Raul Damas, of the polling group Opiniones Latinas, e-mails:

Jim Boulet’s analysis of the CBS News/NY Times poll leads him to a
conclusion that is unsupported by the poll itself, every other reliable
study of Latino voters and political common sense.
Jim, whom I know and whose work I generally admire, claims that
“…there
is no such thing as a ‘Hispanic vote’ — just voters who are Hispanic.”
That’s akin to saying there are no “pro-life voters,” just voters who
are pro-life; it’s accurate as far as it goes. There are messages,
themes, issues and methods that interest and appeal to Hispanic voters
more than any other population group. When politicians and strategists
speak about “the Hispanic vote,” they’re employing the same kind of
useful and effective targeting they use for every other voter group in
the electorate. To say there is no “Hispanic vote” is to say that there
is no “labor vote” or no “black vote.” Technically, such an assessment
may be accurate, but also totally unhelpful.
Jim goes on to say, “A Republican message of hope and opportunity given
in English, like the speeches given by Ronald Reagan, will entice far
more Hispanic voters than all the politically-correct appeals in Spanish
put together.” True, Reagan netted 40% of the Hispanic vote (there’s
that useful term again) in 1980 and 47% in 1984. However, in 1980 there
were around 15 million Hispanics in this country. Today, there are 38
million. That jump in population size is largely due to immigration
from Spanish-speaking nations. Now you can argue whether or not that’s
a good thing, but it’s a “thing” nonetheless, and it needs to be
recognized and dealt with. Reagan dealt with an Hispanic population
less than half the size of what it is today, and more likely to be
native-born. Bush faces a Latino electorate that is much larger, newer
and more likely to communicate and receive news in both English and
Spanish. Communicating with people in as many different ways as you can
isn’t pandering, it’s effective campaigning.
All too often, the call to occupy the high moral ground is, in effect, a
call to stay out of the fight. Asking Republican elected officials and
candidates to communicate with Hispanic voters only in English is akin
to asking the AARP to communicate only via e-mail. It just won’t do the
trick. My own research has shown time and again that even
English-dominant Hispanics still watch a large amount of
Spanish-language television and listen to Latino radio. Why shouldn’t
we be reaching them with our messages of hope and opportunity? Why
should these young Hispanics be denied the Republican message simply
because they tune into Spanish-language radio?
The effectiveness of bilingual communications when targeting Hispanic
voters and consumers is incontestable. So the question we face is this:
Which party is most likely to push English-language acquisition? If you
think it’s the Democrats, then by all means don’t use Spanish-language
communications to reach Latino voters. The Democrats will continue to
take the lion’s share of these votes and do with the country as they
please. However, if you believe the Republican Party is the only way
for English to be preserved in this country, then there is no choice but
for our party to remain in power. That can only be achieved by
increasing our share of the Hispanic vote through effective campaigning,
thereby keeping and growing our majorities, and shaping the country in
the image we hold dear.
Isn’t recognizing that there is a “Hispanic vote” and utilizing
Spanish-language campaign ads a small price to pay for keeping our
country in the hands of those who care most for its future?