She told blogger Ruben Navarette, Jr., who writes at pajamasmedia.com, that demonizing Latinos is not the way to go if Republicans want to lead on the issue.

“My view is that the immigration discussion, the rhetoric the Republican Party uses, is not helpful; it’s not helpful in a state with the Latino population we have,” Whitman said during a brief interview following a speech at a George W. Bush Institute conference on the economy. “We as a party are going to have to make some changes, how we think about immigration, and how we talk about immigration.”

“The question about legalizing marijuana is no longer when, it’s no longer whether, it’s how,” said Ethan Nadelmann, the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a national advocacy group that will play a pivotal role in any 2012 ballot measures in California or other states. “There’s a really strong body of people who will be ready to pull the lever in the future.”

Indeed, many pundits questioned the wisdom of pushing the proposition in a midterm election year, when young people have such a poor track record of showing up at the polls. This fact only adds to the hopes of supporters for the initiative’s prospects in 2012, however. They say they will once again push the measure in California and perhaps a number of other states during the upcoming presidential election cycle.

The exit poll data point to a continued trend of Latino support for Democrats, which is interesting given concerns that pro-immigration reform Latinos — the majority of Latino voters — might stay home to push back against Democrats who failed to address the issue. In Arizona, about 71 percent of Latino voters preferred the Democratic candidate, versus 56 percent who preferred Obama in 2008. This can perhaps be attributed to the unpopularity among Latinos of Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law this spring.

Other states saw slight dips in support for Democratic candidates from the high levels of support for Obama, but still mostly voted for Democrats. In California, the state with the largest Latino population in absolute terms, 64 percent of Latino voters picked Democrat Jerry Brown for governor over Republican Meg Whitman. Preferences for Senate were similar: 65 percent of Latinos preferred Democrat Barbara Boxer to Republican Carly Fiorina. In 2008, 74 percent of Latinos in California voted for Obama.

The only major exception in the Pew poll results was Florida, where Republican Marco Rubio captured 55 percent of the Latino vote, according to exit polls. As I mentioned yesterday, though, Rubio had high levels of support from fellow Cuban-Americans, who tend to vote Republican. The Latino Decisions poll found non-Cuban Latinos in Florida voted for the Democratic candidate, Kendrick Meek.

*One note on polling: According to Latino Decisions’ Gary Segura, a Stanford political science professor, exit poll data often under-represent minorities because exit polls tend to skip precincts that always go red or blue. Segura said minorities who live in white-dominated areas, who could be more conservative than average, tend to be over-represented in exit poll data. The Pew Hispanic Center data is based on exit polls, while Latino Decisions polled Latino registered voters directly the night before the election.

“The Latino firewall in the west actually saved the election for Democrats,” Frank Sharry, executive director of the immigration reform group America’s Voice, said on a conference call. “Latino voters played a significant role in Senate races.”

Although it is still unclear how many Latinos turned out to vote, the poll taken the night before the election indicates strong support for Democrats. On a generic ballot, 76 percent of the Latino voters polled picked the Democratic candidate over the Republican. Preferences were particularly strong in California, which has the country’s largest Latino population. About 86 percent of Latino voters in the state preferred Democrat Jerry Brown for governor over Republican Meg Whitman, and the same number preferred Democrat Barbara Boxer for Senate over Republican Carly Fiorina.

A majority ranked the economy, jobs and immigration as their top issues for choosing candidates, and most said they wanted to see immigration reform that included paths to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country.

In Nevada, where Reid faced a tough race against Republican Sharron Angle for his Senate seat, Latinos seem to have made the difference between winning and losing for the majority leader. Latinos preferred Reid by large margins to Angle, who has run an aggressively anti-illegal immigration campaign that many perceived as anti-Latino.

Latino groups said harsh rhetoric against illegal immigration by Republican candidates mobilized Latino voters, many of whom said anti-Latino or anti-immigrant sentiment influenced their vote. Because Latinos are the fastest-growing minority group in the country, rights groups said this year’s results could spell bad news for Republicans in 2012 and beyond as Latino voters become more influential.

“Political parties that demonize or take Latinos for granted are doing it at their great risk,” Clarissa Martinez de Castro of National Council of La Raza said on the call.

One exception was in Florida, where the Latino Decisions poll found majority Latino support for Republicans Rick Scott for governor and Marco Rubio for Senate. Florida, though, is generally an exception to most trends in Latino voting due to the large number of Cubans, who are often Republican, and Puerto Ricans, who are born U.S. citizens and therefore less involved in immigration issues. Although Rubio received 62 percent of the vote among Latinos polled Monday, Democrat Kendrick Meek had the advantage among non-Cuban Latino voters.

Angle posed a serious threat to Reid, in spite of — or perhaps because of — rhetoric and advertising on immigration that frequently crossed the line into offensive territory, according to Latino groups. Angle claimed Reid supported a number of policies to help illegal immigrants and seemed to be attempting to capitalize on ethnic fears in ads that showed angry-looking Latino men set to dramatic, if untrue, statements.

Tancredo also campaigned largely on immigration policy, accusing his Democratic opponent John Hickenlooper of supporting “sanctuary city” policies that allowed illegal immigrants to stay in the country and threaten American lives. Hickenlooper won the election.

Immigrant rights advocates will also be pleased about the California governor race, where Republican Meg Whitman lost to Democrat Jerry Brown. Whitman shifted to the right during her Republican primary and received support from former Gov. Pete Wilson, the controversial figure behind California’s now-overturned Proposition 187 to exclude undocumented immigrants from state services. Whitman tried to reach out to Latino voters after her primary, but was hindered by allegations of mistreatment and illegal employment by an undocumented maid who worked for her for almost a decade.

Anti-illegal immigration governors won in a few other states, though. New Mexico’s Susana Martinez (R) emerged victorious, as did Georgia’s Nathan Deal (R) and South Carolina’s Nikki Haley (R). All three support harsher laws on immigration in their states.

But as Ben Smith points out, her opposition to the Arizona immigration law is fairly weak: She has said she opposes the law for California because its geography is different than Arizona’s, but said in July she “would let the Arizona law stand.”

On the one hand, Whitman is not running for governor of Arizona, and her aides say she would veto an Arizona-style law in California if it came across her desk. Still, her position is to the right of Brown, who argues Arizona was wrong to take up an immigration enforcement law in the first place. Brown claims her opposition is too weak. “So she’s for the Arizona law for the people who are suffering right now, the people who are cleaners in Arizona,” Brown said at an Oct. 2 debate.

Whitman’s new ad downplays these differences:

After a shift to the right during her primary, Whitman has attempted to woo Latino voters through outreach and advertising. Much of her advertising, though, rings a slightly false note given her past statements and supporters. One billboard claimed in Spanish that Whitman was against SB 1070 and Proposition 187, the overturned 1994 law that barred undocumented immigrants from receiving state benefits and was widely perceived as racist. The bill’s main champion, then-governor Pete Wilson, is her campaign chairman and called her “tough as nails” on immigration during the primary — a position she now seems to be retreating from. Wilson has been pushed behind the scenes of the campaign during the general election and rarely appears with Whitman in public.

Both candidates for governor are angling for the Latino vote, which could prove crucial in a state where Latinos make up 37 percent of the population. Notably, California likely voters also tend to be pro-immigrant, with a recent poll indicating a majority oppose deportation for undocumented immigrants who live and work in the country.

The larger pro-immigrant sentiment in California seems to align with a growing Latino population. In 1990, when former Gov. Pete Wilson (R) was first elected, Latinos made up almost 26 percent of the population in California. Wilson become a fervent supporter of Proposition 187 to deny state services to illegal immigrants, and is credited with derailing Latino support for Republican candidates for years. As of 2008, Latinos made up 37 percent of the population, meaning Californians are more likely to be or know Latinos.

For California politicians, these changes mean harsh anti-immigration stances may no longer be as successful. “I cannot win without the Latino vote,” Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman said earlier this month.

Whitman shifted to noticeably softer statements on immigration after she won the Republican primary.  Her campaign stepped up its outreach to Latino voters and ran ads and billboards in Spanish claiming she did not support Proposition 187 — interesting, because Wilson serves as her campaign chairman — or Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law.

Carly Fiorina, the Republican challenging Sen. Barbara Boxer, earned support from a National Organization for Marriage-sponsored Latino group that is running Spanish ads on her behalf.

So far, these efforts have not worked: Whitman and Fiorina both trail their opponents by large margins among Latino voters.

But as the recent LA Times/USC poll indicates, these candidates also face a general population that may be less interested in candidates with hardline stances on immigration. While support for illegal immigrants staying in the country was stronger among Latinos — 76 percent said illegal immigrants should not be deported — 56 percent of white voters also said illegal immigrants should be given paths to stay in the country rather than face deportation.

This seems to signal support for comprehensive immigration reform that would create additional options for legal status for some of the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country. But so far, neither Republican candidate is supportive of measures that would help undocumented immigrants avoid deportation. Whitman said last year she supports comprehensive immigration reform, but has since called legalization “amnesty” and said the government must first focus on securing the border. Fiorina, too, refers to paths to citizenship as “amnesty” for illegal immigrants and argues for a border-first strategy.

Either way, it could be bad news for Sandoval, a Latino candidate who has argued for harsh penalties on employers that hire undocumented workers. He joins California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman (R) and political commentator Lou Dobbs, both fellow advocates of tougher anti-illegal immigration laws, in what seems to be the scandal du jour.

If it is true, of course, Sandoval would not be the only person in the U.S. to hire undocumented workers. As I mentioned before, illegal immigrants make up a large proportion — about 27 percent — of the maids and housekeepers in the U.S.

Boxley doesn’t quote either candidate admitting her tequila shot was a Latino outreach move. Still, the concept of political posturing through liquor choices has a history in political campaigns: Then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton took a shot of whiskey — Crown Royal — while on the campaign trail in 2008, and President Obama has been accused of drinking Bud Light as an effort to relate to working-class voters.

The DREAM Act would allow states to provide in-state tuition to undocumented students by repealing a 1996 ban on benefits for illegal immigrants. It’s a controversial move, but one some states have already bypassed: Ten states have passed their own laws allowing illegal immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition if they have attended high school in the state for at least three years.

Nevada, for the record, does not provide in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.

Here’s the ad:

The argument that the DREAM Act allows non-natives to take up space and resources in public universities was also used by California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman (R), who said this weekend the DREAM Act would “favor undocumenteds” over citizens.

The question is whether “favor” or “preferred” is an accurate term for what the DREAM Act would allow. While the bill would repeal the section of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act that bans tuition benefits for undocumented students, it would not require states to adopt such standards. It would simply remove the legal obstacles for those that have already chosen to do so: California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Washington. Other states would then be free to determine for themselves whether to offer in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.

While DREAM Act supporters say this would simply help U.S.-educated students attend college, conservatives argue the DREAM Act created an incentive for illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. and would hurt chances for citizens to get financial aid. Michelle Malkin made this case in September:

Open-borders lawmakers have tried and failed to pass the DREAM Act through regular channels for the past decade. That’s because informed voters know giving green cards to illegal alien students undermines the rule of law, creates more illegal immigration incentives and grants preferential treatment to illegal alien students over law-abiding native and naturalized American students struggling to get an education in tough economic times.

Right now, the DREAM Act is stalled in Senate after an unsuccessful attempt to attach it to the defense authorization bill. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has promised to push for the bill during the lame duck session.