April 5, 2024 - 8:00pm
Hispanic voters have been slowly moving to the Right, such that Republicans are focusing voter outreach efforts on the demographic as Democrats shift away.
A confidential memo from a Democratic strategist warned donors in January that voter registration efforts could actually help Donald Trump, including among racial minorities. Among non-white voters, “only African American registration is clearly a prime opportunity,” since many non-black racial minorities now vote Republican, the memo reportedly read. When it comes to Democrats’ voter registration efforts, the average black vote costs $575, while the average non-black minority vote costs $1,200, since the latter demographic now includes many non-Democrats, according to the document.
Meanwhile, Republicans have numerous Hispanic outreach efforts underway, with Florida Republican Rick Scott spending millions on an ad campaign targeting the group. The state has jolted to the Right since 2020, but Hispanic voters are drifting Right even in areas seeing a broader shift in the other direction. Texas, for example, has become increasingly blue in recent years, yet Texas Hispanics are increasingly voting Republican.
The Republican National Committee launched a Spanish-language ad campaign to encourage early in-person voting in September, and plans to have dozens of Hispanic, Asian Pacific American, Black and Native American-focused community centres open this election year. 10 centres were closed amid recent RNC budget cuts, but the party plans to reopen several in swing states as part of its Hispanic outreach efforts.
A New York Times/Siena poll published last month found Trump leading Joe Biden by six points among Hispanics in a two-point race. A Quinnipiac poll from late March found Trump ahead of Biden by three points among Hispanics, a lead which grew to seven points in a five-way race, with RFK Jr pulling 15% of the Hispanic vote.
Biden won 59% of the Hispanic vote in 2020 compared to Trump’s 38%, marking a considerable shift from 2016, when Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton won 66% and Trump 28%. Eligible Hispanic voters have increased by 4 million since 2020, according to Pew.
As polls pour in revealing Democrats’ shrinking lead with Hispanics, the party’s headliners are embracing more restrictive immigration policies. Biden has implemented several of Trump’s border policies and adopted a messaging strategy that embraces border security and control of fentanyl smuggling as key talking points. Blue city mayors have also been embracing anti-immigration messaging, with New York Mayor Eric Adams saying the city was “at capacity” and that the migrant crisis “will destroy New York City”.
Democrats and Republicans both make the mistake of viewing Hispanic voters as a monolith, living only in Florida and the Southwest and caring primarily about immigration policy, according to J.P. Carroll, senior fellow at the Rainey Center and former deputy director of Hispanic Media for the Republican National Committee. “For all Americans, including Hispanic Americans, it seems to be that the top issues are the economy and immigration. Those present differently in different states […] so being mindful of those details is key to formulating a winning message,” he told UnHerd. “Both parties need to also be mindful of reaching out to members of Hispanic communities in states that would not necessarily be thought of as being key to reaching Hispanic voters.”
Politicos have long cast doubt on the Hispanic red wave, but polling suggests that Democrats are losing their lustre among Latinos. Efforts by Biden to choose a Hispanic woman with outreach experience as his campaign manager may not be enough to bring those voters back into the fold. If polls are to be believed, November could be the race in which the long-predicted Hispanic wave finally crests.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeA lot of good points in this. Especially the tendency for modern films to be dumbed down, to emphasise form and style over substance, and to try to place historical, real geniuses into modern tropes.
Interesting article, however, Sunset Boulevard is not a film just about female victimisation. Yes, Norma Desmond is a pathetic character, but she is not the only one. Joe Gillis,the writer, drawn to her and the glamour she stands for, ends up disillusioned and dead. He is equally important. Max, the subordinated, dismissed husband is a similar, supporting character. Feminists like to see the world or market, as a wonderful place, from which women are deprived because of patriarchal greed. The remedy for this is sexual equality with the same roles open to both men and women. But what is going on in Sunset Boulevard is of an older, different order. It derives very much from the story of Adam and Eve: Norma has taken the apple of Hollywood glory, and Joe becomes complicit in following her, though slightly reluctant, as was Adam. Feminists hate the Eve story, of course, even though it might be said that Eve was the first feminist, seeking to better her natural abilities. The result of this is not positive, as expected, but the loss of Paradise, for both Adam and herself. At the end of the film, Hollywood isn’t paradise either, but a sordid place where, despite hard work and sacrifice, as in life, no one gets out alive. The other films mentioned are more contrived to fit the feminine victim idea, and full of dreadful consequences, but Sunset Boulevard sees life holistically, not through a lens of single prejudice.
The author loves creating victims. These stars enjoyed money, luxury, and many privileges. Nobody victimized them. Most women would kill to be in their place and have their game. Callas was a demanding diva, and you got it wrong. Onassis dumped her to get married. Bias of a fanatic woke feminist patriarchy hater. Boring!
Feminist writers only seem to be capable of viewing anything through a lense of fanatical female victimhood.
Biopics of famous men are usually equally critical, the recent Elvis film being a good example. What lunacy is it that drives feminists to see any depiction of women as uniquely sexist.
This is not the movie I saw. The movie I saw was highly empathetic to Callas’ genius and her efforts to reclaim her art at great personal cost. In its flashbacks Callas is shown as commanding in her relationships with the most powerful men on the planet. The music throughout is resplendent. This review says more about the author’s personal grievances than Angelina Jolie’s brilliant performance.
“commanding in her relationships with the most powerful men on the planet”
It’s seems like a common feature of post feminist “modern” women, that they see life as a d**k measuring contest with “powerful men”, while being contemptuous and ignorant of the struggles of ordinary men.
That is so true – not to mention the psychosis in so much current entertainment of women physically beating the crap out of men twice their size. I mention how Jolie/Callas dominates the men in the movie only to refute the author’s portrayal of her as victimized.
Absolutely Right. Why do women (like the author) hate other prettier, more talented and more successful women so much.
Oh dear. I have seen the film and mostly enjoyed it. Probably because you spend a lot time listening to Callas sing and gazing at Jolie’s face, both of which are mesmerisingly beautiful. It is not a biopic, if you don’t know much about her life you will still need to Google it afterwards. The film is an entertainment and a pleasant way to spend a very cold afternoon.
I appreciate this. I also wonder what it is in us female viewers of these films that keeps us coming back for this story? Because surely we as consumers play a role in shaping and maintaining this narrative? Is it a kind of existential masochism? Is it our envy of accomplished women that leads us to enjoy their “debunking” to justify ourselves in our own torpid avoidance of risk and lack of courage to stick out?
Interesting points!
What a wonderful piece of writing! Brava!
Given the director’s back catalogue, this is as much a Pablo Larrain movie as a Callas ‘biopic’. He has a distinct style, trying to find the soul of iconic women. On the other hand, El Conde, his film about Pinochet, was superb black comedy.
Can’t quite decide whether I should go and see “Maria”. Still recalling the shock on hearing the Angelina Jolie would be playing Maria Callas. I’d be quite interested to have heard Callas’ views on Jolie.
Getting the sense that there’s just too much fake history to make it worth watching. That it will try to take something complex and replace it with a simplistic narrative. There’s more than enough original source material about Maria Callas out there for anyone genuinely interested – an excellent new BBC program called “Maria Callas: The Final Act” and “The Callas Conversations” with Lord Harewood. Go for the original – not the dumbed down Hollywood version.
Some films maybe a labour of love but they are soon corrupted by the men in suits to get bums on seats. But in a world of streaming and multiple platforms, audiences are dwindling and storytelling is dying. The industry is facing its own Sunset Boulevard.
Isn’t this the real motive behind these extended put downs? Female envy. Who goes to see them, men or women?
btw – let’s be real about the actual talent and intelligence possessed by Monroe.
Hollywood abuses its female actors but it also relies on their narcissism. Firstly to accept the Weinstein Faustian pact and then to accept roles abusing former stars. Jolie could have retired quietly with her millions. She chose however to play an icon whose talent dwarfed her own.
Maria Callas’ instinct for publicity and poise exceeded her good but not perfect bel canto voice. By the time she coupled with Onasis her voice was on the way out. Now we have all the science – voice – coaches etc i think voices last longer. So her timing was good. IMO the best person to play Callas would probably be Diamanda Galás – i think she is committed to both her art and her humanism and has amazing pipes. Maybe something in the east Mediterranean gene pool? I very much doubt La Jolie is committed to anything beyond her own image and bank balance. I realise this is anti hollyweird and anti nepotism bias showing through so if Jolie is a decent sort i apologise – but would be happy to bet my initial view is right.