Democrats and Hispanics love affair -- is it based on income?

[cheesepizza]

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance, Minimum Wage, labor protections and regulations, etc. Just to name a few.

Yes it's called using the poor to get elected to office. Vote for me and I'll give you money. If they really cared about the poor they'd be building homeless shelters and working for charities.

So are agricultural subsidies about using agribusiness to get elected to office?

Stop with the homeless shelter and charity BS. When was the last time you worked at a homeless shelter, Saint Barfbag?

And the only reason conservatives technically donate more to charity is because most of that goes to their church, where it pays for upkeep and staff. It's not really charity so much as membership dues for a private club. The only time the non-denominational megachurch near me ever does any help for poor people, they're sending clothes to Africa. I'd be shocked if they were to do something for the poor people in this city, other than convince them not to abort the baby they can't afford to have and then provide them no help whatsoever in actually raising said baby.

At least conservatives give something, as opposed to liberals, who act extremely pompous about how they're saving the planet with their vegan diet while donating almost nothing to charity.  Or how they want all of us to use electricity while Al Gore flies around in his fancy private jet.  Or those stupid Hollywood celebs who lecture us on toilet paper consumption while they go to luxury hotels. 

Conservatives are far more compassionate than the left, which is filled through-and-through with fake compassion to get votes.

We're the party of free markets.  The left is filled with elites who want to create the illusion that they are good for the poor, when they really just want to trap them in poverty for political gain.

[MalaspinaGold]

Even if that were the case (and I am not sure that statistic is correct) it is probably because democrats skew poorer and thus have less money to give. The Sierra Club,  Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon, etc. get their money from somewhere, and it isn't corporations.

In addition, calling the democrats hypocrites because of the actions of the very small rich entertainment faction of the democratic party is not really a sound argument. I'm sure the liberal entertainment group does much more to help the environment than their conservative counterparts. Not to mention Jimmy Carter's  mission to exterminate guinea worm, etc.

[barfbag]

Even if that were the case (and I am not sure that statistic is correct) it is probably because democrats skew poorer and thus have less money to give. The Sierra Club,  Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon, etc. get their money from somewhere, and it isn't corporations.

In addition, calling the democrats hypocrites because of the actions of the very small rich entertainment faction of the democratic party is not really a sound argument. I'm sure the liberal entertainment group does much more to help the environment than their conservative counterparts. Not to mention Jimmy Carter's  mission to exterminate guinea worm, etc.

There's parts I agree and disagree with. Liberals in Hollywood tend to fly around in helicopters which produce pollution. While they make up a small portion of the Democratic Party, they attend fundraisers where dinners cost $28,000. That's more money than I've ever spent on food. What I'm saying is that they make up a larger portion of funding that goes to Democrats running for office. This is why we need to not allow federal candidates to opt out of campaign finance reform. They should be limited to $200,000,000. I don't mean to get off topic. Environmental groups can be a bit extreme and a lot of their money comes from places overseas who want America to fail. Listen though, I'm a real environmentalist and know there our environment is having problems that are caused by humans and it is important to regulate pollution through cap and trade legislation, car inspections, renewable forms of energy, hydrogen powered cars, hybrids, and lots of other ways.

[cheesepizza]

Even if that were the case (and I am not sure that statistic is correct) it is probably because democrats skew poorer and thus have less money to give. The Sierra Club,  Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon, etc. get their money from somewhere, and it isn't corporations.

In addition, calling the democrats hypocrites because of the actions of the very small rich entertainment faction of the democratic party is not really a sound argument. I'm sure the liberal entertainment group does much more to help the environment than their conservative counterparts. Not to mention Jimmy Carter's  mission to exterminate guinea worm, etc.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
Wrong.  Liberals are actually wealthier than conservatives (note that liberal v. conservative is different than Dem v. GOP, as Republicans are wealthier than Democrats) and give less to charity, give less blood, and straight from the study, "People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition."       

The entertainment faction funds the Democratic Party and conveys their worldview to the masses.  It's an integral part of the Democratic Party the same way that business interests and free enterprise-supporting groups like the Koch Brothers are integral to the Republican Party. And I know that I do more than the liberal environmentalists in Hollywood - I don't own a 30,000 square foot home; I don't fly a private jet or helicopter; I may not be a vegan or use one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit but I consume far, far less energy overall.  Not that I care - I have no problem with energy consumption; I strongly dislike environmental regulations that make the USA more like Africa.  I just hate the utter hypocrisy and stupidity of these elites who want to make energy costs higher for us while they consume exorbitant amounts of energy.

[barfbag]

Even if that were the case (and I am not sure that statistic is correct) it is probably because democrats skew poorer and thus have less money to give. The Sierra Club,  Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon, etc. get their money from somewhere, and it isn't corporations.

In addition, calling the democrats hypocrites because of the actions of the very small rich entertainment faction of the democratic party is not really a sound argument. I'm sure the liberal entertainment group does much more to help the environment than their conservative counterparts. Not to mention Jimmy Carter's  mission to exterminate guinea worm, etc.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
Wrong.  Liberals are actually wealthier than conservatives (note that liberal v. conservative is different than Dem v. GOP, as Republicans are wealthier than Democrats) and give less to charity, give less blood, and straight from the study, "People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition."       

The entertainment faction funds the Democratic Party and conveys their worldview to the masses.  It's an integral part of the Democratic Party the same way that business interests and free enterprise-supporting groups like the Koch Brothers are integral to the Republican Party. And I know that I do more than the liberal environmentalists in Hollywood - I don't own a 30,000 square foot home; I don't fly a private jet or helicopter; I may not be a vegan or use one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit but I consume far, far less energy overall.  Not that I care - I have no problem with energy consumption; I strongly dislike environmental regulations that make the USA more like Africa.  I just hate the utter hypocrisy and stupidity of these elites who want to make energy costs higher for us while they consume exorbitant amounts of energy.

And the left is silent.

[HansOslo]

It can't be entirely income-based, because then Asians, who out-earn whites(especially Indian-Americans), vote heavily Democrat as well. Ditto with the gays and Jews.


Income is a big part of it, yes. But social issues and the perception that the Republican Party is nothing but a hate-fest sure isn't helping

There are many Hispanics who weren't born here and don't yet understand the bias of the liberal media. They come here and become poorly informed and poor information leads to voting for Democrats.

You really need to get new and more original arguments.

I don't think our answers are that different. The perception of the Republican Party throughout the world is a hate fest funded by the wealthy members of society who control the media such as Ted Turner and George Soros.

So I guess the birther talk, openly anti-gay platforms, use of racist terms by unaplogetic GOP politicians and supporters, and the fact that tax cuts passed by Republicans tend to benefit the rich, is all just a liberal media lie? The racism and homophobia is not hateful?

Yes it's blown out of proportion by the media. There's the notion too that the birther movement was started by the left to make Republicans look bad. Having traditional Christian values that oppose gay marriage doesn't mean anyone is anti-gay. It means gays don't fit their values. Someone who makes a lot of money shouldn't be forced by the iron fist of law to pay for someone who doesn't make a lot of money. Charges of racism and homophobia is exactly what the media wants you to do.

Reporting racism and homophobia is not "blowing it out of proportion". It's not the media's fault that Republicans think it's hilarious to make racist jokes on video and pass laws that discriminate/allow discrimination against gays(using Christianity as their reasons), it's the GOP's fault. The media didn't force thousands of people to post their incredible stupidity on Facebook and Twitter on election night.

And "forced to pay for people who don't make a lot of money"? Once again: unoriginal and simplistic argument. The federal government collects $2.6 trillion in taxes but spends about $140 billion on welfare. We're also paying for defense, education, infrastructure, etc. that also benefits higher earners. If you benefit the most from the system, you should pay more to maintain it. Draggin welfare recipients into this is one of the reasons people assume the GOP is for the rich.

The "liberal media"is always a useful scapegoat. The sooner you accept you have problems with racists and homophobes, and publicly and actively disown them, the perception will go away.

You. Still. Don't. Get. It. I'm going to assume you're white, straight, and probably from a middle-class or affluent family. You probably have never experienced discrimination, homophobia, or economic struggle. Thus, it's not a problem for you, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem for others. This is why the GOP keeps losing.

I'm wasting my time, and we're off topic.

We are off topic so how would you fix the problems of Hispanics?

The “problem of Hispanics”?


