By Matt A. Barreto, UW assistant professor of political science
Gary Segura, UW professor of political science

An increasingly important narrative in the Democratic primary campaign has focused on the heavy preference for Hillary Clinton among Hispanics. This preference, the story goes, reflects a deep-seated and important social and political tension between Latinos and African-Americans. It's evidenced not just in Latino support for the Clinton candidacy but in a generalized aversion to African-American politicians among Latinos across the political landscape.

This narrative has been helped along by Clinton’s Hispanic pollster, echoed by progressive black authors angered by the increasingly racialized tone of the Democratic contest, and embraced whole-heartedly by conservative pundits in gleeful editorials commenting at length about a fractured Democratic coalition and new prospects for the GOP in November.

From a political science perspective, the principal problem with the central elements of this narrative is that there is little or no evidence for any of it. It is incorrect to equate Latino support for Hillary Clinton in 2008 with anti-Obama or anti-black voting patterns. In multiple national surveys in which we have participated, and in our own polling among Latinos in Nevada and California, we find that the Clinton advantage is driven primarily by her eight years as first lady and seven years as Senator from New York.

By contrast, in April of last year, a survey of 1,000 Latino voters nationwide found that 35% said they had no opinion of Senator Barack Obama in contrast to 8 percent of those asked their opinion of Clinton. So while Obama has become well known in a relatively short time among political observers, he did not rise to national prominence among Latinos until this campaign.

This name-recognition advantage for Clinton has been enhanced by a strong and aggressive advertising and outreach effort by her campaign and a string of high-profile endorsements. She has hired an independent Latino pollster and aired significantly more Spanish language radio and television ads.

In contrast, the Obama campaign’s outreach to Hispanics has been anemic and particularly ineffective. Even Congressman Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, a prominent Latino supporter of Obama, has criticized him for failing to reach Latinos. In short, there are many reasons why Hillary Clinton enjoys a large advantage among Latino voters, none of which has anything to do with racism.

The claim, then, that her support is somehow evidence of Latino unwillingness to support African-American candidates is wrong on its face, a point one of us made on CNN immediately after the Congressional Black Caucus Debate. Latino voters have demonstrated strong support for African American candidates in the past, across a variety of circumstances. Harold Washington, David Dinkins, Wellington Webb, and Ron Kirk were all elected as mayors of major American cities with Latino vote shares from 70 to 80 percent. In the U.S. Congress, eight African American members of the U.S. House represent districts with more than 25% Latino population, including Charles Rangel of New York and Maxine Waters of Los Angeles, whose districts are actually majority-Latino.

Even Obama himself has a strong record of Latino votes. In 2000, when Obama challenged incumbent Bobby Rush in the Democratic primary for First Congressional district in Illinois, he won more Latino votes than African American ones. In 2004, when he ran for the U.S. Senate Democratic nomination in Illinois, Obama received more Latino votes than Latino candidate Gerry Chico. Claims that Latinos will not vote for Barack Obama, or black candidates are clearly false.

This is not to say there aren’t moments of political rivalry between African-Americans and Latinos. They have much in common, including educational disparities and economic disadvantages. Though those commonalities should often result in political coalition, there will inevitably be moments, circumstances, and candidacies that pull the groups in different directions. This is the very definition of democracy and not at all surprising. The question is whether there is anything fundamentally preventing coalition of these two groups behind the eventual Democratic nominee. There is not.

In 1973, when Tom Bradley was elected mayor of Los Angeles, he lost among Latinos, and the punditry then, as now, speculated that Latinos would not vote for a black candidate. But Bradley’s political skills and the inherent shared interests of Latino voters and the Bradley coalition reversed this trend. By 1982, when Bradley ran for governor of California, he won an estimated 70-80% of the Latino vote.

The election of 2008 looks to be a good year for Democrats among Latinos. The failure of immigration reform and the nativist grandstanding of the GOP and its primary candidates, including the once-moderate John McCain, seem certain to drive the Democratic share of the Latino vote back towards 70%. The wealth of empirical research, not speculation, suggests this will be true whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

Dr. Matt A. Barreto and Dr. Gary M. Segura are professors of political science at the University of Washington, Seattle. They are leading experts on Latino public opinion and voting patterns and have twice published their research in the American Political Science Review, the leading academic journal in political science.

By Matt A. Barreto, UW assistant professor of political science

In 2008, the presidential nominating process could be over by February 5^th – a full eight months before the general election in November. Some pundits have argued that shortening the primary season is a disservice to voters, providing less time to get to know the candidates and become informed. However, the buzz among observers of Latino politics is that for the first time ever, Latino voters will have a meaningful say in nominating a presidential candidate.

Yet with such a short primary calendar, can voters – Latino or otherwise – make an informed decision on the leading presidential candidates? They are certainly no worse off than in the past. At the same time that parties have front-loaded the 2008 primaries, the campaign for president has started earlier, almost two full years before the actual presidential election. Indeed, candidates are busy hosting fundraisers and giving stump speeches from California to Iowa to New York.

The point that has been often overlooked in the recent debate about the 2008 primary schedule is the opportunity for more voters, and more diverse voters to weigh in on the potential candidates. In particular, many of the states that have moved their primary date up have sizable Latino populations.

In the 2004 presidential election Latino voters were among the most prized swing voters. More than $10 million was spent on Spanish language television commercials alone, a remarkable figure considering California, Texas and New York were out of play. Researchers have regularly noted that Latinos are not a monolithic group, holding both liberal and conservative viewpoints on important policy issues. When asked to report their political ideology, Latino voters tend to split into equal thirds among liberal, moderate, and conservative. What’s more, Latinos represent the fastest growing segment of the American electorate, growing from 5.9 million in 2000 to 7.6 million in 2004, an increase of 28%. In comparison the non-Latino electorate grew by 15% from 2000 to 2004.

Thus, it makes sense that both political parties could benefit by campaigning for the Latino vote in January and February. In all three of the traditional early primary states, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, Latino voters account for less than one percent of the electorate. In contrast, Latinos were 8% of the vote in Nevada in 2004; 11% in Florida; 13% in Arizona; 16% in California; 7% in New Jersey; 33% in New Mexico; and 8% in New York. For the first time ever, candidates in the primary election would have to campaign for Latino votes, hire Latino staff and consultants, and air Spanish language campaign commercials. By increasing the diversity of the electorate in the presidential primary, we increase the diversity of ideas and issues that are discussed, and perhaps the diversity of the candidates (as is the case in 2008).

Furthermore, while a majority of Latinos live in non-competitive states such as California, New York, Texas, and Illinois, Latino voters in the southwest could prove pivotal to the 2008 general election. A recent book by Tom Schaller, professor of Political Science at the University of Maryland, has suggested that the Southwest and Mountain West are growing in importance to the presidential election because they are becoming more politically diverse and ethnically diverse. New Mexico has twice been among the most competitive states in the presidential election; in Colorado, Democrat Ken Salazar won the U.S. Senate election by 4 points even as Kerry lost the presidential contest by 5 points; and Nevada was decided by just 20,000 votes in 2004 has seen 20,000 new Latino registered voters in the last two years. Although the 2008 primary schedule will be frenzied and compact, it will nonetheless provide Latino voters an opportunity to evaluate and vote on the leading contenders for president, as opposed to only the finalists.

Early States and Latino Voters in 2008