Stop Chiding Latino Voters

As I look in the mirror, I feel a sense of fear and shame. I’m afraid because of what the next four years will bring, and I’m ashamed because of the role of the Latino vote. While networks report that Latinos overall voted for Harris thanks to a supermajority of Latinas who are consistently ignored within post-election analyses, almost all cite exit polls that indicate Latino men sided with her opponent. However, UnidosUS’s research suggests Harris won 66% of Latina women, 56% of Latino men, and 62% overall. Though these results give me some reprieve, the numbers for the convicted felon are higher than I would like, and that tells me that I have more work to do to organize my community. Born and raised in California as a dual citizen of Mexico and the U.S., I participated in both nations’ historic elections this year. Regarding the latter, I see Democratic officials and pundits chide Latinos, blurring my reflection now that I must also sift through their judgments, falsities and racist remarks on social media and in the news. All over the news, I see the term “macho” thrown around liberally, often with no other descriptors for my diverse community. Why is “macho” the default response for so many, and what do they mean by that term in the first place? For many of these political analysts, using tropes to assign blame to minoritized communities is much easier than looking in the mirror. Assigning blame to marginalized peoples is a U.S. American reflex, and “macho” is low-hanging fruit. Looking in the mirror, on the other hand, is a difficult task, one that requires taking responsibility and making a commitment to act for change. Rather than lean into discomfort, they blame Latinos.

Contrary to popular rhetoric, research by UnidosUS indicates Vice President Harris won over Latinos in a landslide, 62% to 37%. – Photo: El País English

Scapegoating Latino voters isn’t new to me. After the 2016 election, my political science professor expressed how disgusted he was with voting trends among minoritized communities. Naming Latinos (who, according to Latino Decisions, voted 79% for Hillary Clinton compared to 18% for her opponent) and Black voters (whose vote share for Clinton was 90%), I was confused. Why was it our fault? Why hadn’t he brought up the tens of millions of white voters who overwhelmingly voted for a fascist, including a plurality of white women?

This time, the sting is even worse. After Kamala Harris’s defeat, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough blamed Black and Latino men for the loss, stating that neither demographic wants a woman as president and that Latinos wouldn’t vote for a Black person. These beliefs are so abundant and insidious that some of our own people have internalized these claims and have gone on those same liberal networks to voice them. However, do these commentators not recognize that in 2016 and 2024, a majority of Latinos voted for a woman? Do they not realize that in 2008, 2012 and 2024, most of our community voted for a Black candidate? Will they credit us for the role we had in electing a Black and South Asian woman as Vice President in 2020? Are they going to acknowledge that in each of those five elections, white voters never voted for the ticket with a woman and/or a person of color on it? Will they name that white men are the most reliable voting bloc for the Republican party or that three times more white women voted for the candidate credibly accused of sexual assault?

As I researched this article, I constantly read headlines or taglines with “macho” as the main (and sometimes only) answer for the result. Some liberal outlets like Crooked Media used “traditional cultures” as the likely explanation. Latinos or BIPOC journalists were notably absent from authorship of these explanatory articles. With 660 million in Latin America and the Caribbean and nearly 70 million in the United States, these sources—quick to state that Latinos are not a monolith as a means of absolution for subsequent comments—were just as quick to apply these tropes.

So, what do commentators mean by “macho?” Since we’re analyzing an election, perhaps the term is in reference to political representation. However, when I think about my own culture, I think about how this summer, Mexico elected climate scientist Claudia Sheinbaum as president with over 60% of the vote. When including Xóchitl Gálvez, the runner up, nearly 90% of Mexicans voted for a woman, and with Jorge Máynez, 100% voted for a self-identified feminist. Add in Mexico’s vice presidential figure (the third woman to serve in that role), the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, thirteen state governors and two transwomen who have been members of Congress since 2021, and it’s clear that the world’s first constitutional mandate of its kind—one that requires gender parity for all executive, legislative, and judicial posts at the federal, state, municipal levels—has pushed Mexico far above its northern neighbors with respect to political representation.

Dr. Claudia Sheinbaum was elected president of Mexico with 60% of the vote. – Photo: El País

Beyond Mexico, I see how Latin America and the Caribbean rank first for any region in the world for its female congressional representation. Argentina (2), Bolivia (2), Dominica (2), Haiti (3), Nicaragua, Ecuador, Guyana, Panama, Chile (2), Jamaica, Costa Rica, Trinidad and Tobago (3), Brazil, Barbados, Honduras, Peru and El Salvador have all had women presidents in addition to Puerto Rico’s two women governors. There have been 55 women vice presidents among these nations, as well as the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Guatemala, Cuba, Uruguay, Paraguay and Colombia. Uruguay, Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil (3), Trinidad and Tobago, Ecuador and Chile have all had transwomen hold federal office.

Perhaps when commentators say machismo, they’re referring to policies and practices in the region. To be clear, I do not excuse machismo and its harmful societal effects. Machismo is not an individual mindset but a series of systems that subjugates communities of minoritized genders and sexualities. It’s why Mexican women still only make 85% of what men make, with Indigenous and Black women making considerably lower. It’s why so many women and girls face stricter rules within and outside of the home when the focus should be on teaching us men and boys to be more respectful. Evidently, having the most progressive policies regarding gender is not enough to foster equality. So, while I am not claiming that political achievements make the region more progressive, I do believe those of us in the U.S. need to reevaluate what constitutes progressive and traditional, especially when the U.S. is not exempt from this same machismo. In recent elections, pluralities of white voters across the country have supported candidates that restrict reproductive justice and gender-affirming care and do not favor family leave, childcare, or gender pay equity. Despite its wealth, this is a country that still has high rates of maternal and child mortality, with Black, Indigenous, and Pacific Islander women experiencing double the rates of white women. Regarding these policies, it’s not Latinos or other BIPOC communities that are proposing and passing bathroom bills or book bans. We didn’t come up with the plans to overturn Roe. Wouldn’t all of these indicate a “macho” culture?

