NewsTaco

By Robert R. Preuhs, Latino Decisions

The 2012 election underscored the power of the Latino vote, particularly in battleground states like Colorado, Florida and Nevada.  Recent blogs here at Latino Decisions highlight the wide range of potential issues important to Latinos that federal and state elected officials now must include in their electoral and policymaking calculus, fromimmigration reform to environmental protection to taxation and spending.  Electoral calculus hinges on potential future votes, however, and the degree to which either party’s politicians respond to Latino preferences is not only a function of base mobilization but also appealing to moveable voters.  Among Latinos, and consistent with general patterns of partisanship and voting preferences, independents constitute the likely moveable voters in future elections.  Focusing on the issues and preferences important to unaffiliated Latinos would thus be a wise strategy for politicians seeking electoral success in the upcoming elections.

The impreMedia/Latino Decisions election eve poll highlights the association between partisan attachment and vote choice among Latinos in 2012.   Over 95% of Latino Democrats voted for Obama or the Democratic House candidate, while about 90% of Latino Republicans voted for Romney or their party’s candidate for the U.S. House.  These rather normal partisan affects are the reason for representing the policy preferences of the base.  Not much room exists for moving voters among Latino partisans.  Unaffiliated Latinos, on the other hand, may be the best bet for parties seeking to move voters.  Contrasted with the numbers above, Latino independents split their vote for Obama and Romney by 60/34, and the Democratic vs. Republican House candidate split was 60/40.  Democrats still hold a strong advantage, but if the Republican Party is interested in attracting Latino voters, independents are their best bet.  So, what do Latino independents want?  What follows is a discussion of the results for the sample of Latino independent/unaffiliated voters from the impreMedia/Latino Decisions election eve poll (question wording and full results are available here).

Immigration

Nationally 33% of Latino independents indicated that immigration was one of the top two most important issues facing the Latino community that politicians should address.  The role of immigration in unaffiliated voters’ choices reflects the broader theme of a push away from Republican positions, specifically Romney’s in the 2012 election, and a more tepid enthusiasm for the Obama Administration’s mid-campaign decision to defer deportation through the DHS directive.  While Latino independents were split between reporting more enthusiasm and no impact of the DHS directive, 57% reported being less enthusiastic for Romney given his positions on immigration (Figure 1). The 2012 Republican campaign rhetoric clearly will not move Latino independents, but as Figure 2 suggests, Republicans may make inroads, as 40% report being more likely to vote for the GOP if the GOP endorses some form of comprehensive immigration reform.

Taxation and Spending

With the fiscal cliff quickly approaching, Latino independents’ take on a solution to the federal budget deficit and a general orientation to tax or spend politics is another aspect of policy preferences that politicians ought to pay attention to over the next several years (if not weeks or days).  Latino independents tend to a combination of spending cuts and increased taxation on the wealthy as a solution, as 49% support such an approach (see Figure 3).  Opinion tilts a bit toward taxing the wealthy, however, and with only 15% supporting a “spending cuts only” approach, moving unaffiliated Latinos is not likely with a cuts only policy position.

Health Care

Latino independents tend toward a government approach to ensuring access to health insurance and slightly favor retaining “ObamaCare”.  As figure 4 shows, 48% of unaffiliated Latinos favor leaving ObamaCare in place compared to 39% supporting repeal.  This is only a slight edge, so perhaps positions on ObamaCare may not move Latino independents to a great extent.  However, an inclination to maintain partisan positions is offset by the 55% of unaffiliated Latinos who support a government role for ensuring health care access (Figure 4).

Where does all this lead in terms of policies that may move Latino independents?  Immigration seems the most straightforward.  Unaffiliated Latinos will respond positively to parties that support comprehensive immigration reform.  If Democrats want to retain Latino support, and Republicans want to pry some support away from the Democrats, moving forward with comprehensive immigration reform is a no-brainer.  Latino independents also support some combination of spending cuts and taxing the wealthy as a solution to the fiscal policy crisis.  While the exact nature of the combination is hard to derive from the data, a hard cuts-only position is certainly a losing strategy for moving Latino independents toward one’s party.  Finally, health care policy preferences of the unaffiliated suggest that while there is some room for both GOP and Democratic positions as they stand, the tendency toward support for ObamaCare and a governmental role in ensuring health care access means limited government arguments may not play too well among Latino independents.

