The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Fake News About Proposition 187
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Political Behavior:

Reexamining the Effect of Racial Propositions on Latinos’ Partisanship in California

March 2018, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 149–174 | Cite as

Iris Hui David O. Sears

First Online: 23 March 2017

Abstract
Many seasoned politicians and scholars have attributed the loss in support for the Republican Party in California to its push for three racially divisive propositions in the mid- 1990s, especially the anti-immigrant Proposition 187. Their costs are said to involve the partisan realignment of Latinos against the Republicans. Using three separate data sources, we find no evidence of a “tipping point” or abrupt realignment among Latino registered voters who made up the electorate. Latinos’ partisanship within California did not change significantly; it did not change much when compared to nearby states; nor did voter registration change materially. The loss of support for Republicans occurred primarily among unregistered Latino voters whom historically had never been strong supporters. Our findings question the conventional wisdom about the powerful political effects of the propositions, and reaffirm the long standing conclusion in the literature that realignment due to a “critical election” is rare.

 
Hide 29 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. A poll done a couple of months before 187 showed majority Hispanic support.

    Did you know about that? If not, why not?

    Have those with megaphones done things like encouraged campaigns to call out reporters who repeat the stock lines about 187?

    Bad things happen because leaders don’t do smart things and because their followers don’t demand better.

    • Replies: @Corn
    @24AheadDotCom

    “A poll done a couple of months before 187 showed majority Hispanic support.”

    Hopefully Steve or another Californian can enlighten us, but it’s my understanding that initially California Latinos did support Prop 187, like everyone else. I recall reading that this shifted when a pro-187 ad aired on tv showing Mexicans swarming across the border with the narration: “They just keep coming.”
    At that point many Latinos took offense. “WTH, whites don’t want to live around brown people?”

    Allegedly Latinos supported 187 when it was sold as a cost cutting good government measure, but turned against it because some advertising came across as anti-Mexican. I don’t know though, not a Californio.

    Replies: @Fitz, @istevefan, @Anonymous

  2. @24AheadDotCom
    A poll done a couple of months before 187 showed majority Hispanic support.

    Did you know about that? If not, why not?

    Have those with megaphones done things like encouraged campaigns to call out reporters who repeat the stock lines about 187?

    Bad things happen because leaders don't do smart things and because their followers don't demand better.

    Replies: @Corn

    “A poll done a couple of months before 187 showed majority Hispanic support.”

    Hopefully Steve or another Californian can enlighten us, but it’s my understanding that initially California Latinos did support Prop 187, like everyone else. I recall reading that this shifted when a pro-187 ad aired on tv showing Mexicans swarming across the border with the narration: “They just keep coming.”
    At that point many Latinos took offense. “WTH, whites don’t want to live around brown people?”

    Allegedly Latinos supported 187 when it was sold as a cost cutting good government measure, but turned against it because some advertising came across as anti-Mexican. I don’t know though, not a Californio.

    • Replies: @Fitz
    @Corn

    The advertisement seems fairly benign, to be honest.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLIzzs2HHgY

    Replies: @Corn

    , @istevefan
    @Corn


    Allegedly Latinos supported 187 when it was sold as a cost cutting good government measure, but turned against it because some advertising came across as anti-Mexican.
     
    When one country, Mexico, has sent nearly as many immigrants in 38 years as the combined total of the next two largest source nations did over 400 years, it's pretty hard not to come across as anti-Mexican if you oppose continued immigration. It's a fact of life that immigration in the USA is synonymous with Mexico. And any proposal to curtail it will be seen as anti-Mexican.

    Replies: @Autochthon, @anonymous

    , @Anonymous
    @Corn


    The loss of support for Republicans occurred primarily among unregistered Latino voters whom historically had never been strong supporters.
     
    By "unregistered voters," the authors mean ilegales.

    Also, in non-immigrant English, the relative pronoun would be "who."
  3. Hey guys, I know you love that Conservative leadership. No only is your president going to clean out the swamp, he’s going to do it with a Bowie knife because there won’t be any guns…

    • Replies: @Berty
    @Truth

    I hope you've enjoyed the past decade of hanging around a blog just to try and get a rise out of the commentariat. Truly a productive use of one's finite time on this earth.

    Replies: @Truth

    , @J.Ross
    @Truth

    Donald Trump? Violently head faking early in negotiations? Never been done before!
    (also, if he really had a problem with Sessions, he would fire Sessions)

    Replies: @Truth

    , @Kevin O'Keeffe
    @Truth

    Trump won't be signing any legislation that threatens our 2nd Amendment rights, rest assured. He throws a lot of words out in the middle of negotiations, and sometimes I don't like the way those words sound. But in the end, he's on our side, and his actions will reflect that.

    Replies: @Truth

  4. Our findings […] reaffirm the long standing conclusion in the literature that realignment due to a “critical election” is rare.

    Read: The 2016 presidential election was absolutely not a fluke and not in any way, shape, or form support for the idea that it was a major turning point in American politics. Everything is fine, our current theories are correct, we will not be denied tenure.

    Any way to link to the article, Steve? I’d be interesting in seeing their methodology; this could just be an article to show off some fancy new statistical method rather than show a counterintuitive result.

  5. @Corn
    @24AheadDotCom

    “A poll done a couple of months before 187 showed majority Hispanic support.”

    Hopefully Steve or another Californian can enlighten us, but it’s my understanding that initially California Latinos did support Prop 187, like everyone else. I recall reading that this shifted when a pro-187 ad aired on tv showing Mexicans swarming across the border with the narration: “They just keep coming.”
    At that point many Latinos took offense. “WTH, whites don’t want to live around brown people?”

    Allegedly Latinos supported 187 when it was sold as a cost cutting good government measure, but turned against it because some advertising came across as anti-Mexican. I don’t know though, not a Californio.

    Replies: @Fitz, @istevefan, @Anonymous

    The advertisement seems fairly benign, to be honest.

    • Replies: @Corn
    @Fitz

    I agree personally. I support 187.

    Another question for the Californians here if they care to answer:

    If Prop 187 could be held today in California, would it pass? What percentage of the vote could it get? I remember some pundit saying as late as 2008 or 2010 polls showed it would pass if the feds allowed a do-over.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  6. A quick look at Allswang; The Initiative and Referendum in California, 1898-1998; says that Hispanics supported Proposition 187 at 3-7; only Jews (love that domestic labor) were less supportive at 1-4.

    Allswang is not infallible; but its not close.

  7. @Truth
    Hey guys, I know you love that Conservative leadership. No only is your president going to clean out the swamp, he's going to do it with a Bowie knife because there won't be any guns...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2ensi4cFdw

    Replies: @Berty, @J.Ross, @Kevin O'Keeffe

    I hope you’ve enjoyed the past decade of hanging around a blog just to try and get a rise out of the commentariat. Truly a productive use of one’s finite time on this earth.

    • Replies: @Truth
    @Berty

    I see you're here.

  8. @Truth
    Hey guys, I know you love that Conservative leadership. No only is your president going to clean out the swamp, he's going to do it with a Bowie knife because there won't be any guns...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2ensi4cFdw

    Replies: @Berty, @J.Ross, @Kevin O'Keeffe

    Donald Trump? Violently head faking early in negotiations? Never been done before!
    (also, if he really had a problem with Sessions, he would fire Sessions)

    • Replies: @Truth
    @J.Ross

    AAAAAH, the old, deftly-play-four-dimensional-chess while-convincingly-establishing-in-the-minds-of-the-American-public-that-you're-too-supid-to-arrange-a-checkerboard, trick!

    Replies: @Jack Hanson

  9. @Berty
    @Truth

    I hope you've enjoyed the past decade of hanging around a blog just to try and get a rise out of the commentariat. Truly a productive use of one's finite time on this earth.

    Replies: @Truth

    I see you’re here.

  10. @J.Ross
    @Truth

    Donald Trump? Violently head faking early in negotiations? Never been done before!
    (also, if he really had a problem with Sessions, he would fire Sessions)

    Replies: @Truth

    AAAAAH, the old, deftly-play-four-dimensional-chess while-convincingly-establishing-in-the-minds-of-the-American-public-that-you’re-too-supid-to-arrange-a-checkerboard, trick!

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    @Truth

    Which is why we have DACA right? At least Tiny Duck is trolling. You believe your b.s.

  11. eah says:

    racially divisive propositions in the mid- 1990s, especially the anti-immigrant Proposition 187

    Not quite bad enough for New Real Peer Review, but still — these people are academics, and therefore supposedly nominally objective — yet they write shit like that (eg “anti-immigrant”) — anyone, especially Whites of course, who doesn’t want to surrender to an invasion of illegals, who doesn’t want to be forced (via coercive taxation) to finance it, is being “racially divisive” and “anti-immigrant” — they publish in academic echo chambers journals where no one points out their bullshit .

