Metastasis is a pretty good show, I've been watching to try to learn Spanish because I know the plot so can follow what's happening even when I miss some dialog. At times it's a little too cute with following the original though. Walter Blanco? Skyler = Cielo?
I read this and spent a little time being terrified, but then Jeer Heat set me straight.
Also, they bought America's Finest News Source.
People who think Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio has a chance to make inroads for Republicans among Hispanics have no idea how much coverage their statements on DACA and DAPA (which are extremely mobilizing issues) get on Spanish-language primetime news.
On the flipside, I do think white liberals can be a bit misguided about how monolithic Hispanic views are on unauthorized immigration (and this is something immigration activists play into):
"A majority (60%) of Hispanics saw the increase in deportations as a bad thing. In another survey of Latino adults in 2013, nearly half (46%) said they worry "a lot" or "some" that they, a family member or a close friend could be deported. And 56% said it was more important for undocumented immigrants to be able to work and live in the U.S. without the threat of deportation than to obtain a pathway to citizenship, according to our 2014 poll."
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/24/what-americans-want-to-do-about-illegal-immigration/
Those are clear majorities, but the amount of variation there testifies to the fact that the interests of recent immigrants and more established Hispanic communities are n't going to always clearly coincide.
Trump, of course, is a great unifier, since he makes no distinctions.
I do think white liberals can be a bit misguided about how monolithic Hispanic views are on unauthorized immigration
Kind of. I mean, I think it's obviously and generally true that whites tend to overestimate the monolithism (?) of minority groups, but I also think that, until recently, most white liberals understood that the Hispanic populus wasn't in favor of amnesty and opening the borders, just some sort of humane and sensible system. But since the GOP has gone off the deep end with the xenophobia and racism, we've tended to recognize that this is unambiguously good for Democrats.
That is, 5-10 years ago (and more), there were all sorts of nuanced views on immigration that were understood to have varying degrees of appeal, or at least acceptability, to Latin@s. But now, more or less any strong opposition to immigration reform is marked as heavily anti-Latin@. In a sense what's happened is that 2/3 of the ground is now ceded to Dems: everything from amnesty + open borders to not deporting parents of citizens qualifies as acceptable and broadly pro-Latin@, while anything that starts with rhetoric about locking down the border puts you at a big disadvantage wrt establishing bona fides.
One of the interesting things to watch in the last few election cycles is "Latino" shifting from a general description of some people into an actual electoral demographic. One of the easiest ways to get people to think of themselves as a member of a specific group, and as a result to start to shift in the direction of the views that emerge as things that that group is thought of as believing, is to have a bunch of people aggressively attacking that group in a way that makes clear that they think those people are members of that group.
If the Republicans had managed (they couldn't have, but if) to convince their base generally that a whole lot of latinos (not all, but..) were basically just another flavor of 'white people' we'd probably see entirely different voting patterns.
One of the interesting things to watch in the last few election cycles is "Latino" shifting from a general description of some people into an actual electoral demographic.
One which, apparently, won't include either of the two people with Hispanic surnames currently running for president.
I recently saw this article about the percentages of people with Hispanic or Asian ancestry who identify as white on census surveys. I don't exactly know what to make of it, but it's very interesting data.
[T]he report may cause us to reconsider what we think we know about Hispanics and Asians. A lot of social science research relies on people to disclose their own racial and ethnic identities. If people who are part-Asian or part-Hispanic stop identifying that way, they, in a way, disappear from the statistics. What we think we know about Hispanics, for instance, may be wrong because a lot of people with Hispanic heritage don't consider themselves Hispanic.
. . .
Among the first-generation Latin-American immigrants -- people born in one of those five places -- 98.6 percent checked the "Hispanic" box. Likewise, 96.3 percent of the first-generation Asian immigrants identified as Asian.
But the second-generation immigrants were less likely to identify as Hispanic or Asian. Only 93 percent of people with a parent born in a Latin-American country themselves identified as Hispanic. The difference was more dramatic for Asians. Only 79.1 percent of second-generation Asian immigrants identified as even part-Asian.
It's important to remember that the CPS allows people to check multiple boxes for race. You can be any combination of black, Asian, white, Native American, and so forth. On top of that, the government also asks a separate question about whether you are Hispanic. This means you can be white and Hispanic, black and Hispanic, even white-black-Asian triracial and Hispanic.
The point is that it's easy for people to indicate complex heritages on the survey form. Yet, many who are multi-racial are not doing this.
They might have Hispanic grandparents, but don't consider themselves Hispanic. They might have an Asian and a black parent, but only consider themselves black.
Duncan and Trejo also have some data on the children of second-generation immigrants, where the trend continues. The CPS asks parents to provide racial information about their kids. Of the kids with at least one Latin-American grandparent, only 81.7 percent were marked down as Hispanic. Of the kids with at least one Asian grandparent, only 57.5 percent were marked down as Asian.
No true Hispanic objects to Cruz and Rubio.
Also, Ben Carson is blacker than Barack Obama.
(And breaking news: liberals are the real racists.)
who identify as white on census surveys
That was an embarrassing mistake. As the article makes clear they may identify as black or some other race.
9: I think the article frames this unhelpfully here:
What we think we know about Hispanics, for instance, may be wrong because a lot of people with Hispanic heritage don't consider themselves Hispanic.
As all politically correct Unfogetteers know, race is a social construct. If you don't think you are Hispanic, you ain't.
The piece makes a good point, though, about the impact this will have on estimates of the future demographics of the US.
Jeer Heat in 3 is awesome, Minivet. The people who like to fret over this election should recite that every morning and evening.
Jeet Heer. I don't know how I mangled his name so badly. Poor Mr. Jet Heat.
Recently saw this article about the percentages of people with Hispanic or Asian ancestry who identify as white on census surveys.
I can't speak to what is going on with Asian self-identification, but I always identify as a white Hispanic. My ancestors are white Europeans (most migrated to the Western Hemisphere in the mid-to-late 19th Century), and they had the same structural advantages in their countries (Colombia, Cuba, and later Mexico) that white populations have historically had in the U.S. The majority were also in a country, Cuba, where the native population died within a generation of contact with whites Europeans, so it never really developed a hybrid mestizo racial identity (the analagous mulato racial identity in Cuba has grown tremendously since the Revolution, but mixed race people were a much smaller minority in the 1900s-50s).
I also imagine if I ever I have children, which I am not planning on at the moment, their self-identification would depend a lot on both their mother and what kind of ethnic environment they're raised in.
Megan, I think Heer aptly summarizes the issue here:
To put it in specific terms: if Trump is nominee, could two living GOP presidents George H.W. Bush & George W. Bush vote for him?
I am at a loss to understand why Heer feels confident about the answer to this. My assumption is that they would endorse Trump.
Bob Dole endorsed Rubio, but he's clearly leaving the door open to back Trump once the primaries are over.
In Monday's interview, Dole warned again that he thought his preferred candidate could easily lose to Trump, saying that if Trump manages to sweep next week on the so-called "Super Tuesday" of primary contests, "Then I think you start printing the inaugural invitation."
Dole has been talking nice about Trump since before Iowa. Trump and the Republican Establishment are dealmakers - hence the establishment's preference for Trump over Cruz. It'll be a bitter pill, but what else can the Bushes do?
9: I initially misread 'Duncan and Trejo' as 'Danny Trejo' which made that excerpt kind of surreal for a moment. But all I could think about was this bit from one of Trevor Noah's standup routines. It turns out there are rules about what you can and can't check.
In a related way this bit from 12 strikes me as wrong in a subtle but important way, though:
As all politically correct Unfogetteers know, race is a social construct. If you don't think you are Hispanic, you ain't.
It's ethnicity that works that way, not race. They're both social constructs, but race is the one you don't get to choose for yourself: other people choose that one for you. Part of what we're seeing with the Republican base, the "immigration"* issue, and so on is what a lot of people had thought of as an ethnicity being transformed (aggressively) into a race. And that's something that makes a big difference as to how things work overall.
*Not actually about immigration at all on that side, obviously.
