Thanks, Mark Krikorian, for clarifying your views. About which, Rich Nadler writes in:

Re: Krikorian and the “lie” of 44%:
In sequence:
1- It is CIS that reintroduced the 44% number into the debate, in Table 2 of “Latino Voting in the 2008 Election: Part of a Broader Electoral Movement,” by Prof. James Gimpel. The chart repeats the 44% number, along with 55 other bits of data from the same poll, but with an asterick. The footnote cites unsourced attacks on the credibility of the statistic, which derives from the Edison Mitofsky “long form.” If the Edison Mitofsky is an unreliable source, it’s a bit disingenuous to make it the BASIS of your argument. If it is reliable (and I know of nothing better), than it is silly to dispute one number from it, especially when that number has a cross tab LARGER than most of the others. In sum: If the Edison-Mitofsky estimate merits the appellation “lie,” then so does the CIS study.
2- One of the principal “critics” of the 44% number was yours truly. Using the larger # of Hispanics in the Edison Mitofsky “short forms”, I calculated (in NRO among other places) that Bush’s Hispanic % was 41. I also found that this % varied considerably with the presence or absence of conservative groups running broadcast ads in Spanish. Barone cites my work in the preface to the 2006 edition of the Almanac of American Politics. (See also: Bush’s Real Hispanic Numbers, NRO, Dec. 8, 2004.)
3- The principal % for GOP attrition I currently use is NOT 13%, but 15%. It is based not on the Edison-Mitofsky “long form presidential numbers,” but on the Edison-Mitofsky “national congressional” numbers. These numbers should be MORE relevant than the presidential #s, given McCain’s “notorious” immigration views. If these have been criticized, I have not heard it. They show support for Republican Congressional candidates shrinking from 44% to 29%, 2004 to 2008.
4- If I disregard “44%” in favor of “41%”, I still reach the same general conclusion: GOP Hispanic support declined at twice the magnitude evident in the general electorate.
As to Dana Titus: I can’t even IMAGINE why Mark would make this long-time, well-known pro-CIR candidate the poster child for his hypothesis. She had staked out her pro-legalization position repeatedly, and publicly, during her unsuccessful run for governor 4 years earlier. The pro-immigration groups were ecstatic over her election.