2016 FEBRUARY 18, 2013
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Senator Marco Rubio's quick ascent in Republican politics, as Jonathan Chait has pointed out, is the product of a convenient, simplistic electoral calculus: Mitt Romney lost partly because his opposition to immigration reform alienated an historic percentage of Latino voters. So who better to lead the GOP than Rubio, a charismatic Latino who promises to reverse the party's stance on immigration reform?
It easy to see why this explanation, repeated by certain media outlets, appeals to Republicans, since it offers the hope of returning to the White House without caving on core conservative principles—and without the divisive soul-searching demanded by the likes of Rand Paul, Chris Christie, or Jon Huntsman. But it might not save them from defeat in 2016. The GOP's problems extend well beyond Latino voters, and the problems the party does have with Latino voters run far deeper than the ethnicity of GOP candidates or its stance on immigration reform. In fact, Rubio's appeal risks trapping the GOP within the coffin of the Bush coalition at a time when they need to figure out how to break out of it.
A Cuban American nominee who supports immigration reform would indeed help the GOP among Latino voters, but would it produce significant gains? Although immigration reform might act as a gateway issue for Hispanics, it's far from the only reason that Hispanics support Democratic candidates. After all, there was nothing unusual about Obama's support among Latinos. President Bill Clinton did even better among Latinos in 1996 than Obama did in 2008 and 2012, and George W. Bush only won 35 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2000, despite his focus on education—a top issue among Latinos—and his home state's high Hispanic population. The reasons why Latinos are a Democratic constituency are well-documented: They believe in an activist government; they're not nearly as religiously conservative as Republicans think (a majority now support gay marriage); and they generally low incomes, which correlates with support for Democratic candidates.
Rubio's Cuban ancestry might appeal to some Latino voters, but prior elections suggest that nominating a Cuban American isn't a sure way for Republicans to make inroads into Hispanic communities. In 2012, Texas Republicans nominated Ted Cruz—like Rubio, a Cuban American with tea party support1—for U.S. Senate. In November, Cruz outperformed Romney in counties with large Hispanic (mainly Mexican-American) populations, but did so by modest margins: 2 percentage points in Hidalgo County, home to McAllen; 3 points in El Paso; 1 point better in Houston's Harris County; nearly 4 points in rural Starr County, the most heavily Hispanic county (96 percent) in the country; and a more substantial 9 points in Webb County, home to Laredo. But Cruz didn't perform any better than Romney in Dallas or San Antonio's Bexar County, and he performed much worse than Bush did in 2000 and 2004.
Rubio's own performance in 2010, when he was elected to the Senate, is harder to judge. Not only was it an off-year election, making it difficult to distinguish changes in off-year turnout from actual shifts among voters, but it was also a three-way race with Charlie Crist and Kendrick Meek. Even so, it's worth noting that Rubio outperformed Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott in Florida's Latino-heavy counties—not only 3 points better in Miami-Dade, home to the country’s largest Cuban population, but also 3 points better in heavily Puerto Rican Osceola county, and 5 points better in Orange County—even though Scott and Rubio both received approximately 49 percent of the statewide vote.
Could the combination of Rubio's ethnicity and his support for immigration reform yield the gains Republicans need? Not likely, if the GOP plans on winning from those gains alone. The president won by nearly 4 points last November and, according to the exit polls, Latinos represented just 10 percent of the electorate. Gaining a net-4 points out of 10 percent of the electorate is extremely difficult—it would require the Republicans to gain 20 points among Latino voters, if all other groups are held constant. In other words, it would require the GOP to draw a higher percentage of the Latino vote than ever before. Worse still, the Electoral College reduces the significance of Latino voters, who are concentrated in uncompetitive states and play a negligible role in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, and the other Midwestern battlegrounds. Even in states where Latinos play a more significant role, like Colorado, Obama's margins of victory were too great for Republican to expect that gains among Hispanics would flip the state red.
Republicans, of course, won't just count on gains among Latino voters: Barring another black Democratic nominee, black turnout is expected to drop in 2016. But even if it does, and the GOP retains its historic gains among southern and Appalachian white voters, the next Republican candidate will probably need 40 percent of the Latino vote just to create a dead heat. It's also possible that a Rubio candidacy would shed some of the GOP's gains among white voters, especially if Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton. Republican Senate candidates, including Ted Cruz, for instance, performed worse than Romney across most of white, rural Texas, especially in the historically Democratic areas won by Bill Clinton.
Although Rubio is a charismatic candidate, personal appeal might only allow him to maximize his support within the Bush coalition, not break out of it. In 2008, candidate Obama was wildly popular and ran on a post-partisan platform. Despite his broad appeal, most of Obama's gains came from higher support and turnout from core Democratic constituents. Many of Obama's other gains—like among Midwestern whites—can be attributed to the poor economy. But while sweeping demographic changes and a large number of untapped young and black voters meant that Obama had plenty of room to build-upon Kerry's base of support, it's harder to argue that Rubio has similar opportunities—unless there's a mass of latent, Republican-leaning Hispanics itching to turn out for a Rubio candidacy.
In the best-case scenario, Rubio's attractive candidacy and appeal among Latinos might allow the Republican nominee to match Romney's historic performance among white voters and exceed 40 percent of the Latino vote. But while that would have given George W. Bush a clean win eight years ago, a similar performance might only allow Rubio to win by an extremely narrow margin. Demographic changes have shifted in the Democrats' favor, and even exceptional performances by candidates attempting to reassemble the Bush coalition may no longer prove sufficient to win national elections. From this perspective, Rubio's electoral appeal isn't just limited, but dangerous to Republicans. It threatens to stifle the GOP's incipient reckoning with the party's appeal and its attempt to build a new and more viable electoral pathway for Republicans.
7 comments
Onward to the perpetual campaign. Let us dance merrily through the intervening 40-odd months as though nothing else matters. Surely the barons of bumbling policy gaffes will prefer it. Surely pontiffs of punditry will, too. Let us amuse ourselves with idle speculation about that remote voter decision, pretending all the while that passage of those thousand-plus days demands nothing more than choosing an idol – for the moment.
- lespin
February 18, 2013 at 1:46am
Florida's voters also gave us Governor Rick Scott, whose company stole hundreds of millions from the federal and state government, pled guilty to 14 felonies, was assessed the largest fraud penalty ever (over $600 million), and repaid the government hundreds of millions of ill-gotten gains, over $2 billion total paid by Scott's company to settle the claims. Scott was forced out of the company but walked away with over $350 million in cash and company stock, moved to Florida, and was elected governor of Florida in 2010, in the same election Rubio was elected to the Senate. I'm not sure Republicans should rely on the "wisdom" of Florida voters.
- rayward
February 18, 2013 at 8:44am
Maybe I"m biased, but Marco Rubio comes across as a total airhead to me - and embarrassingly amateur. much more interesting to Republicans would be George P. Bush. He's an Iraq War vet, obviously connected (I think "Bush fatigue" is overrated and would be negligible) much smarter and more interesting than the dippy Rubio. He's also of Mexican rather than Cuban descent (generally, Mexican Ameerican's hold little truck with Cubans - who Obama carried in 2012 anyway). P. Bush is dipping his toe in the water in Texas right now. If were a Republican - and admittedly hell would freeze over first - I'd be focusing on him. Rubio is a dope.
- WandreyCer
February 18, 2013 at 1:52pm
Also, "Latinos" are not a single ethnic group. While Latinos do identify with the umbrella term, the extent to any one Latino identifies with another Latino does depend on their cultural similarities; e.g. Mexican-Americans identify more with other Mexican-Americans than they do with Puerto-Ricans. Moreover, Latinos generally recognize that the Miami Cuban community is a cultural and political outlier within the broader Latino spectrum. Most Latinos know that the Miami Cubans tend to be wealthier, more conservative, and, to be blunt, "whiter" than the average Latino-American. As long as I've breached the skin color taboo, I would also point out that, in Spanish, "Rubio" means blond. :)
- NateG
February 18, 2013 at 2:05pm
And then there's the "wet foot, dry foot" policy, wherebye the any Cuban who makes it to the shores of the US is automatically a legal immigrant. No other nationality--Latino or otherwise--is given such a sweet deal. I can't wait for the interview on Univision in which Rubio is asked whether he thinks it's fair that his family was automatically given a path to citizenship simply because they had entered the US, whereas millions of Mexicans, Guatemalans, etc. are not given such help from the government. Talk about cutting to the head of the line.
- NateG
February 18, 2013 at 2:23pm
I often joke that Floridians elected Scott governor because of his experiencing stealing from the federal government, hoping he could use that experience to steal for the State of Florida. Did Scott move to Florida following his shameful exit from Columbia HCA because he expected to be elected governor? Probably not. He most likely moved to Florida to protect his $350 million of ill-gotten gains, for no state has as many protections from claims of creditors as Florida. It should be called the deadbeat state, not the sunshine state. Scott's good fortune, however, is no greater than Rubio's, a man who has never held a full-time job as an adult other than as a politician, who has a history of receiving questionable financial support (the former head of the Florida Republican Party unexpectedly pleaded guilty last week on the eve of his trial for a wide variety of financial misdeeds including the payment of enormous credit card charges by none other than Rubio), and has a loose grip on telling the truth (not only about his family's immigration history, but his own religion, claiming to be Roman Catholic but baptized in the Mormon Church while attending an evangelical Protestant church). Seldom mentioned in the media, Rubio owes his good fortune to Jeb Bush. Another commenter mentions Jeb's son George P. as an alternative to Rubio; actually, they are two peas from the same pod.
- rayward
February 18, 2013 at 4:42pm
Hey Ray - All of this grasping Republican affirmative action is cringeworthy isn't it? I don't know if P. Bush has any more depth than Rubio does (not hard), but just the few things I know about him (Iraq war vet, Mexican, well spoken, has his own money, starting off slow) make him much more appealing than Rubio. I'll wager you right now that Rubio blows up somewhere along the line soon, pulls a Palin (or Perry) in a live interview or something, something else kind of lame and shady comes out. He's so dim I kind of feel sorry for him. They should have groomed him much longer than they have.
- WandreyCer
February 18, 2013 at 6:53pm