#latinx voter

[whenweallvote]

Up and down the ballot, Latino voters have the power to determine the outcome of elections in November. Just look at the numbers! 👉🏽📈🗳️

This Hispanic Heritage Month, let's keep showing up and fighting for our communities. Register to vote now at WeAll.Vote/register, then send this to three friends who need a reminder too. ✊🏽

[setaflow]

Man. I am so goddamn tired.

[moonworshippinglesbiandotcom]

scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds

[thevitalportal]

Latino/Hispanic voters preferences

[historicity-was-already-taken]

muslim trump voters SHOCKED by trump's support for israel

latinx trump voters SHOCKED by trump's plans to use the US military in immigrant roundups

black trump voters SHOCKED to find themselves overlooked for senior posts in his admin

white texan female ~pro-life~ trump voters SHOCKED to find that they can't get an abortion even if the pregnancy is endangering their lives

rural white male trump voter SHOCKED to find that ACA and "Obamacare" are the same thing after ACA saved his mom's life

white male blue collar trump voter SHOCKED to find that the trump admin is not pro-union

lgbtq+ trump voters SHOCKED to find that they are not exempt from his clearly stated anti-lgbtq+ policies

MAGA voters everywhere SHOCKED to find the family and friends are choosing to opt out of those relationships

Meanwhile, in Blue States, white liberal members of the LGBTQ+ community SHOCKED to learn that Hamas isn't their friend.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Harris stretched her coalition into incoherence. Inhumanly—as well as fruitlessly—she attempted to score points from the right on immigration, accusing Trump of insufficient dedication to building the wall. Her cack-handed performances of sympathy with Palestinians accompanied an evident commitment to follow Benjamin Netanyahu into a regional war. The Harris campaign featured a grab bag of policies, some good, some bad, but sharing no clear thematic unity or vision. She almost always offered evasive answers to challenging questions. And she adopted a generally aristocratic rather than demotic manner, which placed the candidate and her elite friends and allies at the center rather than the people they sought to represent. In these ways, Harris repeated not only Hillary Clinton’s errors but many of the same ones that she herself had made in her ill-starred 2019 presidential campaign, which opportunistically tacked left rather than right, but with equal insincerity and incoherence. Who remembers that campaign’s biggest moment, when she attacked Biden for his opposition to busing and what it would have implied for a younger version of herself, only to reveal when questioned that she also opposed busing? Or when she endorsed Medicare for All, raising her hand in a debate for the idea of private insurance abolition, only to later claim she hadn’t understood the question? Voters, then as now, found her vacuous and unintelligible, a politician of pure artifice seemingly without ideological depths she could draw from and externalize. She often gave the sense of a student caught without having done her homework, trying to work out what she was supposed to say rather than expressing any underlying, decided position. Even abortion rights, her strongest issue, felt at times like a rhetorical prop, given her own and her party’s inaction in the years prior to Dobbs. How many times before had Democrats promised to institutionalize and expand the protections of Roe, only to drop the matter after November?

[...]

The Democrats, in other words, comprehensively failed to set the terms of ideological debate in any respect. Their defensiveness and hypocrisy served only to give encouragement to Trump while demobilizing their own voters, whom they will no doubt now blame—as though millions of disaggregated, disorganized individuals can constitute a culpable agent in the same way a political party’s leadership can. But the party’s leaders are to blame, not that many in the center have cared or even seemed willing to reflect on a decade of catastrophe. Has anyone who complained that the 2020 George Floyd rebellion would cost Democrats votes due to the extremism of its associated demands reckoned with the empirical finding that the opposite proved true? That the narrow victory of Biden in 2020 was likely attributable to noisy protests that liberals wished would be quieter and calmer? Has anyone acknowledged the unique popularity of Sanders with Latinx voters, a once-core constituency that the Democrats are now on the verge of losing outright? The pathologies of the Democrats, though, are in a sense not the result of errors. It is the structural role and composition of the party that produces its duplicitous and incoherent orientation. It is the mainstream party of globalized neoliberal capitalism, and at the same time, by tradition anyway, the party of the working class. As the organized power of the latter has been washed away, the commitment has become somewhat more aspirational: Harris notably cleaned up with the richest income bracket of voters. The only issues on which Harris hinted of a break with Biden concerned more favorable treatment of the billionaires who surrounded her, and her closest advisers included figures like David Plouffe, former senior vice president of Uber, and Harris’s brother-in-law Tony West, formerly the chief legal officer of Uber, who successfully urged her to drop Biden-era populism and cultivate relations with corporate allies.