  12. Mariana Pfaelzer is the federal judge who struck down prop 187.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @anon

    Yep. One unelected person overrode the will of millions of people. Judges don't have that power in my copy of the US Constitution.

  13. istevefan says:
    @Corn
    @24AheadDotCom

    “A poll done a couple of months before 187 showed majority Hispanic support.”

    Hopefully Steve or another Californian can enlighten us, but it’s my understanding that initially California Latinos did support Prop 187, like everyone else. I recall reading that this shifted when a pro-187 ad aired on tv showing Mexicans swarming across the border with the narration: “They just keep coming.”
    At that point many Latinos took offense. “WTH, whites don’t want to live around brown people?”

    Allegedly Latinos supported 187 when it was sold as a cost cutting good government measure, but turned against it because some advertising came across as anti-Mexican. I don’t know though, not a Californio.

    Replies: @Fitz, @istevefan, @Anonymous

    Allegedly Latinos supported 187 when it was sold as a cost cutting good government measure, but turned against it because some advertising came across as anti-Mexican.

    When one country, Mexico, has sent nearly as many immigrants in 38 years as the combined total of the next two largest source nations did over 400 years, it’s pretty hard not to come across as anti-Mexican if you oppose continued immigration. It’s a fact of life that immigration in the USA is synonymous with Mexico. And any proposal to curtail it will be seen as anti-Mexican.

    • Agree: Corn
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    @istevefan

    There they go again, conflating speakers of Spanish (I just refuse to use the meaningless, stupid, and propagandist terms "Hispanic" or "Latino" any more at all) and everyone in Central America or South America with Mexicans.

    Pro-Tip to the evil people in Bezos and Salim's newsletters: a lot of people, including even immigrants and invaders from other countries, are annoyed and disgusted by the Mexican invasion. Talk to a Cuban or a Colombian about Mexicans, for instance.

    , @anonymous
    @istevefan

    Indeed, it is impossible not to conclude that for the past 40-50 years Mejico has been systematically off-loading an essentially redundant population onto the US.

  14. “The loss of support for Republicans occurred primarily among unregistered Latino voters whom historically had never been strong supporters.”

    “whom”? !Ay caramba! Doesn’t this publisher (Springer-Verlag?) of academic papers have a proofreader who knows English grammar?

  15. @Fitz
    @Corn

    The advertisement seems fairly benign, to be honest.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLIzzs2HHgY

    Replies: @Corn

    I agree personally. I support 187.

    Another question for the Californians here if they care to answer:

    If Prop 187 could be held today in California, would it pass? What percentage of the vote could it get? I remember some pundit saying as late as 2008 or 2010 polls showed it would pass if the feds allowed a do-over.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Corn

    Even if it would pass, what good would a do-over do? You've got even more chance of a bunch of tyrannical California judges nixing the whole thing. That's what happened in the mid-1990's when California was still in decent demographical shape.

    How will the electorate in California get rid of these judges? Let me rephrase that - "Who will rid us of these tyrannical judges" - Achmed E. Shakespeare. The electorate is mostly non-white and is all in favor of judicial rule by men/women/whatever-the-hell. It's really not up to the electorate of CA anyway; the politicians appoint these people. They are even more cntrl-left, so the people will be overruled, as usual.

    California is lost to us, what Ron Unz says notwithstanding.

  16. If the racist GOP had not tried to stop the invasion of non-White voters that can be easily bribed by their opposition, they would still be a competitive party. Now let us tell you about changing the weather that will only cost a couple of Trillion of your Dollars and that your kids and grandkids will be saddled with tax bills to pay.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Dr. Doom

    Plus, there is a really nice piece of swamp land out east of town, up near Hemet or Temecula or something. You like swampland? Gator country, I tell you, and lots of good fishing ... I know you want to buy this swampland. You'll be paying 10% of what you'd pay per acre up in Palo Alto - it's a steal!

    Wait, am I doing this right? I think I've got it backwards.


    Now let us tell you about changing the weather that will only cost a couple of Trillion of your Dollars and that your kids and grandkids will be saddled with tax bills to pay.
     
    Whoa now, easy there. If we can lower the temperature just 1 degree Fahrenheit to save just one child* those trillions will be well worth it. Whatdya' ... you hate the children!

    * ... from becoming obese due to increased crop yields.


    "There's a gator in the bushes; he's calling my name,
    and he says "c'mon boy, you better make it back home again.
    Many roads I've traveled, they all kinda look the same.
    There's a gator in the bushes; Lord, he's calling my name"


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTR13MV4fqc

    a little bit o' that chomp, chomp ...

    Great Southern Rock guitar jam starts at ~ 3:00
  17. @Corn
    @24AheadDotCom

    “A poll done a couple of months before 187 showed majority Hispanic support.”

    Hopefully Steve or another Californian can enlighten us, but it’s my understanding that initially California Latinos did support Prop 187, like everyone else. I recall reading that this shifted when a pro-187 ad aired on tv showing Mexicans swarming across the border with the narration: “They just keep coming.”
    At that point many Latinos took offense. “WTH, whites don’t want to live around brown people?”

    Allegedly Latinos supported 187 when it was sold as a cost cutting good government measure, but turned against it because some advertising came across as anti-Mexican. I don’t know though, not a Californio.

    Replies: @Fitz, @istevefan, @Anonymous

    The loss of support for Republicans occurred primarily among unregistered Latino voters whom historically had never been strong supporters.

    By “unregistered voters,” the authors mean ilegales.

    Also, in non-immigrant English, the relative pronoun would be “who.”

  18. @istevefan
    @Corn


    Allegedly Latinos supported 187 when it was sold as a cost cutting good government measure, but turned against it because some advertising came across as anti-Mexican.
     
    When one country, Mexico, has sent nearly as many immigrants in 38 years as the combined total of the next two largest source nations did over 400 years, it's pretty hard not to come across as anti-Mexican if you oppose continued immigration. It's a fact of life that immigration in the USA is synonymous with Mexico. And any proposal to curtail it will be seen as anti-Mexican.

    Replies: @Autochthon, @anonymous

    There they go again, conflating speakers of Spanish (I just refuse to use the meaningless, stupid, and propagandist terms “Hispanic” or “Latino” any more at all) and everyone in Central America or South America with Mexicans.

    Pro-Tip to the evil people in Bezos and Salim’s newsletters: a lot of people, including even immigrants and invaders from other countries, are annoyed and disgusted by the Mexican invasion. Talk to a Cuban or a Colombian about Mexicans, for instance.

  19. The Left seems to peddle this idea quite a lot. I can’t tell whether the intellectuals believe it or not, but I doubt the politicians do. My favorite form of it is how FDR won over Jews to the Democrats side. I mean, how many people are alive now who voted for FDR and still vote? Do the Jews have some sort of upside down pyramid, where the largest age cohort, by far, are centenarians?

  20. @Truth
    @J.Ross

    AAAAAH, the old, deftly-play-four-dimensional-chess while-convincingly-establishing-in-the-minds-of-the-American-public-that-you're-too-supid-to-arrange-a-checkerboard, trick!

    Replies: @Jack Hanson

    Which is why we have DACA right? At least Tiny Duck is trolling. You believe your b.s.

  21. @Truth
    Hey guys, I know you love that Conservative leadership. No only is your president going to clean out the swamp, he's going to do it with a Bowie knife because there won't be any guns...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2ensi4cFdw

    Replies: @Berty, @J.Ross, @Kevin O'Keeffe

    Trump won’t be signing any legislation that threatens our 2nd Amendment rights, rest assured. He throws a lot of words out in the middle of negotiations, and sometimes I don’t like the way those words sound. But in the end, he’s on our side, and his actions will reflect that.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Truth
    @Kevin O'Keeffe


    But in the end, he’s on our side, and his actions will reflect that.
     
    Yeah, I mean after all, he's only saying it on video. Who's a man going to believe, the president's words or his own imagination.

    Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe

  22. @Kevin O'Keeffe
    @Truth

    Trump won't be signing any legislation that threatens our 2nd Amendment rights, rest assured. He throws a lot of words out in the middle of negotiations, and sometimes I don't like the way those words sound. But in the end, he's on our side, and his actions will reflect that.

    Replies: @Truth

    But in the end, he’s on our side, and his actions will reflect that.

    Yeah, I mean after all, he’s only saying it on video. Who’s a man going to believe, the president’s words or his own imagination.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    @Truth


    Yeah, I mean after all, he’s only saying it on video. Who’s a man going to believe, the president’s words or his own imagination.
     
    I don't know if you're trolling, as just not astute enough to figure out that Trump sometimes proposes things he doesn't intend to follow through on, as part of his negotiating strategy. Either way, I don't care. By all means, choose to believe Trump is going to sign a piece of Draconian gun control legislation. That is, if it amuses you to believe in patent nonsense that will obviously never occur. Otherwise, you may want to rethink that position.
  23. @anon
    Mariana Pfaelzer is the federal judge who struck down prop 187.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Yep. One unelected person overrode the will of millions of people. Judges don’t have that power in my copy of the US Constitution.

  24. @Truth
    @Kevin O'Keeffe


    But in the end, he’s on our side, and his actions will reflect that.
     
    Yeah, I mean after all, he's only saying it on video. Who's a man going to believe, the president's words or his own imagination.

    Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe

    Yeah, I mean after all, he’s only saying it on video. Who’s a man going to believe, the president’s words or his own imagination.

    I don’t know if you’re trolling, as just not astute enough to figure out that Trump sometimes proposes things he doesn’t intend to follow through on, as part of his negotiating strategy. Either way, I don’t care. By all means, choose to believe Trump is going to sign a piece of Draconian gun control legislation. That is, if it amuses you to believe in patent nonsense that will obviously never occur. Otherwise, you may want to rethink that position.

  25. I asked Jebby Bush about the fact that mass immigration and illegal immigration killed the GOP in California. He just shrugged it off.

    I told Jebby Bush that the GOP is moving towards the pro-worker Jeff Sessions position on immigration. I stated that limiting immigration would boost wages for workers in the United States. Jebby Bush stated that immigration had no effect on wages.

    Tweet from 2015:

  26. @istevefan
    @Corn


    Allegedly Latinos supported 187 when it was sold as a cost cutting good government measure, but turned against it because some advertising came across as anti-Mexican.
     
    When one country, Mexico, has sent nearly as many immigrants in 38 years as the combined total of the next two largest source nations did over 400 years, it's pretty hard not to come across as anti-Mexican if you oppose continued immigration. It's a fact of life that immigration in the USA is synonymous with Mexico. And any proposal to curtail it will be seen as anti-Mexican.

    Replies: @Autochthon, @anonymous

    Indeed, it is impossible not to conclude that for the past 40-50 years Mejico has been systematically off-loading an essentially redundant population onto the US.

  27. @Corn
    @Fitz

    I agree personally. I support 187.

    Another question for the Californians here if they care to answer:

    If Prop 187 could be held today in California, would it pass? What percentage of the vote could it get? I remember some pundit saying as late as 2008 or 2010 polls showed it would pass if the feds allowed a do-over.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Even if it would pass, what good would a do-over do? You’ve got even more chance of a bunch of tyrannical California judges nixing the whole thing. That’s what happened in the mid-1990’s when California was still in decent demographical shape.

    How will the electorate in California get rid of these judges? Let me rephrase that – “Who will rid us of these tyrannical judges” – Achmed E. Shakespeare. The electorate is mostly non-white and is all in favor of judicial rule by men/women/whatever-the-hell. It’s really not up to the electorate of CA anyway; the politicians appoint these people. They are even more cntrl-left, so the people will be overruled, as usual.

    California is lost to us, what Ron Unz says notwithstanding.

  28. @Dr. Doom
    If the racist GOP had not tried to stop the invasion of non-White voters that can be easily bribed by their opposition, they would still be a competitive party. Now let us tell you about changing the weather that will only cost a couple of Trillion of your Dollars and that your kids and grandkids will be saddled with tax bills to pay.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Plus, there is a really nice piece of swamp land out east of town, up near Hemet or Temecula or something. You like swampland? Gator country, I tell you, and lots of good fishing … I know you want to buy this swampland. You’ll be paying 10% of what you’d pay per acre up in Palo Alto – it’s a steal!

    Wait, am I doing this right? I think I’ve got it backwards.

    Now let us tell you about changing the weather that will only cost a couple of Trillion of your Dollars and that your kids and grandkids will be saddled with tax bills to pay.

    Whoa now, easy there. If we can lower the temperature just 1 degree Fahrenheit to save just one child* those trillions will be well worth it. Whatdya’ … you hate the children!

    * … from becoming obese due to increased crop yields.

    “There’s a gator in the bushes; he’s calling my name,
    and he says “c’mon boy, you better make it back home again.
    Many roads I’ve traveled, they all kinda look the same.
    There’s a gator in the bushes; Lord, he’s calling my name”

    a little bit o’ that chomp, chomp …

    Great Southern Rock guitar jam starts at ~ 3:00

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS