Obama and Latinos
The Wall Street Journal discusses some of Rick Perry's problems of balancing a (relatively) more moderate immigration stance with the need to appease restrictionists for the nomination. More interesting, though, is the data accompanying the article. One in particular caught my eye: 48% of Hispanics beleive the Democratic Party is either indifferent or hostile to them. The Obama administration should view that number as far too high for comfort. 72% believe the same of the Republican Party, so Obama is banking on two assumptions: First, the Republican campaign has been so hostile to Latinos that there is no danger of switching. Second, that even if some Latinos stay home and don't vote, that won't be decisive in battleground states. These are not necessarily bad assumptions, but Obama will need all the help he can get.
2 comments:
My guesses or intuitions for the 2012 election, What is going to happen in the Presidential election : Just Intuitions, Hunches, Feelings, Premonitions of the Future. Auspices, Omens and Divinations : Using lightning and the flight of birds :
1) I guess that Latinos are not swing voters, independents or centrists. They may complain and threaten Obama a lot ( with staying in bed ) but will vote for Obama prodded and goaded by Republican Declarations and Stances. I classify them as part of Obama's base. If they are allowed to vote they will vote for Obama.
2) I guess that swing voters, independents and centrists ( that decide the 2012 election ) are influenced 90% or more in the last five months. There are researches from Universities that support this probable claim. A little economic warmth after June 1, 2011 will decide the election for Obama, even with 8% unemployment.
3) Guess : This election depends more than any other on informing the electorate. Obama is a superb orator, intellectual, scholar, professor of law, etc .... and has as company superb intellectuals like Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Sachs, Robert Reich, Robert Kuttner, many guys of the "New Republic", "The American Prospect", "New Yorker", "The Atlantic", "Daily Beast", "Daily Kos", "Huffington Post", "POLITICO.COM", Slate, and there are many writers in the "New York Times", "Washington Post", "Los Angeles Times", "Miami Herald", MSNBC, etc ..
Can this Obama Press Machine be defeated by Fox News, the "National Weekly", Charles Krauthammer, etc ... ??
Answer : NO, Given enough time and there is plenty of time.
4) The Supreme Court is delaying, procrastinating and buying time on the hot potatos of SB 1070 and Health Care Overhaul. I speculate that they do not want to mesh with these Political Ticking Bombs. That may cause more jurisprudence in the circuits. And I think that this new generated wisdom in the courts may help to defend the President, and will morally and politically influence the Supreme Court for a more Progressive Solutions to these impasses.
.........
US Supreme Court rules against Arizona violent vigilante rancher in assault of undocumented people - Cochise resident rancher must pay illegal entrants $87,000 - SC upheld a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February ( located in San Francisco )
This shows how difficult is to predict what the Supreme Court is going to do in these cases that are related to Immigration. This is a Great Rejection of Vigilantism by the U. S. Supreme Court.
Arizona Daily Star
US Supreme Court turns away rancher Barnett in assault case
By Brady McCombs
October 6, 2011
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_0f4a5283-74fa-55ee-b1fe-26d60d735c91.html
Some excerpts :
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a 2009 ruling against Cochise County rancher Roger Barnett, forcing him to pay about $87,000 in damages related to his assault of illegal immigrants on his ranch in 2004.
The decision comes after the same ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February.
The court disagreed with the arguments made in the appeal, which included a claim that U.S. District Judge John Roll made errors while presiding over the 2009 trial. Roll was one of six people killed in the Jan. 8 mass shooting in Tucson.
In that February 2009 trial, a federal jury issued a split verdict in the case against Barnett stemming from the 2004 incident. The jury found he didn't violate the group's civil rights and that he wasn't liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment.
But the jury found him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress, and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages. The $87,000 he must pay reflects that original amount plus interest.
The 2004 incident occurred near Douglas when Barnett approached a group of 16 illegal immigrants while he was carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog. Attorneys for the plaintiffs - five women and 11 men who had crossed into the U.S. illegally - say Barnett held the group captive at gunpoint, threatening that his dog would attack and that he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.
.........
Post a Comment