Ewan C. Watt: How the South-West will be won

Ewan Watt looks at the demographics and concludes that the Democrats need Bill Richardson on the ticket.

The way in which the Democratic race has transpired will likely provide some solace to Republicans and conservative 527s who had anticipated with whom their respective candidates would face off in ‘round II’. 

Bearing in mind the media circus surrounding Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton it was hardly surprising that Bill Richardson’s withdrawal from the Presidential race received so little attention. Richardson’s withdrawal was due to financial problems; he would be unable to compete with the respective war chests of the two frontrunners. However his involvement in the 2008 Presidential race is hardly likely to end there. In fact, Republicans should take note of New Mexico’s commander in-chief – he may pose a greater threat to the GOP than either Obama or Clinton.

Looking at the last seven Presidential elections one wonders how on earth the Democratic Party has found their candidate residing in the White House on only three occasions. 

Although the Republicans tasted some success in the South with Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, a real southern strategy was developed by Richard Nixon and latterly Lee Atwater, who cited constitutional objections to ‘bussing’ and fiscal conservatism, tax cuts and states rights respectively. Thus without a solid southern constituency the Democrats have won the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on only three occasions since 1968 – through the Jimmy Carter anomaly and the political genius of William J. Clinton. 

Some might say therefore, that in order to become President, a Democrat must ‘win’ the South. Unfortunately for the Republicans this is not so.

As Governor of New Mexico, any Democratic candidate would be certifiable to pass by the opportunity to have Bill Richardson as their running mate. A negotiator, Hispanic, tax cutter and commander in chief (the last time America directly elected a Senator to the Presidency was John F. Kennedy in 1960) who continues to enjoy a 65% approval rating, Richardson is the greatest asset that the Democrats could have hoped for at election time since Bill Clinton.

If Richardson is on the Democratic ticket, the chances of a Republican winning the White House look slim. The reason? Demographic shifts.

In the 1960s, Robert F. Kennedy wrongly asserted that all the North-Easterners migrating to the South and West would retain their heritage and become Democrats. Unfortunately for Kennedy and the Democrats, Southern and Western customs quickly swallowed up the new inhabitants. However, could the Republican Party be making the same mistake?

Having focused much of their respective campaigns on illegal immigration, the Republican Party appears to have done all it can to alienate one of the key groups that elected George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 – Hispanics. Although Bush never commanded an absolute majority of the Hispanic vote (mainly Protestant Hispanics), the 40% that he won in 2004 was enough to give him majorities in key swing states in the Southwest.

Of course, the fact that the United States has around 12 million illegal immigrants needs to be addressed. Having spent time at the Republican National Committee I can vouch for the fact that illegal immigration easily the most emotive issue with the party’s base. Nevertheless, whilst the Republican candidates all jostle over who has the toughest policies on border control the Hispanic vote is deserting the Party – as it did in droves during the 2006 mid terms.

Looking ahead to November, New Mexico, Florida, Nevada, Colorado and even Arizona (56 electoral college votes in total) will be the key swing states. As the fastest growing group of voters in these states, Hispanics are likely to play a decisive role in each. Obviously this hangs on both parties retaining the large swathes of voters who repeatedly cite illegal immigration as their primary concern. Should Obama or Clinton choose Richardson as their running mate, the Republicans may end up facing an uphill battle to retain the very votes that Karl Rove saw as forming the newest part of the Republican coalition that Ronald Reagan helped nurture. As Rove anticipated, the Hispanic vote is now organised – although volatile in itself – and capable of deciding elections. 

So, several dilemmas within the GOP remain. Whilst the Democrats seem split, the GOP appears to be splintered. One only needs to encounter a Rudy McRomney bumper sticker with a large red score through it to understand that none of the frontrunners has galvanised the grass roots. 

Yet, the return of John McCain could be the Republican’s saving grace.

Now McCain’s problem is not his national popularity. The Senator from Arizona is seen regularly as one of the most respected figures in American politics. McCain’s problem is his tumultuous relationship with the party base. A maverick, McCain recently sponsored a bill with liberal Edward Kennedy that would have provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants – just when his Presidential campaign was on the ropes. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law has limited the issuance of advertisements late on in the election season, which evangelicals feel has infringed their right to political speech. Still, it is McCain’s consistency and “straight talkin’” that has commanded him respect amongst moderates and independents.

Like Richardson, McCain represents a swing state. In fact, Arizona is the fastest growing state in the union. Having never ‘flip-flopped’ on the immigration question, McCain could be the Republican’s only chance to retain its share of the Hispanic vote. In addition, McCain’s maverick style may in fact endear him to Republicans and independents who have been alienated by George W. Bush. 

