The Shortsighted Republican Strategy to Win Hispanic Voters

In a recent New York Times article, Colorado Republican officials expressed optimism that their economic message would be enough to win over Hispanic voters in the state.

While it’s true that our polling—and recent public polls—show that jobs and the economy are the most important issues for Hispanics, there are two fundamental flaws in the Republicans’ strategy.

The first is that our recent polling shows Hispanic voters in Colorado actually trust the Democrats more to handle economic issues. Our most-recent polling in Colorado shows that Hispanics in the state trust Democrats in the state legislature to create jobs more than Republicans.

That same poll shows that 75% of Hispanic likely voters are more likely to vote for a Congressional candidate who supports “raising taxes on people earning more than one million dollars a year to help balance the budget and create jobs.” 78% say they’re more likely to vote for a candidate who supports “ending corporate tax loopholes to help balance the budget.”

The second flaw in the Republicans’ strategy is that even the best economic messaging won’t help them if they continue their vitriolic rhetoric on immigration. While few Hispanics list immigration as the most important issue facing the country, the heated and extreme rhetoric we’ve seen in the Republican primary has cemented the image of an outwardly anti-Latino GOP in the minds of many Hispanic voters.

Over the last few months, we’ve seen prominent Republican candidates refer to Spanish as “the language of the ghetto” and embrace a policy of “self-deportation,” which aims to make life so miserable for immigrants that they choose to leave. Mitt Romney has even launched a campaign attacking Rick Santorum for voting to approve Sonia Sotomayor (the first Latina Supreme Court justice and an icon in the Hispanic community) to the U.S. Circuit court years ago.

These attacks transcend simple policy debates. They strike at the heart of the Latino community, and they will make it exceedingly difficult—if not impossible—to win back Hispanic voters this fall.

Trends to Watch in the Arizona Republican Primary

1) Turnout in the Arizona primaries will be an important indicator for the general election. In Colorado, we saw a low turnout for the recent caucuses, particularly in wealthier suburban and exurban counties where Republicans tend to be more moderate. Turnout stayed pretty steady, or even jumped, in the most conservative parts of Colorado, which suggests that the candidates' efforts to play to the party base may have alienated moderate voters. Keep an eye out for similar trends in Arizona, as the candidates' focus on social issues has only intensified since the Colorado caucuses. Arizona has been hit harder than most states by the recession and housing crisis, and we know from recent PNA polling that Republicans in Arizona want their government focused on job creation, just like the rest of the Arizona electorate. The perceived focus on distracting social issues could be at the heart of low turnout on Arizona.

2) Arizona has semi-open primaries, meaning registered independents can vote tomorrow, but not registered Democrats. According to CNN exit polls, 18% of GOP primary voters were registered independents in 2008. It will be interesting to see whether Republicans can match that number this year. If they don't, it's likely an indication that independents are sour on the GOP field compared with '08.

3) In 2008, 8% of GOP primary voters described themselves as liberal. 26% called themselves moderate, and 66% ID'd as conservative. Look to see how these numbers compare to '08. An increase in the percentage of self-Identifying conservative voters could be indicative of moderate Republicans' lack of enthusiasm for the Republican field. It also could signify the Republican party's move to the right since 2008.

4) In 2008, 7% of GOP primary voters were Hispanic. It will be interesting to see whether Hispanic participation in the Republican primaries decreases even further in the wake of SB1070 and its aftermath. We know that Hispanic voters were a crucial factor in the defeat of Russell Pearce, voting against him by a 3-1 margin. That 3-1 margin represents a larger percent voting against the Republican than we're used to seeing for Arizona, and the Republican Presidential candidates have largely embraced Pearce's positions on immigration. It will be interesting to see whether Hispanics shy away from participating in the GOP caucuses.

5) Also keep an eye on the Mormon vote. In 2008, exit polls showed Mormons were 8% of GOP caucus-goers, and they voted heavily for Mitt Romney . Early projections show that the LDS vote will be higher than in 2008, and that's something to keep in mind. Mormons make up only a small portion of the overall electorate in Western battlegrounds like Arizona and Nevada, but they are high-propensity voters, and their enthusiasm could be a factor in November.

Beyond the Enthusiasm Gap: What the Caucuses Tells Us About the Political Environment in Colorado

In the wake of Tuesday night's surprising Colorado caucus results, many are wondering whether frigid temperatures should be blamed for a lower-than-expected turnout. However, taking a look at the numbers behind Rick Santorum's victory in Colorado, it becomes clear that the results actually reflect moderate Republican voters cooling on the Republican field, and that bodes poorly for the GOP in a state where moderate voters hold the keys to the kingdom.

