Gambling on Latino Votes
January 25, 2008
By Clara Irazábal
Las Vegas hosted its earliest primary election caucuses last week, to much fanfare from the national media. In contrast to preceding caucuses, where the candidates focused on discussing the economy, the war and their general proposals for “change,” a significant focus this time was on Latino voters.
More than traditional gateway cities for immigrants and enclaves of long-established Latinos such as Los Angeles, New York or Miami, Las Vegas has rapidly become a national poster child for the growth of Latino populations in urban, suburban and exurban areas of the country that hadn’t previously been exposed to the phenomenon.
Drawing an average of 60,000 new residents a year for more 15 years, Las Vegas has attracted many Latinos, to the point where city historian Hal Rothman called it “Aztlán in neon.” And just as Aztlán was the promised land of the ancient Aztec civilization, Las Vegas has proven to be the place where many Latinos and other minorities of the working class can make decent lives for themselves and their families. A growing economy focused on gambling, tourism, service and real estate; relatively low housing and living costs; and a relative strength in labor unions have transformed the improbable city into a true mirage in the desert for many.
On the Republican side, Mitt Romney carried 51 percent of the Nevada caucus vote and didn’t face competition, since most candidates were focusing on South Carolina’s caucus instead (where McCain was the victor). On the other hand, everybody eligible to vote in Nevada could participate in the Democratic caucus, including Republicans and independents. Although Obama had won the support of the powerful Las Vegas culinary union, many union members were visibly supporting Clinton as they formed long lines in casino precincts to vote. Obama carried the vote of African Americans in Nevada, but most Latinos preferred Clinton. Nevada's 24 percent Latino population helped Sen. Clinton to a 51 percent victory, while the support of the state’s 7 percent black population contributed to Obama's 45 percent of the vote. The fact that John Edwards — once considered a favorite for the Nevada caucus given his union connections — only got 4 percent of the votes can be perceived as the will of the electorate to narrow the Democratic competition to two candidates. However, it should be noted that Latino voters continued to gravitate towards Clinton, giving her a growing edge.
Presidential candidates have catered to the Latino vote since at least 2000. Until recently, however, the growth of Latinos hadn’t impacted electoral politics in a significant way. Now political pundits paint a different picture. Campaigns to get Latinos to naturalize and vote have gotten significant traction in recent elections, more particularly after the failed federal immigration reform and the immigration marches of 2006.
Before campaigning in Las Vegas, the candidates hadn’t spoken much about Latinos. Most were trying to project a hard image on (unauthorized) immigration in conservative states, where the issue is a polarizing one. Catering to Latinos requires a balancing act from the candidates, because Latino citizens generally support comprehensive immigration reform and a path to citizenship for immigrants currently residing in the country.
Can the candidates — be they Democrat or Republican — seek out the Latino vote and still have a border and immigration policy acceptable to the majority of their constituents? This is the open-ended game they started to gamble on in Nevada. But this is just the beginning of a defining stretch of primary elections. In this case, what happens in Vegas, doesn’t stay in Vegas...
Clara Irazábal, assistant professor in the USC School of Policy, Planning, and Development, is an expert on politics and culture in Latin America as well as U.S. ethnic communities.