Still, questions will remain as to whether the party’s volatile coalition could hold together under McCain. Would evangelicals forgive him? What about his vote against Bush’s tax cuts? Absurdly, could Hillary unite the Republican Party behind McCain? Or could the base turn towards a ‘Ross Perot’ a la 1992.

Looking at the swing states, McCain’s surge could not have happened at a better time for the GOP. Although an endorsement from the late Jerry Falwell is unlikely to be enough to mend McCain’s relationship with the part of the GOP’s base, the possibility exists for a joint ticket with the Reverend Huckabee. Also a McCain Presidency may only last one term – could this be enough to appease the evangelicals? More importantly, McCain remains the GOP’s best chance of confronting Richardson and winning those key swing states. Who knows, perhaps citing Richardson’s willingness to open a dialogue with Fidel Castro could also even swing Florida.

With an extremely volatile electorate, 2008 is likely to be the most open Presidential election in living memory. Unlike the South, West, North East, or Midwest, the entire region of the Southwest is very much up for grabs. After licking his wounds, Bill Richardson will be in the Governor’s mansion waiting for a phone call to deliver the Southwest. Only this time he will be on fertile land with endless resources at his disposal. 

The Republican Party has the candidate and the ticket to stop the Democrats but the outcome will depend on how much the Republican coalition wants to win – or how much a faction member wants to prove a point.

Comments

[Jonathan Powell]

The implicit assumption of this seems to be that all Hispanics are in the US illegally. Surely this is not the case, and therefore those who have legally emigrated to the US (including political refugees such as those from Cuba) are just as likely as other Americans to oppose illegal immigration and amnesty.

Also, if they are there illegally, how come they are entitled to vote?

[Adam in London]

Bill Richardson is an attractive VP nomination less because he is Hispanic, and more because his CV makes him one of the most qualified candidates in the Democratic party - Ambassador to the UN, Energy Secretary, Congressman, and Governor of New Mexico. He oozes experience from every pore, so could be a good balance for Obama. His time in the Clinton administration probably makes him attractive to Hillary as well.

However, he's not the only candidate in the field.

If Obama takes the nomination, he may want to boost the foreign policy credentials of the ticket, which puts Senator Joe Biden into contention. Equally, there are other candidates that could mix it up in the GOP heartland - Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, or Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas...

And if Hillary wins the nomination, she could always pick Obama...

[Ewan Watt]

"The implicit assumption of this seems to be that all Hispanics are in the US illegally."

"Also, if they are there illegally, how come they are entitled to vote?"

Seriously? I never mentioned that. Obviously Hispanic voters (those LEGALLY) in the US can vote. That is why I've selected key swing states. However, the combined movement of both legal and illegal immigrants will pack a powerful punch.

As Mark Penn has outlined, illegal immigrants will play a key role in how their cousins - who are legitimately in the United States - can vote. You now don't have to be a voter in a swing state to influence the outcome. (According to PEW, non-citizens account for 44% of the total adult Hispanic population. Of these non-citizen Latino adults, an estimated 55% are undocumented immigrants and the other 45% are legal aliens. Do you really think that just because they don't have the right to vote they have no influence on outcomes?).

"Surely this is not the case, and therefore those who have legally emigrated to the US (including political refugees such as those from Cuba) are just as likely as other Americans to oppose illegal immigration and amnesty.

Of course, I don't doubt that a significant number of legal Hispanics view illegal immigration as a real problem - and view an outright amnesty with deep scepticism. However, the majority see it as a net benefit to the US economy. In addition, do you really think a candidate supporting deportation or building a wall across the US-Mexican will garner a lot of support with Hispanics? Sure, they want border enforcement, but they don't want to be scapegoats.

[Mike A]

Jonathan - that's not true.

The illegals issue is significant for legals too.

Basically, wanting to restrict the number of Mexican people is pretty offensive if you're a legal Mexican or an illegal one.

[Ewan Watt]

"f Obama takes the nomination, he may want to boost the foreign policy credentials of the ticket, which puts Senator Joe Biden into contention. Equally, there are other candidates that could mix it up in the GOP heartland - Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, or Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas..."

I doubt Obama would take it. I think the other candidate behind Richardson would be Evan Bayh from Indiana.

[Giovanni]

IN terms of CV, Bill Richardson is far more experienced then anyone on either Republican or Democratic fields. I long belived the Deomcratic ticket would be Clinton-Richardson.

However Obama has proved himself to be more of a serious candidacy then I originally thought. I suspect that were he to win the nomination then Richardson will be the logical choice as VP, to deliver experience to the ticket. But if Clinton wins the nomination after a long drawn-out battle with Obama, come convention time party pressure to nominate Obama as her VP will be irresistable. She won't like that, and Obama as VP will be kept deliberately out of lots of loops, but I feel it will be inevitable. And Clinton is pretty experienced anyway, so there would be less of a need to add further experience with Richarson.
Whereas if Obama wins, then it's highly dubious Clinton would serve as his VP (and with a Clinton VP, presdient Obama would be checking under his bed every night and having his aids start the car for him) and he would be under far less pressure to appoint her anyway, opening the door for Richardson.
Now imagine Richardson were British and sitting in the current Brown cabinet. By now half the PLP would be clamouring for him to take over from Brown before the next General elelction...

[Jonathan Powell]

illegal immigrants will play a key role in how their cousins - who are legitimately in the United States - can vote. You now don't have to be a voter in a swing state to influence the outcome.

I guess this is true insofar as Hispanics are all friends with one another, but is that really the case? I were to emigrate to America, I wouldn't automatically want to be friends with other Brits, and if I had gone through all the aggravation required to legally emigrate I wouldn't look too fondly on fellow Brits who were in America illegally.

Basically, wanting to restrict the number of Mexican people is pretty offensive if you're a legal Mexican or an illegal one.

I don't see why. I mean, there are restrictions on people from everywhere else. Is Rudy Giuliani offended that there isn't an open border with Italy? It seems more offensive that Mexicans get a special deal which isn't open to say, Africans, Chinese, Australians, Russians, etc.

[Jake]

Interesting Mr. Watt does not suggest Obama-Edwards or Clinton-Edwards:

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/01/john-edwards-for-president_18.html

[Steevo]

I think both of you, Jonathan and Ewin, make points. I don't think there is unanimous sentiment amongst our legal Hispanic population, even a substantial percentage of our 14,000 boarder patrol agents are Hispanic-American, and Hispanic families tend to be more conservative in personal values than liberal Democrats. But it also seems to me more illegals than legals populate our country on a daily basis now when concerning those from south of our boarder and many of these are family and friends.

I am confident with this: legal immigrants make up the overwhelming bulk of non-Hispanics and my feeling is many if not most will vote. They don't heavily populate those key southern states and their overall vote won't have as much impact, but they will not be in agreement with politicians who support amnesty. In Florida, those from south of our boarder are largely from Cuba and most will vote Republican. In the remaining southern states mentioned many non-immigrants have witnessed the deterioration first hand from illegals and they will be highly motivated come voting day.

I have doubts any Republican candidate will receive as high a percentage this coming election from the Hispanic community. I thank the media in large part, obscuring the issues of law and fairness, convolution of economic realities, and angling for the racist card. But Republican conservative voters have lost some faith and motivation... from Bush's soft stance on our southern boarder.

[jdun]

Funny that the South which is populated with Hispanics voted for the Republicans. You know why? Because they are Christians, Conservative Christians. They don't like baby killers. They don't like liberals pissing on the cross in front of New York City Hall. They go to Church.

Lets look at Texas. It is solid conservative Christians. They voted for Bush and then Rick Perry (not once but twice)

Antonio R. Sanchez, Jr. is a Mexican American that ran against Rick Perry. The liberal media called his campaign a dream team. Can't lose. Win Win. You know what? He freaking lost and lost hard. It wasn't a race it was a slaughter.

Florida Cuban Hispanics, they freaking hate the Democrat and the left. That's why they voted for Jeff Bush not once but twice and gives George Bush the Presidency in the 2000 election. This is what Cuban Hispanics think about the Democrats/left:
Democrats/left = Fidel Castro = The Anti-Christ.

Bill Richardson won New Mexico because he is a conservative Democrat (left standard). He lower taxes across the board, gives taxes breaks, pro-gun, pro death penalty.

Edwards can't win his home state of South Carolina in the 2004 election for Kerry. That was his job and he failed. Do you think he can win it now?

[Frogg, USA]

I originally thought Hillary would choose Gov Richardson, Gov Mark Warner, or Sen Evan Bayh as a running mate. I can't see her picking Obama no matter what pressure.

However, Warner is running for the Virginia Senate seat. And, although I disagree with Richardson's policy, I generally like him (I am a conservative). He has more experience than all of the Democrat candidates put together. However, he damaged himself during his run for the White House (verbal gaffes, prior exagerations, ethics problems, etc) that I am not sure he would now be a good pick for Hillary.

Hillary also has a fondness for ex NATO Supreme Commander, Gen Wesley Clark. She could pick him.

Of course, I hope a Mitt Romney Presidency pretty much moots all of this Hillary talk soon! LOL!

[Denise]

jdun, you mention that Cuban Hispanics think of the Democrats/left in the same way they think of Castro and the Anti Christ. So do I! LOL!