Democrats, messaging, and the Latino vote updated: 11/14-11/17/22

Democrat Yadira Caraveo's victory in Congressional District 8 in Colorado, a brand new district, reflects the growing Latino population in Colorado. https://www.coloradopolitics.com/elections/colorado-latinos-voted-for-democrats-in-dominant-fashion-exit-poll-shows/article_05c27822-6477-11ed-a0d7-1b185549ec99.html 

In Arizona, the increasing Latino demographics contributed to that state's shift from red to purple recently. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-suburbanites-latinos-and-the-ghost-of-john-mccain-turned-arizona-into-a-presidential-battleground/ar-AA1jcHYS?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=DCTS&cvid=0ebe0487102d4ec290e853e5d0eaf556&ei=7

This 2022 midterm election provides an opportunity for Democrats to shape national messaging that appeals across the Latino/Hispanic divide of diverse experiences. 

There was a great deal of handwringing before November 8 midterms that there was a shift of Latino voters to the GOP.  It panned out in Florida and less than predicted in Texas.   However, in Colorado, Latinos/Hispanics voted around 70% for Democrats.  The assumption has been that uniform interest was dictated by ethnic identification and that they would vote as a block.  That assumption works in Colorado, but not everywhere, and the Latino experiences in Florida are different than the Latino experiences in Colorado.  In Florida, both Cuban and Venezuelans fled socialism and communism and were most often the more affluent in the countries they were fleeing. They have been given special access to citizenship and immigration.  The Puerto Ricans were once considered mostly Democrats, and Puerto Ricans are  American citizens. Even they departed from the Democrats in 2022.  All three groups do not have problems with green cards, immigration barriers, and voting. Many are now first and second-generation. In Colorado,  some Hispanics trace their roots to the early 1700s and others to the late 1900s.  While my roots of ancestors are very mixed, one great-grandmother, an immigrant from Spain, married to a man from a Missouri French immigrant community,  settled in eastern Colorado in the 1880s, and Spanish was the language of my paternal grandfather's childhood.   The very recent influx of those from Mexico and Central America do not arrive with a green card in hand or the ability to vote. They must rely on those who have attained citizenship by birth or naturalization to vote on behalf of their interests.  Many with family ties in the US  receive a hand-up from them.  Such family ties are a powerful force and a fundamental characteristic of Hispanic culture. 

 How does the Democratic party devise a national message that has universal appeal across this great divide of Latino diversity, ranging from Florida to the American southwest?  First, realize Latino voters are those that have achieved or have been born to US citizenship and have various views of the current wave of immigrants coming from central America.  While all politics is local, there are some national sentiments held in common by this very diverse group that favor Democrats.  What they all share is what other immigrants to America sought. Like all waves of immigrants since the founding of America, they are trying to pursue '" the American dream," to have the ability and the social and political freedom to raise a family and nourish it,  to move up to the next rung in economic prosperity, and some to start and own their own businesses. They want the playing field to be level and look for candidates who support fairness regardless of race or national origin. Those are aspirations as old as the nation, founded on the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on the basis that all men were created equal.  My late husband immigrated to America, escaping a Communist dictatorship, and was one of the post-World War II immigrants to America. While he was from South Eastern Europe, he found a kinship with Latinos in their aspirations and even a cultural affinity.  His medical practice was bi-lingual. 

Achieving those aspirations of the American dream in the land of opportunity is easier in a  society that respects those who do not look like or even speak like the majority and who believe in less government control and intrusion into their private lives (including supporting women's control over their health care),  Democrats can make the case they are the party that provides the personal freedom and the ability to make it easier to pursue the American dream.  

 We are experiencing a demographic shift.  By 2040, minorities will become the majority. American voters have a choice to delay this shift by suppressing civil and voting rights and limiting immigration of target groups,  or they can realize that demographics are destiny and can make the attempt to live together in peace and acceptance for the sake of future generations.  Democrats, by their liberalism and personal values, have as their mantra to be inclusive of all regardless of religion, race, national origin, and sexual orientation in pursuit of the American dream and have the will to shape a public policy agenda that provides a level and fair playing field for all.  In political terms, that means support for civil and human rights. The GOP has shown a willingness to cater to those within their ranks who advocate freedom for those who are partisans of a certain race, religion, or sexual orientation. and ideology at the exclusion and expense,  disrespect, suppression, and control over others who do not.  Achieving the American Dream is easier with fair access to opportunity and governance by a democracy that reflects a level playing field. This is the view of inclusion that works peacefully in this very diverse nation of descendants of immigrants, more recent immigrants, and the indigenous. 

 Democracy provides a framework and enforcement by the rule of law to provide the level playing field and power-sharing with the public will expressed through the ballot box.  That is a democracy as we have tried to practice it for 250 years. In November 2022, this normal, traditional version won, and in key states, those were defeated who had hoped to deny the will of the voters by controlling who voted and how the vote was counted.  These election deniers planned to use distrust and chaos of the election system to deny that their candidate lost the vote,  to try to delegitimize the ability of the real winner to govern, or to abuse the system to overturn the popular vote cast by the majority.  Their impact on the  2024 presidential election cycle would be to favor Donald Trump,  an advocate of autocracy and favoring those loyal to him at the exclusion of "others," and the promoter of a  political strategy and goals that would enhance his own personal political power.  A fair and level playing field is not a plank in his platform. https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2022/11/13/election-deniers-defeated-state-races/   Election deniers are still a threat and still are in a position to damage to democracy in 2024.How Election Denial Lost the Midterms - The Atlantic

Voters Push Back Against Election Deniers in Key States | The Pew Charitable Trusts (pewtrusts.org)

Democrat Yadira Caraveo wins competitive District 8 race to represent Colorado’s newest congressional district | Colorado Public Radio (cpr.org)

Biden fast-tracks work authorization for migrants who cross legally (usatoday.com)

https://www.coloradopolitics.com/elections/colorado-latinos-voted-for-democrats-in-dominant-fashion-exit-poll-shows/article_05c27822-6477-11ed-a0d7-1b185549ec99.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/13/latino-voters-midterm-elections-republicans-00066618

Latino voters critical to Yadira Caraveo victory in CO's 8th district (denverpost.com)

ELECTION 2022 | The 'unrealized potential’ of Latino voters in Colorado elections | News | coloradopolitics.com

Midterm Election Results Highlight Importance of Engaging the Growing Hispanic Electorate | UnidosUS

What happened to the Republican Hispanic wave? - Vox

The choice facing voters in November 2022 is not between democracy v autocracy, but democracy v. violence

  The choice facing voters in November 2022 is not between democracy v autocracy but democracy v. violence. The attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband by a politically motivated man is just another example of what we can expect if voters do not slap down those who inspire violence to gain political power.  For much of the midterms cycle, the issue of keeping democracy as our form of governance has been expressed as democracy v autocracy. Ho hum. ...... the consequence of Trumpism and the Trump base was not autocracy but more violence to determine the outcome of an election in th future.  The question should be reframed as a choice of who will govern us, not as democracy v autocracy, but as democracy v violence, of the vote in fair and free elections or be government by threats of terrorism and violence.  Last night, Rachel Maddow framed the choice in those stark terms of how we are to be governed in the future: democracy v violence.  To bring this concept down to November midterms, a vote for an election denier to oversee elections, from Secretaries of State, State Attorney generals, to county clerks, is where that choice will be made.  

Stark terms expressed in simple words and repeated is what works, per David Fenton's new book: Activists' Media Handbook.  Opponent messages are not to be ignored, but met head-on, as well.  Fenton's advice is sound, but I should add it is not just a choice between two roads. The potholes of the bad choice and how to patch them should be part of the "keep it simple" messaging. 

 It is likely too late to reframe messaging by November 8 in simple terms like Maddow's words exemplified, but it is not too late for 2024. The election of November 8, 2022, provides a learning experience for those who still want to preserve democracy as we have known it. The attack on Paul Pelosi presents an opportunity to illustrate the point that the alternative to democracy is violence to decide elections and at least to get the ball rolling on messaging for 2024. If more political violence erupts in the wake of the midterms, the opportunities to make the same point will only become more dramatic and heard.  

From my October 10, 2022 blog posting  on the subject. We have already seen what happened on January 6:  violence and riots. We have seen what happened to the free and fair election process with an attempt to count only certain votes and ignore the popular votes. We have seen the death threats and intimidation of poll workers and election administrators who refused to lie or to violate rules and laws to tip the election results to the loser.  Your vote may assume to be for "the other side" and may not be fairly counted. Is the use of violence, threats, intimidation, and chaos to determine who won and who lost what you want to see happen in the future.? That uncertainty, that fear of violence, that failure of trust in the election system means a destabilized country. That distrust was the creation of Trump backers in the last four years, The exhortation and acceptance of violence and threats of violence as a political tool is a recent development and new in the experience of those alive today.   

