The Past as Prologue: Conclusions Latinos and the 2008 Elections Lecture 9 October 28, 2008

Questions for This Week’s Readings – We’ll Discuss Thursday Under what circumstances can Latinos influence the outcomes of statewide elections? Think about different forms of influence And different ways that influence can be evaluated How could electoral rules/practices be changed to enhance Latino influence?

Stages of the Presidential Campaign 1. Pre-campaign Candidate self-selection Key time point – previous mid-term election 2. Primaries Candidate selection, usually early in primary season (late Winter) Candidate positioning and fundraising 3. Convention Opportunity for party elites to meet and greet Uninterrupted opportunity to state message 4. General election

2000 and 2004 Primaries Democrats seeking to create opportunity for Latino voice (2004) Latino Democrats joined the Gore and Kerry bandwagons earlier and stronger They did little to campaign for their votes, though Result –untested in terms of outreach 2004 – Sharpton (African American candidate) didn’t appeal to Latino voters Black plurality always went to Kerry Latinos supported only marginally more than whites

Latinos and the Party Conventions, 2000 and 2004 Number of Latino delegates steadily growing, particularly on Democratic side 2000 Los Angeles site of Democratic convention Bush assured a prominent symbolic place for Latinos entertainers and political leaders 2004 Bill Richardson, Chair of Democratic Convention Latino delegates did organize and saw daily visits from party leaders Few prominent Latino speakers during prime time Latino delegates, like most delegates, window dressing Conventions offer little opportunity to shape candidate’s policy objectives

Democratic Party Delegates, by Race/Ethnicity,

Where Were Latinos at the Start of the Fall Campaign? 2000 & 2004 – competitive states not the big Latino states Latinos less courted that in 1996 Gore and Kerry showed little Latino outreach Campaigns moved to Tennessee, Boston, and Austin Bush (2001) made a major symbolic proposal – the guest worker program – but had done little to follow up Kerry tried to reach out as a Catholic and through Teresa Kerry (an immigrant from Mozambique who ancestry is Portuguese)

Latino Votes in the 2000 and 2004 Elections Latino voices muted (in federal races) Outcome of elections was out of the control of Latino communities In states where unity and turnout could have led to influence, the evidence is mixed Concerns about exit polls will make the Latino voice a subject of continuing dispute

Latino Vote Share, 2004 BushKerry National38-41%57-60% Arizona42%58% California31%65% Colorado28%70% Florida54%46% Illinois22%77% New Jersey41%56% New Mexico41%57% New York18%80% Texas52%47%

These Results Somewhat Disputed William C. Velasquez Research Institute Exit Poll Nation Kerry – 67.7 percent Bush – 31.4 percent Sample – 1,179 respondents in 56 precincts in 14 states Florida Kerry – 52.0 percent Bush – 45.7 percent Sample – 1,147 respondents in 45 precincts in nine counties

Who in the Latino Community Shifted Between 2000 and 2004? Toward Bush Texas Latinos Religiously-observant Latinos 2 nd generation (the children of immigrants) Toward Kerry/the Democrats Florida Latinos 2 nd generation Cubans Unique to 2004 Two Senate races with Latino candidates

Latino Vote Share Senate Races, 2004 DemocratRepublican Arizona29%70% California72%19% Colorado72%25% Florida41%59% Illinois83%16% New York80%19% Nevada67%27%

Lessons from Recent Elections Latino role limited Internally – weak Latino organization to shape outcomes Externally Compositional factors reduce Latino vote (and incentive for political institutions to mobilize Latinos) Electoral College focused election primarily on non-Latino concentration states Rhetoric of importance of Latino vote remained high Bush used strategically to position himself as a moderate who could move the Republicans to long-term dominance Question at end of 2004 race of whether Latinos were moving toward the Republicans

The Second Bush Administration Steadily declining presidential influence 2006 Election Democrats become majority in House and Senate Leading Republican Presidential candidate – Virginia’s George Allen – defeated in upset Newly emerging Latino voices Three Latinos elected to the U.S. Senate 2006 immigrant’s rights protests

Early 2006: Unprecedented Immigrant Civic Activism

Why? Bush proposal (2004) Guest workers/enforcement House bill – HR 4437 (passed 2005) Unauthorized status a felony Fence/enforcement Employer penalties Authorizes use of the military to enforce immigration law No guest worker program or legalization

The Marches in Public Opinion and Policy Congress Took ‘criminalization’ out of the policy debate Forced immigration-moderates into the debate Backlash Energized anti-immigrant movement/candidates Restrictionists vocal in 2006 elections Fence authorized Latino/immigrant leaders Tested new leadership coalition Leaders have shifted focus from mass mobilization to electoral power

New Focus on Electoral Power Risky Marchers: immigrants and their U.S. citizen children (youth/young adults) Key “new” organizational resource: Hometown associations/federations Built on more traditional resources: churches, unions, immigrant rights groups Electoral influence not in the control of the immigrant organizations Need close elections in immigrant/ethnic areas $

From Immigrant Marchers to Voters 1. [For unauthorized] Legalization (and maybe “guest worker” period) 2. [For permanent residents and the newly legalized] Naturalization 3. [For U.S. citizens disengaged from electoral politics, young adults, and new citizens] Registration 4. [For registered voters] Electoral mobilization Each of these steps is hard, let alone putting them all together

Even If Latino/Immigrant Organizations are Successful Risk of a backlash Many of the Democrats who were elected from traditionally Republican districts in 2006, 2007, and so far in 2008, take moderately restrictive views of immigration reform

Partisan Divide, Importance of Immigration, 2007 Source: Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2007