The Democrats - Using Illegal Immigrants as an Electoral Pawn

Immigration has become one of the key hot button issues in the 2024 election cycle, particularly across the southern border of the United States.  For one political party, immigration policy has been a key to the political landscape in the United States as you will see in this posting.

  

Let's start with this graphic from U.S. Customs and Border Protection showing the number of land border encounters along the southwest frontier by month for the past year:

 

In fiscal 2023 (October 2022 to September 2023 inclusive), there were 2,475,669 encounters with immigrants attempting to enter the United States along the southwestern border and, so far the first three months of fiscal 2024, there have been 785,422 encounters, an increase of 66,405 over the previous year.  It is also notable to observe that encounters hit a new record of 302,034 in December 2023.

 

Here is a graphic from the Center for Immigration Studies showing how the population of illegal immigrants has changed over the Obama, Trump and Biden Administrations:

 

 

Back in April 2013, this report appeared on the Center for American Progress website:

 

 

As background and for those of you who aren't aware of the Center for American Progress, it claims to be "...an independent, nonpartisan policy institute that is dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans through bold, progressive ideas, as well as strong leadership and concerted action. Our aim is not just to change the conversation, but to change the country."

 

This liberal-leaning think tank was founded by the well-known Democrat, John Podesta, in 2003.  Podesta was the White House Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton and Chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign so it is very clear that he leans very strongly to the Democratic side of the spectrum.

The report opens with this (my bolds):

 

"In the wake of the overwhelming Latino and Asian American support for President Barack Obama in the November 2012 election—support that was critical to his re-election—the political winds on immigration have shifted significantly to favor immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship for the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country. A full 71 percent of Latino voters and 73 percent of Asian American voters supported the president in the election, and poll after poll illustrates that these groups strongly opposed the “self-deportation” policies of Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and instead supported President Obama’s immigration-reform efforts. Changing demographics, especially the rapid growth of the Latino population and their power as voters, ensured that key swing states such as Florida, Colorado, and Nevada voted for the president."

 

Here is a quote from Marco Rubio (R-FL) that is used in the report as a reason why immigration forms a key part of electoral victory in America:

 

“It’s really hard to get people to listen to you on economic growth, on tax rates, on health care, if they think you want to deport their grandmother.”

 

The report clearly notes that the Democrats need the Latino vote to keep them in office, thus, promoting a pro-immigration stance was/is/would be a key tool for ensuring electoral victory in the future.  

 

Here is a graphic from the report showing how the estimated number of Latino voters is projected to increase in 12 states when comparing the 2014 midterm election to the 2016 presidential election:

 

The authors of the report examined the relationship between the increase in the growth of the Hispanic community in Florida, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia and how this growing population supported President Obama in 2012.  They also looked to the future, laying claim to short-term future wins in Arizona and North Carolina and long-term wins in Georgia and Texas all because of the Hispanic demographic shift.

 

The report closes with this:

 

"Even leaving California out of the picture, the states analyzed in this issue brief comprise 137 electoral votes. In 2012 Democrats won 332 electoral votes to the Republicans’ 206, but if Arizona, Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia were to shift Democratic, that would bring the grand total of electoral votes to 412—an insurmountable margin.

 

Whether these states flip from red to blue is an open question. But two things are abundantly clear: In each of these states, voters of color, particularly Latino voters, are becoming an ever-larger share of the total voting population. These voters care deeply about how both parties talk about immigration, and use it as a litmus test for how candidates from either party feel about their communities as a whole. In fact, immigration reform has become the number one political issue for Latino voters. The voters have spoken, and the message is clear: Getting right on immigration and getting behind real and enduring immigration reform that contains a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country is the only way to maintain electoral strength in the future."

 

It's pretty clear that the Democratic Party believes that illegal immigrants can be used as a pawn.  In the opinion of their experts, a relaxed immigration policy will lead to electoral wins which may, in part, explain their current reluctance to act on the crisis along the southwest frontier of the United States.  What the Biden Administration seems to be failing to grasp is that today's illegal immigrants are no longer mainly Latino, in fact, they represent nations from Asia, Europe and sub-Saharan Africa who may not share the political views of earlier unauthorized immigrants.

Political Fundraising in the Era of Impeachment

Updated February 2020

With the Trump impeachment proceedings having saturated the news cycle until early February 2020, there is a little reported metric that would suggest that the Republicans, with or without Donald Trump, are setting themselves up for a hard-fought race in November 2020.

According to Open Secrets, the repository of the election fundraising database, the Republican National Committee (RNC) has had a very successful fund-raising campaign heading into the 2020 election as shown here:

As you can see, the RNC has $61.38 million in cash on hand that can be spent to convince voters to vote Republican in 2020.  As well, according to reports in the media, the RNC brought in $25.3 million in October 2019 alone, suggesting that there could be a voter backlash against the impeachment proceedings.  

By way of comparison, here is a summary showing how much the RNC raised during the 2016 presidential election cycle:

Here is list of the top contributors to the RNC thus far in the 2020 election cycle:

Here is a list of the top industries contributing to the RNC:

Here is a list of the top contributors to the RNC by state, metropolitan area and zip code:

Here is a list of the million dollar plus recipients of the RNC's funds:

According to the Federal Election Committee, the RNC had no debts at the end of October 2019 as shown here:

Let's look at the Democratic National Committee.  According to Open Secrets, the Democrats have raised far less money than their Republican counterparts as shown here:

The RNC currently has nearly seven times as much cash on hand as the DNC.

Here is a summary showing how much the DNC raised during the 2016 presidential election cycle:

Here is list of the top contributors to the DNC thus far in the 2020 election cycle:

Here is a list of the top industries contributing to the DNC:

Here is a list of the top contributors to the DNC by state, metropolitan area and zip code:

Here is a list of the million dollar plus recipients of the DNC's funds:

According to the Federal Election Committee, in contrast to the RNC, the DNC had significant debts at the end of October 2019 as shown here:

Let's close with a look at how much Donald Trump has raised so far in the 2020 election cycle:

It is interesting to note that the Trump campaign has raised $79.376 million from small individual contributors who have contributed less than $200.  This represents at least 397,000 individual voters who are willing to back Donald Trump in spite of the recent impeachment proceedings.  In combination with the RNC, the Trump campaign has raised $378.9 million, a rather massive war chest at this point in the election cycle.

While the DNC will likely see donations to the party increase significantly once the dust settles and the party's final presidential candidate is selected, the current data suggests that the Trump campaign is in a good financial position to fight the Democrats in November 2020.  As well all know, money is all important in American politics and right now, it appears that a significant number of voters believe that Donald Trump has the "right stuff" despite what Democrats in Congress may have to say about him.

The Beauty and the Beast - Republican and Democrat

In this time of political divisiveness in the United States, a recent study by Rolf Peterson and Carl Palmer entitled "Effects of physical attractiveness on political beliefs" looks at some interesting research on the connection between conservativeness and physical attractiveness.   Let's look at their findings.

The authors open by noting that, to date, there has been very little research into the connection of physical appearance on political life at the level of mass politics, rather, the emphasis has been on whether more attractive political candidates are able to persuade voters that they are more worthy of being elected.  The "attractiveness premium" gained by candidates that are more attractive is particularly prominent for uninformed voters in low-information elections.  In this study, the authors examine how voters' own physical appearance affects how they view the world around them, answering the question "Do physically attractive individuals develop in a bubble that creates a different social experience and, subsequently, different political attitudes?".  

Research in social psychology has shown that appearance and attractiveness play a significant role in shaping ones social interactions and social cognition.  This is often associated with a "halo effect"; individuals that are perceived as physically attractive are generally considered to have other positive traits.  These "attractiveness stereotypes" result in people concluding that more attractive individuals are both more intelligent and more successful in their life's endeavours and that their viewpoints are more valuable.  

Here's what the authors have to say about how the degree of attractiveness impacts people from a very young age:

"Attractive children have been shown to experience warmer treatment from their own parents as well as perfect strangers.  Over a lifespan, these patterns of treatment appear to have a pronounced effect on the personality traits more attractive individuals exhibit in social situations, appearing to be more confident, extroverted, happier, and healthier as they reach adulthood.

The mechanism for this process is a simple one.  By virtue of the treatment they receive as a result of their appearance, individuals become more likely to internalize positive or negative behavioral characteristics, thereby altering their behavior. This effect is potentially exacerbated by behavioral expectations, as posited by expectancy theory, which asserts that individuals alter their behavior in social situations based upon what they perceive to be expectations regarding their behavior.

These social interactions not only influence behavioral characteristics but also have meaningful influences on perceived and actual life successes. As would be expected, better-looking students are perceived as being more capable. However, the advantages do not end or are seen as well-groomed earn higher grade-point averages in high school, in addition to receiving higher scores on standardized tests.  More attractive individuals may also have greater levels of educational attainment, with evidence suggesting that those who are viewed as better looking spend significantly more time in school."

The result of this relationship between physical appearance and success can be termed in two ways; the "plainness penalty" and the "beauty premium", a relationship that carries into the workplace, ultimately impacting one's ability to get ahead in the corporate world.

The authors then go on to look at how attractiveness affects political beliefs.  Since society holds that more attractive people are more knowledgable, more attractive people are more likely to be sought out for their political opinions.  A complicating factor in the relationship between physical attractiveness and political socialization is found in the relationship between physical appearance and household socioeconomic level.  Children from households that are able to afford expensive clothing, dental work and grooming products may appear to be more attractive than their counterparts who come from a lower rung on the socioeconomic ladder.  This means that socioeconomic status, which is impacting attractiveness, could be shaping an individual's political leanings.  That said, the fact that parents often treat their children differently based on their physical attractiveness suggests that our earliest interactions are not framed by socioeconomic standing but by our physical appearance.

The authors state that ideology (a belief system that structures individual attitudes toward the proper ends for society and the means for achieving these ends) is likely to be more coherent in children coming from households that are more politically engaged.  As well, children who come from more authoritarian households are more likely to endorse more conservative ideologies.  Partisanship, an orientation through which citizens view the political world, is less a belief system than a psychological identification with a political party that reflects a shared set of beliefs.  Partisanship is one of the most influential orientation that individuals hold toward the political system.  Studies show that an individual's partisanship evolves through experiences that individuals have as they come to age politically, including influence from a person's family and peers.  Since more attractive individuals benefit from more positive social interactions, are believed to be more intelligent and get more attention from society, their passage through life is generally "easier", making it likely that they cannot empathize with the challenges that their less attractive counterparts face.  This would suggest that attractive individuals "...have a blind spot that leads them not to see the need for more government support or aid in society.  Given that this is one of the tenets of more liberal citizens, as well as supporters of the Democratic Party, we would expect that more attractive individuals would develop a worldview that is less supportive of government intervention and aid to others."  Consequently, the authors expect that more attractive individuals are more likely to identify as conservative with leanings toward the Republican Party.

With all of this in mind, the authors asked the following questions:

1.) Are more attractive individuals more likely to express higher levels of political efficacy (effectiveness) than less attractive individuals? 

2.) Are more attractive individuals are more likely to self-identify as conservative?

3.) Are more attractive individuals are more likely to identify with the Republican Party?

To prove their hypotheses, the authors use the 1972-74-76 American National Elections Studies (ANES) panel study and the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (WLS), a study of 10,317 respondents who graduated from Wisconsin high schools in 1957.  

Let's look at the American National Elections Studies first.  Ideology and partisanship is measured on a 7 point scale with a score of 1 being extremely liberal/strong Democrat to 7 being extremely conservative /strong Republican.  Respondents were ranked by their interviewer on a scale of 1 (homely) to 5 (strikingly handsome or beautiful).  Respondents' high school year book photos were also ranked for attractiveness by a panel of 12 individuals (6 men and 6 women). 

Here are their findings:

1.) Efficacy - more attractive individuals are likely to be more politically efficacious.

2.) Conservativeness - more attractive individuals were more likely to identify as conservative.

3.) Republican - more attractive individuals were more likely to identify as Republican.

As well, higher income individuals were more likely to identify as both conservative and Republican, suggesting that there is a positive relationship between political identity and socialization experiences.

When using the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, respondents were asked to identify their political leanings as Republican, Democrat, Independent or uncertain and ideology was measured on the same seven-point scale ranging from extremely liberal to extremely conservative.  Again, the results showed that more attractive individuals are more likely to identify as more conservative and are more likely to self-identify as Republican.  Once again, higher income individuals were also more likely to be conservative and Republican.

