A side not of free trade – you recognized that for Mexican-Americans free trade may be topic of discussion, “are suspicious of free-trade”. Well, in four of the five states you mentioned on your article, Mexican American are primarily who form the majority of the Latino community. Just a thought!

Our party focused their message on these very topics especially to Latinos and we saw the results.
So, message is not the answer. And, until we accept this reality that it is about relationships first and no message we will not make progress on this community. True message is an important element on every campaign but for Latinos it takes much more than that.

The Democrats expended years in the Hispanic community registering voters, playing soccer in their parks, attending every community event (every one of them), supporting every cause, talking in the radio and identifying every Hispanic they could, so they can send a birthday card signed by their highest elected official.
This may not be important to some, but to a great number of Hispanics evidently it was.

It is because of pundits and operatives on this campaign that think exactly like you that we lost the election. We started late and did too little too late.

Obama did not have a relationship with Latinos, the Democratic party did. McCain had a relationship with Latinos, the party does not.

That is the difference!

Tellis, we honestly cannot expect to win the majority of the Latino vote in 2010 or even 2012. What we need to do first it get the ones we had to begin with that switched sides back. I did notice they voted for Obama in high numbers, but except for some Mexican Americans who are suspicious of free-trade, most US Latinos look favorably on free trade. Just because Latinos supported Obama and Obama opposes free trade, you cannot conclude that Latinos oppose free trade. That’s like saying most Catholics are in favor of abortion rights because most voted for Obama.

The secret is indeed the message because you cannot possibly expect to connect with any community unless the message you give them is tailored to their needs. We didnt lose Latinos because we were “patronizing” or even “divided” we lost them on the economy and immigration and focusing on what unites us, like these 5 issues and the ones on my next post will begin to win them back.

I completely agree Latinos are not a homogeneous community but what I’m presenting would appeal to a broad range of Latinos. And the Obama team didn’t have a relationship with Latinos actually. McCain had a great one, but that relationship was hurt by other Republicans. Obama also spent a ton of money in order to present himself to Latinos as a viable candidate. The money he spent on them alone was a sign to many he cared about their support. Of course some Latinos will never support Republicans, but a great deal of them have in the past and many more would be willing to. These are the Latinos I’m talking about.

The secret is not in the message but in the ability the party has to connect personally with the voter.

We lost because we were divided and disconnected. We patronized Latinos by telling them exactly what you have laid out on these 5 point as if they did not know it already.

I disagree with people that attempt to categorize Latinos as an homogeneous community, not all Latinos are pro-life. No all Latinos have the same cultural or social background.
When we start to recognize that reaching out to us is not a matter of translating a page or placing an ad in Spanish on a TV channel that may only be seen by less than 30% of the Hispanic voters, then we will begin to understand how to reach out to the community at large.

We lost because we started connecting with them when they already had a relationship locally with the other team. We came late to the game.
So, now it is time to organize.

I agree with Nikeopolis06 on English not an “only” language but as an official one.

Moreover, while it is certainly not necessarily advisable for the implementation of a official national language, I have always found the idea of bilingualism interesting–especially in regards to ballots and official documentation. You see, to my mind an individual who votes or posses any other rights of citizenship is either a) native born or b) naturalized. In the case of native born, with the rarest exception of those who were born here and then ferreted back to some other nation, one could reasonably expect them to have gone through the American educational system. As flawed as that may be, it seems reasonable to expect that someone who has received 12 years of instruction in either English or ESL would be capable of functioning with English language documentation.

Furthermore, if they are naturalized citizens, then they have gone through the naturalization process (obviously). One of the requirements of the this process is “an ability to read, write, and speak English.” Therefore, it again seems reasonable to expect that these individuals, unless they are to be considered guilty of fraud, can indeed “read, write, and speak English.” Hence, we ought to be left with an SUBSTANTIALLY smaller population of those with legitimate claims to necessity of bilingualism–recent legal immigrants from any number of countries and those raised as non-English speaking ex pats. Thus, what is the overriding reason to deny the promotion of English as the sole/overriding/official language of the United States?