And if the Bushes don't endorse Trump, it's not clear to me how that plays anyway. The Bushes, after all, endorsed Bush.
Mexicans tend to be actually a bit more conservative on illegal immigration than liberals seem to think -- especially the ones who came over legally or are permanent residents. Many of them lived for years in bureaucratic limbo while waiting for all the paperwork to get approved or just because so many people want to come over. There's a very real sense in which they feel cheated by illegal immigrants. But denigrating them as murderers and rapists crossed the line for most of these people. The view is that illegal immigrants are guilty of breaking the rules in a way that makes legal immigration harder -- no more, no less.
My stepdad grew up in Mexico, came to the U.S. when he was in high school after his parents waited for years. He loves the Bush family and likes Marco Rubio, but doesn't like Cruz and absolutely despises Trump. Says Trump is a racist asshole and Cruz is "a crazy Baptist" (my stepdad is Catholic). He plans to vote for Hillary if it's down to her versus Trump or Cruz. She will be the first democrat he's ever voted for.
Also, did anyone see the spat between Cruz and Rubio in the last debate where Cruz heavily implied that Rubio couldn't be trusted by whites and Rubio responded by implying that Cruz is a fake Latino and maybe even a fucking race traitor? I love watching these guys eat their party's own racist bullshit.
Fact is, neither Cruz nor Rubio has ever stood a chance and it is 90 percent because the party base is too racist to really trust someone with one of those last names.
13: Because I did the same, as a weak joke.
Heet Jeer is great, but I don't understand his level of confidence. Any Republican nominee starts with a floor of 45% of the vote. It only takes a recession or terrorist attack to tip the balance.
Heck, I could see Trump picking someone like Gov. Brian Sandoval (R, NV) for a running mate. People* are perfectly capable of resolving cognitive dissonance by concluding that he's one of the "good" Hispanics who did things the "right way" (in this case, by being born in California).
*White, mostly non-Hispanic Republican voters, in this case
23.1: We have to go back a bit to find counterexamples, but not too far--basically, when there was a meaningful third party. Dole '96 had 40.7%; Bush '92 had 37.5%. It's not inconceivable that we'll have a meaningful third party this year.
And that we haven't seen a vote lower than that has been with entirely normal, establishment politicians. Trump is not that. When was the last time that someone with so little electoral experience got this far? Some of the usual trends will not apply this year.
"A Republican almost certainly can't win the presidency and certainly not Trump" seems to me to be the current equivalent of "Oh whatever Trump will say something dumb and disappear entirely from the race any second now" or "Yeah but he has a hard ceiling of 15%" among liberal commentators who have gotten used to the idea that Trump probably will be the nominee from the Republican side of things.
Yeah the Democrats have, recently, had an advantage in the electoral college. Nothing about that is a guarantee of anything. Tribalism on the right plus excitement among authoritarian voters plus a weak candidate from the Democrats could very easily end with a Republican victory. And if there is a race and ISIS or whatever other Muslim extremist group is around doesn't try to pull something in October then there's something (else) wrong with them.
Possibly common knowledge, but Univision is emphatically pro-Clinton:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/11/19/hillary-clinton-top-political-donor-is-univision-chairman-investigation-shows/
Too bad for Sanders.
My roommate's* Mexican family live legally on the Texas side of the border and they're all Trump fans, because they dislike illegal immigrants and because he's not a politician, "tells it like it is," and even though he's wealthy he's "on our side" (i.e. working class). They see his dogwhistling horn blowing against Mexicans as not applying to them, since they're legal.
Ironically, the only Trump supporter I know IRL is a gay Vietnamese immigrant. He also has a strong dislike of illegal immigrants.
9
I feel like this is because it's really only black people who are defined through the "one drop" rule in the US. If you have an Asian or a Latino grandparent, it's possible you don't really an Asian or Latino identity and aren't, in a sociological sense, Asian or Latino. Also what 16 said.
I have a friend who is 1/4 Thai. He looks completely white (very fair coloring, light blue eyes), but has a completely Thai name, as it was his paternal grandfather who was Thai. He doesn't particularly think of himself as Thai, except through his name.
*Lest you read the Anzari thread and think I am catfishing you, my roommate is half Pakistani, half Mexican.
Further to 26: and Univision anchor Jorge Ramos's daughter works for Clinton. He's briefly disclosed it at the beginning of debates/town halls that he's moderated, but I still find it pretty weird.
Conversely, my cousin, who has a Norwegian father and a white American mom of Southern European ancestry, lives her life being identified as Latina. She has her mother's very olive coloring, a super Catholic first name, and her first ex-husband's Hispanic surname. She was in the Natl. Guard for 25 years and was always being asked to give talks on panels like "minority women in the armed forces" or to mentor to "other women of color."
25: One characteristic vice of liberals and leftists is the idea that the very worst thing you can do is ever be too optimistic. God will not punish you if you don't spend enough time worrying about the worst possible outcome.
It's the price of living in the reality based community.
Also that's really kind of strange to say given that one of the other characteristic vices (supposedly) of liberals and leftists is naive optimism about how things will turn out, or starry-eyed devotion to impractical candidates or things.
The pessimism tends to come in when people talk about American politics, and especially the conservative movement. And, frankly, it tends to be borne out by what happens at least as often as not. "That can't happen here" is often something you see a lot of from people right before it does happen there, and it's what lets people avoid paying attention to the actual seriousness of the situation.
It's true, so far we've kept will to the 5 stages of Trump thinkpiece:
1. Ha Ha, Trump
2. Why Trump Can't Win
3. Explaining Trump
4. We Must Respect Real America
5. Oh God, Oh God
The most impressive thing about the tweet in 32 is that it was written in July.
Sooo....NV entrance polls show Trump winning the Latino vote over Rubio, 41-29.
Data & schadenfreude combined!
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/422169/nr-tweets-nevada-caucus
Is this even real? Are we in some bizarre computer simulation? Have any physical constants changed? Would we even know? Anyone know where I can get my hands on some good blotter?
The Latino vote in the Nevada Republican primary must be an interesting (and small) group of people.
The fact that the sitting governor is a Hispanic Republican and is very popular overall but declined to endorse anyone because the primary electorate hates him probably tells you everything you need to know.
He voted for Rubio himself but still explicitly declined to endorse him.
(We were talking about Nevada in the old thread, but this one probably makes more sense.)
It's nice to see that Trump can smash things up in caucuses as well as primaries. I can't imagine this result feels any good to anyone who still thought that obviously Rubio will win the nomination in the end.
It's starting to look like Iowa was, as usual, a fluke result and that Trump is going to have a really amusing super Tuesday.
Trump did very well among Latinos and women. That's disturbing. I can see women preferring him over the others due to his not being quite as rabid about turning the USA into Gilead, but the Latino number really surprises me.
I'm beginning to prepare myself mentally for a Trump presidency. He'd be a disaster on some fronts but I'm willing to bet he wouldn't be too bad on others. I don't think he's as much of a warmonger as we're used to from the right, despite the bluster. He'd probably be relatively OK on a lot of issues affecting LGBT people. I doubt he'd try shenanigans with Social Security. The collision of his titanic ego with the constraints on the presidency would be interesting and entertaining to behold. I dunno. Maybe he'd be Dubya the second, but I'm willing to bet he'd be closer to the first Bush in practice, just a lot more flamboyant.
37. According to Buzzfeed, the number of Hispanic voters sampled was 135.
I'm guessing the real question about a Trump presidency is who he picks as advisers. It's not because he's dumb or just generally clueless like with Bush, but he's definitely someone who thinks of being a leader in about the same way. (The CEO model president: his subordinates do the work, while he acts as a big picture guy.) If he picks a standard Republican establishment hack we get that presidency, if he picks a neocon lunatic that's the one we get. But hell, for all I know he might start making offers to Elizabeth Warren or something. It's not like he has any reason to feel loyalty or obligation to the Republican party as a whole, and if there's one thing he's made clear it's that big money isn't as necessary when you have a lot of enthusiasm and everyone talks about you non-stop for half, or a whole, or more than a whole year leading up to the election.
45: Isn't Trump a micromanager though, making his actual actions really unpredictable?