In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Notes chapter 1 1. Throughout this book, I use the terms Hispanic and Latino interchangeably to refer to persons of descent from Spanish-speaking Latin America. 2. In addition to the four Latinos elected from U.S. states, Baltasar Carrada was Puerto Rico’s nonvoting delegate in the U.S. House. 3. An implicit argument is that Latino candidates can win public of‹ce. If every Latino who ran for of‹ce lost, there would be no reason to suspect that Latinos’ candidacies would “energize” the Latino community. 4. Rather than replace existing models of voter turnout and candidate preference, I use them as a base and introduce additional explanatory variables. The models include such standard predictors as age, education, income, gender, marital status, political ef‹cacy/interest, partisanship, and mobilization, among others. 5. For example, more than two-thirds of all Cuban Americans reside in Florida, while two-thirds of all Mexican Americans live in two states (California and Texas) and more than 60 percent of Dominicans reside in New York. chapter 2 1. The term Latino was ‹rst used on the decennial census in 2000. In 1980 and 1990, the census form used the language Hispanic or Spanish ancestry. In 1970, the census asked about Spanish origin. 2. Notable exceptions include Lyndon B. Johnson and Robert Kennedy, both of whom actively campaigned for Mexican American votes. However, non-Latino elected of‹cials rarely courted, let alone connected with, the Latino community. Some observers view these early attempts to court the Latino vote as symbolic gestures to attract white liberals, given the small number of Latino voters in the 1950s and 1960s. 3. This book describes Latinos or Hispanics as those persons living (permanently) in the United States whose ancestry can be traced to any of the Spanish-speaking countries of North, Central, or South America and excludes those of European descent. This de‹nition of Latinos is consistent with most scholarly research. 4. In fact, the of‹cial 1950 census form asked census takers to report a person’s race as White, Negro, American Indian, Japanese, Chinese, or Filipino. 161 5. I searched the Lexis-Nexis news database for the terms Latino and Hispanic in the headlines of stories about elections and politics. Overall, Latino seems to be more popular in the press, although regional variations exist, with some parts of the country favoring Hispanic. chapter 4 1. Rather than replace existing models of voter turnout and candidate preference, I use them as a base and introduce additional explanatory variables. The models include such standard predictors as age, education, income, gender, marital status, political ef‹cacy/interest, partisanship, and mobilization, among others. 2. Stokes-Brown (2006) did not test crossover voting among Latinos but rather the extent to which Latinos preferred a Latino candidate when the two candidates are equally quali‹ed. While her ‹ndings are important, her dependent variable from the 2004 Pew Hispanic Survey may be too easy a test of ethnic voting. Here, we do not present the candidates as equally quali‹ed but rather as from opposing ideological or partisan camps. 3. A 2003 TRPI survey of Latinos in California found that a majority of Latino registered voters picked Latinos as group that receives the most discrimination, ahead of African Americans, Asian Americans, and Arab Americans. 4. The LIF data are for California Latinos, most of whom are of Mexican origin. Among survey respondents, 77 percent self-identi‹ed as being of Mexican ancestry. To determine the differences among Latino subgroups, I include in the models a dummy variable for Mexican origin. 5. The survey did not follow a strict experimental design. A better approach would have been to switch the names Smith and Hernandez for half of the respondents to determine more accurately ethnic attachment’s effects on vote choice. However, because Hernandez is portrayed as the Republican candidate and California Latinos have strong ties to the Democratic Party, this approach provides considerable insight into ethnicity’s role in Latino vote choice. 6. Among respondents, 25 percent chose Smith, 48 percent chose Hernandez, 5 percent chose Neither, 16 percent chose Both, and 7 percent said Don’t Know (Arteaga 2000). 7. The trichotomous dependent variable takes a value of 0 when Smith is preferred, 1 when voters are undecided, and 2 when Hernandez is preferred. The Neither, Both, and Don’t Know voters can be considered undecided between the two candidates and placed between the options on the three-point index, as opposed...

Share