Are Hard-Line Cuban-Americans Strong as Ever?

Friday, April 13, 2012
Here we go again.

Today, The New York Times ran a debate feature entitled, "Are Hard-Line Cuban-Americans Strong as Ever?"

Univision Radio's Ninoska Perez-Castellon and U.S. Rep. David Rivera (R-FL) answered in the affirmative.

But pollster Fernand Amandi countered, "[F]or the second and third generations of Americans of Cuban descent, for whom Fidel is a historical rather than personal enemy, the virulence of their anti-Castro posture is not as personal or passionate as their parents’ and grandparents’."

(They also asked the New America Foundation's Anya Landau French, who gave her profound Miami political expertise as a former staffer to a Montana Senator. Go figure.)

Ironically, Amandi's current analysis resembles that of The New York Times itself, which first concluded on Dec. 5, 1965 (that's right -- 1965):

The very active anti-Castro groups in Miami have faded into virtual obscurity.”

Then again on October 10, 1974:

Virtually all of several dozen Cubans interviewed would like to visit Cuba either to see their relatives or just their country, which they have not seen for 10 years or more; and some segments of the exile community, especially young refugees brought up and educated here, are not interested in the Cuban issues.”

And March 23, 1975:

For the first time significant number of exiles are beginning to temper their emotion with hardnosed geopolitical realism.”

And August 31, 1975:

A majority of the persons interviewed — especially the young, who make up more than half of the 450,000 exiles here — are looking forward to the time when it will be possible for them to travel to Cuba. Even businessmen, who represent a more conservative group than the young, are thinking about trading with Cuba once the embargo is totally lifted.”

And July 4, 1976:

A new generation of professionals between 25 and 35 years of age has replaced the older exile leadership.”

Et cetera.

Now, ask yourself.

If a pollster keeps predicting a candidate's victory cycle after cycle, yet the candidate keeps losing cycle after cycle, it means:

a. The pollster is clueless or biased. b. The results are wrong. c. Both.

And the answer is?