The Latino Voting Paradox

New America Media, Commentary, Louis E.V. Nevaer, Posted: Feb 04, 2008

Editor’s Note: A Hillary Clinton nomination might win the popular vote, but a Barack Obama nomination would secure the Electoral College, writes the commentator. That’s because, while Clinton is popular with more Latinos, Obama is popular with the “right” Latinos: those who live in swing states. Louis E. V. Nevaer is the author of “The Rise of the Hispanic Market in the United States” and “HR and the New Hispanic Workforce.”

As voters across the nation prepare to cast their ballots on “Super Tuesday,” it is becoming clear that for Democrats, Latinos hold the key to regaining the White House – but only if fewer Latinos vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election.

The paradox arises from the geographic concentration of Hispanics across the country, and the convoluted nature of the Electoral College – where Al Gore won the popular vote, including more votes from Hispanics than Bush, but lost the election in 2000. Because the president is chosen by the Electoral College and not the popular vote, some votes do count more than others. One million Latinos in Texas could vote for Hillary Clinton, but Texas only has 34 votes in the Electoral College. If 100,000 Latinos in Ohio voted for Barack Obama – enough to tip that state in his favor – he would win all 20 of that state’s Electoral College votes. So it is possible for Latino voters in key states to tip their states towards one candidate.

That a similar pattern within the Latino voting bloc is likely to emerge this November – the Democratic candidate most likely to win the plurality of the Latino vote would lose the election – speaks as much to the fractured nature of the Hispanic vote as it does to the peculiarities of the American presidential system. 


To understand the counterintuitive dynamics at play, consider the defining characteristics of the Hispanic vote, which is fractured along geographic and demographic lines. Before Hispanics acquired a political identity and became “Latinos,” they were immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. The Census Bureau confirms that there are more than 33 million Hispanics in the United States. Of these, four out of five are of Mexican or Central American ancestry – “Mexican Hispanics” – and the rest are primarily from the Caribbean (Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic or Cuba) and South America – “Caribbean Hispanics.”
 Mexican Hispanics live mostly west of the Mississippi and Caribbean Hispanics live primarily along the eastern seaboard. Racially, Mexican Hispanics are mostly of European or Native American ancestry, or a mixture of the two (mestizo). Caribbean Hispanics, on the other hand, are of European or African descent, or a mixture of the two (mulatto).

Mexican Hispanics are more likely to favor Hillary Clinton, the principal reason being the affection they hold for former President Bill Clinton. He entered into NAFTA; he was sympathetic to the plight of immigrants; his administration pushed for social programs to help the working man. Commentators who speculate about the reluctance of Mexican Hispanics to vote for a black candidate are off-base, as are those who insist that Hillary Clinton’s appeal is intrinsic by virtue of her being a matron.

Caribbean Hispanics, meanwhile, are more open to voting for Barack Obama. This is the result of various factors, from the fact that, for Latinos from Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic and Cuba, having a “mulatto” in political office is “normal,” to the fact that Obama’s international background speaks to Latinos who commute routinely between their lives in the United States and their families in Latin America. Pundits who look to the racial identity of Obama and Caribbean 
Hispanics miss the point that the affinity transcends mere genetic makeup.

There are, however, distinct patterns that cut across both the Mexican Hispanic and Caribbean Hispanic voter: Latinos under the age of 30 are more likely to favor Obama; Latinos over the age of 40 are more inclined to support Clinton; and Latinos in between are statistically divided between both candidates. And here is where matters of race – “Mexican Hispanic” versus “Caribbean Hispanic” – and of age – younger versus older Latino voters – hold the key for the Democrats.

There is one certainty: Latinos are not a monolithic voting bloc.
 This became clear when my company, Hispanic Economics, was hired to analyze the county-by-county results in the 2004 presidential election for California, Florida and Ohio. In the fall of 2007, these analyses were supplemented by analyses of five additional states – Georgia, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas. In the eight most important states for the Electoral College, we found that it is very probable that young “Caribbean Hispanic” voters, while outnumbered by older “Mexican Hispanic” voters, will play a more important role in November.

It is not Latino voters in general, but Latino voters in the tipping point states, who will determine the election – and these voters tend to favor Obama.

Recall that to win the presidency, a candidate needs to secure 270 votes in the Electoral College. Ten states – California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, North Carolina and Georgia – account for 254 of those votes. A further analysis of the Latino voters in seven of these states reveals a startling pattern: If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she will win the most Latino votes – but lose in the Electoral College. If Barack Obama is the nominee, on the other hand, he will win fewer Latino votes – but those he wins will be in the key, tipping point states – and he will win the White House.

This is because Obama supporters in swing states won’t automatically vote for Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee. In fact, most “Caribbean Hispanics” prefer Obama, followed by McCain, and then Clinton. This is partly because many Hispanics are hyper-military-patriotic, one way they "prove" that they are "American." Even though “Caribbean Hispanics” are only 20 percent of all U.S. Latinos, they will in large part determine the electoral outcome of the national Latino vote.

The paradox of this pattern is astounding: For the Democrats, the surest way to win the White House is by nominating the candidate who is likely to win fewer Latino votes – but who will win the votes where it counts most.



Page 1 of 1

Printable Version Return to Normal Version Send Page to Friend Subscribe to NAM Newsletters