Latino Vote Critical for Bennet in Colorado

By Jeralyn, Section Elections
Posted on Mon Nov 08, 2010 at 12:19:42 PM EST
Tags: Hispanic voters (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via Colorado Independent:

Eighty-one percent of Latino voters in Colorado voted for Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet. Split the Latino vote down the middle between Bennet and Republican Ken Buck and Buck wins easily. Even if Buck had only received 30 percent of the Latino vote, he would have won the election.

Results here, from Latino Decision which reports 10% of Colorado voters are Latino. [More...]

How the Latino contribution is calculated:

Note: Latino contribution is the net amount Latino votes contributed to the overall margin for the winning candidate. It is calculated by taking the partisan vote advantage for one candidate (i.e. 81% to 19% = partisan advantage of +62) and multiplying it by the Latino share of the electorate. If Latinos provide Bennet with a +62 vote advantage, and comprise 10% of the electorate, that translates into a net contribution of 6.2 points towards Bennet’s overall margin.

Colorado wasn't the only state Latiino voters made a difference. See Markos at Daily Kos, California, Colorado, Nevada Latinos crush GOP.

< More on David Headley and the DEA | Election Impact on Liberal Media >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Latino Vote Critical for Bennet in Colorado | 6 comments (6 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

and one would assume (none / 0) (#1)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 08, 2010 at 12:30:05 PM EST

in Nevada as well

And public polling (none / 0) (#2)
by MKS on Mon Nov 08, 2010 at 12:43:31 PM EST

is starting to implode. Dem voters with cell phones are not being adequately accounted for...

The internal polls of both Reid and Angle showed Reid ahead. Reid's campaign publicly stated his internal polls always showed him up by 5%--the exact margin of his victory.

An article in (I believe) the LA Times detailed the polling errors acros the board that underestimated Dem support in the Senate races. Dem voters were more likely to have cell phones only, and less likely to take pollsters' calls. The GOP voters were older, whiter and more likely to answer polling questions.

To get an accurate poll, more than the standard stuff the public pollsters was required. One had to follow up and recall numbers etc--which the campaigns actually did.....but that costs more....


: cell phones and polls (none / 0) (#3)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 08, 2010 at 12:53:00 PM EST

you could sort of feel that one coming this year

Yes, there is even an article (none / 0) (#4)
by christinep on Mon Nov 08, 2010 at 04:13:00 PM EST

in the Wall Street Journal--my goodness--noting that 16% of the Nevada vote was Latino. (I haven't seen the refined numbers since that article was referenced shortly after the election.)
Think about further ramifications eventually in Texas and Florida, as well as the Southwest. Keep an eye on how the Repubs are showcasing Marco Rubio, the new R. Senator from Florida, as if to deflect from their larger quandary. It will be interesting to see if the immigration reform package is introduced in the Senate within the year(?)


: The GOP won't touch immigration (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Nov 08, 2010 at 04:42:45 PM EST

reform with a ten foot pole after what happened the last time.
Not to say that the Democrats would not have serious problems themselves, either. Not quite as serious as the Republicans would though.

meanwhile, in Iowa (none / 0) (#6)
by desmoinesdem on Mon Nov 08, 2010 at 10:11:13 PM EST

Latinos aren't expected to be 10 percent of the state's population until around 2030. So, Republicans pay pretty much no price for gratuitous immigrant-bashing.

The Republicans crushed us in the Iowa House races, and one of the first items on the new majority's agenda is cutting spending (even though this year's budget is balanced). And what's their biggest proposed spending cut? $92.3 million saved by not paying "benefits to illegal immigrants."

Only problem is that undocumented immigrants in Iowa don't receive anything close to that amount of money in state benefits. The Republicans got that $92 million figure by misunderstanding, or deliberately misinterpreting, a 2007 report on immigration by the non-partisan Legislative Services Agency. Count on Iowa journalists not to mention that Republicans are flat-out lying about the "benefits" undocumented immigrants receive.