TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
30.05.2008
Hillary's Puerto Rico Problems

Michael Sean Winters, who knows an awful lot about Puerto Rican politics (and blogs here), has chimed in with some pre-primary analysis.

Hillary Clinton is headed back to Puerto Rico this weekend after a new poll shows her leading Barack Obama 51% to 38% in the June 1* primary. If those numbers hold, they would represent a great storyline for Obama, who has consistently lost Latinos by margins of more than two-to-one to Clinton. The press would likely say he is uniting the party, that a key part of Clinton's base was abandoning her, and that her claims to be the only person capable of delivering the Latino vote were demonstrably false. But that narrative is itself demonstrably false: Puerto Ricans have vastly different interests from most stateside Latinos, starting with the fact that Puerto Ricans are citizens and do not have to worry about immigration issues.

More to the point, though, Clinton isn't especially liked in Puerto Rico. Her husband did nothing to end the Navy's presence at Vieques, an issue that was less about military deployment and more about national pride. The Navy had previously abused another pristine natural habitat in Culebra, leaving a toxic mess to be cleaned up three decades after the Navy left. The threat that they were doing it again, combined with the Navy's shocking indifference to the death of a civilian guard, enraged the population, producing large protests and uniting virtually the entire political spectrum. Puerto Ricans were united in the conviction that they would never again consent to be treated like "pendejos," or suckers.

Hillary's war vote is also a major drawback. Latinos throughout the U.S. have been more opposed to the war than most, but in Puerto Rico the war highlights the island's colonial status. "If the death of a Puerto Rican soldier is tragic, it's more tragic if that soldier has no say in that war," noted a leading official in the island's Independence movement. San Juan Archbishop Roberto Gonzalez, a major player on the overwhelmingly Catholic island who had led the effort to get the Navy out of Vieques, was very vocal in opposing the Iraq War at its inception. By 2007, 57% of Puerto Rico's high school students or their parents had signed forms to withhold their personal information from Pentagon recruiters, according to The Washington Post. That same poll indicated that 75% of Puerto Ricans opposed the Iraq War.

Clinton's more recent pander on the issue of Puerto Rican voting rights did nothing to improve her image either. The important political divide on the island is not between Democrats and Republicans, but between statehood advocates and those who prefer the current, more autonomous arrangement. A small but vocal minority supports independence. All Puerto Ricans know the ins-and-outs of the issue thoroughly. Clinton suggested that the island's citizens be able to vote for president, without saying she was advocating statehood, despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled such participation unconstitutional. The most  prominent newspaper on the island, El Nuevo Dia, mocked her "wish list" approach to the issue and made it clear that residents thought she was either uninformed or disingenuous.

Then, there are the cosmetic problems. Last weekend, she was photographed sitting in a restaurant with a local beer. Cultural pandering has as fine a tradition in Puerto Rico as it does in the States. Except that the beer she chose--Presidente--is not a Puerto Rican beer; it's Dominican. Medalla is the native Puerto Rican brew.

Drinking the wrong beer may not cost Clinton any votes. But, the visual image fed the more substantial perception that she does not grasp the pride Puerto Ricans take in their island, in its natural beauty and its cultural traditions. And the failure to grasp that pride may explain her relatively poor performance next Sunday. 

--Michael Sean Winters

*This originally said June 7. Typo.

Posted: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:30 AM with 14 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

bcbaird said:

June 7th?  Didn't they move it to the 3rd?

May 30, 2008 11:39 AM

bcbaird said:

Er... June FIRST.

Me = idiot.

May 30, 2008 11:41 AM

AlanSP said:

Very interesting take on this.  I guess the question is, with all of these factors that you mention, why the double digit lead?  If 51-38 is a big improvement for Obama, that suggests that there are inherent factors there that favor Hillary.  What are they?  I've always thought the "Latinos like Clinton" narrative was pretty shallow.  Aside from the fact that, as you point out, Latinos are not a homogeneous group, it doesn't say anything about *why* she's done so well.  So what is it that gives her that lead in the first place?

May 30, 2008 11:51 AM

liberal reformer said:

Thanks for the very informative post, Michael. Also, I would like to take this opportunity to applaud you for taking on the egregioius George Wiegel. I recall with great satisfaction the splendid article that you wrote in TNR demolishing Wiegel's analysis of the sex abuse scandal involving the clergy of the Catholic church. I look forward to more excellent pieces from you.

May 30, 2008 12:00 PM

roidubouloi said:

Alan,

How do Puerto Ricans feel about blacks?

May 30, 2008 12:07 PM

lymon1 said:

And Latino isn't a monolithic voting block.  Remember Vincente Fox?  Blacks are lazy, we're keeping our Sambo stamp, etc.?  I don't know if that resonates in Puerto Rico, or if P.R. as a whole has younger voters, etc. etc.

May 30, 2008 12:13 PM

lymon1 said:

The flip side to this is that Obama seems to be giving the impression of not caring about P.R. -- no appearances save one quickie, no stroking, supporters saying the votes should be ignored, etc.  

May 30, 2008 12:15 PM

tec619 said:

I've often wondered if the pundits narrative on Puerto Rico were off. You correct in stating that their interests are different than stateside Latinos. As a matter of fact, Hillary did well with PRs and Dominicans in the NY primary because she was the home-state girl, not because of their ambivalence towards a black candidate.

Latino/black tensions are much more prominent when the "Latinos" are of Mexican or Central American (and Cuban) descent.  Your blog also points out that PRs (and Dominicans) are mixed race, thus diminishing the race issue. Again, true. Generally speaking, Puerto Ricans (and Dominicans) don't consider black PRs to be black.  They are considered Puerto RIcan. Culture and language trump skin color.  

My family hails from Puerto Rico and its U.S. neighbor, the Virgin Islands. In my experience, black Puerto Ricans are not considered black, and PRs from the VI aren't considered "actual" Puerto Ricans. They are considered Vigin Islanders. The "indigenous" French pollution in the Virgin Islands, many of whom live in "Frenchtown" are not considered truly "white." A similar view would be held of any white who was born and grew up in the islands. They are simply seen as natives.

This is attitude is particularly common in the West Indies. "Native" whites, Indians, Chinese, Koreans and Arabs are not seen as members of a minority. Rather as merely Chinese Trinis (i.e.,Trinidadians), etc., to the extent that the distinction is even important.

Hawaiian attitudes may be similar.  I don't think the race or ethnicity of a politician are particularly important there.   At least not if the person is a "native."

Xenophobes, possibly because of the "strangeness" of immigrants seem to forget this. Any immigrant groups' subsequent generations will be more "American" than the previous one.

May 30, 2008 12:26 PM

GSpinks said:

Thanks for the breakdown, tec.

51 to 38 seems a little high to me, especially considering tec's posting regarding the actual demographic and the PR world-view; Clinton simply has none of the advantages she had with state-side hispanics (then again, she never really did since according to some reports they liked both candidates a lot and were, IMO, voting based largely on recognition factor).

Then again, most media outlets I read had decided Guam was Clinton territory and look how that turned out. I would expect similar or better results for BHO, especially since I can't actually imagine that he would quit organizing for primaries before the last primary was done; he's probably got several field offices going, with his grass-roots supporters working the back channels. I guess we'll know the result on Monday.

May 30, 2008 1:18 PM

xrafa10@hotmail.com said:

You can expect a low voting turnout on Sunday. I think the general feeling is a kind of skepticism with the whole process, people here basically feel that voting in a primary process, but not having the right to vote in the general election doesn't make a lot of sense.

That particular sentiment is going to affect Obama more because the of the kind of demographics he appeals to. In P.R., voters in the left tend to be affiliated to the Independence party and feel more strongly about this issue. I know lots of people that actually support Obama but for ideological reasons won't vote in the primary process.

On the other hand, Clinton has drawn a lot of support from senators and people affiliated with the Statehood party, usually more inclined to have "Republican" ideals. Moreover, she has gathered a lot of support from several Protestant religious organizations for reasons I have yet to understand. I think you can draw parallels with the type of demographic that are recently voting for her, not exactly white but "hard-working Puerto Ricans".

May 30, 2008 1:40 PM

williamyard said:

What am I missing? How is losing 38 to 51 a "great storyline for Obama"? Not for the average American voter who, above all else, prefers to vote for a winner.

What 51 to 38 tells me is that Puerto Ricans prefer Clinton to Obama. If Clinton has so many negatives specific to Puerto Rico, then Obama has more.

Democrats need to get their heads out of the clouds and look at the states Clinton has been winning lately (i.e., most of them) and not just assume that antipathy toward Bush or a McCain meltdown is going to grease the skids in November.

If you want good news for Obama, look at today's Field Poll results in California. It's also 51-38, except for Obama over Clinton. That's a terrific turnaround from Stupor Tuesday, when Hillary won the Golden State.

Getting one's clock cleaned, as will likely happen to Obama in P.R., is good for one's character, I suppose, but does nothing to suggest that one has surmounted the weaknesses that would best be addressed between now and the General.

May 30, 2008 1:45 PM

dannyc said:

Hillary has sure been drinking alot lately!

May 30, 2008 3:45 PM

naomi88 said:

"the indigenous French pollution in the Virgin Islands, many of whom live in "Frenchtown" are not considered truly "white

Okay, now that is a funny typo.

June 1, 2008 1:31 AM

jacksondyer said:

"Hillary's Puerto Rico Problems"

What Puerto Rico problem?

It's TNR that has a problem with reality.

June 2, 2008 12:11 AM