Professional Documents
Culture Documents
During the contentious federal elections of 2016, 27.3 million Latino Americans were
eligible to vote. From a more engaging perspective, this number comprises a staggering 12% of
the American voting population (Pew, 2016). One might theorize that a group this prodigious in
number would form a formidable voting bloc, with individuals translating their common stance
on relevant issues into de jure policy with their votes. At this juncture, it seems this wave of
Latino political power has yet to fully substantiate. According to figures reported by Professor
Jordan-Wallace during a lecture at the University of Washington, only 53.6% of Latinos voted
during the 2012 federal election. The potential numerical power of the Latino population is
stymied by low (but generally increasing) turnout, spurring many pundits and political scientists
to deem the group a sleeping giant. Is this nomenclature applicable when referencing
To better investigate whether or not a defined Latino electorate actually exists, one might
examine the political choices, demographic qualities, and social attitudes of the greater ethnic
group. Political scientists have indirectly communicated a criterion composed of several requisite
traits that qualifies a group as a potent sleeping giant. If one is to analyze relevant literature on
the subject, a large constituency that features a cohesive group consciousness seems to have been
identified as the definitive attribute of an archetypical sleeping giant. American Latinos surely
satisfy this requirement (Sanchez, 2006; Fraga, 2010) and several other, more situational
adjuncts of giant potential: majority support for a single party, large residencies in swing states,
specialized outreach from candidates, and a high growth rate (Wallace, 2012; Bejarano, 2014;
Ramirez, 2013; Sanchez, 2006). When these components are analyzed in detail, the latent power
The concept of group consciousness suggests that the effects of group affinity and
collective orientations are felt within Latino sub-groups, as well as the broader pan ethnic
grouping of Latino (Sanchez, 2006). This may come as a slight surprise to one with even a
Dominicans, and beyond, the cultural practices and life experiences of individuals from these
distinct groups would seem to create a broader pan ethnic grouping (Sanchez, 2006) without
However, the research asserts that is not the case. [P]erceived discrimination is the
dimension of group consciousness that plays the greatest role in determining Latino public
opinion...it is clear that the predicted probability of supporting the pro-Latino stance on [a]
policy issue increases with greater perceived discrimination (Sanchez, 2006). It seems as though
ideological front on a variety of policy areas. In reaction to exogenous shocks, Latino residents,
citizens, and voters demonstrate political agency in the various ways that they respond to
political threat from organized marches to canvassing and voter education (Ramirez, 2013). I
contend that the California immigration rights marches of 2006 were events that both
Latinos. Each month 50,000 Latinos become eligible to vote by reaching the age of 18, a fact
that adds to the groups electoral prominence on paper (Wallace, 2012). Atypical political
participation such as rallies, marches and grassroots voter motivation campaigns do much to
promote the pan ethnic Latino ideal, generating group salience on pressing issues and motivating
What other catalysts besides perceived existential threat and overt discrimination might
method of growing the Latino vote. When a viable co-ethnic candidate is present, Latinos will
turnout to vote at heightened rates, and in some instances vote at rates greater than those of other
ethnic and racial groupsincluding whites (Barreto, 2007). Latinos respond positively to
candidates that share their ethnicity for reason similar to their compulsion to vote in the interests
of their pan-ethnics: if one is a Latino, they are more likely to understand the preferences and
struggles of the group and adequately advocate for them in the political arena.
Taking the American electoral college into account when assessing a voting blocs
potency is paramount. The concentration of the African American population within the South
has dismal electoral consequences for their constituency, especially in contrast with the high
population distribution of Latinos in swing states (Abrajano, 2010). Latino voters are
considered a key group of swing voters that can significantly influence the direction of an
election since they generally provide a majority of voter support to the Democratic
party...therefore, shifts in the political behaviors and attitudes of Latino[s]...can have significant
and growing constituency within the American electorate. Individuals within the group tend to
vote for Democrat candidates, allowing the party to encroach on areas in the South and
One knows they have achieved status only when they are treated as such. The Latino
constituency was first courted by John F. Kennedys campaign in 1960. Kennedy sought to
directly appeal to Latino voters and create a political culture invested in the importance of
Yarnall 4
political participation by running Spanish language ads in Texas and Illinois that may have
given him the edge he needed to win the election (Wallace, 2012). The Latino vote can act as a
lynchpin in propelling a (typically Democratic) candidate into the White House. In Florida,
Latinos were 11 percent of the electorate and Obama was able to win the state [in part due] to a
majority of its Latino voters. This feat is signicant because Florida has only been won two other
times by Democratic presidential candidates since 1968 (Wallace, 2012). However, the prospect
of courting the Latino vote has motivated Republicans to make overtures to the constituency as
well, such as John Mccain in Arizona. The RNC chairman Reince Priebus reported that the
Republican party believes that its crucial to involve Latinos at every level back in 2012
(Bejarano, 2014). How might the Republicans win Latino support back from the Democrats in
the future?
The most effective method in stimulating Latino support is targeted outreach. As outlined
previously, President Kennedy was able to garner a record 85% of the Latino vote in the 1960
election after running simple Spanish language ads (Wallace, 2012). Effective outreach to Latino
voters has even garnered success for Republican candidates. The presidential race between Bush
and Gore in 2000 exemplifies the power of Latino outreach. Gore lost Nevada (a key
battleground state) to Bush after the Republican wisely outspent his opponent in the Spanish
language media market. Bush also racked up endorsements from Latino elected officials
throughout the Southwest, adding to his clout (Abrajano, 2010). In similar fashion to Nevada,
many political analysts believe that a stronger Latino outreach effort in Florida would have
handed that state to Gore in place of Bush (Abrajano, 2010). Gores advisers speculated that
Latino support was a foregone conclusion, much to his detriment. The federal election of 2000
Yarnall 5
proves that affective Latino outreach and engagement (regardless of ones party) can have
positive and substantial influence on an election. To the chagrin of Latinos and other voters, the
Republicans have seemingly abandoned their pro-Latino stance during the 2016 federal
Notably, Latinos have shorn up a major bulwark in the Democratic arsenal by turning
California dark blue. Over a span of 16 years, Democrats have[won] every statewide office
[in California] (Ramirez, 2013). California carries a staggering 55 electoral votes because of its
large population. The Democrats have the Californian Latino population to thank for this
electoral gem. Despite these numerous demonstrations of Latino political power, Ramirez states
[t]he Latino vote is rarely decisive (Ramirez, 2013), pointing to the fact that Latinos have yet
to instigate a major electoral upset all on their own. Despite Ramirezs contention, the sum of his
article and the others cited above screams of the potential political power of Latinos, lending
credence to the claim that the Latino vote is a sleeping giant. In the past, the effective
activation of the Latino vote has changed the face of the electoral map, but I foresee future
elections will elicit a veritable deluge of votes from Latino individuals. In the case of the Latino
With this in consideration, outreach strategies remain prudent resource expenditures: the
rising size of the Latino population has netted more and more voters during each successive
presidential election, culminating in an all time high during the 2016 federal election. 13.1
million to 14.7 million Latinos cast ballots in the 2016 election...a significant increase from the
11.2 million Latino votes cast in 2012 (Sanchez and Barreto, 2016). Latino votes have been
courted since the 1960s and voter turnout has grown with each election. Sadly, it took Donald
Yarnall 6
Trumps derisive rhetoric to coerce Latinos out to the polls in such large numbers. One would be
remiss to believe Latinos will shy away from voting during the next election cycle, especially
after suffering through the likely abortive Trump administration. Perhaps the sleeping giant is
antagonism? I think not. As the Latino population continues to mature and benefit from social
mobility, candidates will have to reform their outreach methods and draft policies that actually
benefit Latinos. The proportion of non-policy messages is greater in Spanish ads than in English
ads...candidates are more likely to rely on character appeals, targeted Latino appeals, and simple
policy messages when appealing to Spanish voters (Abrajano, 2010). Such outreach is based on
the assumption that Latinos typically do not have the educational attainment necessary to
understand or engage with more policy-heavy ads. Additionally, many candidates have made the
mistake of pigeon-holing Latinos as a single issue electorate based on their resounding support
for immigration reform. This has been proven to be a grave misconception (Wallace, 2012;
Sanchez, 2006).
Additionally, candidates should make moves to take Latino issues seriously. President
Obama made many promises to his Latino constituency that were not honored (Wallace, 2012).
Though they still supported his reelection campaign, an idealist such as myself feels Latinos
should receive more than just empty promises in return for their votes. Only if Latinos are
engaged from the same intellectual standpoint as whites will the sleeping giant awaken. Only if
Latino voices are heard and answered through policy will Latino individuals feel that their votes
Yarnall 7
are worth casting. Perhaps low Latino voter turnout stems not from ambivalence but from
disillusionment.
Work Cited
4. Fraga, Luis Ricardo. "Growing Presence of Latinos in the US." Latino Lives in America:
Making It Home. Philadelphia, PA: Temple UP, 2010. N. pag. Print.
5. Krogstad, Jens Manuel. "Key Facts about the Latino Vote in 2016." Pew Research
Center, 14 Oct. 2016. Web. 27 Nov. 2016.
6. Ramrez, Ricardo. Mobilizing Opportunities: The Evolving Latino Electorate and the
Future of American Politics. Charlottesville: U of, 2013. Print.
7. Sanchez, Gabriel, and Matt A. Barreto. "In Record Numbers, Latinos Voted
Overwhelmingly against Trump. We Did the Research." Washington Post. The
Washington Post, 11 Nov. 2016. Web. 28 Nov. 2016.
9. Wallace, Sophia J. "It's Complicated: Latinos, President Obama, and the 2012 Election."
Social Science Quarterly 93.5 (2012): 1360-383. Web. 27 Nov. 2016.