The ability to go to the polls and be certain the process will be fair, your vote will be counted as reported correctly, and you will not be harassed and intimidated, or unnecessarily inconvenienced is a fundamental key to democracy. . The ability to be certain your vote still gives you the power to voice the direction of governance is your fundamental right in a democracy that has been taken for granted until now. Keeping that trust depends on more than just faith, it now requires assurance no one "fixed" the computers or no election officials gave access to the cast ballots solely to the supporters of candidates they favor. 

David Fenton's Activists' Media Handbook is available on Amazon and sold by Simon and Schuster.

Friends of Putin infiltrate the GOP mainstream as the left has lost its mind

Thirty House Democratic Congress members have signed a letter urging Biden to negotiate with Putin over Ukraine as they unwittingly join forces with the extreme right. That is a de facto unholy alliance for the books.

Has the left lost their blithering minds.? .What a gift to Putin, just when he needs it and is losing the war. ...and yes, do not include the Ukrainians in the process...and we will have peace in our time.

The right already lost their minds as they talk about defunding the Ukranians if they get into power.

That must have been music to Putin's ears. He will now just have to sit back and wait for the GOP to take over the House and for Ukraine and Europe to give into the cold weather of Putin's drone attacks and fuel deprivation to belly up in their support for Ukraine's brave resistance to the Russian invasion. Fortunately, for the sake of US national security interests, the left will have to buck Biden to get their way. He has resolved to support Ukraine until they win or are ready to negotiate in their own interest. Pacifying Putin only means we will have to take on his expansionist lust elsewhere, destabilizing all of Europe, including the Balkans. Other bad actors in the world looking to grab territory will learn a valuable lesson: Just wait for the US to cave in even while it is winning. What's next? Formosa and Southeast Asia?

History repeats itself: Before Pearl Harbor, American Firsters were a powerful voice in US politics, keeping the US out of the raging aggression of Hitler and firestorms killing thousands in the London Blitz. Hitler made the calculation that the US would stay out of the war because of the strong tisolationist voice raised in the US. The American Firsters were acting like friends of Hitler. We know how that ended. Here we go again: McCarthy defends the ‘blank check’ remark on Ukraine | The Hill McCarthy must have felt the heat from his extreme right flank as he looks forward to being the House speaker. Per the Hill article, "While a majority of Republicans have supported giving aid to Ukraine, a solid anti-interventionist contingent of the House Republican Conference has expressed opposition to sending more dollars to support its defense. Influential outside groups like Heritage Action, the advocacy arm of the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, have lobbied against some Ukraine funding measures. In May, 57 House Republicans voted against a $40 billion security supplemental for Ukraine".These forces are acting like Friends of Putin.

Complicating it all is the 2022 growth of the equivalent of the 1940 American firsters simply because they like the idea of an autocracy run by Trump. Trump's bromance with Putin permeated his presidency and those who take their political cues from whatever comes from Trump's mouth are the Friends of Putin who are feeling their oats in shaping the Grand Old Party's policies.

For the GOP, it is the same old song..stop government spending on foreign stuff and social programs and "government waste," and we will reduce the deficit, a great part of which they engineered themselves with their unfunded tax cuts to the rich when they were in the driver's seat. It is also bad timing since the deficit has decreased dramatically even with the aid the US is giving to Ukraine and even with the Biden administration's spending programs. The 2022 deficit of $1.375 trillion was half of the FY 2021 deficit, $40 billion less than forecasted in the President's 2023 Budget and $1.8 trillion lower than the deficit the President inherited. As a percentage of GDP, the FY 2022 deficit was 6.8 percentage points lower than in the previous year. Unlike the unfunded tax breaks to the rich of the GOP's enacted policies, Biden's spending had real pay fors, reducing the costs of Medicare to the government by requiring pharma to compete for bids and tax increases on the rich.

Thirty Dems, including AOC, call for Biden to negotiate with Putin (nypost.com)

McCarthy defends ‘blank check’ remark on Ukraine | The Hill

So the GOP now wants senate races in swing states to make crime the big issue

 GOP strategy pushes clashes over crime, race toward center of midterms - The Washington Post

Update 10/10/2022  Democrats try to pre-empt the GOP's 'soft on crime' attacks. It may not work. (nbcnews.com)    The same well-intentioned, but not very smart folks who coined the worst political slogan in memory: defund the police: are now the cause of why the Democratic Party is tied up in knots over this by the same well-intentioned people.  They need to sit down and think.  Their actions may help elect the same partisans, Trumpsters, and the white nationalists they fear and oppose. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot.

The GOP now wants crime to be the issue in midterm swing elections. Whatever happened to abortion and inflation? They must not be polling well, so they go for their tried and true issue: Democrats are soft on crime.   Democrats have an opportunity to throw the issue back on the GOP candidates for Congress and the Senate, and it is easy to see the following ads: "X GOP candidate voted against funding police and keeping weapons of war out of dangerous hands. They may talk "crime"  but X candidate for Senate did (or will do) nothing to help stop it."

 The GOP has a problem. In swing states most of their senate candidates voted against increased funding for cops and they also voted against the gun control legislation and supported sales of weapons of war to  teenagers and opposed background checks.  In suburban areas, gun control is one that favors Democrats. Republican poll: Suburban women want Congress to act on gun control - Vox

Which Republican Senators Voted for the Gun Control Bill? - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Senate Republicans Voted Against Police Funding - Democrats

Democrats still need to link voters angry over Roe v Wade to House elections

Update 9/14/22:  Sen. Lindsey Graham has just handed blue states a legislative litmus test for Democrats to use to put GOP House candidates on the spot on the issue of abortion.  It is a gift to Democrats   Lindsey Graham’s national 15-week abortion ban probably won’t help Republicans in the midterms - Vox   The flip side of this is for voters to ask if the candidate would support making Roe v Wade the law of the land?

Thanks to that old partisan technique of drawing district borders to make as many congressional districts "safe" for one party, there are few districts left that can swing one way or the other.   There are enough swing districts, however, still in the contention that both parties have a chance to control the House.    The keys to winning a swing district are two: public policy issues that motivate greater than average turnout and the "quality" of the candidates. For Democrats, the determination of winning swing states will be the position of the candidates on the codification of Roe v Wade and fear of a Trumpist takeover of the government, the end of democracy. Those are their top two issues per a very recent NBC poll.  For the Trump GOP, it is the economy, stupid, and absolute loyalty to Trump and Trumpism.   Where Democrats are falling short so far is connecting the young and suburban voters with their opposition to the overturn of Roe v Wade to their own district congressional and state legislative candidates. One way to make a link is to ask, "how will the candidate vote if elected to make Roe v Wade the federal law of the land".   Putting that question directly to candidates for Congress should be very revealing and pertinent to the position to which they are being elected. It is more than "what side are you on" on abortion rights. It is easy to demagogue that answer.  

 NY Times compilation of Democratic party ads re: choice   Recent polls show 57% of all Americans opposed the overturning of Roe v Wade and 52% of states with restrictive laws on women's choice.  PP_2022.07.06_Roe-v-Wade_REPORT.pdf (pewresearch.org)     Saving democracy is the single top issue for 21%; jobs, economy, and cost of living combined are still top.  Since Roe v Wade overturned, Democrats, closed the enthusiasm gap signaling the issue is will motivate Democratic turnout in November.     NBC August Poll shows increase concern for democracy   https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/after-redistricting-heres-how-each-party-could-win-house     

 The strategy Democrats take also will vary from state to state. Where to put the campaign money and attention is important.  Wasting money on a lost cause district is not wise, but in a swing district, efforts count more.  Tying the issue of Roe v Wade legislation connected with political party affiliation is also helpful because, given the usual diminished attention to individual congressional campaigns and the prohibitive expense of TV advertising, voters tend to vote straight tickets for congressional and down-ballot candidates if they are uncertain who they are and what policy positions they favor.  The fewer Senate and state-wide races will get the media exposure since the cost is spread out statewide with more moderates, unaffiliated, and swing voters voting in general elections than in primaries. Due to more and more states using non-partisan commissions to draw boundaries in 2022, gerrymandering is not as determining a factor as it has been in the past in the midwest. States in the south, having their state legislatures draw the district boundaries, are the most gerrymandered, but in the West, with wider use of the independent commissions to draw boundaries (as in Colorado), the outcome was little change.  For example, in southern states, only 10 percent of congressional districts are swing,  lower than the national average. Still, in the midwest, there are more swing districts than there were before this year's redistricting (a process after each census year),  enough to offset the southern states' gerrymandering efforts by Republicans.  Both parties have a path to winning a majority in the House this year per the Brennan Center. .https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/after-redistricting-heres-how-each-party-could-win-house     

 

Tilting windmills or smart politics? House and Senate Dems act on wish list

Tilting windmills or smart politics? House and Senate Dems act on a wish list. 

Democrats holding a slim majority in the House of Representatives and Democratic Senators are working to pass a flurry of 'bills they know hold little chance of passing in the 50-50 Senate.  They are assuming the pundits are right: the House will fall into a GOP majority in November 2022,  making their legislative agenda a  pipedream even if Democrats make gains in the Senate.  So why bother?  Because it is a smart strategy.

One of the fallouts of the extreme right ideological takeover of the Supreme Court is that so much of the liberal agenda has been tossed back to states or to Congress to enact ( codify) into law.   It will intensify divisions in a country, intensifying already entrenched red and blue divisions on issues that have overwhelming or significant popular support. In response, Democrat  House members are attempting to pass legislation they know will not become law before the November midterms and will die in a 50-50 Senate with selected obstructionist tactics by Democratic Senators Manchin and Sinema. Even if those two senators say they like a particular bill, they make sure it does not pass by refusing to make exceptions to the filibuster rule requiring 60 votes, not 50 plus 1.  Is this a political strategy or just a cry of anguish?  It is a political strategy to get all members of the House and Senate on the record on popular issues with widespread support. Democrats' ultimate goal in the 2022 midterms is to hold onto the House majority and pick up a net gain of two Senate seats. It will take going on the attack to show the contrast clearly between candidates and political parties. The voting record, yea or nay, exposed publicly will help make that contrast on issues voters care about.  

Those issues being targeted are protecting rights to choose and same-sex marriage,  access to birth control, lowering prescription drug costs,  closing loopholes in the electoral college process, ending dark money and secretive political contributions, banning assault weapon sales or restricting access to them, and preserving the ability for citizens .to travel from one state to another state to seek services and safety. 

   Why "on the record"?  Politicians are notorious for sidestepping and parsing statements about issues they oppose even though they know have wide public support.   That should be the bitter lesson in the GOP's success in stacking the Supreme Court to support their partisan and ideological agenda. During hearings to get Senate approval for their nomination,  the nominees either avoided answering their views or indicated support of keeping as precedent previous court decisions/ However,  after their hearings resulted in their swearing-in and then sitting on the bench, senators were shocked, shocked, shocked they had been pacified on the issue of honoring precedence, especially regarding Roe v Wade.  The shape of the Court has been finalized for years with the appointment of three young ideological right-wingers.     They immediately killed the concept of settled law (stare decisis), standing by things already decided. They have overturned any prior decision the newly constituted majority of the Justices said "were wrongly decided" by prior Courts on a large number of issues.  Parsed words of nominated justices cannot be trusted any more than common politicians, but common politicians can be held accountable by voters for votes approving nominations. 

. Actual votes on the record can be used in campaigns either to support their candidacy or oppose them.  If election denying can serve as a litmus test, the votes on public policy issues also serve as litmus tests, as well as put forth in an education campaign alerting low information voters who have not followed the lead-up to November federal and state elections this November.   It clears the fog of attack advertising and public pronouncements, making it easier for voters to see sharp contrasts between candidates on popular issues. Those issues include  Roe v Wade, mass shootings, freedom to travel from one state to another, and the Court's permission of dark money in the Citizens United decision. These are popular in any poll.  By forcing both House members and Senate members to cast a vote on these public policy positions, it becomes more difficult for the GOP to avoid hiding behind inflation, gas prices, and appeal to white nationalists and Trumpist loyalties.

House Passes Two Bills Seeking to Ensure Access to Abortion - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

The Supreme Court just threw the idea of settled law out the window - CNNPolitics

Supreme Court makes Citizens United even worse in a landmark dark money case - Vox

VIDEO – At Rules Committee Hearing, Chairwoman Klobuchar Highlights Need to Address Secret Money In Our Elections, Bolster Transparency of Political Spending - News Releases - U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (senate.gov)