While Latino independents not surprisingly fall between Latino Republicans and Latino Democrats on most positions, the reality is that their 60/40 split favoring Democrats means the GOP faces a tough road ahead if they are to move the unaffiliated to vote for their party’s candidates.  Changes in immigration policy are possible, but retaining their base may not allow for the fiscal and health care policy shifts that would move Latino independents in substantial numbers.  But perhaps the most striking obstacle for the GOP is that Latinos just do not believe the party is looking out for their community’s interests.  Using the 2012 presidential candidates as proxies for their parties, a sense of the problem emerges.  When asked if Obama/Romney care about the Latino community, 57% of Latino independents responded that Obama truly cares about Latinos compared to only 16% indicating Romney cares about Latinos.  More striking, only 4% of unaffiliated Latinos indicated that Obama does not care about Latinos, while 53% said the same about Romney.  These numbers would not matter if not for the fact that Latino independents vote to support their community more than either party.  When asked the reason that best reflects their rationale for voting in 2012, 47% responded that, “I’m voting in 2012 because I wanted to support and represent the Latino community,” (the modal category and 25% more than the second place response of supporting the Democrats).  All this suggests that if the parties want to retain or attract unaffiliated Latino voters, they would be wise to recognize the unique policy preferences and motivations of Latino independents.  Elections determined at the margins may depend on it.

This article was first published in Latino Decisions.

 Robert R. Preuhs is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Metropolitan State University of Denver. He has published numerous articles on state politics and minority representation. His new book, “Black-Latino Relations in U.S. National Politics,” co-authored with Rodney E. Hero, will be released by Cambridge University Press in January, 2013

[Photo by NewsTaco]

By Latino Decisions

Latino support for President Obama was huge, with a record-breaking 75% of Latino voters nationwide (see below) casting their ballot for the President- the previous high for Latino voters was the 72% for Bill Clinton in 1996. Romney’s share of 23% was nowhere near the 38% his team identified as his “magic number” for Latinos nationally.

The Latino vote share numbers across key states were even more pronounced, with Latinos exceeding the national average of 75% in most of the battleground states, including a remarkable 87% in Colorado and 80% in Nevada. The 66% of Latinos who voted for Obama in Virginia, 58% in Florida, and 82% in Ohio were also critical to the overall outcome of the race. At the end of the day, we estimate that the Latino vote led to a net margin gain for President Obama of +5.4%, and a +2.3% bump in the national popular vote. Consequently, if Latinos had split their vote evenly (50/50) in this election, President Obama would have lost the national popular vote. For the first time in American history, the Latino electorate has a legitimate claim of being nationally decisive!

What explains the huge numbers for Obama? As detailed in the webinar slides, Romney suffered from both an outreach problem to Latino voters as well as a policy agenda that just did not resonate with the Latino electorate. A robust 56% of Latino voters nationally did not feel that Romney “cares much” about the Latino community, with another 18% feeling as though the Romney campaign was “hostile” toward the Latino community. Conversely, 66% of Latinos indicated that President Obama “cares about” the Latino community. The same general pattern held across the state specific polls.

As we have been consistently reporting throughout the campaign, immigration policy was the key policy that likely explains the significant gap in vote choice for Latinos in 2012. Overall, 35% of Latino voters indicated that immigration policy was one of the two most important issues to the Latino community in 2012, with greater percentages across several key battleground states. As depicted below, Romney’s policy stance on immigration led nearly 60% of Latino voters to feel less enthusiastic about him, while President Obama benefited from a 58% increase in enthusiasm for his deferred action policy.

In what we view will be a watershed moment in American political history, Latino voters delivered in a major way for President Obama and the Democratic Party in 2012. Stay tuned for more in-depth analysis from Latino Decisions over the next few weeks, including a series of blogs focused on the nuances within several key states that decided the 2012 race.

This article was first published in Latino Decisions.

[Photo By bradleygee]

By Juhem Navarro-Rivera, Public Religion Research Institute

Since the 1980s, conventional wisdom about Hispanic Americans suggests that although they tend to vote primarily for Democrats, they do so primarily for economic reasons because the Democratic Party is out of step with Hispanic Americans on social issues. Republican candidates could thus peel off Hispanic American voters by appealing to issues like abortion or same-sex marriage, or so the argument went. But how socially conservative are Hispanic Americans, how persuadable are Hispanic Americans on social issues, and how important are these issues to Hispanic American voters?

One way to test the extent of Hispanic American social conservatism is by measuring Hispanic Americans’ attitudes toward abortion and same-sex marriage. On these issues, Hispanic Americans are assumed to be more conservative than Americans in general. The 2012 African American & Hispanic American Reproductive Issues survey found that a slim majority of Hispanic Americans (51%) believe that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, compared to the 43% of Americans who reported that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases during the 2011 American Values Survey.  On same-sex marriage, Hispanic Americans are divided, with 50% in favor of allowing gay and lesbian people to marry and 47% opposed.

However, on social issues Hispanic Americans show the same pattern of partisan polarization that is evident among the general public. When we explore the opinions of Hispanic American registered voters, the stark differences between Hispanic Democrats (and independents who lean Democratic) and Hispanic Republicans  (and independents who lean Republican) suggest that social issues are not a wedge issue among Hispanic partisans. The Hispanic partisan sorting on social issues suggests that Hispanic voters are part of the mainstream of their respective parties and not susceptible to being cross-pressured on these issues.

Vast majorities of Hispanic Democrats and Hispanic Republicans support their party’s majority position. On the issue of abortion, almost three-quarters (72%) of registered Hispanic Democrats believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases while nearly two-thirds (66%) of registered Hispanic Republicans say it should be illegal. In this regard, registered Hispanic Democrats are slightly more liberal than Democrats overall: 64% of registered Democrats think abortion should be legal. The opposite is true for registered Hispanic Republicans, who are are more conservative than registered Republicans (just 54% of registered Republicans oppose abortion).

The same polarization appears on the issue of same-sex marriage. Around two-thirds of registered Hispanic Democrats (66%) and nearly 6-in-10 registered Democrats (58%) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally. By contrast, over 7-in-10 (71%) registered Hispanic Republicans and over 6-in-10 (63%) of all registered Republicans oppose same-sex marriage.

As Election Day approaches, the interest on Hispanic voters will only increase. The Democrats recently tapped San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro as the keynote speaker for their convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. Meanwhile, Hispanic Republicans have been getting attention thanks to Ted Cruz’s victory in the Texas GOP primary runoff, as well as the naming of New Mexico Governor Susana Martínez andFlorida Senator Marco Rubio as  featured speakers at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida.

Pundits will continue to stress the importance of courting the growing Hispanic vote, but the more important question is what issues they can be successfully courted. These findings suggest that social issues may excite partisans, but are ultimately unlikely to move most Hispanic Americans one way or the other. What’s more, the vast majority of Hispanic voters (78%) report that the economy is a critical issue in the country today, far more than mention abortion or same-sex marriage (25% each). The parties will have to do their wooing on economic issues, because when it comes to social issues it seems that the heavy lifting is already done: Hispanic Democrats are socially liberal and Hispanic Republicans are socially conservative.

This article was first published in publicreligion.org.

Juhem Navarro-Rivera is a Research Associate at the Public Religion Research Institute. His research examines how religion affects political behavior in the United States. He has taught courses on American Politics, Latino Politics, Latino Studies, and Research Methods. He also lectures about Latino Politics, and Religion & Politics in the United States, and Puerto Rican Politics.  Mr. Navarro-Rivera earned a B.A. (Cum Laude) in political science from the University of Puerto Rico at Río Piedras and an M.A. in political science at the University of Connecticut where he is currently completing his Ph.D. 

[Photo by Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com]

By Matt A. Barreto, Latino Decisions

In 1998 Harry Pachon and Rudy de la Garza wrote a report for the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute titled “Why Pollsters Missed the Latino Vote – Again!” in which they argued that polls across California failed to accurately account for Latino voters in their samples, and that pre-election polls statewide were fraught with errors as a result.  Pachon and de la Garza argued that “mainstream” pollsters failed to account for Latinos for three primary reasons: 1) their sample sizes of Latinos were far too small; 2) their Latinos samples were not representative of the Latino population within the state; and 3) they were not interviewing Latinos in Spanish at the correct proportions.  THIS WAS 14 YEARS AGO (yes I am screaming).

In 2010 Gary Segura and I wrote that not much had changed and polls continued to mis-represent the Latino vote.  It is now well-known that polls in Nevada had small, unrepresentative and biased samples of Latinos, leading them to entirely miss Harry Reid’s 5-point lead over Sharron Angle.  Two weeks ago, Nate Silver wrote at 538 that some polls seem to be continuing the same mistakes and under-counting and mis-counting Latino voters, which he had originally picked up, and wrote about the day after the 2010 midterms.  Around the same time some new polls started appearing in states like Nevada and Florida with bizarre data for Latino voters – Obama only had an 8 point lead among Nevada Latinos, and Romney was actually ahead among Latinos in Florida.  Really?

No.

