What If Hispanics Turned Out for Trump?

It's unlikely, but it would cause interesting shakeups in both parties.

By
64

As ambivalent as I am about a Donald Trump victory—or, for that matter, a Joe Biden one—there is one scenario I would enjoy: What if Trump was re-elected thanks to support from Hispanics?

Now, I should say this is only a remote possibility. There’s zero indication Trump can win a majority of Hispanics nationally. Biden currently has about a 20-point lead among Latino voters nationwide. But the whole reason the thought comes to mind is that Biden is underperforming among the fastest growing demographic group, even at a time when he is generally doing better than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 and has been holding a steady lead over Trump for months now.

The biggest worry for the Biden campaign is that Trump is actually leading among Hispanics in Florida, a crucial state for Democrats and an absolute must-win for Republicans. This is largely because Cuban-Americans tend to be more supportive of Republicans more than other Hispanic groups, and Trump’s anti-socialist rhetoric probably has special appeal to a community with long memories of Castro’s takeover of Cuba.

But the fact that Trump is doing well with Hispanic voters in Florida highlights an important point: Hispanics aren’t a monolithic group. Cuban-Americans are very different from Mexican-Americans and Mexican-Americans are very different from Puerto Ricans.

This is true culturally—just ask some of them!—but it’s also true as a matter of public policy. The national media often makes it seem like Hispanics generically care about immigration with equal intensity simply by virtue of the fact that they’re Hispanic. But Cuban-Americans historically had a special carve-out in immigration law (until 2017 when Obama ended the “wet foot dry foot” policy as part of his overture to Cuba). Puerto Ricans may care about immigration for principled reasons, but it’s worth remembering that Puerto Ricans aren’t immigrants. They’re U.S. citizens.

Anyway, you get the point. So why would I enjoy it if Hispanics voted decisively for Trump? Because it would make some people look like idiots and force pretty much everyone to rethink their locked-in positions on not just immigration but on identity politics generally.

Much of the intensity around the immigration issue in recent years has stemmed from the belief that Democrats want “open borders” so they can import evermore Democratic voters. There are thoughtful and non-racist versions of this argument and there are dumb and very racist versions of it as well. But it’s gotten to the point where it’s mostly just a lazy talking point.

But it’s a persuasive talking point to many people because so many Democrats talk as if that is precisely their thinking. As Peter Beinart noted in a 2017 essay for The Atlantic, “As the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they were more influenced by pro-immigrant activism.” In 2008, he noted, the Democratic party platform condemned illegal immigration. In 2016, the platform didn’t even mention it. According to many Democrats, the word “illegal” has a nativist and offensive tinge.

I hate most of Donald Trump’s rhetoric about immigration and immigrants, but wouldn’t it be wild if it turned out to be more offensive to rich white liberals than to the actual targets of his diatribes?

Meanwhile, the racists who tell me—usually in ALL CAPS—that importing brown people is suicidal and that’s why we must support Trump would, to borrow a phrase from that great Cuban American, Ricky Ricardo, “have some ’splaining to do.”

And so would the progressive activists and politicians who think they can summarize the views and attitudes of a huge, and hugely diverse, group of human beings.

Again, I wish Trump wouldn’t use racist rhetoric about immigration. But if Hispanics voted for him in large numbers despite that rhetoric and despite his immigration policies (or even because of them), it would deal a mortal wound to the claim that wanting to enforce immigration laws or making our immigration system slightly more restrictive is racist.

Lastly, Hispanics themselves would benefit in the long run simply by virtue of the fact that both parties would now compete for their votes.

I understand this is a hard argument to make with Trump in office for a lot of reasons, and I personally wish we were talking about a different Republican presidential candidate. And it’s not going to happen this time, anyway. But Trump’s relative success with Hispanics suggests it could happen someday, particularly with a Hispanic GOP nominee. And that’s something to hope for.

Photograph by David McNew/Getty Images.

