I Told You So Department: Only Bush Boosters Now Believe 44% Hispanic Vote Myth

Despite the efforts of Bush backers like Patrick Ruffini
(see below), this was the week that the rest of the
world caught up with what VDARE.com readers have known

all along
: that Bush didn`t win 44% of the Hispanic
vote.

For example, Michael Doyle reported in the Sacramento
Bee
(Pollsters
lower estimate of Bush`s Latino support,
  D
ecember
3):


"Sampling errors
exaggerated Latino voter support for President Bush,
pollsters now agree. Sharply revising the postelection
conventional wisdom, different pollsters now believe
Bush received between 33 percent and 40 percent of the
Latino vote nationwide. The most commonly cited
postelection poll previously asserted Bush had received
a remarkable 44 percent of the Latino vote, losing only
53-44 to Kerry.

"The
rollback seems to undercut an argument that had been
gathering steam since the Nov. 2 election, and which has
been repeatedly invoked with Bush`s recent appointment
of two Latino men to Cabinet positions. It also forces
Democrats and Republicans alike to re-examine their
political presumptions about the nation`s fastest
growing population. `Immediately after Election Day,
there was an enormous rush to judgment,` said Adam
Siegel, director of the Hispanic Voter Project at Johns
Hopkins University in Baltimore."

Last week, the Associated Press, one of the six main
financial backers of the National Election Pool exit
poll, issued an

official correction
of the exit poll`s ridiculous
claim that Bush had won 59 percent of Texas Hispanics. I
had

debunked
this claim immediately after the election.

AP changed the result from Bush winning 59-40 in the
state with the second-largest number of Hispanics to
Kerry winning 50-49.

The Sacramento Bee`s Doyle also reported that, at
a conference hosted by the National Association of
Hispanic Journalist, "Looking at the larger national
sample, the numbers turn out to be 58 percent for
[Democrat John] Kerry and

40 percent
for Bush,
said NBC elections
manager Ana Maria Arumi."
(NBC is another one of the
six sponsors of the exit poll.)


"For
the revised figures the networks combined 50 state exit
polls, which reflected more than 70,000 interviews,
Arumi said,"


reported
James W. Brosnan for Scripps Howard.

As I pointed out in my

last VDARE.COM column,
Bush did significantly worse
among the approximately 3200 Hispanics who filled out
the shorter questionnaire, which was originally only
used for reporting results at the state level, than he
did among the 1100 Hispanics who completed the long
questionnaire, which was used for the inflated regional
and national numbers.

NBC`s Arumi also noted out that the pollsters had failed
to avoid the single most obvious problem in sampling
Hispanics: Miami`s Cubans aren`t representative of the
overall ethnic group.

Arumi said, as reported by the Bee`s Doyle:

"There
were too many precincts that had a large Hispanic
majority in South Florida, where (Cuban Americans) don`t
look (politically) like Hispanics in the rest of the
country."

As Ruy Teixeira

points out
, it`s not even clear whether Arumi`s 40
percent figure represents a final estimate incorporating
all the known problems with the poll, such as the
inflated Texas number, or whether it could fall a few
more points.

My best guess: the real number is a little lower, but
not too much lower.

Overall, Bush probably improved his standing among
Hispanics, just as he improved his performance with
almost every demographic group and state in the country.

As I`ve been

pointing out
for over a year, the GOP`s share of the
Hispanic vote tends to go up and down in

synchrony
with the GOP`s share of the white vote.

For example,
the GOP
candidates for the House did their best among Hispanics
in 1994—which was also the same year they did

their best
among whites.

But
pundits almost never look at the

white vote.
So they get over-excited about ebbs and
flows in the massively less important Hispanic vote.

Journalists always

label Hispanics a crucial "swing vote."
But
in truth they are more of a "flow vote" that
fluctuates with the overall tide.

But no
matter what the point in the cycle, Hispanics vote

consistently
far to the left of the white vote.

For
example, the GOP House candidates` share of the Hispanic
vote in 2002 was 38% (according to the

long lost exit poll data
I bought from the Roper
Center). That was up 3 points from 2000.

A
historic breakthrough? Not really. The GOP`s share of
the white vote went up four points from 55% to 59%. So
the overall white-Hispanic gap actually grew one point,
from 19 to 20 points.

The
change in Presidential results from 2000 to 2004 was
probably quite similar.

Now that the facts are finally coming out, some voices
are calling for Republicans to ignore them and to
continue believing in the Bush Administration`s

pretty story.

The last four years have seen numerous Bush supporters
develop a postmodern attitude toward reality, as if they
intend to prove correct Foucault`s and

Derrida`s contention
that there is no truth, just
whatever the power structure proclaims.

And, hey, the GOP has the power in Washington (at the
moment). So, who needs truth, when you`ve got power?

For example, the talented young voting analyst Patrick
Ruffini, who ran the official blog for the Bush-Cheney
2004 campaign, has issued a call for conservatives to
"embrace"
the inflated number.

Maybe
it`s just me, but I`ve always had this feeling that
conservatives should embrace the truth.

(I also
think that`s a good approach for moderates, liberals,
monarchists, and anarchists.)

The
problem with the 44% Hispanic share figure, whatever its
advantages and disadvantages in terms of political spin,
was always that it was clearly not true.

Ruffini
criticizes me for "employing all manner of hairsplitting and technical minutiae,"
which is funny coming from him, because the whole reason
to read his

personal blog
is that he`s very good at the
hairsplitting and technical minutiae that voting
analysis entails.

For example,

here
is his admirably technical essay delving into
the minutiae of vote swing in the Northeast.

But he has happy news
to report there—Bush did very well in counties in the
shadow of the World Trade Center. The real test comes
when the news is not what you want to hear.

Republicans in
Congress need to know the unspun facts, because there
is one

extremist
in this debate – the

President of the United States
.

And he
has a history of getting his way with bad ideas.

Last
January, Mr. Bush

proposed
his

all-time worst stinkeroo, an
immigration policy so
beyond belief that he got away with it because nobody,
except those of us who have followed his thinking on
immigration closely

over the years,
could believe he meant what he said.

Forget
the amnesty part (which of course he

lied about not being an amnesty)
, and focus on his

guest worker plan
.

As his
spokesmen made clear, it is unlimited in scope.
Any number of the six billion foreigners on Earth

could move to the U.S.
as long as they received a
$5.15/hour job offer, assuming it had been first
advertised in America for two weeks at the

minimum wage.

This is
likely the most radically transformative proposal any
President has made in at least the last century.

Knowing
that 1/4th of
Puerto Ricans
legally

immigrated to America
and 1/6th of Mexicans are now
here, largely illegally, it`s interesting to estimate
what fraction of the 6 billion foreigners would legally
move here in a decade or two under the Bush plan. I
really can`t begin to guess, but if Ruffini is looking
for a "starting estimate," 100 million would be a
nice round number and plausible estimates would climb
rapidly from there.

(The
methodological problem is figuring out what proportion
of the Third World has to move here before

America becomes so like the Third World
that life is

no better here than there,
so they stop coming.)

The
Republican Congress

quickly hushed the Bush plan up
, and the Bush
campaign dropped it during the campaign. Bush even had
the gall to claim to be to the right of Kerry on
amnesty, when they were both for amnesty for current
illegal aliens. Bush justified this by concocting a
wholly novel definition of amnesty as being for
citizenship for illegal aliens—as you can see, Bush
knows that immigrants becoming citizens is bad for the
GOP, so his plan called for mass helotry.

Now,
Ruffini does make some good points. As he says, Hispanic
voters—in contrast to the Hispanic campaign
consultants and the Hispanic politicians who have Mr.
Bush`s ear—have rationally ambivalent feelings about
illegal immigration, and there`s little evidence that
they want more immigration.

As I
pointed out in my important cover story in the December
20, 2004 issue of The American Conservative, "The
Baby Gap: Explaining Red vs. Blue
" (see here for

supporting data
and graphs), the most important
thing the Republicans have going for them is that
married voters with children feel that Republicans are
supportive of people like themselves. The correlations
between the white fertility and marriage rates by state
and Bush`s share of the state`s vote are extraordinarily
high.

The
flip side is that the GOP doesn`t, at present, have much
to offer working families economically.

Among
whites, that`s less important, because they tend to be
better off and thus more focused on raising their
children right. But Hispanic married couples on average
are more strapped financially, so the GOP`s
quasi-symbolic family values cultural issues are less
often able to persuade them to vote against their
economic interests.

The GOP
is likely to be able to continue to win a minority of
Hispanic votes, especially among the more comfortable.
But to win a majority, the average Hispanic`s economic
situation would have to improve dramatically. And the
only way that will happen is if immigration is cut way
back. The constant arrival from south of the border of
new enlistees in what

Marx
called

"the reserve army of the unemployed"
depresses
Hispanic voters` wages most of all.

As
Ruffini himself notes, there`s little evidence that

Hispandering
wins Hispanic votes. And by keeping
Hispanic workers on the

edge of poverty
, mass immigration makes them more
susceptible to Democratic appeals.

The
political problem for the GOP simply is that

Hispanics are a lot more Democratic
than
non-Hispanics, and have been since JFK.

And
even Republican Hispanics are quite liberal. As the Pew
Poll showed, on the basic question—Should the government
tax and spend more or less?—Hispanic Republicans are
more liberal than white Democrats.

Opening
the immigration floodgates is exactly the wrong
political tack for the Republicans to take, since it
doesn`t attract current Hispanic votes, but it does
generate a net surplus of Democrats down the road.

Yet
there`s no evidence that Mr. Bush understands any of
this. Immediately after the election, among the very
first of the many changes that he had prudently
postponed until after the election, such as dumping
Secretary of State Powell, was the

relaunch of his lunatic immigration plan
. White
House spokesman are now calling it a reward to
Hispanics…for giving Bush 44% of their votes.

Republicans in Congress should know the facts, rather
than rely on wishful thinking.

Bush
dodged a bullet because Kerry refused to make illegal
immigration an issue.

But
plenty more bullets are on the way. One ominous sign:

Hillary Clinton
, a smarter politician than Kerry,
has already started to position herself to run against
illegal immigration.


[Steve Sailer [email
him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and


movie critic
for


The American Conservative
.
His website


www.iSteve.blogspot.com
features his daily
blog.]