If I were a GOP strategist/politician, I would:
1.) Watch my wording.
2.) Publicly and aggressively disown any Republican who race-baits.
3.) Praise the work ethic. Talking up people is a good way to get them to like you, and when they like you, they are more open to voting for you.
4.) Go “Mitt the Moderate” and propose changes to Obamacare, in a way that shows Republicans care about healthcare reform (something that is deeply important to Hispanics, many of whom are not insured).
5.) Talk about the importance of education. Propose public-private solutions to improve education. 4 out of 5 charter schools perform worse or the same as public schools. So they’re out.

6.) Actually listen to them. What are their concerns? How do they want policies implemented to better their lives?
7.) Discuss how a smaller government can be more effective, while still delivering needed services in a cost-reducing manner that allows them to keep more of their tax dollars.
8.) Approach religious leaders about cleaning up their neighborhoods (the black community has seen great results with this) through community-based action. “Tough on Crime” will benefit the thousands of Hispanics cut down in violence, and they will accept this as long as we’re not portraying them as criminals.

If I really wanted to pander: embrace immigration reform with blanket amnesty. But I’m opposed to that. So that’ll be awkward.

I don’t see the GOP gaining a majority of the Hispanic vote for a long time. But if they can cut down the Democrats’ margins in CO/NV/NM/etc. like GWB did in 2004, you can win.

I think this is absolutely correct. A lot of Hispanics are poor, and relying on government assistance. But that doesn’t mean that they want to stay on welfare and being poor. They want to make a better life for themselves, and for their children to have a better life. And that must be the cornerstone in any Republican strategy for Hispanic voters, not abortion, God and gays.

The Republicans should develop policies to help these upwardly mobile Hispanics. That means that they need to re-think a lot of their economic policies. It means that they can’t focus on tax cuts that help the top 1%. They need policies that aid the small business owners, and education policies that can create the next generation of the American workforce.

It should be possible, with a Democratic party preoccupied with amnesty, gun control and environmentalism. If a lot of Hispanics perceive the GOP as the party that can deliver jobs and economic growth, they will vote Republican. Or at least a lot more of them will vote Republican. And that will be enough. The Republicans probably doesn’t need more than 40% or so, maybe less if the Democrats continue to shed white voters.

[illegaloperation]

What Republicans need to do is get rid of trickle down economics.

Hispanics do not believe that giving tax breaks to wealthy oil men helps them (which really do not).

[cheesepizza]

What Republicans need to do is get rid of trickle down economics.

Hispanics do not believe that giving tax breaks to wealthy oil men helps them (which really do not).

That is only the left's caricature of the GOP and our "trickle-down economics".

Truth is, we support cutting taxes for everyone.  The Bush tax cuts delivered a 33% decrease in marginal rates for the lowest income bracket, from 15% to 10%.  If the Bush tax cuts were "only for the rich" like the left claimed, they wouldn't care if they just wholly expired.  The GOP favors growth and opportunity.  Our problem is simply branding.  The GOP needs to stop letting the Dems brand us as "the party that hates women, hates minorities, only is for the rich".  By getting government out of the way, we're generating economic growth for all income brackets.  I do think "trickle-down" was something Reagan shouldn't have called his economic policies because it opens him up for ridicule by the left.  A better term would be "growth-focused" or "opportunity-enhancing" economics.

[hopper]

Here Hispanic PVI in Presidential Elections since 1972 compared to the average:

1972: D+27
1976: D+27
1980: D+17
1984: D+22
1988: D+23
1992: D+18
1996: D+23
2000: D+15
2004: D+8
2008: D+15
2012: D+21

Source: Sean Trende.

[hopper]

Hispanic PVI in Congressional Elections since 1982:

1982: D+18
1984: D+17
1986: D+20
1988: D+22
1990: D+18
1992: D+18
1994: D+15
1996: D+23
1998: D+14
2000: D+15
2002: D+14
2004: D+5
2006: D+20
2008: D+14
2010: D+14
2012: D+18

Source: Sean Trende. I couldn't post a graph so...

[Supersonic]

Wow, the shift from 2000 to 2004..

[eric82oslo]

Wow, the shift from 2000 to 2004..

It's called September 11. Hispanics reacted the same way as New Yorkers, New Englanders and other Northeastern Democrats. With empathy and voting less Democratic than usual.

[barfbag]

Wow, the shift from 2000 to 2004..

It's called September 11. Hispanics reacted the same way as New Yorkers, New Englanders and other Northeastern Democrats. With empathy and voting less Democratic than usual.

It's too bad not everyone showed the same determination.

[MalaspinaGold]

Those number show something interesting; that hispanics have traditionally voted pretty convincingly democratic for the past forty years (with the exception being 2004), and despite all the blowback from Mitt Romney's anti-immigration remark, his numbers amongst hispanics stayed relatively close to the median.

however, I am surprised at Obama's sub-par performance among hispanics in 2008, with the first minority candidate being on the ballot. It seems like the GOP may have been making progress with hispanics until the most anti-immigration wing of the republican party took over circa. Bush's second term.

[sg0508]

The perception is that Democrats are more sympathetic to their lives.  Let's put it this way, the GOP offers Hispanics NOTHING as of now to cater to their lives.

[barfbag]

I'd like to invite those of you or anyone on this forum for that matter to discuss civil rights in further detail under the political debate threads. There I propose a number of things which could be done in order to help minorities and help my party to reach out to new voters.

[hopper]

Those number show something interesting; that hispanics have traditionally voted pretty convincingly democratic for the past forty years (with the exception being 2004), and despite all the blowback from Mitt Romney's anti-immigration remark, his numbers amongst hispanics stayed relatively close to the median.

however, I am surprised at Obama's sub-par performance among hispanics in 2008, with the first minority candidate being on the ballot. It seems like the GOP may have been making progress with hispanics until the most anti-immigration wing of the republican party took over circa. Bush's second term.

No immigration wasn't a big topic in the 2008 Presidential Election it was more about the wars and the economy. Immigration took a back seat to those 2 issues.

2012: Like I said before the "self-deport" comments hurt Romney bad but the debates except for the 1st one Romney positions on issues hurt him(running to far to the right) especially Obama making him look worse than Bush W. Remember the  question when the moderator asked  both Obama and Romney to compare Romney to Bush W.

[hopper]

The perception is that Democrats are more sympathetic to their lives.  Let's put it this way, the GOP offers Hispanics NOTHING as of now to cater to their lives.

Your probably right the R's just don't offer Hispanics policy's currently that they can be for because of the hard-rights influence  I think.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Those number show something interesting; that hispanics have traditionally voted pretty convincingly democratic for the past forty years (with the exception being 2004), and despite all the blowback from Mitt Romney's anti-immigration remark, his numbers amongst hispanics stayed relatively close to the median.

however, I am surprised at Obama's sub-par performance among hispanics in 2008, with the first minority candidate being on the ballot. It seems like the GOP may have been making progress with hispanics until the most anti-immigration wing of the republican party took over circa. Bush's second term.

No immigration wasn't a big topic in the 2008 Presidential Election it was more about the wars and the economy. Immigration took a back seat to those 2 issues.

2012: Like I said before the "self-deport" comments hurt Romney bad but the debates except for the 1st one Romney positions on issues hurt him(running to far to the right) especially Obama making him look worse than Bush W. Remember the  question when the moderator asked  both Obama and Romney to compare Romney to Bush W.

If self-deportation hurt Romney, then why didn't he lose the Hispanic vote in the Florida primary to Gingrich, like five days after the comment was made? Romney won instead won them and by more then his overall primary numbers against a candidate who openly endorsed an amnesty in the same debate where the comments were made. Amnesty is not the gateway issue, immigration overall is, and that event clear established that Romney was pro-immigration since he had been accused of being anti-Immigrant in the debate by Newt, after which Rubio then rebuked Newt for conflating the sub issue with the whole affair (considering Marco and Mittens had basically the shame position at the time, that is to be expected). Conflating the two issues has been the primary strategy for the open borders crowd for years to make people like Romney look like Pat Buchanan. They also despised Romney in the establishment and business community because he is basically an apostate on the issue in their eyes as a businessman who opposes open borders and amnesty.

I do agree that Obama owned Romney on the Bush question and really that should have been one of Romney's best moments. It is something he should have been preparing for since 2007. Hell he was running in 2008 basically as everything you like about Bush, just without what you don't. He was too deferential to Bush and it may have helped cost him votes, possibly even Florida since it was so close. This may have been a decision made figuring that hitting Bush would cost him amongst Republican turnout.  

Really the whole second debate was poorly strategized for both candidates as it seemed like both were trying to turn it into the tradition Podium style affair, but Obama got the better of Romney and put him on the defensive for most of it because it his a more natural format for him. Instead of trying to screw the questioners to respond to attacks, Romney should have tried to achieve an objective, just like he had in Denver but a different one. In this case focus on connecting with real people for the first time in his career, and worked to articulate his issues as solutions to real problems facing them, while leaving Obama to take the hit on style for trying to make up for Denver.

I was hoping for Romney to get a comparison to Bush question so that he could also acheive another important objective, distancing himself from the last Republican President and doing it on issues that wouldn't offend the base but still appeal to independents. I even stated that I hoped Romney would get certain questions throughout the debate cycle and ironically he got all of them, but most of them were missed opportunites where instead he should have been chomping at the bit for such opportunies to then take full advantage of.

[ag]

Hispanic electorate in a Republican primary in Florida and Hispanic electorate in a general election nationwide are almost as different as the white male electorates in Provo, UT and in Cambridge, MA Florida Hispanic Republicans would, mostly, if not overwhelmingly older Cubans. Making any conclusions whatsoever from their behavior about Mexicans in California or Puerto Ricans in New York would be rather rash.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Hispanic electorate in a Republican primary in Florida and Hispanic electorate in a general election nationwide are almost as different as the white male electorates in Provo, UT and in Cambridge, MA Florida Hispanic Republicans would, mostly, if not overwhelmingly older Cubans. Making any conclusions whatsoever from their behavior about Mexicans in California or Puerto Ricans in New York would be rather rash.

Oh really, as I have not heard this one before.

I believe he won non-cubans by more then Cubans in that primary, but the difference was like one point. Also you have missed my point, which is not surprisingly really.

The argument being made is that the self-deportation comment was so damaging as to make hispanics think he was a racist or at the very least, anti-Latino. That would have surely impacted him amongst even Florida GOP Hispanics, who at the very least would not have voted for him by more then his statewide margin, especially against a pro-amnesty opponent. They would be different that is true, but not so different as to be isolated entirely from Cuban Democrats and Independents, Puerto Rican Democrats and Independents, etc etc. This the place where most attention would have been focused and it occured just days after the comments were first made.

Romney didn't need 52%-53% amongst all hispanics, he needed 40% (possibly as low as 35%) and the rest of the election was lost amongst woman and independents in both working class and more upscale fiscally conservative/socially moderate types in VA, OH, and NH/WI/CO/PA.

I think the reason Romney got hammered amongst Hispanics is because his campaign people bought the narrative pushed by the open borders crowd and parroted in the media, and once the executive Dream act was issued, they thus abandoned a serious attempt to get Hispanic votes until it was too late. That created a self-fullfilling prophesy once Obama had spent the entire summer trashing Mittens as anti-Immigrant as well as the felon stuff, killing a guy's wife and so forth, which all wasn't effectively responded to. What killed Romney amongst Hispanics was that Obama successfully caricatured him as being anti-Latino and an out of touch plutocrat.

[All Along The Watchtower]

As the child of a fairly recent immigrant from a developing country, I don't think white Americans with no recent foreign roots understand that if you are someone who cannot afford food for your family, can't afford a roof over your head and can't find a job, you're going to vote for the candidate who will give you those things and you'd be a fool if you didn't. And if you have food on the table, a roof over your head and some sort of employment, you're going to be fine with that person staying in office. Even if he's corrupt. Even if he shoots political enemies in the back of the head in dark alleys. Even if he suspends the constitution and makes himself President For Life.

It's beyond most Americans' frame of reference for why people like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro or Muammar Qaddafi or the Shah of Iran would be able to stay in power for so many years. If your life precludes being able to take basic things like food, clothing and shelter for granted, those are your overriding concerns. Not free speech. Not government transparency.

I'm not trying to compare Barack Obama to a third world despot. I'm simply trying to get you to understand that even if Hispanics did agree with Republicans on abortion or family values or foreign policy, they're not going to vote for a party whose policies would threaten their economic security and make it harder for them to obtain things like education and healthcare. They're not far enough removed from severe poverty and scarcity to buy into the poor white mentality of "I don't need no health insurance as long as I have mah guns and mah freedom!"

This is the problem. Too many people vote for their own self interests instead of the candidate who will keep us protected from the government and limit the power of government.

I know. I mean the nerve of those wretched poors voting for candidates who want to enact policies that benefit them. Don't they know that it's far better for them to send their kids to bed hungry at night and have no hope of sending them to college so that those who have more money than them can pay less in taxes? Such selfishness.

To be fair, many of the lower-income (white) people who vote Republican, among other things, believe that the Republicans will cut their taxes too. Or that the Democrats will raise taxes on the "Working Man."

[pbrower2a]

What used to happen was that along with economic assimilation into the middle class (typically the result of formal education, entrepreneurial activity, and entry into skilled trades) came a tendency for people to vote increasingly for the conservative party (typically the Republican Party outside the South, the South long receiving rather few immigrants) out of self-interest -- tax cuts and deregulation. So it remained as long as the Republicans chose to pander to poor white people left behind by economic change (especially in the Mountain and Deep South).

But by pandering to mass ignorance and anti-rational religion, Republicans offended people who thought that such anti-intellectualism was an assault on the very thing that made themselves successful. Republican budget cuts have often been directed at education and research that heavily employ highly-educated people. That is one way to lose many people with advanced degrees -- and of course college students.

The Hispanic middle class sees its position shaky in America because much of it is new to the middle class. Any threat to its economic security, including ideological attacks upon its means of success, suggests a return to poverty. Republicans have thrust most educated Hispanics into a position in which they become loud and effective proponents of the Democratic Party.  They are able to enlist not-so-rich Hispanics into voting Democratic.

Note well that white Anglo prejudice against Hispanics has never and nowhere approached white prejudice against blacks. It is safe to say that much of the Hispanic middle class has white Anglo friends, and it is able to reach out to them on political issues. It is able to offer the message that what is bad for the Hispanic middle class is also bad for the white Anglo middle class -- personally. Cultural assimilation goes both ways with Anglos and Hispanics, and some of it is political.   

   

[Franknburger]

Aside from income and perceived GOP xenophobia, gender may play an important role as well. To the extent it is possible to interfere from Turkish immigrants into Germany on Latino immigrants into the US, the US should mean an opportunity for younger Latinas to liberate themselves from patriarchal traditions. As such, they may value social issues at least as high as economic ones, probably even higher, which should make them very solidly democratic. Among younger Latino men, there may be a push towards the opposite direction, as their traditional roles are getting questioned. However, in the absence of strong pull factors towards the Republicans, the "social push" is more likely to result in vote abstention than in actually voting GOP.

I haven't seen detailed analysis so far, but I would not be surprised if Hispanics under 45 showed an above-average gender gap, and a significantly higher female than male turnout rate.

[barfbag]

What used to happen was that along with economic assimilation into the middle class (typically the result of formal education, entrepreneurial activity, and entry into skilled trades) came a tendency for people to vote increasingly for the conservative party (typically the Republican Party outside the South, the South long receiving rather few immigrants) out of self-interest -- tax cuts and deregulation. So it remained as long as the Republicans chose to pander to poor white people left behind by economic change (especially in the Mountain and Deep South).

But by pandering to mass ignorance and anti-rational religion, Republicans offended people who thought that such anti-intellectualism was an assault on the very thing that made themselves successful. Republican budget cuts have often been directed at education and research that heavily employ highly-educated people. That is one way to lose many people with advanced degrees -- and of course college students.

The Hispanic middle class sees its position shaky in America because much of it is new to the middle class. Any threat to its economic security, including ideological attacks upon its means of success, suggests a return to poverty. Republicans have thrust most educated Hispanics into a position in which they become loud and effective proponents of the Democratic Party.  They are able to enlist not-so-rich Hispanics into voting Democratic.

Note well that white Anglo prejudice against Hispanics has never and nowhere approached white prejudice against blacks. It is safe to say that much of the Hispanic middle class has white Anglo friends, and it is able to reach out to them on political issues. It is able to offer the message that what is bad for the Hispanic middle class is also bad for the white Anglo middle class -- personally. Cultural assimilation goes both ways with Anglos and Hispanics, and some of it is political.   

   

So what you're basically saying is that Republicans pushed Hispanics away by pandering to social conservatives who tend to be prejudice?