Anthony Painter, from the campaign trail, assesses the state of play in the race to secure the Democratic nomination for the White House race and concludes that a win in Texas could swing it for Barack Obama
SHORTLY before the Nevada caucus, Barack Obama’s campaign adopted the United Farm Workers slogan Si se Puede – translated as ‘Yes, we can.’ A week or so later a video featuring a number of stars written by Black Eyed Peas’ singer will.i.am and starring the likes of Scarlett Johansson and Herbie Hancock, was released under the title Yes, we can/Si se Puede. But if those running the Obama campaign had hoped that wooing the Latino vote would be as easy as associating themselves with the heroic civil rights leader César Chávez, the founder of the United Farm Workers, they were sorely disappointed. In California, Nevada and elsewhere, Latino voters have been stubbornly resistant to Obama’s message of “change”.
The problem faced by those who want to see Obama in the White House is that the Latino vote has risen from being a minor footnote demographic to a minority that will have a significant voice in determining the Democratic nomination.
All roads lead to Texas. It is likely that up to 20 per cent of voters in the Texan showdown will be Hispanic. The Texan primary on March 4 could be the clincher for Obama. If he wins, he will almost certainly be his party’s nominee. If he loses, question marks about his ability to close big states will dog him until August’s Democratic Convention in Denver.
Looking at average polling data, it is clear Obama has enjoyed two distinct surges in his support in the primaries race so far. The first surge happened in and around the Iowa caucus early in the year where he gained 10 points. The second surge saw him gain a further 10 points in the run up to Super Tuesday. His poll lead has continued to rise progressively since then, but to be sure of victory he still needs one further surge. A third surge will be trickier to achieve because it will need to eat into Hillary Clinton’s core support. That includes Latinos.
Previous primaries and caucuses have signalled that the Latino vote is firmly in the Clinton’s camp. The Nevada caucus showed a lead of 64-26 for her over Obama and by 67-32 in California, according to entrance and exit polls. While major union backing was definitely a fillip for Clinton in those races, there seems to be a broader foundation for her success. Texas only has 5 per cent unionisation, but Clinton’s strong foundations remain in the Latino vote and perhaps more in the state than almost anywhere else.
Her association with Texas began in the George McGovern presidential campaign in 1972 when, along with future husband Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham was a campaign organiser in the state. On a trivial level, she pinpoints her addiction to Mexican food to that campaign. More substantively, Latinos associate the Clinton White House years with economic opportunity and a less shrill and draconian approach to immigration than has been the case since. Given this advantage, the renowned loyalty of the Hispanic vote is particularly significant. It is one of the few demographics to have demonstrated sturdy resistance to Obama’s message.
Lydia Camarillo, vice-president of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, a group established to increase Latino participation in the democratic process, outlines the challenge facing Obama.
“The Latino vote is fiercely loyal. It is not that we are resistant to change per se. Hillary is part of our history and that explains the strong affinity that Latino voters have for Hillary and Bill in Texas.”
However, Camarillo does not see the situation as irretrievable for Obama. “Notwithstanding the historical link to the Clintons, Obama can still close the gap with Hillary by focusing on the issues, most particularly immigration. He did this in California, but too late. Also, given that Texas is a ‘right to work’ state, union membership is low and so any union backing, such as from the UFW, won’t have the same impact in Texas. Finally, Obama is strong on the ground. He’s spent $1.3million in ads in the Texas Valley already and his ground operation is formidable. He’s got experienced Latino organisers on the ground already and that will be critical.”
Immigration is always an issue of major concern within the Hispanic community. Polling data published by the New Democrat Network/Latin Insights shows that 37 per cent of Hispanics consider immigration to be the most important issue facing Hispanics and 54 per cent state that the immigration debate increases their intention to vote. Aware of this, Obama announced that he was favouring the issuing of drivers’ licenses even if an individual is not authorised to work in the US. It is a clear dividing line with Clinton, who has rejected the policy, aware of the negative reaction it is likely to induce among the wider population.
The construction of a wall on the US border with Mexico is also a major symbolic issue among Texan Latinos and the candidates’ response on this issue will be critical. As a local joke puts it: “No matter how high they build the wall, we can build ladders that are higher.” It remains to be seen whether Obama’s moves on immigration so far will provide him with the ladder he needs.
Notwithstanding these challenges, it would be foolish to write off Obama’s chances in Texas. First, the electoral system and apportionment are in his favour. Texas has a strange hybrid of caucus (where he has generally performed very well) and primary. More significantly, the apportionment of delegates – and it is always important to remember that this process is about delegates more than anything else – favours his demographic coalition.
Areas with a high concentration of African-American voters, such as the major Texan cities, will have a relatively high proportion of delegates. Southern Texan districts with a higher proportion of Latino voters will be handicapped by the system which is based on recent historical turnout. A win in districts in Dallas and Houston will be delegate-rich and this will benefit Obama to the extent that it would not be surprising if Clinton won the popular vote but lost in terms of delegates in a repetition of the Nevada scenario.
The second factor in Obama’s favour is his superior electoral operation and the sheer momentum generated by his arrival in any state. A former community organiser himself, Obama has built an operation that is mesmerising to behold. In addition, his rallies, sometimes in front of 30,000 or 40,000 people a day, have a huge impact. Hillary Clinton will need to check that momentum somehow in two debates that precede the vote on March 4.
Texas gave the US its current President. It is now critical to the choosing of its next – or least the Democratic nominee. With seemingly insurmountable poll deficits in the two other big states remaining, Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama needs Texas. Can he do it? Si se puede. Will he? It’s by far his biggest test so far.
Anthony Painter is co-editor of Viral Politics: communication in the new media era His blog can be found at www.anthonypainter.co.uk