8 November 2024

[simply-ivanka]

Democrats, Blame Yourselves

Voters on Tuesday repudiated the results of progressive policies.

By The Editorial Board Wall Street Journal

If Democrats want some sage counsel on how to recover from their electoral drubbing on Tuesday, we suggest they recall that classic relationship breakup line from Seinfeld’s George Costanza: “It’s not you; it’s me.”

The temptation after a defeat this humiliating is to hunt for scapegoats—fading Joe Biden, untutored Kamala Harris, Russian disinformation, benighted and racist voters. They’d be wiser to look in the mirror.

The defeat was less a resounding endorsement of Mr. Trump than a repudiation of progressive governance. America rejected the consequences of left-wing policies. Democrats lost ground from 2020 across many demographic groups, according to the exit polls. Even women moved percentage points closer to Mr. Trump. How could Democrats possibly lose like this to a man they think is Hitler? Allow us to offer a list for liberal reflection:

• The failure of Bidenomics. Democrats once understood that private business drives growth and higher incomes. Sometime in the 21st century, they came to believe that government spending creates wealth—via the “Keynesian multiplier” and other nostrums.

Thus they passed, on a party-line vote, a $1.9 trillion pandemic-relief bill that wasn’t really needed, fueling the highest inflation in decades. This robbed millions of workers of real wage gains, which haunted Democrats on Tuesday as two-thirds of voters said they were unhappy with the state of the economy.

• Cultural imperialism. Democrats took their 2020 victory as an invitation to turn identity politics into woke policy. They stood with transgender activists instead of parents who don’t want boys to play girls sports or elementary teachers to pass out pronoun pins. Republicans hammered Democrats with ads that attacked Democratic votes against tying federal funds to transgender school policies.

Democrats also began using the term “Latinx,” which sounds to many Spanish-speakers like illiterate cultural imperialism from elites. Could that and other woke policies have played a role in Mr. Trump winning 46% of the Hispanic vote and 55% of Latino men, according to the exit polls?

• Regulatory coercion. In pursuit of their climate obsessions, Democrats pushed coercive mandates, including an EPA rule effectively saying that by 2032 only 30% of new car sales can be gas-powered models. The EV mandate caused layoffs among auto workers in Michigan that Mr. Trump attacked in TV ads and on the stump.

• Lawfare. Democrats used Mr. Trump’s divisiveness to escalate against him at every turn. After calling him a Russian stooge and impeaching him twice, Mr. Biden labeled him a “fascist” and Democrats tried to bar him from the ballot.

They criminally indicted Mr. Trump—four times—and targeted his family business with a civil suit. They convicted him in New York, under an elected Democratic prosecutor who stretched the law to turn misdemeanors into felonies, in a case that wouldn’t have been brought against another businessman.

The strategy turned Mr. Trump into a martyr to GOP voters and cemented his support in the Republican primaries.

• Breaking democratic norms. Democrats decided to use taxes from plumbers and welders to forgive college loans for lawyers and grad students in grievance studies. When the Supreme Court struck Mr. Biden’s effort down as an abuse of power, he tried again and taunted the Court to stop him.

Democrats tried to override the Senate filibuster to seize control of the nation’s voting laws and impose practices such as ballot harvesting, as Mr. Biden raged that his opponents were creating “Jim Crow 2.0.”

They tried to override the filibuster to pass a national abortion law that would go beyond Roe v. Wade. They promised to override the filibuster in 2025 to bulldoze the High Court. They ran Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema out of the party for disagreeing.

All of this and other progressive preoccupations caused Democrats to lose sight of the larger public interest. They came to believe, backed by the mainstream press, that voters would tolerate it all because Mr. Trump was simply unacceptable.

This opened the door for Mr. Trump to remind voters that they were better off under his policies four years earlier. Mr. Trump won more than 72 million ballots. He improved his standing with minority voters. He gained votes even in Democratic states.

Voters were telling Democrats on Tuesday that the party has wandered into ideological fever swamps where most Americans don’t want to go. Winning those voters again will require more than firing back up the anti-Trump “resistance.”

[wowbright]

It's wild looking at my life trajectory of being a young journalist who would have loved to work at The New York Times or Slate or NPR to someone telling spouse over breakfast, after said spouse said they heard/read on these three sources that "the Black and Latino vote gave the election to Trump":

"You really need to stop turning to these sources for analysis. They are fine with straight news. But when they want to do commentary or analysis, they focus on the thing that they find most interesting and surprising and likely to grab your attention, not the thing that is most significant for the outcome"

and then i whipped out the numbers from the NBC exit poll showing that black voter support for Trump had a 0% change since 2020, with black men's support for Trump going up by a single percentage point and black women's support for Trump dropping by 2%.

Commentators are making a big fucking deal about a 1 percentage point change among black men without pointing out that black men make up only 5% of the electorate so that change had zero effect on the election outcome and likely would have continued to have absolutely zero effect even in a much closer race.

I think it's curious that commentators in "liberal" media have decided that this is somehow comparable to the much larger shifts toward Trump in other demographic groups, including Latinx and young people, especially young men. Or, more significantly, the fact that the majority of white people voted for Trump.

Even with the shift among Latinx voters, the percentage voting for Harris (53%) was far higher than among non-Hispanic whites (43%).

I also think it's curious that their commentary talks about members of minority groups "deciding" elections when more than 70% of the electorate are white.

"Oh," spouse said. "They didn't point any of that out."

Of course they didn't. Because that would mean they would have to focus on white people. (I acknowledge here that white men voted for Trump and larger numbers than white women. But also, it appears that the majority of white women voted for Trump, and certainly in larger percentages and raw numbers than Latinas or black women or "other"s.)

If white people who had voted for Trump had voted instead for Harris, that would have affected the election outcome, too, wouldn't it?

But somehow, that is not interesting to the media, because 'white people' is just some abstract immutable force and the individuals who make up that population actually have no agency in the choices they make. /s

Commentators need to stop acting like white people are just going to keep white peopling no matter what, so it's the responsibility of POC to save us from ourselves.

Fuck that bullshit. I don't care if you grew up in the whitest white white town in the whitest county in the whitest state in the Union. White people are just as responsible for our choices as anyone else. It is absolutely bullshit to talk about POC "deciding" the election while ignoring the white elephant in the room.

This is what people mean when we talk about white supremacy. It doesn't mean that every white person thinks that they are better than everybody else. White supremacy means treating white beliefs and choices so much as the default that we forget that they are *beliefs* and *choices* anymore.

White people make up the majority of the electorate. The majority of white people voted for Trump. That is not true of any of any other racialized voter group for which I was able to find statistics.

If we are going to say that any one demographic group "decided" the election, then we are going to have to say that it was white people.

Editorial comment: I feel like this should be obvious from everything I've said above, but to be clear, I think it's bullshit to say that any one demographic group decided the election. Each one of us is responsible for our choices. It's not useless to look at demographic trends, but it is useless to blame entire demographic groups for how the election turned out--unless that demographic group is a self-selected one like "people who had the opportunity to vote and voted for Trump and/or did not vote for the only viable alternative, Kamala Harris."

[mightyflamethrower]

Democratic strategist and CNN contributor Julie Roginsky said Thursday on CNN’s “Newsroom” that her party cannot speak to “normal people,” stating that it was “not the party of common sense.”

Roginsky said, “You know, I’m going to speak some hard truths to my friends in the Democratic Party. This is not Joe Biden’s fault. It’s not Kamala Harris fault. It’s not Barack Obama’s fault. It is the fault of the Democratic Party in not knowing how to communicate effectively to voters. We are not the party of common sense, which is the message that voters sent to us. For a number of reasons, for a number of reasons, we don’t know how to speak to voters.

When we address Latinos — and language, and language has meaning — we address Latino voters. as Latinx, for instance, because that’s the politically correct thing to do, it makes them think that we don’t even live on the same planet as they do.

When we are too afraid to say that, ‘Hey, college kids, if you’re trashing a campus of Columbia University because you aren’t happy about some sort of policy and you’re taking over a university and you’re trashing it and preventing other students from learning that that is unacceptable.’ But we’re so worried about alienating one or another cohort in our coalition that we don’t know what to say.”

She continued, “When normal people look at that and say, ‘Wait a second, I send my kids to college so they can learn, not so that they can burn buildings and trash lawns,’ right? And so on and so forth. When we put pronouns after names and say she/her, as opposed to saying, you know what, if I call you by the wrong pronoun, call me out, I’m sorry, I won’t do it again,” but stop with the virtue signaling and just speak to people like they’re normal. There’s nothing I’m going to say to Shermichael, that I’m not going to say to you, that I’m not going to say to somebody else. I speak the same language to everybody. But that’s not what Democrats do. We constantly try to parse out different ways of speaking to different cohorts because our focus groups or our polling shows that so-and-so appeals to such and such. That’s not how normal people think. It’s not common sense. And we need to start being the party of common sense again.”

Sounds like a few dems got the message. If you think a man can go home at noon, switch from boxers to panties, and come back to work as a real women most people, especially men, are going to think you are nucking futz. They certainly aren't going to vote for you.

[whenweallvote]

Our vote is our voice and our poder! We are proud to partner with Te Lo Juro Collective to launch an exclusive VOTA collection for Hispanic Heritage Month. 🧡❤️🤎

Shop our new VOTA and resilience-themed crop top, sweatshirts, tote bag, and stickers now at telojurocollective.com. 🛍️ Honor your strength, celebrate your power, and get ready to head to the polls in style! 🗳️

Te Lo Juro is a lifestyle brand that celebrates authentic Latino/x culture through fashion and art with a strong sense of pride for our cultura and our communities.

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved in our archive

Both parties choose to ignore this still-unfolding public health crisis. Neither seeks to prevent further covid infections. Neither seeks to prioritize funding and research for covid and long covid treatment. Neither cares about you or your livelihood.

by Laura Weiss

For over four years, long COVID-19 patients and advocates have been frustrated by a lack of public acknowledgment of their condition and the ongoing long-term impact of COVID-19

“I was diagnosed with long COVID, which will disable me for the rest of my life.”

These were the words of Martha, addressed to Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris at a town hall event this month hosted by Univision for Latinx voters. Martha explained that after her illness left her unable to work, she applied for disability benefits. Yet three years later, she still has not received a response, leaving her homeless, broke, and unable to get medical treatment.

“I lost everything,” she said in an urgent, strained whisper. “How will you help the disabled people?”

Martha’s question was notable not just in its denunciation of the brokenness of the disability benefits system, but also because it was one of the first mentions of long COVID on the campaign trail. Though the Biden-Harris administration has claimed that “COVID no longer runs our lives,” some 17 million Americans have been disabled by long-term symptoms of COVID-19, with millions out of the workforce and an approximate cost of $1 trillion to the global economy. This condition disproportionately affects Latinx people, women, the LGBTQIA+ community, and people with disabilities.

Harris responded to Martha by pointing to her efforts to include long COVID as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and plans to relieve medical debt. However, ADA designation does not impact benefits determinations, and the challenges to accessing care for this and other complex chronic illnesses go far beyond paying debts.

For over four years, long COVID patients and advocates have been frustrated by a lack of public acknowledgment of their condition, the long-term impact of COVID-19 and false claims that the pandemic is over. According to Meighan Stone, the executive director of the Long Covid Campaign and a long COVID sufferer herself, the town hall created an opening for advocates to rally for more funding and attention on this urgent issue in an upcoming administration.

On the heels of the event, the Long Covid Campaign, which is nonpartisan, connected with the Harris campaign’s newly appointed Disability Engagement Director, Anastasia Somoza, last week.

“She was incredibly responsive,” Stone said about the preliminary conversation, though time will tell whether policy shifts will follow should the campaign transition into power come January. The Trump campaign has not responded to her outreach efforts.

While this and other recent developments, such as a National Institutes of Health (NIH) conference last month on improving long COVID research and bills in Congress demanding a long COVID “moonshot,” to get $1 billion minimum in annual funding are promising, both the Harris and Trump campaigns have been quiet on the subject. Advocates agree that the next president must do better to acknowledge and address the urgency of long COVID and prevent the crisis from further growing.

“The lack of deep and direct involvement from the Harris campaign and [Biden] administration regarding long COVID is incredibly frustrating,” said Cynthia Adinig, a long COVID patient and co-founder of the BIPOC Equity Agency, based in Virginia. “As a patient, voter, and advocate, it’s disheartening to see the silence, especially when long COVID disproportionately affects marginalized communities.”

Dr. Lucky Tran, a science communicator based in New York, said that political campaigns need to take the impact of COVID-19 and long COVID more seriously and develop clear policies to prevent it.

“People see COVID as a poisonous electoral issue,” Tran said, adding that there are ways to make the topic more politically appealing. The burden of long COVID connects to popular issues like health care access, housing, guaranteed sick leave, and public benefits, which campaigns could leverage.

A new administration could also go far in supporting improved research and treatment efforts for long Covid. The RECOVER initiative for long COVID, launched in 2021 under the NIH, has faced widespread criticism for its slowness, inefficiency, and lack of focus on clinical trials and treatments.

“We’re more than four years and $1.15 billion into the COVID pandemic, and Americans living with long COVID, and it’s still a DIY project for patients,” Stone said. There are still zero FDA-approved treatments for long COVID.

Last month’s RECOVER-TLC (Treat Long COVID) conference at NIH focused on the additional $515 million allocated to the RECOVER initiative. NIH Director Dr. Monica M. Bertagnolli, who was appointed last year, led the conference alongside Dr. Jeanne Marazzo. Marazzo is a leader in HIV/AIDs research and the new head of the National Institute for Allergic and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the institute where RECOVER will now be housed. Stone said these appointments mark a positive “shift” for long Covid progress.

Tran noted that under a Trump administration, both appointments would likely be reversed, and funding for the initiative would be further slashed.

“The Trump administration has shown a hostility to funding that sort of biomedical research,” he said.

During the conference, Bertagnolli and Marazzo reaffirmed the seriousness of the long COVID crisis, their understanding of patient frustrations, and their commitment to addressing the problem head-on. Bertagnolli discussed the progress made thus far but admitted that it is time for clinical trials of treatments to get further underway. She committed to a “true partnership” with patients to “align around a common agenda…and really move this forward.”

The panels featured testimony by patient advocates, doctors, and researchers across disciplines. These experts offered perspectives on how to best identify trial participants, the importance of inclusivity and collaboration with patients in running trials, including pediatric trials, and the regulatory processes for getting treatments approved and in the hands of long COVID sufferers as quickly as possible.

“The meeting was extremely positive and productive and collaborative, and a real change in approach,” said Stone. But she stressed that any solution to this crisis must be inclusive. “That has to include people on Medicaid, on Medicare, hourly wage workers that don’t have health insurance, that is going to let them get access to specialists who are going to write prescriptions off-label,” she said, as well as communities of color.

Another challenge for these trials is to ensure that long COVID patients can safely participate without risking COVID reinfection. At the NIH meetings, few agency officials present wore masks, though the majority of patients did. On Oct. 29, the NIH announced it would be reinstating mask requirements for all clinical trials.

Still, Lisa McCorkell, the co-founder of the Patient Led Research Collaborative and a long COVID patient based in Oakland, California, who spoke at the event via videoconference, told Prism that the meetings left her “cautiously optimistic.”

Adinig echoed this sentiment but added that there is skepticism about the NIH in the chronic illness community.

“We’ve heard similar commitments before, and the follow-through has often been slow,” she said. “The advocacy community will need to keep pushing to make sure this momentum doesn’t fade.”

But both McCorkell and Stone spoke to the importance of securing more funding for long COVID research. Thus far, it has all come through annual presidential appropriations, making it vulnerable to changing priorities each year. “We need sustained, comprehensive, significant funding year over year,” said Stone.

Such funding could come from the Long COVID Moonshot, also brought about through dogged advocacy by groups such as the Patient Led Research Collaborative. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), proposed legislation in the Senate in August that would guarantee $1 billion per year in funding for long COVID research. Reps. Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley introduced similar legislation in the House last month with a handful of cosigners. However, it currently lacks bipartisan support.

But as McCorkell said, “Even if those conversations don’t result in a vote for this specific bill, it can go a long way in raising awareness for long COVID.” Stone added that White House support for efforts like Moonshot could go a long way.

Tran also pointed to the importance of the White House promoting ongoing COVID-19 prevention efforts and added that such efforts don’t need to be “all or nothing.” The administration could encourage mask-wearing, staying home when sick, and testing. It could also raise awareness about long COVID and commit to developing better vaccines and tests, and making them widely available, and improving indoor air quality. The government also needs to be much clearer about their public health guidance, especially that coming from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and publicly denounce mask bans, he added.

Meanwhile, Tran warned, another Trump presidency would likely cut healthcare access, as well as try to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), deregulate public health institutions, and weaken protections for disabled and other marginalized groups. Not to mention the impacts of banning abortion and ignoring climate goals, increasing the risk of future pandemics.

“We need to stop…thinking COVID is just a niche issue,” he said. “All of these issues are connected, no matter what you care about.”

[woman-respecter]

tbh while i think women should do 4B and do everything we can to punish misogynistic young men ,and pressure institutions to do more about how online radicalization is pushing them so far right, i think the bigger and also more solvable problem is what's going on with latinos and that seems to be a result of a lot of extremist misinformation in spanish language outlets that anglosphere media is just totally ignoring. latino voters in once-deep-blue hotspots like south florida and texas' RGV have been breaking for trump and other repubs for a few election cycles now. if we could solve that and reverse it would solve a LOT of problems (like if this hadn't happened, harris could've won without young men, whereas i'm not convinced the reverse is true - that she could've won young men by a bigger margin and lost latinos the same and still won). and a lot of it just seems like... have more left-wing, liberal media outlets in spanish? like have a spanish language msnbc, more left and liberal spanish language radio? idk that just seems easier to me than figuring out exactly what combo of internet personality we need to create the liberal equivalent of joe rogan (who also won't be relentlessly attacked from within the left as every big-name leftuber has, which, lbr, is going to especially happen to anyone who can even attempt to reach the joe rogan audience and not just preach to the choir)

anyway just to be clear this is NOT a criticism of your blog, you're doing the right work, and i think it makes more sense for women to focus on this because we keep being asked to bend over backward for the worst men and we're fed up and especially with how white men have been the most violent and awful in their responses to the election in relation to women, more so than latinos or any minority. but this is a criticism of the wider media, which of course will always treat white men as uwu innocent we jut need to coddle them a little more, while a minority group like latinos are just there to blame and not think of as a constituency to reach out to.

of course, maybe this will sort itself out as a lot of people's undocumented relatives get deported and they realize that the leopards will in fact eat ALL faces like they said, not just the ones of the "bad guys." but i still think that infrastructure needs to be built to stop this from repeating itself if and when we ever remove these particular assholes from power and another set tries for them again

i actually wasn’t aware of this issue with spanish language content in the us! thanks for bringing my attention to it, it is defo an issue that needs solving. may not be my place to say but i have also heard that libs have trouble getting across to latinos, esp when they use that annoying “latinx” thing, it makes people’s eyes roll.

i feel extra horrible for latina women bc the men in their family swung so far right relative to where they were before. shows that the men are willing to sacrifice the rights of all their loved ones bc they hate women that much.

[coochiequeens]

How the democrats alienated another voting block

Supporters of former President Donald Trump watch as he holds a rally in the historical Democratic district of the South Bronx on May 23, 2024 in New York City. The Bronx, home to a large Latino community, has been a Democratic base for generations of voters and the rally occurred as Trump looks to attract more non-white voters. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Donald Trump made significant inroads among several traditional Democratic Party constituencies, cutting into Democratic margins among Black and Hispanic voters. A new paper looking at his gains among Hispanic voters puts forward a provocative argument to explain some of that movement.

It contends that Hispanic voters who hold socially conservative, anti-LGBTQ views but might otherwise have voted Democratic have become turned off by Democratic politicians’ use of the gender-neutral term “Latinx,” which is being used “to explicitly include gender minorities and broader LGBTQ+ community segments.”

Based on their analysis of a set of population surveys conducted in recent years, Marcel Roman, an assistant professor of government at Harvard, and Amanda Sahar d’Urso, an assistant professor of government at Georgetown University, say Latinos are less likely to support a politician who uses the term “Latinx” in their appeal to voters.

They say the move away from Democratic candidates using the term appears to be driven by the subset of Latino voters who hold negative attitudes toward the LGBTQ community and is not based on a broader reaction against the new term, which first began to appear about 20 years ago.

“We find that backlash is not driven by concerns related to respect for the Spanish language or anti-intellectual beliefs – that Latinx is a bourgeois, coastal, white imposition on working-class Latinos,” Roman said in an interview. “The reason why it generates backlash against some aspects of the Democratic Party is it’s a signal of inclusivity toward LBGTQ+ and gender non-conforming” members of the Latino community.

Their paper also digs into Hispanic voter patterns in areas where they say the use of Latinx has had particularly high “salience,” measured by the level of internet search activity, which Roman and d’Urso say serves as a reasonable proxy for its presence in the political discourse of local candidates. Among Hispanic voters with negative views toward LGBTQ people, they found that there was greater movement toward Trump from the 2016 election to the 2020 election if they lived in areas with higher Latinx “salience.”

Nationally, there was about an 8 percentage point swing toward Trump among Hispanic voters from 2016 to 2020. Biden still captured a majority of Hispanic votes four years ago – 61%, according to one estimate – but if the movement by Hispanic voters toward Trump continues in the current election, it could be ominous for Democratic chances.

The paper says use of the term among Democratic politicians surged in recent years. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren both used it in the 2020 presidential campaign, and Joe Biden used it in a 2021 speech on Covid vaccine compliance. Among Democratic members of Congress, the study says, just 10% used Latinx in social media posts during the 2015-2016 session, but by the 2019-2020 session fully half had done so. By contrast, they say, not a single Republican member of Congress has invoked the term on social media.

Amid his harsh rhetoric toward immigrants, Trump has nonetheless won support among Hispanic voters who don’t see themselves in those attacks.

“The us-versus-them framing has long characterized political alliances, across the ideological spectrum,” the New York Times said in a story Tuesday on Trump’s appeals to Black and Latino voters. “But Mr. Trump has been far more direct than any recent presidential candidate in inviting Black and Latino voters to be part of the ‘us,’ so long as they acknowledge that there is a ‘them.”

Underscoring the findings by Roman and d’Urso on the power of anti-LGBT views among a swath of Hispanic voters is Trump’s explicit attempt to win support on the issue.

“In one of the Trump campaign’s most widely broadcast Spanish-language television ads, attacking Ms. Harris for her support of transgender medical care for immigrants, it closes with ‘Kamala Harris is with them. President Trump is with us.’”

Roman said Democrats appear to have recognized the electoral costs that may come with use of the term Latinx. “The Democratic Party has kind of course corrected,” he said, with Harris and Biden not using the term since early 2021. “The Democratic Party at the national level recognized it may do more harm than good,” he said. But Roman said some “damage may be done” already in terms of the association of the term with Democrats.

Based on his findings, Roman said abandoning the term Latinx is a strategically smart move by Democrats. For his part, however, Roman sees the term as a welcome evolution in language precisely because of what it signals. “I think, in general, inclusive language is good,” he said. “It’s not the phrase that’s the problem. It’s that people hold queer-phobic attitudes – that’s the problem.” Shifting that reality, he said, is “a much larger undertaking.”

This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

[weatherman667]

Dems: Try to assassinate Trump, convict him of not crimes and not torts, try to financially ruin him with an excuse so terribly, his creditors supported him, and committed treason against him to keep the forever war going.

Dems: If Trump gets elected, he's going to try and lock us up.

Voters: Yes, because everything you did is a crime.

Dems: What about Black men? Do you know what Trump is going to do to you?

Black Men: You tried to lock him up for paying off his side-ho. That could have been me.

Dems: What about the Latinx community?

Latinos: STOP - CALLING - US - LATINX!

Dems: What about women?

Women: I have children to feed, and my grocery bill tripling makes that a little difficult.

Dems: What about White Men?

White Cucks for Harris: *tries to speak*

Dems: Nevermind, we don't need to hear your white rage and white fragility. You've spoken over minorities often enough.

[tomhardysurinal]

That's it ladies, gentlemen, folx. It's over y'all. Y'all leftists who hate women so much. Y'all third party voters who couldn't just do the smart thing.

Y'all.

Do you Arabs think Trump's gonna treat you right? Latinx folk? People with wombs?? Y'all gonna get what's coming to y'all, I promise y'all that.

Y'all coulda had 0.02% student loan relief. Y'all said no. Y'all could have been covered for ringworm on your medical. Y'all said no. Y'all could have shown the world that neurodiverse woc are worth something. Y'all said no.

Well I'm here to tell y'all no.

No.

I say yes.

All y'all who came out for Mamala. I see you.

We say yes.

Together.

Write to your representatives. It's not too late. Article 5, paragraph 4, Freedom Act 1762 - the election result can be overturned if enough honorable officials say so. Source.

There will be a reckoning.

We do this for Kamala. We do this for that little girl on your block who wants to see herself with the nuclear codes. We do this for the queer kid on SSRIs. We do this for our future. We do this for the world.

We gonna clap back y'all.

And they won't know what hit 'em.

[militantinremission]

Jamaal Bowman: The Cost of being 'Off Code'

Jamaal Bowman IS the Canary in the Coal Mine for the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). His Primary defeat to [Race Baiter] George Latimer sends a CLEAR MESSAGE to the rest of the CBC, that they need to pay more attention to Black Specific Issues. For decades, they rode into Office on Black Votes; only to ignore their Constituents & champion White Liberal Causes. The CBC's 'Mission Statement' is a slap in the face of Black America. While the Asian & Latinx Caucus single out their intent to represent their Ethnic Group, The CBC focuses on 'People of Color' & 'The Disadvantaged' (Marginalized). Black Americans are Socially Liberal, so We didn't clap back at this commitment to 'Coalitions'. The Problem, is The CBC's commitment to these Coalitions OVER Black Specific Issues.

Jamaal Bowman stands out. He's a Member of those Progressive Democrats, known as 'The Squad'. They collectively hold a Narrow Majority in Congress, but This group has been exposed as being toothless on hot button Progressive Issues like: 'Medicare for All', Raising the National Minimum Wage, Supporting Railroad Workers, & a 'Human Infrastructure Bill'. Bowman has been a strong voice in this Group. Like ALL Black Progressives, Bowman towed the Democratic Line over the legitimate needs of Black Americans. LGBTQ..., Asian, Ashkenazi, & Latinx American concerns take precedence over their Own Constituents. This has been The Case for decades. It's not just a Progressive issue, Many of these Black Members of Congress choose other groups over the Blackfolk that put them in Office.

It's ironic that The Congressional Black Caucus has collectively lent their Support to Israel FOR YEARS, but are now being 'Primaried' by AIPAC for demanding a Cease Fire in Gaza. Jamaal Bowman is not alone, Many CBC Members face an AIPAC Backed Challenger this Year. Like his Congressional Peers, Bowman ignored the Grassroots in his District throughout his Tenure, claiming that 'he's alone in Congress & doesn't have The Power'; but somehow expected them to rally behind him, in an effort to defeat the Big Bad AIPAC Boogeyman. His Bronx Rally w/ Bernie Sanders & Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (AOC), was an embarrassing Event that exposed the decline of the Progressive Party. The Writing was On the Wall for all 3 Politicians. Bernie was cliche & hypocritical, AOC was overactive & loud, Jamaal was plastic & ineffective. The Turnout was Unbelievably Low.

AIPAC is known for having Deep Pockets, so their investment of roughly $25 Million to defeat Jamaal Bowman is not surprising. It's clear that his critique of Israel's Actions in Gaza motivated AIPAC to 'Primary' him. Aside from AOC, I didn't see much support coming from the rest of The Squad. It's Nina Turner all over again. I question the solidarity of Black Progressives, but The CBC didn't back Bowman either. Jim Clyburn, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee & Hakeem Jeffries were silent; then again, ALL are beholden to AIPAC for Campaign Funds. WHAT is The CBC's Agenda? Their lack of solidarity & support for each other, is as scary as their support of The Democratic Agenda. They have THE SAME 'Shark Tank Mentality' as their White Congressional Peers

Bowman's defeat can be attributed to AIPAC, but the lack of Black Voter Turnout stands out. Mainstream Media may downplay it, but The Democratic Party has to be concerned; Black Democrats in Office should be WORRIED! Before the Vote, Jamaal Bowman was given a Fighter's Chance, despite Redistricting- due to his 'Ethnic Demographic Advantage'. The Fact that he lost by Double Digits speaks volumes. I have said more than once, that Black Politicians need to Draft & Present a Black Agenda to their Constituents. Their disregard for Black Voters is Coming Home to Roost. Bowman, like many other Black Members of Congress have been curt & disrespectful towards their Constituents when critiqued. Blackfolk are talking about Reparations, & NOT taking No for an Answer... I think The CBC better get to work before it's too late.

-Just Sayin'