If the overall Florida polling shows only a major shift in the Latino vote will help Kerry there, it could doom the chances of either of the state's Senators and Bill Richardson of getting the VP nod, since the Kerry people would be likely to shift to the Missouri-Indiana-Ohio trio of states in their effort to find the nine electoral votes they need to switch to win in November.

Good for Gephardt, and possibly even good for Bayh, despite his views on abortion, since as of now, many Democrats seem willing to give Kerry a feee pass on a lot of unpopular issues due to their hatred of Bush (though if picked, Evan would probably have to do a Mario Cuomo "Even though I am personally opposed..." speech to satisfy the core party loyalists).

As the Justice Blackmun stuff shows, it'd be awfully risky for pro-abortion folks to risk a President Bayh.

I assume these percentages are significantly larger than the hispanic/cuban vote in Florida Bush won in 2000. If so Bush should have an easier time in Florida in 2004 especially with the GOP dominating the 2002 elections in Florida.
Agree with John - if Florida looks out of reach the Dems will focus on Ohio/Missouri/Midwest.
All of the Dem VP choices being discussed have a flaw. Then again, the Dem VP only matters in a tight race - if you believe Bush is going to win by 5-10 pts (as I currently do) the Dem VP choice probably won't make a difference.

OJ
A mexican, is not a Cuban. Illegal immigration at present is by far Mexican. Do you perceive that the "nativist" (a derogratory label you seem to be infatuated with) is opposed to "legal" immigration from Cuba as much as "illegal" immigration from Mexico.
Seriously, I am confused since you seem to be saying that if we enforce our immigration laws Republicans will be damaged specifically in Florida. Mexican voters nationwide actually tend to vote Democratic. Cuban immigrants (they are legal, since they received asylum based on laws adopted by Congress etc.) tend to vote Republican.

Perhaps there are "nativist", who don't make a distinction between legal vs illegal but I do. Why is this important? 1.We still have an extensive welfare state and based on proposals of President Bush it will be larger not smaller. To proceed with a policy of open borders under such circumstances will place greater burdens on the productive to the benefit of unproductive.
2. There exists extensive affirmative action which will benefit illegal immigrants to the detriment of legal citizens.

bye have a nice day

To imagine that "Latino" voting in South Florida is predictive of "Latino" voting in, say, Southern California is make oneself as igornant as mud.

h-man:

C'mon, the legality isn't the issue, it's the ethnicity.

If they're illegal they aren't elligible for the stuff you're worried about.

Paul:

The GOP has courted Cubans, scorned Mexicans--both are voting their best interests.

Cubans can see right through the Kerry-VietNam hero smokescreen. They are all over Kerry's post Viet-Nam obstruction of American initiatives to fight global Communism and even his apparent sympathy for the likes of the Sandinistas, liberation theologists, and other useful fools during the 70's and 80's. His campaign's association with Gregory Craig -- who was "unpopularly" involved on the Elian case to say the least -- can not help him either. I would have to think that Kerry has to do worse than Gore did with this group.

Can he make it up among non-Hispanic whites (probably not, especially since those in the Panhandle will make sure they vote this time). Jews (unlikely, Jews are returning to the fold, even after being demonized by the Left in 2003, but 2000 was Lieberman's year). Blacks (doubtful they can get as excited about Kerry and that 10% population would vote at a 15% rate, or something like what they did in 2000).

OJ:

My point is that Cubans and Mexicans are about as similar as Spaniards and Poles. To clump them together under the fabrication "Latino" for polemical purposes is asinine.

OJ
Actually institutions are in fact applying affirmative action regardless of citzenship. (Michigan Law School etc.) By the way I tend to define Welfare rather broadly however for instance medical benefits paid for medical care given at various public hospitals are paid by the general taxpayer regardless of citizenship.

Smarter, people than me could give you actual statistics.

h:

So you likewise subtract the taxes that illegals pay even though they don't get benefits, right?

Paul:

They are both in fact just like Polish and Spainish immigrants, and like Haitian and African immigrants for that matter--ambitious, hard-working, dedicated to America and the American dream in a way that many natives no longer are.

Your reference to taxes doesn't address the abuse of Afirmative Action programs.
Nor the fact that low wages workers pay "some taxes" necessarily address the issue of whether they get disproportionate benefits from the government.(which I think they do)
Now stop answering my post, because you have now reduced me to quibbling about trite statistics which actually don't interest a big picture guy like me.

Yes, but it's those statistical quibbles that fuel the resentment of immigrants.