And now the worst offenders might be the newest batch of national polls are attempting to estimate the national Obama-Romney horse race numbers.  Monday October 22,Monmouth University released a poll in which Romney leads Obama 48% to 45%.  Among Latinos, they report Obama leads by just 6 points – 48% to 42%.  These numbers are such extreme outliers that even Romney campaign surrogates would have a hard time believing them.  While Monmouth is the most recent, there have been many national polls with equally faulty numbers among Latinos.

Keep that 48 to 42 number in your head and let’s compare across a variety of recent polls of Latino voters.  As a matter of self-interest, we’ll start with four recent impreMedia-Latino Decisions tracking polls in October.  The last four polls released by IM/LD have found the Latino vote nationally at 71-20; 67-23; 72-20; 73-21.  Don’t like those? NBC/Telemundo have released two polls in October of Latinos, putting the race at 70-25, and 70-20 just before that. And then there was the Pew Hispanic Center poll 10 days ago which had Obama 69-21 over Romney, and just before that CNN did a poll of Latinos putting the national vote at 70-25.  Okay – that’s eight national polls of Latino voters in the month of October and the average across all eight is 70.3% for Obama to 21.9% for Romney.

The Monmouth poll is not the only one that is off, the Gallup tracking poll has also been heavily criticized for mis-calculating the minority vote. Noted Political Scientist Alan Abramowitz has written recently that Gallup has too many Whites and too few Blacks and Latinos in their sample, not keeping up with simple demographic changes in America.  And other polls are similarly off.  A Politico/GWU poll in mid-October had Latinos 53-44for Obama, +9 nationally.

Let’s examine how these faulty Latino numbers create problems with the overall national estimates.  Afterall, Latinos are estimated to comprise 10% off all voters this year.  If Latinos are only leaning to Obama 48-42, that +6 edge among 10% of the electorate only contributes a net 0.6 advantage to Obama (4.8 for Obama to 4.2 for Romney).  However, if instead Obama is leading 70.3 to 21.9 that +48.4 edge contributes a net 4.8 advantage to Obama (7.0 to 2.2), hence the national polls may be missing as much as 4 full points in Obama’s national numbers.

Let’s break the numbers down a bit more to see if the math adds up, as Bill Clinton is so fond of saying…

Looking at the Monmouth Poll, overall they give Romney a +3 edge nationally, 48 to 45.  According to their crosstabs by race and ethnicity (posted here), the first tab below shows the data as collected and reported by the Monmouth Poll, including their estimates of the share each racial group will comprise of the electorate.  If you take the vote percentages for each candidate times the share of the electorate that Monmouth gives each group, you can arrive at the contribution that each racial group makes towards the overall support numbers for each candidate.

Assuming the data as reported by Monmouth, Latinos would add 5.8 points to Obama and 5.0 point to Romney, a net edge of 0.8 points towards Obama.  However, in tab 2, we plug in the 8-poll average among Latinos as reported above, 70.3 to 21.9.  Here, we see Latinos contribute 8.4 points to Obama and 2.6 to Romney, a net edge of 5.8 points towards Obama.  With this adjustment, that 5 point swing in the overall national data towards Obama takes what was a +3 .6 advantage for Romney and turns it into a +1.5 advantage for Obama, 47.6 to 46.1.  This is the exact story of the 2010 Nevada data in which poll after poll showed Angle ahead of Reid, and Latinos only slightly breaking to Reid.  On Election Day Reid won by 5 points, an 8-point swing from the poll average, and he carried Latinos 90-to-10.

However, we might also look at the Monmouth (or any of the national polls) data among Blacks and expect they have underestimated the Black vote for Obama.  Rather than carrying 82% of the African American vote, a more realistic prediction is that Obama will win 92% (or more) of the African American vote.  A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed 94% of Blacks planning to vote for Obama and 0% for Romney.  If we add 10 points to the Black vote for Obama – an adjustment I doubt anyone would disagree with – we find a full additional point in favor of Obama nationally, 48.7% to 46.1%.

Dozens of polls this year are making these exact same errors that Harry Pachon and Rudy de la Garza pointed out 14 years ago.  And by the way, their report title carried the phrase “Again!” because they pointed out that polls in California in 1994 and 1996 had made similar mistakes in underestimating the Latino vote.

If these mistakes are being made nationally where Latinos comprise an estimated 10% of all voters, they are even worse in statewide polls in Nevada, Florida, Colorado and Arizona where Latinos comprise an even larger share of all voters.  In Florida Latinos are estimated at 17% of all voters.  If you are badly mis-calculating the candidate preference among 17% of the electorate (that’s 1 out of every 6 voters), then the entire statewide estimates are wrong. A PPP poll out yesterday in Florida had Romney leading 49 to 46 among Latinos in Florida, and overall Romney was ahead 48 to 47.  The PPP poll likely had around 130 Hispanic respondents, all interviewed via robotic IVR method, which has notoriously low and problematic response rates among Latinos. A Latino Decisions October poll showed Florida Latinos backing Obama 61 to 31.

Understanding, and accurately polling the Latino electorate is important not just for the sake of getting a correct portrait of Latino voters, but because they are such a large part of the overall electorate that “missing the Latino vote” ultimately results in missing the true vote of the entire electorate, whether in a swing state, or nationally.

This article was first published in Latino Decisions.

Dr. Matt Barreto is an associate professor of political science at the University of Washington, and director of the Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity and Race (WISER). He is also the co-Director of the Washington Poll, a statewide opinion survey conducted by Pacific Market Research.matt.barreto@latinodecisions.com

[Photo by stock.xchng]

By Latino Decisions

Hispanic voters comprise nearly 40% of the electorate in the state of New Mexico, making New Mexico the state where Latino voters have the greatest influence on the election outcomes. Consequently, many have suggested that New Mexico may provide a glimpse into the future of Latino politics nationally. This context makes New Mexico important even in an election year when the state is not included in the list of must watch battleground races.

Today, at a live streamed panel at the University of New Mexico’s main campus, national political analysts, advocates, and community leaders from New Mexico discussed how Latino voters and the immigration issue will shape the presidential and Senate races in this state and beyond.  Gabriel Sanchez, Associate Professor at the University of New Mexico and Director of Research for Latino Decisions, analyzed fresh polling of Latino voters in New Mexico from a poll conducted by Latino Decisions for America’s Voice.

In New Mexico and at the national level, Latino and new citizen voters are changing politics.  With immigration high on the list of issues these voters want addressed, it’s no surprise that Republican candidates who have embraced hardline positions – including Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and Senate nominee Heather Wilson — are faring poorly with New Mexico Latinos. By contrast, the embrace of common sense immigration reform by both President Barack Obama and Senate candidate Martin Heinrich have played a key role in Latino support for Democrats in presidential, Senate and House races.

Said Gabriel Sanchez, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of New Mexico and Director of Research for Latino Decisions: “One of the key findings in this poll was the importance Hispanic voters in New Mexico placed on immigration, with this policy coming in only second to the economy as the most important issue that Latino voters want addressed.  We also found that nearly 60% of Latinos in the state of New Mexico know someone who is undocumented, and nearly half know someone who is eligible for the DREAM Act if passed. This to me implies that immigration has become personal to Latinos, which might explain the salience of the policy area among Latino voters.”

Christine Sierra, Professor of Political Science, University of New Mexico and Director, Southwest Hispanic Research Institute, said: “Today’s polling is crystal clear: immigration matters to Latino voters here in New Mexico.   New Mexico Latinos support a reformed driver’s license bill, favor the President’s deferred action policy and enthusiasm is growing.  Policymakers at both the state and national level should take note– when it comes to immigration policy, Latino voters are watching.”

Among the poll’s findings:

New Mexico Latinos Favor Democrats by Wide Margins

▪    In the presidential race, 69% of New Mexico Latinos said they will vote for President Obama, while 24% said they will vote for Romney and 7% are undecided.

▪    In the U.S. Senate race, 57% of New Mexico Latinos said they will vote for Martin Heinrich, while 33% said they will vote for Heather Wilson and 10% are undecided.

▪    In addition, 60% of New Mexico Latinos said they will vote for the Democratic candidate in their U.S. House race, while 20% will vote Republican and 12% are undecided.

Candidates’ Immigration Positions Matter to New Mexico Latinos

▪    52% of respondents said that immigration was “the most important issue” or “one of the most important issues” in their voting decisions this year.

▪    After hearing about President Obama’s deferred action policy, 46% of respondents said that they were “more enthusiastic” about voting for Obama and 7% said that they were “less enthusiastic.”  Meanwhile, after hearing about Mitt Romney’s recent announcement that he would not revoke deferred action for DREAMers whose applications are approved under Obama but would stop approving new applications once he is elected, 8% of respondents said that they were “more enthusiastic” about Romney and 46% of respondents said that they were “less enthusiastic.”

▪    After hearing about Senate candidate Martin Heinrich’s support for the DREAM Act, 47% of Latinos said they were “more enthusiastic” about Heinrich and 8% said they were “less enthusiastic.” After hearing about Heather Wilson’s criticisms of the President’s deferred action policy, 21% of respondents said they were “more enthusiastic” about Wilson and 25% said they were “less enthusiastic.”

Immigration is Not Just a Policy Issue: It’s Personal

▪    30% of New Mexico Latinos said that immigration was the most important issue facing the Latino community that Congress and the President should address, while 47% said the same about the economy, jobs, or unemployment.

▪    58% of New Mexico Latinos know someone who is undocumented, and 47% know someone who may be eligible for the DREAM Act.

▪    When asked how enthusiastic they are about voting in the election this year,” 64% of respondents said that they were “very enthusiastic” about voting in the upcoming election.  In a separate question that asked “would you say you are more enthusiastic about voting in 2012, or that you were more enthusiastic about voting back in 2008?” 59% said that they were “more enthusiastic” about voting in 2012 than they were about voting in 2008.

New Mexico Latino Voters Strongly Support Driver’s License Compromise that Includes Stricter Requirements

▪    When told “when it comes to the driver’s license issue, some people have said undocumented immigrants should not be able to apply for a driver’s license and other people have said the law should be reformed so that undocumented immigrant drivers are required to be licensed, but should be subjected to stricter identity and residency requirements as well as tougher penalties for fraud,” 70% of respondents said that they support the approach that allows undocumented immigrants to obtain a license but to be subject to stricter requirements, 21% said that they support an approach where undocumented immigrants are “not able to get a license,” and 7% don’t know.

▪    When told “there is a driver’s license reform proposal being considered here in New Mexico that would subject undocumented immigrant drivers to stricter identity and residency requirements, more frequent renewals, and tougher penalties for fraud,” 63% said that they support this proposal, 27% said that they oppose, and 10% don’t know.

Said Rafael Martinez, DREAM leader and Master’s student in American Studies: “President Reagan got it done in the second term. President Clinton complicated immigration policy further. President Bush regretted not pushing immigration in his second term further. Will Obama take it up the second time around?  Dreamers and organizers have pushed and our voices will be heard this election. The stakes for immigrants have never been higher and we won’t stop pushing until we get the security we deserve.”

Patty Kupfer, Managing Director of America’s Voice, said: “While many believe that Latinos in New Mexico are too far removed from the immigrant experience to care about the issue, the poll reveals that nearly 60 percent have a friend, family member or co-worker who is undocumented. That’s not far removed. In fact, more than half of respondents said immigration is either the most or one of the most important issue to them in deciding their vote on November 6.” Kupfer added, “Mitt Romney held onto an extreme anti-immigrant position throughout the primary, advocating the self-deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants, and now he has found himself 45 points behind with Latino voters and unable to compete in the state of New Mexico. There is certainly a correlation.”

Lucia Fraire, Field Director of Voter Program at Ole New Mexico, also spoke on the panel.

By Rob Preuhs, Latino Decisions

The Latino vote will help determine the presidential election.  If one is not convinced, playing around with the Latino Decisions’ Latino Vote Map for a few of the battleground states with a sizeable Latino population ought to change your mind.  The basic equation for each state is quite simple: the marginal (dis)advantage for one of the candidates among Latino voters multiplied by the Latino proportion of the electorate equals the net effect of the Latino vote.  The Latino effect thus comes down to two variables—marginal group preferences and relative turnout.   If one approaches zero, the Latino effect approaches zero.  And in a state like Colorado, now one of the closest battleground states with a sizeable Latino population, how this equation plays out quite possibly determines who passes the 270 point in the Electoral College.

This should not be a groundbreaking insight as the narrative of Colorado electoral politics has included a prominent role for Latino voters for quite some time.  Yet this year’s storyline has focused less on the preference portion of the equation and more on the potential for low turnout.  Indeed, this author answered more than one request for a comment on the Latino voter effect by noting low levels of enthusiasm among Latinos in Colorado and thus anticipating a smaller effect in 2012 than in 2008.  Lack of movement in immigration reform, the disproportionate effect of the economic downturn on Latinos, and a reversion to the mean all seem (or seemed like) plausible explanations for such an expectation.

Yet, new polling data from America’s Voice/Latino Decisions’ September/October 2012 Colorado Latino Voter Survey might just change this narrative leading up to election.  The changing narrative is not, however, about preference margins.  As Figure 1 shows, Obama holds a solid advantage over Romney, with 74% of respondents leaning, likely or certain to vote for Obama and this number has not changed much since the June Battleground poll.  The first variable in the Latino Effect equation is a rather stable 40-45% net marginal preference for Obama (conservatively estimated and accounting for the margin of error).

Preferences are only half the equation.  What about enthusiasm and the potential for high (or low) Latino turnout?  Well, contrary to the narrative of a disappointed or disillusioned Colorado Latino electorate, the Sept./Oct. 2012 data suggest a reasonably high level of enthusiasm for the election and perhaps more important, a majority of Latino voters who are even more enthusiastic for this election than they were for the 2008 election.  When asked, “Thinking ahead to the November 2012 presidential election, how enthusiastic are you about voting in the election next year?,” 69% said they were “very enthusiastic,” 23% were “somewhat enthusiastic,” and 4 and 3 percent were “not too” or “not at all” enthusiastic, respectively.  With almost 70% of respondents very enthusiastic, it is hard to construct a narrative of an apathetic Latino electorate.  Another question gauged enthusiasm relative to the 2008 election with similar results.[1]  54% of respondent said they were more enthusiastic in 2012 compared to 2008, and another 22% said their level of enthusiasm was the same as the 2008 election which was characterized by one of the largest surges in Latino voter turnout and enthusiasm of any recent presidential election (that’s quite a high bar).   In short, enthusiasm is quite high among Colorado Latinos.   And, as Figure 2 shows, enthusiasm increased from the June Battleground Poll—by almost 10 percent for the most enthusiastic responses in each question.

We can also look more closely at enthusiasm among Presidential preference categories and partisan orientations to see if one segment of the Latino electorate and their preference margins are driving enthusiasm.  Figure 3 presents the overall enthusiasm responses for those reporting to be certain to vote for Obama or Romney, as well as party identifies, and independents.

Figure 4 does the same for the responses to the question measuring enthusiasm relative to 2008.  Overall enthusiasm (Figure 3) is consistent across these groups, with the exception of independents who are generally less enthusiastic about elections (one of those consistent patterns of voter behavior identified by political scientists).  There is nothing here to really suggest a startling lack (or disproportionately high) level of enthusiasm for any segment.  Relative enthusiasm shows some variation, however, with Latino Republicans and Romney supporters demonstrating a higher level of 2012 vs. 2008 enthusiasm compared to Democrats and Obama supports.  This may be the enthusiasm gap, but given that adding the “same/no different” responses for Democrats and Obama supporters roughly equals the Republican and Romney relative enthusiasm totals, respectively, perhaps this is only an aberration resulting from the hyper-enthusiasm levels of 2008.  If Latinos are as or more enthusiastic about 2012 than 2008, it’s hard to point to a drop in enthusiasm.  (And combined, the June poll revealed 70% of respondents reported enthusiasm at the same or higher levels than in 2012).

At least in Colorado, the September/October data undercuts the narrative of a disillusioned and unenthusiastic Latino electorate.  Overall enthusiasm seems high, among most groups, and majorities of Obama and Romney supporters are more enthusiastic than in 2008.  Moreover, three-fourths of Latinos report similar or greater levels of enthusiasm in 2012—a pretty remarkable level of enthusiasm given the high bar set in 2008.  So, what explains the traction of the low enthusiasm narrative?  National numbers do support such a story.  But in battleground states, higher enthusiasm and participation rates are expected among the overall electorate as competitive elections generally lead to both, and Latinos do not seem to be an exception.  All voters, including Latinos, are quite simply cued to the importance of their electoral context and are appropriately responsive to such a context.  Other factors, such as Obama’s DHS directive and Romney’s reply, and simply temporal proximity, add to list of potential enthusiasm boosters.

In the end, the simple Latino voter effect equation should look a lot like 2008 in Colorado if enthusiasm levels are a reasonable proxy for November turnout.  And, while other factors may still dampen turnout among Latinos a bit, the Latino impact on Colorado’s presidential election should be of a similar magnitude as in 2008.  Perhaps it’s time for a new narrative of Latino voter impact in Colorado.

The commentary of this article reflects the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Latino Decisions. Latino Decisions and Pacific Market Research, LLC make no representations about the accuracy of the content of the article.

This article was first published in Latino Decisions.

Robert R. Preuhs is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Metropolitan State University of Denver. He has published numerous articles on state politics and minority representation. His most recent article, co-authored with Eric Gonzalez Juenke,“Irreplaceable Legislators? Rethinking Minority Representatives in the New Century” appears in The American Journal of Political Science.

[Photo by stock.xchng]

By Joe Ruiz, NewsTaco

If you’re like us, you were a little stunned when you heard the news about President Barack Obama’s change in immigration policy that would prevent the deportation of many young undocumented immigrants. The memo released this morning by Janet Napolitano, director of the Department of Homeland Security, has a lot of the same ideas posed in the DREAM Act.

Once the dust settled, though, we — as we’re sure many of you — still had questions about the policy, its political ramifications and where the issue now stands with this news. I’ve got a few questions that I will pose to our staffers and you. Let’s get an idea of what everybody’s thinking. Ask your own question in the comments or answer those posed here throughout the day.

1. Is this a legitimate first step toward immigration reform? Other than your highest wish on this issue being granted, what is a logical next step?

(Joe) – Yes, it is. Obviously, it’s not as much as people would like, but this appears to be legitimate action toward immigration reform. It would have been better if it’s come as an executive order rather than simply a memo by DHS, but it’s a start. The DREAMers and other activists should take some pride in helping to bring this issue to the forefront. They should also realize that their work isn’t done by any means, but they should be a little happier today.

(Victor) – Everything this president does is deliberate. It may not be the best thing in the long run (not all of his moves are wins), but that doesn’t mean he shoots from the hip. So, yes, this is a first step in a decided direction. Could he have done this three years ago? Of course. Would it have mattered? I’m not sure. This isn’t an Executive Order, as i read it – it’s  a policy change. The end effect is the same though, and from the standpoint of those most affected, it’s huge. So how many DREAMers have been deported in the past three years? And moving forward, the DREAMer community is estimated to be 800,000, all of them with networks of American voters: teachers, peers, co-workers, neighbors… This will create momentum for deeper changes.

(Susana) – It’s a very important step. This affects almost a million young people who came to the United States as children, without papers through no fault of their own. They faced deportation to countries they had minimal connection to, some didn’t even speak Spanish or their parents’ native language.

2. Word comes from Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) office that he was not consulted by the administration leading up to today’s announcement. In fact, the new policy is also in line with a solution proposed by Rubio. Is his plan dead? Is there a way for the GOP to leverage Rubio’s work into the admin’s change? Would they even do so?

(Joe) – I think there is a way for the GOP to spin this a little bit in their favor. Do I think they will? No. I think this becomes a wedge issue for the election and puts the GOP in a tough position on whether to attack it and potentially lose some independent Latino voters. Also, if they attack it too much, it could alienate some Latino Republicans further. They now have to go on the record and that’s big for the Democrats.

(Victor) – The GOP will have a hard time spinning this to their advantage among independents. The fact is that in the electoral political reality the voters that mater are the undecided voters in Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina.  Everything else is pretty much spoken for. So the Republican spin will resonate with their base where the Rubio proposal isn’t the most popular party favor. Outside of the base the GOP will question the President’s timing and try to hang a political motive on it. They will avoid going on the record as long as they can.

(Susana) – I don’t think Rubio can be too critical of the administration’s move without alienating his Latin supporters. But there will be many angry Republicans.

3. Is this new policy simply pandering to Latino voters? Does it matter? Has it or do you think it will change your opinion on the President and your thoughts on his re-election?

(Joe) – I don’t think it’s pandering so much as I think it’s trying to maximize timing for the election. President Obama has had to bide his time on a few big issues for progressives and seems to be addressing them at a slower pace than some would prefer. I still tend to keep my politics close to the chest and don’t speak out on them often, but I think this will have a positive impact for the President with independents, independent Latinos and those Latino voters who are partisan, but straddling the fence when it comes to voting for the President. This doesn’t hurt him.

(Victor) – I repeat, this is deliberate: the policy, the timing. But I put myself in the shoes of those most affected, the DREAMers, and it’s huge. Good for them, and good for their efforts! This is political momentum building when you consider the DREAMer networks – all of them progressive who may find the motivation they lacked to generate votes. I agree with Joe, it doesn’t hurt the President. This is smart wholesale politics and any grumbling will come from small retail corners. Still, Latino voters care more about the economy than they do about immigration, this just gives the President a bright badge to wear when he goes into a community with 11% unemployment. And it matters when, according to a Pew poll, more people are paying attention to economic and Presidential horse race news than in elections past.

(Susana) – Pandering or not, it’s the reality of the United States. Latinos are here to stay, they vote, they are a huge economic factor, they go to school, to church, shop in stores, pay taxes. The DREAMers who clamored for this change, many staging hunger strikes in detriment to their health, should be proud. President Obama likely never believed students should be deported in the first place. It now became the time to do something about it.

As I mentioned, we’ll be responding to this all day, so join in and debate (with respectful, reasoned discourse) as we try to analyze what’s happening.

Photo of President Barack Obama from The White House Flickr feed.