Perhaps the use of “macho” is in reference to violence against women. Machismo is responsible for the egregiously high rates of (trans)femicides and subsequent impunity in Mexico and across the region. This issue certainly needs to be addressed. However, the U.S. is the world’s biggest perpetrator of femicide. Since 2001, the United States has caused at least 5 million deaths in the Middle East alone, resulting in millions of femicides under the guise of intervention. As we speak, our government is providing unlimited finances and impunity for a genocide that has likely killed over a hundred thousand women and children thus far and displaced millions more. Are we to assume that this deems U.S. Americans to be of a “traditional culture?”

Evidently, reverting to “macho” and “traditional” cultures is not benign. This seemingly conventional wisdom is why Democrats told journalist Paola Ramos to never say “abortion” when reaching out to Latino voters, even though our support for reproductive justice exceeds that of the general US population. It’s why the party’s shift rightward did not motivate us to turn out. It’s why highly-paid consultants claim that “Latinx”—which Democrats have shied away from—turned us into Republicans. As I wrote before, this assumes that we are incapable of thinking critically about our own languages and require white liberals to teach us, even though the term originated in our communities by our people.

Latinos are reliable supporters of abortion rights. 90% would support a loved one seeking abortion care. – Source: National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice

It’s also why purportedly well-meaning liberals have demonized us online and on cable news for voting against our interests. It’s why they’re comfortable making jokes about the deportations of our loved ones. We apparently need to be taught a lesson, and they claim to have the answers.

One of many messages I’ve read that demonize communities of color. Even though both communities voted for Harris, many liberals blame Arabs and Latinos and call for violence against us in order to teach us a lesson. – Source: X, formally known as Twitter

As I reflect on the gender gap among Latino voters to better understand my community, I notice reporters are quick to gift white voters with an asterisk. While Asian, Indigenous and Middle Eastern voters are lumped under “other” in various exit polls, white women are granted disaggregated data by class, education level and age. I’ve been reminded multiple times about how Democrats made inroads with college-educated white women under 40. Meanwhile: “Hispanics.” Similarly, I have seen various headlines claiming Republicans “won” Black and Latino voters when that simply did not happen. Such reporting not only misrepresents us and fuels further blame, but it also reifies more false notions of conventional wisdom which will result in yet another losing strategy for future outreach. And, for what it’s worth, where are the headlines stating that Republicans “won” white voters? I have yet to find a single one.

One of many dishonest headlines. This simply did not happen. – Source: KTVU San Francisco

Instead of scapegoating via tropes, analysts should recognize the nuances of our lived experiences. First, Latinos are disproportionately less able to vote. Many in our community cannot vote in federal elections, either because they’re U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands (among other colonies) or because many of our loved ones are ineligible as non-citizens. Imagine what the Latino vote would look like if these communities had that right. For the former, there are no real talks to enfranchise these millions of citizens. For the latter, we’ve been loud and clear about our demands for comprehensive immigration reform, but even when Democrats simultaneously held the Presidency, House and Senate, we’ve never come close.

Latinos are under-registered to vote, and Democrats don’t do enough outreach in our communities or do so in the right way. This is a major problem when we’re more impacted by misinformation. We’re also heavily concentrated in that states aren’t in play; where we are more likely to have an influence, voter ID laws and voter purges have disproportionately impacted us along with Asian, Black and Indigenous voters. Moreover, we’re more likely to be working class (and thus care about working-class issues), so taking time off, especially in states that make it harder to vote, is a sacrifice many cannot make. When we do get to vote, it’s never for our first choice. In 2020, Latinos overwhelmingly supported Bernie Sanders in the primary, a signal to Democrats that the assumptions made about our “traditional cultures” were incorrect.

Democrats are taking us for granted. Nearly 30 years ago, Republicans led an outreach campaign to bring Florida’s Latino voters into their fold. Democrats have never done that for us but did expect us to show up, and we kept doing it despite broken promises. On the contrary, Biden continued his predecessor’s family separations and Title 42, while Harris chided Central Americans with her infamous “do not come” speech, one which failed to acknowledge root causes of migration. There’s been little self-reflection on the roles our country has played across the region, such as the U.S.-backed coup in Honduras under President Barack Obama and Secretary Clinton in 2009. Our people know our loved ones have been forced to migrate due to U.S. policies, so when Harris voiced her support for increased border security, including the wall, we remembered, and it hurt. Once again, we would have had to vote against our own interests. This is why for years BIPOC communities have known that Democrats will never be our path to liberation.

“Do not come” and a sample of the backlash Harris received from Latinos – Source: X, formally known as Twitter

Overall, I’m frustrated. I’m standing here in front of the mirror, processing and strategizing how to heal and mobilize my community while analysts chide us. My job is to fight against machismo, xenophobia, anti-Black racism, transantagonism and more within my community. I have to continue doing the work to undo the shift to the right. However, while I do that, liberals, Democrats and political analysists need to take a hard look in the mirror, too. What is going on within their communities? Are they talking to some of their relatives, or are they shirking responsibility from ongoing systems of oppression and instead looking to communities of color to fix them? Why is it easier to expect more from us than from them? These are uncomfortable questions to answer, and the election was only in November. I understand if it takes time to process. However, that processing never took place in 2016, and my patience is thin; I will no longer allow our communities to take on all the blame when most of it lies within. So, to those analyzing what happened: look in the mirror, and talk to your people.