Louis DeSipio - Awash in the Mainstream: Latino Politics in the 1996 Election

Latino Politics in the 1996 Elections

edited by
Rodolfo O. de la Garza
University of Texas at Austin
Louis DeSipio
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

First published 1999 by Westview Press

Published 2018 by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright 1999 by Taylor & Francis

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Awash in the mainstream: Latino politics in the 1996 elections /
edited by Rodolfo O. de la Garza and Louis DeSipio
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
ISBN 0-8133-6686-0 (hc.)
1. Hispanic AmericansPolitics and government. 2. United States
Politics and government1993- 3. ElectionsUnited States
History20th century. I. de la Garza, Rodolfo O. II. DeSipio, Louis.
E184.S75A93 1999
323.1'168073dc21 98-49320
CIP

ISBN 13: 978-0-367-00742-3 (hbk)

\

Awash in the Mainstream

Latinos and the 1996 Elections

Louis DeSipio , Rodolfo O. de la Garza , and Mark Setzler

To the extent that Mark Penn's observations represent a new conventional wisdom among Democrats, Latinosopportunities, but the majority were informally excluded from political engagement.

Going into the 1996 election, Latinos looked to be in a stronger position than they had been in any recent election. The party to which a majority of Latinos express allegiancethe Democratscontrolled the White House and the incumbent faced no competition for the party's presidential nomination. Similarly, most leading Latino elected officials faced no competition. Latinos were centrally placed in the Clinton administration, and these insiders expressed a desire early in the campaign to design a Latino-specific campaign both within the Clinton reelection campaign and within the Democratic National Committee. Issues of concern to Latino communities had become part of the national debate, allowing for the possibility of a Latino voice and influence in the outcome of congressional and national policy debates. Finally, the Latino electoratewhich has a higher growth rate than the electorate as a whole every four yearshad the potential to grow even more rapidly between 1992 and 1996 because of a dramatic increase in naturalization.

Yet when the election was over, it became evident that the expectations for a newly important role for Latino electorates were not met: The Latino voice in the presidential election was muted. Although issues important to the Latino community entered the debate, Latinos were often on the losing side. Similarly, although Latino officials in the Clinton campaign had been able to tap resources and design an unprecedented Latino outreach campaign, this campaign focused on media outreach to regular participants in politics and did little to mobilize new participants, particularly new U.S. citizens. Although the evidence is contradictory, it is safe to say that the growth in the Latino vote in 1996 was not as large as was expected going into the race. This was particularly disappointing considering the steady growth in the population eligible to vote (it should be noted, however, that non-Latino voting dropped in 1996). Thus, despite unique opportunities and a newly found role for Latino issues in the national policy debate, Latinos were not decisive actors in the elections. Instead, as we will argue, the factors that have kept Latinos from the polls for the past two decades continued to do so in 1996. Their newly central position in the Democratic coalition, then, could not overcome many of the limits on their political effectiveness that we have identified in past studies of Latinos and national politics (de la Garza and DeSipio 1992, 1996; de la Garza, Menchaca, and DeSipio 1994).