The Latinx polling paper is excellent, but reaches the wrong...

The Latinx polling paper is excellent, but reaches the wrong conclusion. It has almost nothing to do with queerphobia, Latino voters just don’t like being called LatinX.

Politicians using the term "Latinx" lose 6 PERCENTAGE POINTS vote share. A 🧵👇🏻
1/N


x.com/mfrmarcel/stat…

The authors’ take is something like this:

Hispanic voters are queerphobic, so we have a trade-off: use inclusive language (good), lose Democratic votes (bad).

But the evidence for this claim is really weak. 2/N

Let's dig in.

Among Latina voters, Democrats, Independents and Republicans ALL say they are less likely to support politicians who use the phrase “latinx”.

There is a net 16 percentage point loss AMONG INDEPENDENTS.

Folks this is a HUGE effect. 3/N

Is it because Hispanic voters are queerphobic?

The authors write, “these statistical patterns are driven by [...] anti-LGBTQ+ Latinos”

5/N

First, in a bunch of their analysis, they use conservatism as a proxy for anti-LGBTQ+.

It's a bit misleading — if the evidence is “conservatives vote this way”, don’t describe is as “anti-LGBTQ+ ppl vote this way." But let’s get to the actual LGBTQ+ measures. 6/N

The authors do measure bunch of credible LGBTQ+ sentiment, like “are you comfortable around LGBTQ people” and “teens should be able to decide their own gender identity.”

But these are only BARELY correlated with feelings about Latinx! 7/N

It’s not about queerphobia.

Hispanic voters just do not like to hear their identity described as “Latinx” 8/N

But here’s the real kicker. This is the graph that gives us “The Latinx effect is driven by queerphobic voters.”

It shows support for a politician based on a short vignette — the only treatment is whether the politician uses the term “Latino” or “Latinx” 9/N

The real takeaway from this graph is that >90% of Hispanic voters are LESS likely to vote for politicians who use the term “Latinx”.

Look at the faded point density in the background — there are virtually no voters to the left of the crossing point. 10/N

If you are a 0.2 on the Anti-LGBTQ+ index, you are *favorable* toward LGBTQ+ people (just not “very favorable”, which is 0), that you agree LGBTQ+ beliefs are compatible with American values (but not “strongly agree”).

LGBTQ+-favorable Latina voters STILL don’t like Latinx. 11/N

By the way, the sample here is about twice as likely to be college-educated as the average Hispanic.

The effect of “latinx” in the full population is probably even more damaging. 12/N

The authors conclude that we should keep using “Latinx”, but we need to better educate Latino voters.

Let me propose something easier.

Democrat politicians should take the free votes and stop using the unpopular term “Latinx.” 13/N

This is classic academic brain—the refusal to accept that ordinary folk might dislike your elite conception of them.

Occam’s Razor suggests a simpler conclusion: The average Hispanic doesn’t self-identify using rarified, linguistically-alien, Ivory Tower terminology. 14/N

Incredibly, this paper offers a huge free lunch for democratic politicians: stop using the term “latinx” and get tens of thousands of additional votes.

15/N

Kudos to the authors for incredibly detailed work. The paper describes seven different methodologies, which all consistently show the price Democratic politicians are paying among Latina voters.

16/N

I reached a different conclusion from them, but it was only possible because of their meticulous detail in posting their analyses. It is exemplary work.

17/N

So is there a tradeoff between using inclusive language and getting elected?

Sometimes. But not all inclusive language is created equal.

“Latinx” is just not a good try here. It should have never have made it past the New Yorker. There are much better battles to fight.

N/N

Marcel's response 👇


x.com/mfrmarcel/stat…