Following an embarrassingly low turnout in Nevada last week, Colorado Republican officials predicted a turnout exceeding 70,000. As it turned out, turnout fell about 4,000 short of those projections, leading to widespread conjectures from national pundits over whether the low turnout was indicative of a lack of enthusiasm for the GOP field, or whether some other factor -- like the weather -- was responsible.

To answer that question, these pundits should be looking beyond the overall turnout number at where turnout numbers changed since 2008.

That Republicans did not meet their turnout goal is attributable in large part to underperformance in Arapahoe, Jefferson, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver and Douglas counties in the Denver-Boulder metro area. In Denver, for instance, over 4,000 Republicans caucused in 2008. This week, just over 3,200 Denver Republicans caucused. In Arapahoe County, turnout declined by about 20 percent. These counties -- populated largely by moderate, affluent Republican voters -- also happened to vote most-heavily for Romney.

That turnout was low in these moderate counties is consistent with our polling, which found that likely Colorado voters describing themselves as moderate or liberal Republicans were less enthusiastic about voting in 2012 than conservative Republicans, moderate Democrats, or liberal Democrats.

To the extent that any Colorado counties actually saw an uptick in voter turnout, these districts were largely rural, traditionally conservative communities, and they generally voted for Rick Santorum.

Mesa County on Colorado's Western Slope, for example, saw an uptick in turnout of over 50 percent from 2008. The traditional conservative stronghold also went for Rick Santorum by double digits this week.

The small rural counties on the Eastern Plains, which voted most heavily for Mike Huckabee in 2008, also saw increases in voter turnout. Kit Carson County, for example had a 27 percent increase in turnout, and voted nearly 4-1 for Santorum. Prowers County, on the border with Kansas, had a 34 percent increase in turnout from '08, and voted over 2-1 for Santorum. This trend held, for the most part, across the state's rural Eastern Plains.

It's worth noting that turnout did not increase in every county that voted for Santorum, but the fact that surges in caucus turnout were so concentrated in conservative areas does suggest that the party's right-wing base is far more enthusiastic and engaged in the primary process than moderate Republicans.

We've seen this haunt Colorado Republicans in the recent past. In 2010, the party's right wing propelled Ken Buck to the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. Buck's support for the Personhood ballot initiative, which will be on the ballot again in 2012, and his conservative credentials endeared him to Tea Party groups and Evangelical voters, but his ideological rigidity turned off moderate independent voters and ultimately lead to his defeat.

If Republicans plan to win in a state like Colorado, where independent voters are a third of the electorate, their nominee will need to pass muster with moderates. The fact that moderates largely stayed home this week means the party's right wing will have a greater say in Republican party politics this year, and that's a cold hard truth for Republican officials.

Winning the Conservative Battle, Losing the West: Mitt's Quandary

Despite eeking out the narrowest of victories in Iowa last week, GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney still appears unable to rally the Republican electorate behind him. Polls continue to show the former Massachusetts governor garnering about a quarter of the vote nationally, while his more conservative rivals hover in striking distance despite comparatively fewer resources and smaller name ID. One of the important stories to watch in the ensuing weeks will be whether Romney chooses to tack to the right in order to endear himself to the GOP base. If he does, he risks alienating moderate voters in key western swing states like Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada.

Importantly, Romney's chief rival now appears to be Rick Santorum, an authentic culture warrior who rode evangelical support to a surprising near-win in Iowa. Santorum is already billing himself as "the conservative alternative" to Romney, who has failed to win over many social conservatives despite changing his views to adopt some extreme right-wing positions. Santorum's success going forward clearly depends on his ability to parlay his anti-birth control, anti-gay rights, views into support in upcoming primaries in states like South Carolina and Florida, where conservative Christians constitute an influential portion of the GOP electorate.

Romney, who has already moved to the right on several social issues, may be tempted to highlight his more extreme positions on issues such as abortion and gay rights. This is a risky strategy, though, as general election voters in key states -- particularly in the West -- strongly disagree with the GOP consensus. Our recent polling in Nevada, for example, reveals that just 12% of voters in Nevada want to see abortion banned. In a recent Colorado poll, we found that 79% of voters in the state favor some legal recognition for same sex couples, while just 18% say there should be no recognition.

