Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. A generous donor is matching all donations of $100 or more! So please donate now to double your punch!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Obama’s VP Quandry

Barack Obama has a problem: having done poorly amongst Latino voters in primary contests, he now faces the very real possibility that he could lose this crucial constituency in the General Election.

He can ill afford to do poorly amongst Latinos come November.

Latinos now make up a larger share of the U.S. population (15.5%) than they did in 2004 (14.3%).  In fact, at 46 million strong Latinos are the nation’s largest and fastest growing minority group.  They also a make up a growing share of the eligible electorate—8.9% in 2007, according to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, compared with 8.2% in 2004.  What’s more, according to the Pew Hispanic Center Latinos increased their share of the primary vote in many states between 2004 and 2008.

The Democrats look at Latinos and see opportunity.  About 57% of registered Latino voters now identify as Democrats or say they lean to the Democratic Party, while just 23% align with the Republican Party.  This adds up to a whopping 34 percentage point gap in partisan affiliation among registered Latinos.

This gap, fueled by Republican bluster on illegal immigration, has been steadily increasing over time: in 2006 the difference was just 21 percentage points – whereas back in 1999, it had been 33 percentage points.  In 2004, Bush got about 40% of the Latino vote, a record for a Republican candidate.  But with Latinos leaving the GOP in droves, Democrats are thinking payback.

Nevertheless, Latinos’ electoral clout is undercut by the fact that many are ineligible to vote, either because they are not citizens or not yet 18 years old.  In 2008, Latinos will comprise about 9% of the eligible electorate nationwide.  If past turnout is any indication however, Latinos won’t vote en masse: experts project that Latinos will only constitute a disappointing 6.5% of the turnout come November.

Key Battleground States: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada

So if Latino turnout is so low, why are the Democrats so concerned about this constituency?  To answer the question one need only look at the electoral map: Latinos live primarily in key battleground states that the Democrats want to flip from the Republicans.  Of particular interest for Obama is the American West.  At this point it looks like the Illinois Senator may have his work cut out for him in Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada, states with large Latino populations.

In Colorado most recent estimates from the 2006 U.S. Census indicate that Latinos make up almost 20% of the state’s population.  The state recently elected a Latino Senator, Ken Salazar, and the Democrats have chosen Denver as the site of their upcoming convention.  In 2000 Bush won the state by almost ten points.  Four years later Bush still won but this time his lead was cut in half.  The state has nine electoral votes.

In New Mexico Latinos dominate even more, accounting for 44% of the population.  In some cities such as Las Cruces and Santa Fe they make up as much as 50%.  In recent years the state has become a true battleground: in 2000 Gore won New Mexico by a razor thin margin.  In 2004 Bush won the state by a small but safe margin.  In 2008 the Democrats are going to have to turn out Latino and Native American voters, two of their traditional constituencies, if they wish to capture the state’s five electoral votes.

By most recent census data, Nevada’s population is about 25% Latino.  Las Vegas’s population is skyrocketing and Latinos represent a formidable presence in the city.  Historically, Nevada has gone Republican but the Democrats hope to turn the state into an electoral battleground.  In 2000 Bush won Nevada but only by three points; four years later it was much the same result against Kerry.  The state has five electoral votes.

 

From Great Unifier to Polarizing Figure

Four months ago, it looked as if Obama might be able to bridge the color barrier and appeal to Americans of all different racial backgrounds.  Following his electoral victory in the Iowa caucus, Obama addressed his white supporters. “They said this day would never come,” he said.  Obama then remarked upon his own unique racial heritage which included “a father from Kenya, a mother from Kansas and a story that could only happen in the United States of America.”

It was probably only a matter of time however before the issue of race would burst forth and poison the political landscape.  Obama ran a deracialized campaign which sought to avoid the impression of overt blackness.  Aspiring to be a Great Unifier, Obama probably hoped that race would simply disappear from the presidential race.

It didn’t.

On February 5 (Super Tuesday), racial divisions were on vivid display as Latino voters turned out for Clinton en masse.  By the end of the day, Clinton had amassed 63% of the Latino vote to Obama’s 35%.  Clinton’s biggest win amongst Latinos was in her native New York, where she drew 73% of the vote.  The only state where Obama nailed the Latino vote was Illinois, but even there it was a virtual draw 50% to 49%.

One of Obama’s core strengths during the campaign has been the youth vote, but tellingly on Super Tuesday young Latinos were not as likely to vote for the Illinois Senator as white and black youth.  Meanwhile, 28% of Latino voters on Election Day said that race was important in reaching their decision.  Of those voters, a full 64% voted for Clinton while 35% voted for Obama.

In many other primaries held since Super Tuesday the Latino vote was inconsequential, but Clinton’s dominance of the Latino vote continued on Sunday in Puerto Rico.  Hillary trounced Obama 68% to 32% on the island.  That’s a slightly greater percentage than Clinton got on Super Tuesday, perhaps due in part to her name recognition and status as New York Senator where many Puerto Ricans reside.

On the other hand, race apparently played a role: according to CNN exit polls 31% of Puerto Rican voters said race was a factor in their vote, and of those 63% voted for Clinton and 37% for Obama.

 

Obama’s VP Stakes

Perhaps if Puerto Rico had voted in February, prior to the Jeremiah Wright affair, Obama would have done better.  Unfortunately for the young Illinois Senator, Hillary has played the race card and now Obama must try to reverse the impression that he is somehow “foreign” in the eyes of many voters—including Latinos.

One way that Obama might hope to limit the political damage thus far is by picking New Mexico’s Latino Governor Bill Richardson as his running mate.  Such a move would certainly represent a historic landmark in U.S. politics and inspire minority voters.  With Richardson on the ticket, Obama could really put the West into play and reconfigure the entire electoral calculus.  By pursuing a “Western Strategy” instead of a “Southern Strategy,” Obama could put together a new coalition of blacks, Latinos, and affluent whites.

There are drawbacks to such a scenario however.

Partly as a result of the Clinton slime machine, which injected race into the electoral contest, Obama now has a problem amongst not only Latinos but also poor whites.  If Obama picks Richardson he may help flip New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado but ultimately wind up losing Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

The Illinois Senator, who sought to overcome race at the beginning of the campaign, is now in a bind.  Perhaps, fearing an electoral debacle in the Rust Belt and Appalachia, Obama will pick a kind of Blue Dog, centrist white running mate with a military background such as Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska or Senator Jim Webb of Virginia.  By doing so, Obama may hope that poor whites and Latinos will forget all about race and Jeremiah Wright and come back to the fold.  He’s got a lot of lost ground to make up amongst these key voters.

NIKOLAS KOZLOFF is the author of Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave-Macmillan)

 

Your Ad Here
 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

NIKOLAS KOZLOFF is the author of the upcoming No Rain In the Amazon: How South America’s Climate Change Affects The Entire Planet (Palgrave Macmillan, April 2010). Visit his website, senorchichero.

October 22, 2018
Henry Giroux
Neoliberalism in the Age of Pedagogical Terrorism
Melvin Goodman
Washington’s Latest Cold War Maneuver: Pulling Out of the INF
David Mattson
Basket of Deplorables Revisited: Grizzly Bears at the Mercy of Wyoming
Michelle Renee Matisons
Hurricane War Zone Further Immiserates Florida Panhandle, Panama City
Tom Gill
A Storm is Brewing in Europe: Italy and Its Public Finances Are at the Center of It
Christopher Brauchli
The Liars’ Bench
Gary Leupp
Will Trump Split the World by Endorsing a Bold-Faced Lie?
Michael Howard
The New York Times’ Animal Cruelty Fetish
Alice Slater
Time Out for Nukes!
Geoff Dutton
Yes, Virginia, There are Conspiracies—I Think
Daniel Warner
Davos in the Desert: To Attend or Not, That is Not the Question
Priti Gulati Cox – Stan Cox
Mothers of Exiles: For Many, the Child-Separation Ordeal May Never End
Manuel E. Yepe
Pence v. China: Cold War 2.0 May Have Just Begun
Raouf Halaby
Of Pith Helmets and Sartorial Colonialism
Dan Carey
Aspirational Goals  
Wim Laven
Intentional or Incompetence—Voter Suppression Where We Live
Weekend Edition
October 19, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jason Hirthler
The Pieties of the Liberal Class
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Day in My Life at CounterPunch
Paul Street
“Male Energy,” Authoritarian Whiteness and Creeping Fascism in the Age of Trump
Nick Pemberton
Reflections on Chomsky’s Voting Strategy: Why The Democratic Party Can’t Be Saved
John Davis
The Last History of the United States
Yigal Bronner
The Road to Khan al-Akhmar
Robert Hunziker
The Negan Syndrome
Andrew Levine
Democrats Ahead: Progressives Beware
Rannie Amiri
There is No “Proxy War” in Yemen
David Rosen
America’s Lost Souls: the 21st Century Lumpen-Proletariat?
Joseph Natoli
The Age of Misrepresentations
Ron Jacobs
History Is Not Kind
John Laforge
White House Radiation: Weakened Regulations Would Save Industry Billions
Ramzy Baroud
The UN ‘Sheriff’: Nikki Haley Elevated Israel, Damaged US Standing
Robert Fantina
Trump, Human Rights and the Middle East
Anthony Pahnke – Jim Goodman
NAFTA 2.0 Will Help Corporations More Than Farmers
Jill Richardson
Identity Crisis: Elizabeth Warren’s Claims Cherokee Heritage
Sam Husseini
The Most Strategic Midterm Race: Elder Challenges Hoyer
Maria Foscarinis – John Tharp
The Criminalization of Homelessness
Robert Fisk
The Story of the Armenian Legion: a Dark Tale of Anger and Revenge
Jacques R. Pauwels
Dinner With Marx in the House of the Swan
Dave Lindorff
US ‘Outrage’ over Slaying of US Residents Depends on the Nation Responsible
Ricardo Vaz
How Many Yemenis is a DC Pundit Worth?
Elliot Sperber
Build More Gardens, Phase out Cars
Chris Gilbert
In the Wake of Nepal’s Incomplete Revolution: Dispatch by a Far-Flung Bolivarian 
Muhammad Othman
Let Us Bray
Gerry Brown
Are Chinese Municipal $6 Trillion (40 Trillion Yuan) Hidden Debts Posing Titanic Risks?
Rev. William Alberts
Judge Kavanaugh’s Defenders Doth Protest Too Much
Ralph Nader
Unmasking Phony Values Campaigns by the Corporatists
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail