Seizing Blue States Via Amnesty--The Numbers
By jimmuy8 Posted in Immigration — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
By imagining that the Hispanic population of each state is doubled, i.e. assume a state has 300k Hispanic citizens in 2004 and they vote the same as they did then, what percentage of the next 300k will need to vote Republican to change the state from blue to red? Kind of a “the existing Hispanic citizens are set in their ways but, the newly amnestied Hispanics are fired up to vote Republican.”
Let's look at the blue states and see just what it would take to push them red--sticking with the bigger ones and assuming a turnout across the Hispanic community of the around the national average of 40%.
New York:
Pop. 19.3 million; Hispanic: 16.1% or 3,108,295
Margin for Kerry over Bush: 1.4 million.
40% of Hispanic voters is 1,243,318—not even 100% of likely Hispanic votes will do.
To even have a chance would need close to 75% of all Hispanics to make a difference.
Pennsylvania:
Pop. 12.4 million; Hispanic: 4.1% or 510,065.
Margin for Kerry over Bush: 144,248.
40% of Hispanic voters is 204,026—around 80% of those would have to vote Republican to get Pennsylvania’s 21 electoral votes. That drops to 70% if you could get a 100% turnout in the Hispanic community.
New Jersey:
Pop. 8.7 mil; Hispanic: 15.7% or 1,326,133.
Margin for Kerry over Bush: 241,427
40% of Hispanic voters is 530,453—close to 75% of those would have to pull the lever for the Republican. That drops to around 60% of Hispanics at 100% turnout.
Massachusetts:
Pop. 6.4 million; Hispanic: 7.9% or 508,538.
Margin for Kerry over Bush: 732,691
No chance; no amount of Hispanic voters would make a difference.
Maryland:
Pop. 5.6 million; Hispanic: 5.7% or 320,096.
Margin for Kerry over Bush: 309,790
Again, not a chance; not even 90% of all Hispanics would cause a flip.
Michigan:
Pop. 10.1 million; % of Hispanics: 3.8% or 383,634.
Margin for Kerry over Bush: 165,437.
40% of Hispanic voters is 153,454—not even 100% of likely Hispanic voters voting Republican will make a difference in outcome.
Illinois
Pop. 12.8 million; % of Hispanics: 14.3% or 1,834,972.
Margin for Kerry over Bush: 545,604.
40% of Hispanic voters is 733,989—would need close to 90% of the vote to flip this state.
Wisconsin:
Pop. 5.6 million; Hispanic: 4.5% or 250,043.
Margin for Kerry over Bush: 11,384
40% of Hispanic voters is 100,017—would need just over 55% to break for the Republicans.
Minnesota:
Pop. 5.2 million; Hispanic: 3.6 or 186,016.
Margin for Kerry over Bush: 98,319
40% of Hispanic voters is 74,406—not even 100% will do any good.
Washington:
Pop. 6.4 million; Hispanic: 8.8% or 562,830.
Margin for Kerry over Bush: 205,307.
40% of Hispanic voters is 225,132—90% will not get the job done.
Oregon:
Pop. 3.7 million; Hispanic: 9.9% or 366,375.
Margin for Kerry over Bush: 76,332.
40% of Hispanic voters is 146,550—would need about 80% of the new votes.
California:
Pop. 36.5 million; Hispanic: 35.2% or 12,833,057.
Margin for Kerry over Bush: 1,235,659
40% of Hispanic voters is 5,133,223.
Bottom line: Would need around 55% of all Hispanic persons to have a chance.
(Rather than assuming a doubling of the Hispanic population, working the other direction, subtracting 35.2% from both sides then running the numbers works out the same; would need about 58%)
So, three states out of twelve have even a remote chance—though I wouldn’t consider counting on a 75% turnout from any demographic realistic. So, really just two states: California and Wisconsin; 65 electoral votes.
40% of the Hispanic vote was a historic high for any Republican, and we’re counting on a more than 15 point swing in just one 4 year election cycle? An even greater swing considering the drop-off in Hispanic votes in the last election.
I agree with your statement and it becomes even more true when one considers that a large percentage of the current Hispanic vote that leans Republican is the Cuban vote.
With a massive influx of new non-Cuban Hispanic voters the influence of the Cuban vote on the total will be substantially diluted. In total, as a result of this dilution, we can expect the percentage of the total Hispanic vote for Republicans to fall, not rise.
Even the Cuban vote is getting less reliable. The second and third generations don't remember why their parents voted Republican. Many are economically successful and we will retain those but many are not and they will slide towards the Democrats.
Even if my analysis is off, one thing should really jump out: There isn't a whole lot of Hispanics in most blue states. Certainly not enough to justify the "amnesty at all cost" pandering.
So who is this really going to benefit, if there will never be enough Hispanic votes to swing a state?
We could far easier peal off Wisconsin (4.5% Hispanic) and Pennsylvania (4.1% Hispanic) without amnesty. This is not about getting votes or the future of the party.
I'm also working on what percent of Hispanic votes the Democrats would need to flip red states.
assuming that Republicans can match the 44% (and I know that number is bogus but I'm being generous) that was about the highest Republicans have ever achieved, figure out how many red states will turn blue if the amnesty happens.
My guess is that we will lose Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, and Arizona immediately but it might be worse.
I am truly sick of seeing Karl Rove, Mel Martinez, Dick Morris and others trying to pretend that the GOP has to embrace a hispandering strategy to win elections. They never get challenged to identify the blue states that we will win as a result or show how this strategy will help retain red states.
I sure would like to see some heavyweight conservative columnist pick up your work and give it some really wide disemination (giving you richly deserved credit of course).
How would the analysis change if one of the parties proposed to make Spanish the official language of the US?
But here is one that I have been wondering about. Were there any Presidents before George W. Bush that gave their weekly radio address in Spanish?
President Bush has talked a lot lately about the need for assimilation and learning English but it seems he is more interested in hispandering than actually walking the walk.
Why not give the radio address in Chinese and Arabic?
Maybe give the radio address in a different language each week? (Atually, we are lucky when we can translate it from Texan to English!)
The point of my rhetorical question is this. Nothing comes for free. The latino population comes in conservative and liberal flavors, too. Were you to try to do something to try to attract 100% of the spanish speaking people in the US, you'd end up losing some other group.
It's right to understand that the latino population in the US is growing and to try to understand what motivates them. I think it's wrong to say bluntly that new Latino voters would be inclined to vote Rebpublican, or Democrat, or anything other than their inclinations before they gained the right to vote. You have to appeal to them just as to the Latinos that could already vote. That's based on your principles and theirs.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. -T. Jefferson
I don't think anybody here minds reaching out to Hispanics with our principles. If we say to them: "We are the party of life, the party of family values, the party of limited government, the party of rule of law, the party of strong defense, etc. If you share these values we would be happy to have you join us". I think everybody applauds that type of outreach. There are quite a few good Hispanic conservatives in the Party. I used to be one of them until I became so disgusted with the Hispandering that I declared myself independent.
But when our Republican leadership starts telling us we have to throw all of ouir cherished values in the trash, pass an amnesty and hispander in whatever way possible to attract the Hispanic vote or we will be electorially finished, then we object. Once you head down the path of racial pandering then that racial group has you by the juevos. For ever more they can blackmail you by threatening as a group to withhold their vote. A little hispandering becomes a lot more hispandering.
And it is a game we can't win because nobody can outpander a Democrat.
the numbers laid out. Good work.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to shred the whole constitution, just the parts the ACLU wrote.
Of course the most likely outcome is that the legalized illegals vote heavily Democratic, just like most citizen latinos do now.