64
By
Comments (64)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

    Where I disagree most with Dems on immigration is their deliberate blurring of legal and illegal immigration. Those are two very different things. I actually support increased border security, as well as more legal immigration. We need more unskilled labor, and we need more skilled labor as well. In academia, "mathy" academic programs would die without immigrants. One can argue at the margins if the number is 1.x or 1.x+y, but we need immigrants.

    Wanna know what pickin' tomatoes and earning a Ph.D. in a business discipline have in common? They're both jobs Americans are loathe to do. I'm a b-school prof (former department chair). Of our last 5 searches, 75%+ of the applicants would need a green card...

    I like talented people, regardless of their country of origin.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Ray Salemi

    (13-year-old West Wing Spoiler)






    This is how Matt Santos beat Arnold Vinick.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    If Hispanics turned out for Trump, realignment underway.

    Democrats take the business people of silicone valley, republicans get the blue collar workers, Latino vote split, and the black vote changing too?

    Wild times. Won’t know till Election Day.

    Blue wave? Red wave? No wave?

    All I know is, surf and ride the wave, don’t let the wave ride you.

    ....is what my fortune cookie told me.

    Thanks for the article Jonah!

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Bill Nelson

    Not even a nod to Zombies for breaking for Trump. Or Klingons for breaking for Trump.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Ross Feldman

    Winning the "Latinx" vote is highly unlikely but topping the GOP high water mark (seems like 40% is as good as the GOP has done in Presidential elections} is maybe in the cards

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Ms. SSM

    Interesting. I think there is a bit of a logical flaw though. You think a Trump Hispanic victory would say a lot about immigration but also think it would mean Hispanics would be voting on issues OTHER than immigration. So how is it a mortal blow to the discussion of racism? Wouldn’t it just mean other issues were more important which in fact is what you argue in your piece.

    That said the Republican Party doesn’t win the vote of ANY minority group (Black, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish, Muslim) in America and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Relative success for Republicans with a minority group means not losing them by a 2 -1 margin. That says it all really. Trump of the racist dog whistles isn’t the Presidential candidate to reverse that trend.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

      In 2018, exit polls indicated that incumbent Texas governor Greg Abbott picked up 42% of both Latino men and women — despite the national Democratic Party's fervent efforts to GOTV for their candidate in a more competitive race, for U.S. Senate (in which Cruz picked up a mere 35%). The exit polls don't do a cross-correlation by both race and age, but my strong hunch is that among Latinos over 30, Abbott almost certainly did get a majority in 2018. In his previous run in 2014, Abbott actually got a slight majority of Latino males.

      Link: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/09/how-latinos-voted-in-2018-midterms/

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ms. SSM

        I think Republican governors have a good record of getting Democratic votes as a whole. There are certainly plenty of them heading blue states. I wonder why. I mean that seriously I have absolutely no idea.

        Abbott may have done better than most in losing the Hispanic Vote by only 20 points. Clearly some Republicans do better than others. One would think the party would cultivate that. I don’t think they do. After all in 2018 Nationally they still lost the Hispanic vote in the traditional 2-1 range.

        Why do you suspect he won the over 30 crowd? Are they generally more conservative?

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Paul Reichardt

      The Asian voter party affiliation trend I always found particularly interesting. Through the 90's it actually trended towards the GOP, but did a U-turn around 2000 and has been heading back to the Democrats ever since.