Here is a section from the author's conclusions:

"While this is an interesting set of findings, there are larger implications given the evidence that attractive individuals are more politically efficacious.  With the demonstrated influence of political activists and opinion leaders on mobilizing citizens, and influencing the views that less engaged citizens hold, and the greater social influence that more attractive individuals are thought to have, we may surmise that more attractive individuals may hold political sway over others in their social networks, regardless of their actual levels of effective political knowledge.  Research in a similar vein has demonstrated that more attractive individuals are subjectively perceived as more intelligent and politically knowledgeable, even after accounting for their objective levels of political information.  If attractive individuals are also more efficacious and more likely to persuade others, we may have further concerns for the quality of opinion leadership and participation.  While it may be tempting to conceive of attractiveness research on its surface as shallow or secondary to other components of socialization, it is a mistake to understate the lasting effects that a lifetime of differential treatment may have on political attitudes and behavior.  Those who are not blessed with good looks will be less likely to feel empowered, to participate in politics, to seek re-dress for grievances, or to exercise their political rights.  Physical attractiveness research at the elite and mass levels can illuminate biases that produce inequality in political activism and the propensity for individuals to be empowered in politics and government. (my bold)

Let's close with this video from Infowars:

Obviously, Paul Joseph Watson feels that he is among the lucky attractive people who lean to the right:

Political Patronage, Democratic Party-Style

The recent dump of DNC emails thanks to Wikileaks has provided the mainstream media with a glimpse inside the functioning of the Democratic Party during an election cycle.  One email that received relatively little attention was this one:

This email thread, originating from the desk of Rebecca Herries on May 6, 2016, requests names from other members of the DNC including that of Jordan Kaplan, National Finance Director of the DNC, for possible attendance at the United State of Women Summit to be hosted by the White House on June 14, 2016.  If you follow the thread up, you will notice that the DNC was allotted only 25 tickets in total for the event and that they had "tons of requests for people to submit (their names)".

For your illumination, here is a link to the United State of Women website.  Speakers to the 2016 inaugural edition included Oprah Winfrey, Gloria Steinem, Michelle Obama, Tina Rey and Meryl Streep.  If you happen to be interested enough, here is an extremely lengthy video that provides you with a glimpse of what the movement is about:

Here is a complete list of speakers:

I am kind of surprised that they didn't have Bill Clinton as a keynote speaker, offering up his opinions on how to really treat a lady like a lady.

The United State of Women advocates on the following issues:

1.) Equal pay/economic empowerment for women

2.) Health and wellness for women

3.) Educational opportunities for women

4.) Violence against women

5.) Entrepreneurship and innovation for women

6.) Leadership and civic engagement for women

Now that you have that background, let's go back to the subject of this posting, the email thread from the DNC dated May 6, 2016.  We already know that tickets were almost impossible to get and that there was only a very small allotment for DNC staffers to give out.  Who would they pick?  I suspect that while you won't recognize the women by name, you will have a pretty good idea of why they are picked by the DNC.  On May 9, DNC Finance Director, Zachary Allen, emailed DNC Director of Data and Strategic Initiatives, Daniel Parrish, stating the following:

"I trust your judgement - any women who've given to us"

This was followed up with this response:

"So she has Judith Gibbons, Sarah Kovner, and Mina Malik on the list for WLF support. I've submitted Anne Hess and Leslie Lewis and she's going to try to add them, but she hasn't heard from CA yet so there may not be room. Will it be an issue for you if either of them don't make it in?"

Let's look at the first name on the list, Judith Gibbons a retired high school teacher from Hunter College who is married to hedge fund researcher, Francesco Scattone.  Here's a screen capture from Open Secrets showing her political donations in the 2016 cycle:

Hasn't Ms. Gibbons been a busy donor in this cycle?  No wonder she was on the list of potential invitees!  Interestingly, her name also appears on this list that appears to be a spreadsheet that was going to be used as a template for offering positions on boards and commissions in the Clinton II Administration as shown on this email:

...and this email:

Let's look at the donations from the second name on the list, Sarah Kovner, a senior research scholar at the Arnold A. Salesman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University:

Sarah Kovner was also a bundler for Barak Obama in 2012And, lastly, let's look at the third name on the list, Mina Malik, the executive director of the Civilian Complaint Review Board who sued her boss, Richard Emery, for referring to her and another female attorney as "pussies":

The "Party of the People" certainly seems to thrive on the "you scratch my back with cash or cheque and I'll scratch your back with a favour" method of operation.  While this isn't really surprising, it is interesting to actually see it in writing, thanks to the Wikileaks DNC email release.  I guess you have to have an ample supply of green paper lying around that is destined for the coffers of the Democratic Party (more specifically, Hillary Clinton) if you hope to rise above the sweaty masses.