When the primary season began, there were signs that the 2016 election was going to be different from others in the past. This would be the most diverse electorate in United States history, and Latinos were set to play a central role on a national stage. Latinos had played an important part of the Barack Obama coalition and their electoral size only continued to grow. After suffering two presidential defeats, the Republican National Committee, headed by Reince Priebus, issued a report that rethought the GOP’s strategy. The RNC had come to the conclusion that the Republican Party needed new voters. It needed Latinos, but Latinos’ support for Republican candidates had been steadily decreasing since George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign. The RNC thought a change in policy and rhetoric could fix this in 2016.

As 2016 approached, it seemed both parties were doubling down on diversity.

Continue Reading

It was only a few months ago, when the news cycle was abuzz with rumors of a possible Latino vice-presidential pick.  Xavier Becerra, Julian Castro, Tom Perez, all were floated as possible names on Hillary Clinton’s short list.  Becerra, the most senior ranking Latino Democrat in the house, was a qualified choice.  Castro, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the rising-star of the Democratic Party brought with him youth, good looks, and the right political pedigree (by way of Stanford and Harvard).  Perez, Secretary of Labor, brought with him political gravitas and liberal credibility, given his background in labor and civil rights issues.

All were strong choices and Latino advocacy groups were excited about the possibility for new political and social visibility.  In an election which ultimately saw a candidate who ran on an anti-Mexican platform, a Latino could have significant potential to disrupt the entire Trumpian narrative.

Instead, Clinton picked Tim Kaine.  It was supposed to be okay because Kaine would successfully reenergize the Latino vote.  A sprinkling of Spanish, a mention of his time in Costa Rica, a few words on his Catholicism, and Latinos would just eat him up with their cucharras.  Kaine was supposed recharge Clinton’s Latino outreach.

Tuesday’s vice-presidential debate, showed Kaine’s failure to live up to that initial promise.

Continue Reading

Lacking a diverse field but needing a diverse electorate has forced Democrats to build their outreach efforts.  The growing Latino electorate has led to a seemingly unprecedented amount of Latino staffing appointments and key Latino endorsements.  Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have hired a cadre of Latino staffers, organizers, directors, and volunteers.

While the Republican field of presidential candidates is soon to be whittled down after the New Hampshire primary, the Democratic race now only features Clinton and Sanders.  Martin O’Malley dropped out of the presidential race after running a hard-fought, policy-driven campaign that never caught on with voters.  Jorge Rivas, the national correspondent at Fusion, declared that he was “the most progressive candidate in history on immigration,”  after O’Malley’s withdrawal.  I wrote on O’Malley’s pro-Latino policies that fell on deaf ears as well. O’Malley’s exit means that Latino issues may receive less attention in subsequent debates—the February 4, 2016 debate had no discussion of race or immigration—but that does not mean Latinos will figure less in the campaigns, especially given the demographics of the coming Nevada caucuses.

Continue Reading

On January 21, 2016, The National Review ran a story titled “Iowa Latinos Left High and Dry by Presidential Candidates.”  The article, written by Matt Vasilogambros, tells the story of Latino activists in Iowa, feeling left out and forgotten in the race for votes.  The activists complained that neither the Hillary Clinton nor the Bernie Sanders campaign paid Latinos sufficient attention.  Yet, on the same day that Vasilogrambros’ story broke, the significant Iowan Spanish-language newspaper El Latino announced their endorsement of Martin O’Malley.  The endorsement rang enthusiastic: “Martin O’Malley es el candidato más pro latino y pro inmigrante en la historia de este país.  Se merece nuestro apoyo, y este periódico, se lo brinda orgullosamente.”  The next day, in the Des Moines Register, Karina Alvarez, an Iowan immigrant rights activist, explained why “she was switching her vote from Sanders to O’Malley.”  After explaining that Sanders’ voted against immigration reform, went on Lou Dobbs Tonight and spoke about immigrants taking jobs from Americans, and defending the Minutemen, a gun-toting rightwing vigilante group that claimed to defend the border from an invading horde, she decided that O’Malley was the “only one with the record that our community needs.” Even Christian Ucles, the political director for the Iowa branch of the League of Latin American Citizens, who spoke cynically about the hispandering prevalent in the state in Vasilogambros’ article, was impressed by Martin O’Malley’s Latino outreach efforts.

This may come as a surprise to many voters.  After multiple Democratic debates in which most of the attention was focused on Clinton and Sanders, why would Spanish-language newspapers in Iowa endorse Martin O’Malley?  Why would Latino activists be choosing O’Malley, the Democratic dark horse?  His polling numbers are anywhere from 1 to 3 percent nationally and  he almost did not make it into the Democratic debate on January 17, 2016, with his numbers sitting at 6.4 percent in Iowa.  The endorsements and Vasilogambros’ article make clear that O’Malley is paying attention to Latinos.  But why has this affable, attractive, and capable politician remained on the political margins?

Continue Reading