Nationally, Project New West has found that 80 percent of voters nationwide agree with the statement that "government should not be getting involved in the decision to end a pregnancy, it's better left to a woman, her family and her faith."

Social issues aren't the only place where Romney is facing rightward pressure, however. Libertarians and right-wingers within the GOP are also working to peg Romney as a "timid Massachusetts moderate" on issues like taxes, social security and welfare reform.

The broader electorate, however, is unlikely to respond to right-wing red meat on these issues. In a six-state regional poll conducted in AZ, CO, MT, NM, NV and WA, 60% of all voters responded that they were less likely to vote for a candidate who called social security a "monstrous lie." In Nevada, we found that 55% opposed a proposal to cut Medicare funding and eliminating Medicare for those under age 55.

The GOP electorate is clearly still looking for a candidate who they feel shares their values and ideals. The problem for Republicans is that those ideals are likely to turn off the most important voters in the most crucial swing states come November.

Is Newt Gingrich Really Better Than Mitt Romney Among Hispanic Voters?

Newt Gingrich's recent rise in the polls has been accompanied by a lot of chatter about the implications of his potential nomination on the general election.

Gingrich's slightly more reasonable stance on immigration (which would spare law-abiding immigrants who have been in the country for 20 years from deportation, but wouldn't offer a pathway to citizenship) has some analysts arguing that he would fare better among Hispanics in a general election. The former Speaker's Hispanic outreach program and his efforts to learn Spanish have also been cited as reasons why he might have an advantage over Mitt Romney among this important demographic. Some are even saying that Gingrich's advantage with Hispanics could be enough to "slice into Obama's base in key states in the Mountain West."

This line of reasoning is decidedly unconvincing. While the Republican Party -- if it hopes to make inroads with Hispanic voters -- would be well-advised to temper its extremist rhetoric on immigration, many Beltway pundits are missing the biggest point of all: Hispanics don't vote based on a single issue alone. And if they did, it would be on jobs and the economy, or even education, but not immigration.

Since 2007, Project New West has conducted extensive public opinion research in Hispanic communities throughout the West. More recently, we've partnered with Project New America Latino, a newly launched research and strategy company focused on understanding the diverse and growing Hispanic community by state and region. What we've learned is that this is a diverse community with varying and highly nuanced views and issue priorities. Within the West, Hispanic communities vary by socio-economic characteristics like education, wealth, language preference, and profession. Simply stated, it's a mistake to paint this community with a broad brush, and assuming that one issue can win widespread support is a mistake.

This was apparent earlier this fall, when Project New West conducted a 3,000-interview regional survey in 6 western states (AZ, CO, MT, NM, NV, and WA). We found that just 9% of Hispanic voters in these states view immigration as their most important issue, compared with 59% who said jobs and the economy were most important. To put that in perspective, 8% of white voters said immigration was the most important issue in the same poll.

The regional poll also showed that Rick Perry -- a frontrunner at the time and a moderate on immigration--was actually less popular among Western Hispanics than Romney, who has struck an extremist anti-immigration tone this election cycle. Importantly, the poll was conducted in the immediate aftermath of a round of press that followed Perry calling opponents of in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants "heartless." That Romney was more popular --even in the midst of a high-profile episode that cast his opponent as a moderate -- shows that winning over western Hispanics requires more than taking the "correct" stance on immigration.

In PNW's regional research also showed that 61% of Hispanics said they'd be less likely to vote for a candidate who called Social Security a "lie" and a "failure," language similar to how Gingrich has described Congress's handling of Social Security.

This squares with research we've conducted, which shows that, while most Hispanic voters want to see a comprehensive federal solution to immigration, they are primarily concerned with issues of economic opportunity. They see a role for government in helping ensure economic opportunity and social mobility. Education is key to this belief. A 2010 poll PNW conducted in Nevada showed a majority of Hispanic voters would have favored raising their own taxes to stop cuts to public education. While we've never tested Gingrich's proposed remedy of hiring kids to work as janitors to save schools money, suffice to say it's unlikely to resonate with Hispanic voters.

To be sure, taking a reasonable stance on immigration is a must for the GOP if it plans to make inroads with Hispanics in the West in 2012. However, it will take a lot more than posturing on a single issue to win over this important and diverse demographic next year.

Lessons from Mississippi

Advocates for a common-sense approach to reproductive health policy are rightfully taking pride in the defeat of the Personhood amendment in Mississippi this week. As we celebrate the defeat of this extremist legislation, it's important to remember the lessons of Mississippi going forward: that Personhood lost--in large part--due to highly effective messaging that framed the measure as what it actually was --government overreach trampling on what should be personal decisions.

Mississippi Initiative 26, known as the Personhood initiative, would have defined the term "person" in the State Constitution to include fertilized human eggs, likely banning many common forms of birth control. In an April Project New West poll conducted by Benenson Strategy Group, 55% of Mississippians supported the initiative, while just 33% opposed it.

In the run-up to election day, however, opposition to Personhood began to focus more on the effects of the initiative, framing the measure in terms that highlighted how it would take choice on reproductive rights out of individuals' hands, and put it into the hands of the government.

"When you stop to think about it, 26 is government going way too far," a Mississippi grandmother said in a radio ad paid for by the opposition group Mississippians for Healthy Families.

"26 puts government between a woman and her doctor," says a nurse in a TV ad sponsored by the same group.

“Mississippi voters rejected the so-called ‘personhood’ amendment because they understood it is government gone too far, and would have allowed government to have control over personal decisions that should be left up to a woman, her family, her doctor and her faith," Planned Parenthood explained in a release following the defeat of the initiative.

The common theme here is clear: voters--even in a red state like Mississippi--oppose anti-reproductive rights measures when they view it through a lens of government intrusion.

This lesson has huge national implications as the 2012 cycle begins in earnest. Project New West recently completed a nationwide survey on abortion attitudes--also conducted by Benenson Strategy Group--which showed fully 80% of voters nationwide agree with the statement that "government should not be getting involved in the decision to end a pregnancy, it's better left to a woman, her family and her faith."

What happened in Mississippi this week is truly a victory Mississippians who believe individuals, and not the government, should make decisions about reproductive health. If we remember how this battle was won, it could also lead to many more victories in 2012 and beyond.

Romney Repeating Ken Buck's Errors on Personhood

As Mississippi Republicans back away from the controversial personhood ballot initiative that would restrict reproductive rights in the state, Project New West's polling shows GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney's position on this national issue looks increasingly out-of-touch with a majority of voters.

The Mississippi personhood initiative, which has been overwhelmingly turned down in previous election cycles by voters in Colorado, would define the term "person" in the State Constitution to include fertilized human eggs, and grant fertilized embryos the same legal rights and protections afforded to people. The initiative is being promoted by a group called Personhood USA, which has a stated goal of putting the initiative on the ballot in all 50 states.

This week, conservative Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour distanced himself from the initiative. "I'm somebody that believes life begins at conception, that's one of the reasons I'm pro-life," Barbour said Wednesday on Fox News. "But a lot of pro-life people have problems with this particular language... There's concern this is ambiguous, even in an enormously pro-life state like mine, there is some concern about this."

While the ambiguity of the initiative may be cause for concern for some conservatives in Mississippi, it doesn't seem to faze Mitt Romney, who has said he'd support a constitutional amendment defining life as beginning at conception.

The problem for Romney is that, while most Americans would like to see fewer abortions, an overwhelming majority do not think that government should have a role in deciding whether a woman should have an abortion. A recent nationwide survey conducted by PNW shows that 80% of likely voters agreed with the statement that "government should not be getting involved in the decision to end a pregnancy, it's better left to a woman, her family and her faith."

If recent history is any indication, Romney is at serious risk of alienating mainstream voters. In 2010, Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck's early support for the Personhood amendment was effectively used against him in the general election. The initiative, which had already lost by a wide margin in 2008, was trounced in 2010, with roughly 70 percent voting against the measure -- including every Colorado county -- in what was considered a strong year for conservatives.

Despite his efforts to walk back some of his more extreme statements on abortion, Buck narrowly lost to Democrat Michael Bennet. Bennet's victory was widely attributed to his campaign's ability to cast Buck as an extremist on social issues.

Organizers of the Personhood amendment are currently working to put the measure in western presidential battlegrounds like Nevada, where recent Project New West polling showed that unaffiliated voters -- a crucial bloc -- identify as "pro-choice" over "pro-life" by a 2-1 margin.

In a GOP primary contest that remains highly competitive, Governor Romney no doubt sees an advantage in tacking to the right on social issues to appease the base with of his party. However, it's clear the American people are simply not with him on this issue.