« All you need to know: 17th January 2008 | Main | All you need to know: 18th and 19th January »

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!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

ExtremeTracker

  • Tracker