and Brian Sandoval they still don’t do it. Don’t believe me? Believe Pew Research.

" Despite these big top-of-the-ticket wins for Republican Hispanic candidates, Democratic candidates won the Latino vote, usually by wide margins. For example, according to the national House exit poll, 60% of Latino voters supported Democratic candidates in House races while 38% supported Republican candidates."

You want to know who votes for your latino Republicans? The people that vote Republican; Whites!

“In Florida, Rubio captured 55% of the Latino vote in his race for the Senate–identical to the share of the white vote he won (55%). In Nevada, however, Sandoval won a third (33%) of the Latino vote in his race for governor; he did much better among whites, winning 62% of the vote according to the state exit poll. No exit polls were done in New Mexico, so it is not possible to analyze the voting patterns among Latinos and other groups in Martinez’s victorious gubernatorial campaign."

Latinos in the United States vote exactly the same as they do in their countries. Their countries are shit and run opposite to what you claim to want America to be. What possibly makes you think that the people that consistently, constantly and happily vote socialist or for more government all the time will suddenly vote Republican? Even after being forced into free market capitalism, when let free again they immediately (and many times violently) revert to leftism. Why are you appealing to these people? Why do you want them here? Why are you so eager to marginalize your base for them? Who told you you could win them over, and what evidence did they offer?

"Majority support for Democratic candidates continues a pattern among Latino voters. In 2006, according to the national exit poll, 69% of Latinos voted for Democratic candidates in their Congressional district races, while 30% supported Republicans. In the 2008 presidential election, Latinos supported Democrat Barack Obama by a margin of more than two-to-one over Republican John McCain—67% versus 31% according to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of the national exit poll"

Prophetic from six years ago ...

Illegal Immigrant on CBS: In 20 Years, We'll Run America

"Lesson one in the how to manual goes like this: ‘Today we march, tomorrow we vote.’"

NewsBusters.org
By Michael Rule | July 31, 2006 | 14:29

Yesterday, on CBS’s "Sunday Morning" reporter Martha Teichner narrated a piece sympathetic to Hispanic immigrants, and in particular, illegal immigrants. She profiled three Hispanic people, two of whom initially came to the country illegally. One illegal immigrant she profiled was defiant of his status, and sounded almost threatening when he said:
Alex Vega, Illegal Immigrant. (Pictured):

"In 20 years, we are going to run the country. Right now we're running the cities. So little by little, we're running the show. Little by little. So this sleeping giant is already awakened."
And, as noted by Ms. Teichner, the strategy for illegal immigrants is:
Martha Teichner: "Lesson one in the how to manual goes like this: ‘Today we march, tomorrow we vote.’"
The piece omitted some crucial elements, first there was no mention of societal costs of illegal immigration, such as health care and education costs, crime, particularly gang crime like MS-13, and second, Teichner ignored the overall question of the appropriateness of people illegally crossing into America to influence the democratic process. How many nations would allow non citizens, much less people with no legal authority to be in the country, to influence the outcomes of elections and policy debates?

The answer is not many, so why, then, should the United States allow this? In fact the only anti illegal immigration voice in the piece was a sound bite from Congressman Virgil Goode:
Virgil Goode, Virginia Representative: "The position of the Senate needs to be there will be no amnesty period. If we took that position, many of those here illegally now would march on back to Mexico."
The highpoint of Teichner’s piece was the fact that she mentioned an actual poll that finds that almost 90% of Americans feel that illegal immigration is a problem:
Martha Teichner: "Today, an estimated 12 million are here illegally. A CBS/News New York Times poll found that nearly nine out of 10 Americans consider illegal immigration either a serious or very serious problem..."
Illegal immigration is a serious issue, and reporters ought to be reporting all the facts, benefits and costs on the subject, not just choosing to highlight illegal immigrants, who invoke our sympathy while failing to report the societal consequences of illegal immigration.

Illegal Immigrant on CBS: In 20 Years, We'll Run America

Correct Link to article
http://newsbusters.org/node/6669