      It includes Indian-Americans, primarily Hindus, for example, that would seem to be a more natural fit in a socially- and economically-conservative party like the GOP, particularly one with a strong Islam-skeptical bent (to put it mildly). However Indian immigrants are the most strongly Democratic-leaning subset of Asian-American voters:
      https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/indian-americans-most-likely-to-be-democrats-of-any-asian-origin-group-study/articleshow/75689993.cms

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        rlritt

        I don't think it has to do with race or even conservativism.. Over the past 30 years or so, the Republicans have become anti science anti education party making fun of people who want too explore new technology for improving the environment, etc. For example buying muscle cars because they put more carbon into the air, Gretchen Carlson when she was on air mentioned something being asymetrical referring to an argument, then she giggled and said "not that I know what that means" the woman went to Stanford! And bringing back coal? Come on. That's why Indians who live here and tend to be very well educated don't identify with the Republican party.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

          Not really. Liberals swallow fads just as easily as conservatives do. they just swallow different ones.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Mudskipper

          I think that is part of it. I also think that the three big signature issues of the Republican party simply don't resonate with most Asians:

          --Gun rights. I think gun culture is completely foreign and probably baffling to most Asians.

          --Abortion. Although most Asian immigrants are family-oriented, they aren't particularly opposed to abortion.

          --Small government. From what I've read, most Asians actually want more, not fewer, government services.

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Ms. SSM

        That’s socially conservative thing is true about most minority groups. Hispanics, Blacks and Asians are all culturally fairly conservative.
        Indian Americans may be economically conservative ( I really have no idea) but the Islam Skeptic thing is in no way going to help the GOP I would think. My ancedotal opinion is a strong anti Islam bent would matter more if people didn’t assume certain looks are Muslim. My Desi friends tell me people tend to assume they are Muslim. It’s a bit of a joke between one of my friends because no one assumes I’m a Muslim even though I have a Muslim first name and people always assume she is even though she doesn’t have an unusual first name. So being the “Muslim skeptic” party is maybe not seen as a plus in the Indian American community.

        This friend by the way is so far to the left of me that I might as well be a Republican to her. And she is a first generation daughter of immigrant Indian American.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Paul Reichardt

          Making coarse broad generalizations, yada-yada, but by economically-conservative, I meant Indian immigrants to the US tend to be upper-caste, enterprising, and hardworking (three layers of bosses in my high-stress Silicon Valley tech job are first-generation Indian/Hindu immigrants), so I'd assume they'd naturally drift towards the pro-business, low-tax, pro law-and-order political party). By Islam-skeptic, I meant more in the foreign policy sense as having lived next to a nuclear-armed enemy in Pakistan.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Victor Clairmont

            Yes. currently Muslim and Hindu's are....not getting a long as well as they use to in India. Of course, historically, one could argue for the majority of history they haven't, but Gandhi tried to broker a ceasefire between the two religions. The British tried to solve the problem with the partition of India (Pakistan was West India, there was an East India also. Afghanistan too, a long long time ago, was under India's control).

            In the US though, they get along pretty good as far as I can tell.

            My Grandmother was a Hindu by the way.

            Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        Right, republicans need to reach out to minorities. The fact it took them decades to try was just silly.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Paul Reichardt

          Victor, do you think it was lack of GOP outreach or that minorities were actively being repelled by elements within it (along the lines of what commenter rlritt says)?

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Victor Clairmont

            No to the second part.

            Long thread incoming (Sorry your question is simple but needs a lot explaining, so cramming a lot of history, I understand if you are bored and don't wish to read).

            Lets deal with a few ideas.

            In the black community, it is the most highly protestant christian base of voting in America.

            https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/23/black-americans-are-more-likely-than-overall-public-to-be-christian-protestant/

            They would have far more in common with the evangelical right on religion and idea's of family, but they do not align with republicans because the perception of them is they wish to use the federal government to get in their way of programs that has helped the community (some will argue hinder) by removing programs. Remember, in black america, the federal government was used to free slaves during the civil war, and then also used again to keep the peace when president Ulysses S, Grant (R) sent federal troops into the south to stop reprisals against minorities. It was also at the insistence of the civil rights era, that the federal government be used to protect minority communities from Jim Crow laws from the community themselves Frederick Douglas lobbied congress a lot for suffrage, federal intervention, etc.:

            https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1867-frederick-douglass-appeal-congress-impartial-suffrage/


            This baseline sets the community at odds with the current incarnation of the GoP of small government in politics. Even with thinkers like Booker T. Washington advocating for individuality (I won't get into black political thought, would be another whole discussion with W.E.B. du Bois) Small government was used to hinder blacks in the south rather than help. Of course, one could argue small government today, protecting minorities and gays, christian's and atheist all at once, would be better today than 150 years ago when slavery was still in the constitution. Story for another time.

            Another thing though, some republicans will say, "But it was the Republicans that freed the salves." Yes. Again, through federal force, a civil war, and then a constitutional amendment. Blacks did vote well into the 1900's majorly for republicans. By 1932 however, Roosevelt got around 70% of the black vote for the policies he was passing (whether we agree with them or not is irrelevant to the point I am getting at). Things ping ponged, but then Harry Truman got 78% in 1948.

            This is when the shift starts to be consistent.

            By the time 1960's rolled around and the civil rights was in full swing, Lyndon B Johnson (D), while being a racist, still passed the civil rights act. He would win election with a whooping 94% of the black vote. In fact, at this point, no republican president every got 15% or more. Remember, the Civil Rights bill of 1964 outlawing segregation, and by 1965 the voting rights act.

            But the fondest memory that I continue to run into in my black church for the baby boomer generation is John F. Kennedy. While republicans rightly point out more of them signed onto the civil rights bill, it was senator Kennedy that was the first to champion Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and openly support the civil rights figurehead. That made a huge impact on the black community. They all know that quote, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but you for your country."

            Here's a breakdown of the voting for blacks (It has most the data I cited, not all of it though):

            https://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/

            So, the idea that it's because the republican party for the black community is anti-science, is not the reason. Time, history, policy and leaders made blacks vote against republicans. The "because republicans are racist argument", is quite the branding that has happened in the last couple of decades, but the reality (when you talk to old timers, most gone to the grave now and look at history)is blacks supported republicans up until the early 1930's because the policies pushed after the Civil War, even with the federal government (republicans use power too folks, see after 9-11 and expansion of the NSA), and such. The elections between 1930-1944 had the black vote more split, but again, it solidifies under Johnson. In fact, the best case for blacks voting against any group for racism, was after the civil war for republicans against democrats going into the early 1900's. It begins to fall off under the Johnson administration against democrats.

            Ah, the reason why I am saying the minority vote, specifically the black vote, in other comments is ripe for hit is because of voter dissatisfaction but also, because there are cracks in the black demographics.

            For example, between 2008 (Barack Obama) to 2016, the Caribbean black vote has decreased 10%. Democrats argue it's apathy, I would argue since Trump took a small slice of the pie in 2016 it's because of dissatisfaction. We will know for sure come 2020:

            https://www.caribbeannationalweekly.com/news/local-news/caribbean-american-voices-vote-2020/

            Remember, Trump got 8% of the black vote. 14% black men and very little black women.

            https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/trump-did-better-blacks-hispanics-romney-12-exit-polls-n681386

            Here's pew for the better breakdown of 2016 (Trump for the record got more than 20% of the Hispanic vote):

            https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/

            So in the black vote we are seeing more of a depressed turnout, plus Trump getting more of the vote among black men than McCain or Romney, but still 8% doesn't seem much. Don't forget though, the entire black vote was depressed turnout for Hillary from highs with Obama. 59% of black voters came out.

            https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/black-election-turnout-down-2016-census-survey-238226

            FiveThirtyEight is showing that Trump has a small uptick from 8% to 10% at the moment. Even with Covid.

            https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-big-chunk-of-white-americans-with-degrees-and-people-of-color-are-behind-trump/

            But the point I want to hammer home is, if there was not Covid, and the economy had been as good as it was back in March before the shutdown (lowest unemployment rate), you would see a much larger split of blacks from democrats. You may still see this come November. But even if Trump gets more blacks, he may just get routed by everyone else because he's so unlikable.

            Ah, don't forget though, even if you believe Trump is majorly racist, slightly racists, or not at all, if blacks overwhelmingly voted for Johnson, it is not hard to see them in more numbers slightly voting for someone like Trump if they think their interests are more align. No matter what the current media says. Historically, blacks vote where they think their advantage is, as most people do in America. It's a normal thing.

            Because historically, blacks go where policies or jobs are aiming to help or protect them. When the Republicans won the Civil War and after protected them in the Jim Crow era using the federal government, they stayed loyal with policies that protected them from Southern Dixie Democrats. When Democrats began crafting policies (Remember, I am not saying the policy is right or wrong for this discussion) after the 1930's, they began to swing. After 1964 and 1965, democrats had the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, that protected them at the federal government level.

            So here's the question:

            What is the current policies in the last 20 years that has had a major effect on the black body politic? On par or close to, winning a civil war and issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, outlawing Jim Crow or the Voting Right's Act?

            Affirmative action? That only affects a portion of the black base, 30%:

            https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Black-Degree-Attainment_FINAL.pdf

            Civil Rights, the Emancipation Proclamation, Voting Rights Act, affected all blacks.

            So, historically, blacks actually vote because well...economy and protection. They are at odds with republicans because they believe that state rights is more of a hindrance than a help, and many see no problem with the federal government intervening. This of course, can change. It is not because of anti-science, its more so because of economics and, in the past, survival.

            If Republicans offer a better deal for blacks, like they did with Job opportunities and blacks see themselves doing better under republicans than democrats, they will switch their vote. We have historical precedent for it.

            After all, there are far more 6 day creationists among the wonderful black protestant community, than say, people in Kentucky with Ken Ham. Some may say that is anti-science.

            I leave that up to the theologians to discuss.

            There's more I can do but it's late, I haven't even touched on Asian and Indian culture. Maybe another time. Please ignore spelling errors I live and die by spellcheck. Anyone can feel free to disagree or add stuff in.

            Collapse
  7. William Griese

    I have a hard time finding this as amusing as Jonah because the idea of Trump winning in any way fills me with dread.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Victor Clairmont

      Nah it won’t be that bad.

      .... probably?

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    ClydeR

    An interesting cultural irony to me is in regard to how the "woke" power structure's attempts to placate its guilt and reachout to other communities is so often looked upon derisively, if not as a proof statement of how tone-deaf, unaware & insensitive the do-good community actally is. Can a hispanic be found who actually thinks "latinx" is a meaningful acknowledgement of his or her heritage? Or a native Amercan who believes that changing the monikers of sports teams is a significant acknowledgement of the consequential damage to their way of life caused by the European invasion? Now THAT was an immigration problem...for them. The victors called it "manifest destiny". It seems the tension between being an individual and claiming a community heritage is just a part of the balance beam of life, which we are very wobbly on.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Gerald Arcuri

    This is not a far-fetched idea. Taken as a group ( something I usually rail against ) it has been my experience that people who identify as being of "Hispanic" origin are hard-working, honest, and patriotic. They have not drunk the entitlement Kool-Aid, and they tend not to be easily fooled. They particularly resent being patronized especially by well-meaning do-gooders. Like a lot of the rest of us, they may not relish a Trump presidency, but they may be able to see through the social justice blather of the Democratic Party and want no part with its more violent proponents.

    Collapse
  10. Raincheck

    "Hispanics aren't a monolithic group. Cuban-Americans are very different from Mexican-Americans and Mexican-Americans are very different from Puerto Ricans."

    Not to mention that Mexican-Americans are very different from other Mexican-Americans. Partly because some are fifth generation Americans, some were here before places like New Mexico, Arizona and California were part of the US, and some are immigrants.

    But mostly because they are INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS who are no more monolithic than white people. And it is ignorant for both parties to talk about them like all they want is an open border, or like all women want to rush out and get a late term abortion.

    Collapse
Load More