Which Party Is Better for Minorities?

by John Sides on December 3, 2012 · 2 comments

in Campaigns and elections,Policy,Political Economy

Speaking to donors after the election, Mitt Romney attributed his loss to President Obama to the administration’s strategy of “giving a lot of stuff” to blacks and Latinos, citing in particular “free healthcare” and “amnesty for the children of illegals.” But data show a more plausible explanation: Black, Latino and Asian American voters, who overwhelmingly voted for Obama, were simply evaluating the long-term record of each party.

The data we analyzed show unequivocally that minorities fare better under Democratic administrations than under Republican ones. Census data tracking annual changes in income, poverty and unemployment over the last five decades tell a striking story about the relationship between the president’s party and minority well-being.


From this op-ed by Zoltan Hajnal and Jeremy Horowitz.  An associated paper is, I believe, here (.doc).

{ 2 comments }

PBR December 4, 2012 at 1:09 am

As with Bartels 2008 book, the disclaimer about different lag times producing inconsistent results invites skepticism.

matt w December 4, 2012 at 10:44 am

I’m not entirely sure what the difference between “Democrats give [certain classes of] voters stuff” and “[Certain classes of] voters do better under Democrats” is, other than tone. Isn’t the point of all those programs that Romeny described as “giving a lot of stuff” to make people’s lives better?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: