Latino Voters will be Key to the Elections, with all the Implications that Come Due to Their Origin and Relationship with the Place Where They Live in the U.S.

The panel titled “Latin America and the U.S. Elections: Role of the Latino Vote; Economic and Foreign Policy Implications,’’ held during the Global Forum on Latin America and the Caribbean 2024, identified relevant factors related to the electoral process that will take place in that nation next November.

NEW YORK – Some 20 million Latino voters could decide who will win the elections in the United States next November 2024, an unprecedented event due to the number of new voters considered Hispanic or Latino. To date, analysts do not clearly predict where their votes will go, because being a Democrat or Republican among the Latino community has varied.

Experienced analysts examined surveys and socio-demographic and economic studies to share their views on the situation that they see as an extraordinary event, in terms of the role of the Latino voter and what the region can expect if Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate, or Donald Trump, the Republican candidate, wins.

“Latin America and the U.S. Elections: Role of the Latino Vote; Economic and Foreign Policy Implications,” was the central theme of the third panel held during the Global Forum on Latin America and the Caribbean 2024, led by speakers Jorge Castañeda, former Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs and professor at New York University; Eduardo Gamarra, professor of the Department of Politics and International Relations at Florida International University; Tulio Vera, Interim President of Global Americans and Mark Hugo López, Director of Research on Race and Ethnicity at Pew Research Center. The panel was moderated by Leonel Fernández, former president of the Dominican Republic and president of the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development (GFDD/Funglode).

The panel discussion is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnjmEzywfnM&t=16879s

Jorge Castañeda: Because Their Rhetoric is very similar, it Will be Difficult for Latinos to Decide between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump

Castañeda is not sure that all segments of the Latino vote react the same way, and pointed out in his presentation that, sometimes, surveys or comments about surveys indicate that the Latino vote this time is going to be less Democratic than on other occasions.

If that is true for the Mexican or American vote, Castañeda stated that one should take into consideration whether this behavior reflects, perhaps, the weight of new contingents of Latinos who have been arriving in the United States over the last 20 years.

He said that he has asked himself questions in this regard, while at the same time indicating that he has a hard time seeing how a Mexican-American can vote for President Trump, after all he has put them through.

“I understand the reasons why other Latin groups can vote for the former president, but I have a hard time when it comes to the Mexicans,” he said.

On the issue of the impact of the electoral results in Latin America, he said that for the vast majority of Latin American countries Trump’s election could be detrimental.

The experienced analyst summarized his thesis putting forth two key facts: “First and foremost, because we have already experienced – more or less – what his leadership means. And second, because a second Trump administration would have a lack of counterweights, limitations and restrictions. All of these have already been widely discussed in the United States during the campaign. And on the other hand, there are many reasons to assume that a victory by Vice President Harris would mark a good degree of continuity with President Biden’s policies for many reasons. Among these is that Vice President Kamala Harris has not shown great interest or commitment to Latin America one way or the other and, therefore, would probably follow more or less the current policies.”

However, he stressed that the fundamental differences between Trump and Harris on some of the most important issues for most Latin American countries are not that impressive.

The stridency is very different, although the substance is perhaps less so, he pointed out. He offered two examples of the candidates’ statements on immigration, indicating that Harris has hardened her tone a lot in these past weeks regarding her position on the issue of Latin American migration. She has not only hardened her tone on Latin American migration to the United States, but that recent posture goes hand in hand with a strengthening of the substance of the specific policies of the Biden government, of which she is a part of and which she will possibly maintain.

Another fact that stands out is that many people have already commented that between Trump’s policies during his four-year term, and Biden’s real policies on immigration during the same period of time, they were not so different, although the rhetoric of racism and xenophobia, among others, were.

He also said that both candidates – although Trump says it more stridently, are anti-Chinese, “both are constantly insisting on all things, all the reprisals, measures, etc., measures that they are going to take against China in terms of trade, investment, intellectual property, etc. Regardless of whether they are right or not, it is a discussion that my friend Jorge Heine and I have very often. Anyway, regardless of that, beyond the rhetoric, the positions are quite similar and this is going to put many Latin American countries – not all – certainly Mexico but not only Mexico, in a very complicated, very uncomfortable situation.”

For Castañeda it is evident that for Mexico, for Central Americans, for the Caribbean countries and for several nations in the Southern Cone as well, Chinese investment is in their interest. They don’t seem to be interested in American, Japanese or German investments.

Eduardo Gamarra: The November Results Will Largely Depend on the Turnout of Minorities, especially Hispanics and African-Americans

For Gamarra, a good summary of this issue is that as the November elections approach, the Hispanic vote will be a crucial factor that could define the political future of the United States. Differences in self-perception, values, national origin and electoral participation make it an extremely diverse and complex block, whose power and influence are growing.

He highlighted that a determining aspect of the November elections will be the participation of Hispanic voters. The Cuban voter, for example, is extremely disciplined, with participation rates reaching 74% in some areas of Miami-Dade, with the exception that the average participation of the rest of the Hispanic community does not reach 50%. This difference can tip the electoral balance significantly.

During his presentation, he recalled a recent event where the results of several surveys carried out by FIU has worked on were discussed, and which will be revealed on October 14 in Washington.

Among other aspects, he referred to how the population considered Latino is perceived. When asked if they consider themselves “Hispanic” or “Latino,” 75% prefer the term “Hispanic,” while between 20% and 23% identify themselves as “Latino.” He highlighted and raised the issue of “curious” that the term “Latinx,” popular in certain academic circles, does not resonate with the vast majority of Hispanics.

The Hispanic community is not monolithic, a matter which complicates the analysis of its electoral behavior. He insisted, adding influential factors, such as the country of origin and the period when they arrived in the United States. For example – he indicated – in Florida, Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans form important blocks, with notable differences in their political preferences. While Cubans tend to vote Republican, the Puerto Rican vote has historically been Democratic. However, in 2022, 46% of Puerto Ricans voted for Ron DeSantis, an unexpected phenomenon.

At another point in his speech, he highlighted the role of the so-called swing states, and, specifically, in the case of Michigan – which has a Hispanic population of between 4% and 5% – which translates to roughly 250,000 voters. If we assume that of those 250,000, in a good election year, 60% will vote, then we are saying that there will be between 100 and 150,000 Hispanics who will vote. He emphasized that the result in Michigan will be defined by a smaller margin than that, which then makes the Hispanic vote absolutely decisive.

The independent vote is equally relevant in the race, according to Gamarra, who warned about how Hispanic voters tend to change their opinion, something relevant because they could tip the balance in swing states.

Tulio Vera: The International Aspect of Both Economic Platforms is the Most Damaging and Negative Part for Latin America

While highlighting that he is an economist-researcher, apart from his training in Wall Street, Vera stressed the importance of assessing the upcoming elections regarding its impact on the economy in the presidential agendas.

He emphasized that neither of the candidates has really defined their policies or platforms very clearly. I believe that, although Trump is a little more advanced in terms of policies, the difference is minimal, because he continues to act on impulse and say different things every time he steps in front of a microphone. Regarding Harris, he pointed out that due to the nature of what has happened, because she only came on the scene two or three months ago, she has not really had the opportunity to completely define a program, an economic program.

He also stated that the international aspect of both economic platforms is the part that is more damaging and negative for Latin America than the national policies, he pointed out that, “unfortunately,” he would have to characterize both candidates as protectionists.

“The scope for a free trade agreement, which maybe five years ago there was still some aspirational expectation of having trade agreements, has disappeared. It has disappeared in Washington; it has disappeared practically everywhere. Everyone is competing to see how high they can impose a tariff,” he stated.

Regarding Trump, whom he identified as particularly protectionist, he said that depending on the day or which side of the bed he gets up, one day he will say he is going to put a 10% tariff on all imports, and the next day he will say 20%.

He has said, and it is on record, he emphasized, that he is going to put a 60% tariff on all Chinese imports. And he has said that he can go up to 200% on Mexican cars. So, he is everywhere. “But the bottom line is that this is a protectionist universe,” he added.

And then he asked himself: Is this bad for Latin America? His answer: “Yes, it is bad. Obviously, it is bad. It means less exports to the U.S. Maybe it means that, in some areas, although I do not think that this has been studied enough, in some areas Latin American exports can compete or take the place of what the Chinese stop exporting due to the increased tariffs that Trump plans to impose on China. But that is another story.”

Vera argued that it is known that Trump’s position is oriented to correct the trade deficit, an amount which is significant today. In this regard, he considered that “imposing tariffs is a brutal way to correct the trade deficit, but it also has implications for the average citizen,” because it will be a sales tax, as Harris said in the debate.

On Harris, he said that she has not been so vocal on the issue of tariffs, but he recalled that Biden never eliminated or reduced the increased tariffs that Trump imposed in his first term. And most of what comes out of Harris’ campaign today, you could say, does not deviate too much from “Bidenomics” (the economic policy of the Joe Biden administration). So, I have to assume that tariffs are part of her arsenal, he added.

“It’s going to be a sales tax that will affect every American consumer, and that is inflationary. We’ve spent two- or three-years fighting inflation in this country. It seems that we are finally taking control of inflation. The Federal Reserve began to lower interest rates a few weeks ago, but this is going to reverse it to a certain extent,” analyzed the economist.

Mark Hugo López: Latinos Have a Complex Interaction Between Their Cultural Roots and American Society, Making Their Political Tendencies Vary Significantly

López mentioned the studies he has handled as Director of Research on Race and Ethnicity at the Pew Research Center, in order to share data on the possible decision of the Latino vote, based on their varied interests.

He began to explain the difference between the Latino vote and Latino voters, because, he stressed, we are talking about a diverse population, not a community, that has different points of view, and depending on who you talk to, the part of the country in which you live, and the experiences of those populations in different parts of this nation.

A first relevant figure he put on the table was the Latinos population under 18 years of age and who are US citizens. Today that number exceeds 36 million, meaning that Latino voters could potentially represent 15% of the U.S. electorate in this election cycle.

That number – he stressed – has increased by four million people since 2020. They are over 18 years old and were born here, so they are U.S. citizens. They make up three-quarters of that increment. The other quarter comes mainly from people who have become naturalized or who have moved from Puerto Rico to the United States, who are then eligible to participate in U.S. elections. He indicated that this is a “dynamic change,” a rapidly growing population that has now surpassed the Black population as a potential voting group. “It is really impressive. It is the second largest group after white Americans in terms of size” he highlighted.

While he highlighted that Latinos are dispersed across the country and in the overall population make up 20% of all Americans, they represent “a fascinating number,” and that dispersion of population across states and metropolitan areas “means that Latinos are more important than ever in this election cycle because they are in the key states that matter.”

In Arizona and Nevada, they make up more than 20% of voters. In states like Georgia and North Carolina, they make up about 5-6% of voters. In Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, they are also around 5-6%. That may not seem like much, but in a close election, that can make a difference.

Here’s the big picture. Now let’s talk a little bit about public opinion polls and what we’re finding. If the election were held today, who would Latino voters support? Our most recent poll from September found that among registered Latino voters, 57% would vote for Kamala Harris and 39% for Donald Trump. The interesting thing here is to compare that to 2020.

In 2020, Joe Biden won 61% of Latino support, while Donald Trump got 36%, according to our validated voter study. There are many other estimates, but they are all in that range. Trump appears to have not lost ground, and in fact, if we compare his performance to 2016, when he was on the ticket against Hillary Clinton, he won 28% of Latino voter support nationally, while she got 67%. So, if you see the pattern, there is an increase or at least a stabilization of support for Trump since 2020.

This may be a more lasting shift among some Latinos toward the Republican Party in recent years, with Democrats losing ground, although they remain more likely to win the majority of Latino voter support. As for the most important issues, when Latinos are asked what is the most important issue for their vote this year, 75% say the economy is the top issue, followed by health care and then violent crime.

So, we asked Latino registered voters, for example, on the issue of immigration, if they thought Kamala Harris would make good decisions, if Donald Trump could make good decisions, and also asked them on the 10 issues that we mentioned: health care, violent crime, gun policy, among others. On nine of the 10 issues that we asked, we found that Kamala Harris has a double-digit lead, at least a 10-plus point lead over Donald Trump.

Latinos say Harris would be better on immigration, better on health care, better on abortion, better on Supreme Court appointments. Overall, she is seen as the better candidate on all of these issues except one, where they are tied: the economy. On the economy, Latinos are equally likely to rate both with close to 50% saying they would make good decisions on economic policy.

So, we have this diversity within Latinos living in the U.S., and while there are some general patterns, there are also many exceptions and nuances on how they vote and what issues matter most to them, whether by generation, nationality, or region in which they live.

The voting behavior of Latinos, as mentioned, is influenced not only by their national origin, but also by the generation to which they belong and their social context in the U.S. There is a complex interaction between their cultural roots and American society, which causes their political tendencies to vary significantly.

The Speakers

Eduardo Gamarra has been affiliated with Florida International University (FIU) since 1986, where he is currently a full professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations. From 1994 to 2007, he served as Director of FIU’s Latin American and Caribbean Center (LACC). He co-founded and edited Hemisphere, a journal on Latin American and Caribbean affairs. Under Gamarra’s leadership, the LACC became one of the fastest-growing and most dynamic Latin American and Caribbean Studies programs in the United States. He is co-founder of Newlink Research, a consulting firm dedicated to electoral and public policy campaigns throughout Latin America.

Dr. Gamarra is the author, co-author, and editor of several books, including Revolution and Reaction: Bolivia 1964-1985 (Transaction Publishers, 1988); three volumes of the Latin America and Caribbean Contemporary Record (Holmes and Meier Press); Latin American Political Economy in the Age of Neoliberal Reform (Lyne Rienner Publishers, 1994); Democracy, Markets, and Structural Reforms in Latin America: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico (Lyne Rienner Publishers, 1995); Central America 2020: A New Model for Regional Development (Nueva Sociedad, 2002); and Between Drugs and Democracy (Freiderich Ebert Foundation, 1994).

Jorge Castañeda, former Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Mexico. He has been a professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, and is currently a professor at New York University and Science Po in Paris. He is a columnist for the magazine Nexos, of the newspaper El Universal; a contributor to Foro TV and CNN; and an analyst and commentator on various radio and television programs. A member of the American Academy of Arts and Science, the American Philosophical Society, and a former member of the Board of Governors of Human Rights Watch, Castañeda has written more than twenty books, including The Disarmed Utopia; The Inheritance; A Future for Mexico, with Héctor Aguilar Camín; The Narco, the Failed War, with Rubén Aguilar; Amarres perros; United States: in Intimacy and in Distance; and his most recent book is The Two Lefts: What was Never Told About the Mexican Left, with Joel Ortega.

Mark Hugo Lopez is Director of Research on Race and Ethnicity at the Pew Research Center, where he directs the planning of the Center’s research agenda. The agenda is focused on chronicling the diverse and ever-changing racial and ethnic landscape of the United States. He is an expert on issues of racial and ethnic identity, Latino politics and culture, the Hispanic and Asian-American populations of the United States, global and national immigration, and the demographic landscape of the United States. Previously, López was the Center’s Director of Global Migration and Demography and Hispanic Research. He served as a research assistant professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy and as Research Director of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE). López received his PhD in economics from Princeton University. He is the author of reports on the Hispanic electorate, Hispanic identity, and immigration. López is frequently featured in national and international media outlets, in both Spanish and English.

Tulio Vera has over 25 years of experience in the financial markets and policy sector, specializing in global and emerging markets (EM). His expertise focuses on macroeconomics, investment strategy, advisory, sovereign credit analysis and portfolio management; as well as debt, interest rate and currency markets. Throughout his career, he built and led successful emerging markets investment strategy and macroeconomic research teams, launched his own hedge fund, has been a portfolio manager and has worked on multilateral policy issues. He has been involved in emerging markets financial markets since their inception. Tulio has extensive presentation (media and public speaking) and interpersonal skills, and the ability to deconstruct and articulate complex financial, macro, political and market concepts in an understandable manner.

About the Forum

Organized by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development (Funglode) and its sister institution in the United States, the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development (GFDD), in coordination with the Center for Development Economics and Policy (CDEP), the forum has the support of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), the Institute of Latin American Studies at Columbia University (ILAS) and the think tank Global Americans (GA).