Maybe I’m unusual from amongst the 53% who pay income tax. But I suspect I’m not all that unusual. I’d be willing to bet that there are a fair number of people, like me, who don’t make $200,000/year and who noticed that Paul Ryan’s plan for our economy would actually raise our taxes while also cutting a bunch of programs we currently don’t mind supporting with the money we pay: So, again, since Romney is convinced that I’m a member of the 53% of the country who aren’t shiftless layabouts and am thus worth talking to, what is it exactly that he thinks is going to sway me?”
Yachts?
If you caught the season premiere of Saturday Night Live (hello, new Obama!), you may have noticed their Weekend Update treatment of the presidential campaigns’ courting of Latin@ voters.
The larger story, of course, can be seen in the poll numbers: Obama currently leads the coveted demographic 66% to 29%, reminiscent of his 67% to 31% lead with Hispanic voters over John McCain in 2008.
Romney is fighting back by focusing on economic issues as Obama’s failure of this audience’s communities, as the Latin@ unemployment rate continues to hover a couple percentage points higher than the national average. In that theme, the “Romney campaign has run Spanish-language television ads targeting Hispanics, including one called ‘No podemos mas’ — translated to ‘We no longer can’ — that contrasts with Obama’s 2008 campaign slogan, ‘Yes, we can.’”
It’s immigration issues where matters get a little stickier. As the LA Times commented:
Clearly, Latinos don’t cast their votes based solely on whether a candidate supports comprehensive immigration reform or stricter enforcement. The economy, education, public safety are the top issues, just as they are for all voters. But Latinos don’t appreciate candidates who demonize immigrants either.
And while Romney himself may usually be a little too silver-tongued to outright demonize immigrants, he does campaign with people who do — notably Rep. Steve King of Iowa, who said that an electric fence should be built along the southern border to keep immigrants out because “we do this with livestock all the time.”
On that cheery note, for more background on this topic, read On the Issues’ report on Romney’s immigration policy here and view their report on Obama on this issue here.
— Bonnie
P.S. What did you think of SNL’s coverage? And do you think Romney will be able to successfully court the Latin@ vote?
One day later and post-Romney’s quip about being Mexican, the answer is no unless he changes his platform. I mean there’s plenty to criticize about President Obama’s TERRIBLE record with Latin@ voters. By the way, is there a group of individuals that Mitt Romney has not insulted?
Between Latina women, 74% support Obama vs. Romney’s 21%
Between Latino men, 61% support Obama vs. Romney’s 32%
Latina women, by far the better of the two.
Mitt Romney [Huff Post]
Mitt forgot to note that if his parents were “Latin@” Mexicans, they would have been persecuted upon arriving to the United States of America during the heart of the eugenics movement. In addition, they would have been schooled in barns, away from actual schools which was common at the time, and there’s simply no way that a Mexican would have become governor of the state of Michigan. ZERO. PERCENT. CHANCE.
Romanticize about it now if you’d like but if you were Mexican you wouldn’t be in this presidential candidate position in that awful political party.
Rick Santorum, politicians and overall awful human being, at Values Voter Summit. [HuffPost]
Three words that I thought I would never say, “thank you media.”
The answer is clearly NO. By the way, I refuse to link to this piece even if it doesn’t make the claim that he is the first Latin@ president.
As long as I’m alive, I will work towards making sure that the deportations that occurred under his presidency become a prominent part of his legacy.
Try not to forget why they came to the United States of America, and though the specific circumstances may differ, you’ll find that hundreds of years later some of those reasons are similar or the same.
Mere Spectators
Wouldn’t it be refreshing, just once, for people not to immediately broadcast their views about political theatre? My Facebook and tumblr dashboards are filled with hyperbolic cries of joy after Michelle Obama’s speech, with most declaring their preference for her over the President. As far as I can tell, the true purpose behind such posts is really to highlight just how “cool” the person writing them is for identifying an obviously genuine and loving daughter, mother, partner, and First Lady. Presumably, she’s preferred over her husband because her hands are quite clean when it comes to the business of governing: you know, no extrajudicial killing orders or imperfect financial policies. I’ll leave it to you to judge just who is objectifying whom.
I see your point but let me tell you a story. I was at a beautiful laundromat in beautiful Oakland, by the beautiful lake, when Michelle Obama gave her speech. I arrived at the laundromat and noticed that the owner had tuned in to the DNC and that the volume on the television was raised quite loudly. To be honest, I wasn’t paying attention to the speech because I was concerned with finishing my reading and managing the large amount of laundry that I let accumulate over the weeks (NEVER AGAIN.) At least I wasn’t paying attention until I noticed that the eyes of many of the patrons were swelling up with tears. It was a rare, beautiful, shared moment. I’m pretty sure that if they all had laptops, they would have all filled up whatever website with hyperbolic cries of joy and respect.
Anyway I hope that the public’s preference for Michelle isn’t simply because she’s the president’s wife, I hope that it’s because people realize (whether they admit/realize it or not) that Michelle could lead this nation AND do it well. Furthermore that she’s not just someone that is a role model to women, but also to men. I don’t know, I thought she was magnificent and I don’t mind the hyperbolic cries on my dashboard one bit.
