The answer you entered to the math problem is incorrect.

Biggest missed Super Tuesday story : What kind of Latinos were voting?

Ms Unhinged Malkin is using data of the white supremacist organization NumbersUSA, to prove that Latinos who voted for Hillary Clinton were "corruptly" naturalized under her husband's administration.

Is that really so? How can she be so certain that all of those who voted for Clinton are naturalized immigrants as opposed to old American Latino families with no links to their countries of origin?

This is the untold story of Super Tuesday. For all the talk from Democrats and Republicans about whether immigration is or is not a wedge issue in 2008, the fact of the matter is nobody is exit polling and on the look out for recently naturalized citizen voters.

More to the point for pundits who are scrambling to feign to know all things latino, nobody is going out of their way to define demographically what "Latino voter" means.

  • Is a Latino a recent immigrant?
  • Is a Latino a native Northern Mexican who never immigrated to the US?
  • Is it Nuyoricans only or does it include also Puerto Ricans born in the island?
  • When confusing Hispanic and Latino, are we also including people born in Spain and Portugal but naturalized in the United States?
  • And how many generations does it take before you loose the identity politics moniker and become a "full American"?
  • Too many people are tossing around the "Latinos only vote for white Democrats or the Clintons" without qualifying the term Latino or Hispanic and that's a problem.
  • Who has been doing exit polling across the primaries?

How are pollsters and/or pundits corroborating these percentages. And more importantly, what questions are they asking in order to corroborate a Latino's or Hispanic's identity?

We just don't know.

So the big story about Super Tuesday and all the primaries is this : NOBODY IS MEASURING HOW MANY OF YESTERDAY'S VOTING LATINOS ARE ACTUALLY IMMIGRANTS.

With that in mind, there is no evidence to explanations on how a group that is incorrectly defined as 100% immigrant, would vote for a candidate who is not only pro-NAFTA, but one who has made no excuses for her "hard stance" at insisting the US needs to criminalize migrancy and use immigration as the next military horizon.

In the end, that's a huge tactical mistake by the pro-immigration movement. In politics, numbers are a weapon of mass propaganda.

No wonder white supremacists fund NumbersUSA. Yeah. That's the same organization dark-skinned Filipina Michelle Malkin vets as an immigrations source.


liza's picture

| | | | | | | | | | | |

Reply

Please solve the math problem above and type in the result. e.g. for 1+1, type 2
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may link to webpages through the weblinks registry
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see interwiki.
  • Images can be added to this post.
More information about formatting options

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Poll

Visit our sponsors

Who's online

There are currently 2 users and 1959 guests online.

Online users

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

"The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent -- that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgement. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgement of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mahommedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions.... The Hebrew persecuted and down trodden in other regions takes up his abode among us with none to make him afraid.... and the Aegis of the Government is over him to defend and protect him. Such is the great experiment which we have tried, and such are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our system of free government would be imperfect without it."


— -- John Tyler, letter dated July 10, 1843


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify