What Trump effect? For Latino voters, 2016 turnout may be less than 2012.

A new Pew Research Center survey casts doubt on how many Latino voters will cast ballots on Nov. 8 to express unfavorable feeling toward the Republican presidential candidate.

Charles Dharapak/AP
In this May 10, 2011, file photo audience members listen to President Barack Obama speak about immigration reform at Chamizal National Memorial Park in El Paso, Texas.

A new survey by the Pew Research Center finds a decline in the percentage of registered Latino voters who say they are “absolutely certain” that they will cast a ballot on Nov. 8., with just 69 percent saying as much this year, compared to 77 percent in 2012.

Pew pollsters found an even sharper decline among Hispanic Millennials, from 74 percent to 62 percent in 2016.

The findings may surprise some observers, given Republican candidate Donald Trump’s harsh rhetoric on immigration and promises to carry out mass deportations of the undocumented – the sort of talk that has undoubtedly contributed to the candidate’s 82 percent unfavorability among Hispanic voters, as of a July poll.

Several experts on Latino political participation suggested that the Pew survey’s findings may not capture the intentions of this year’s Latino electorate, pointing to an earlier series of polls, taken over four straight weeks this September and October, that turned up an average of 74.5 percent of registered Hispanic voters saying they were “almost certain” that they would select a candidate this year.

“My hunch is you’re going to see a Latino vote for Clinton that’s going to equal or possibly be higher than the 2012 vote for Obama,” says Albert Camarillo, a Stanford history professor known as a founder of Mexican-American and Chicano studies, in an interview with The Christian Science Monitor. In 2012, 71 percent of Hispanic voters went for Obama, according to another Pew poll.

“I would not be surprised if you see a 73 or 74 percent clip [in 2016 for Clinton], particularly now that she’s blanketing Latino markets with Spanish-language ads,” he says.

Still, Hispanic voters’ collective reaction to the ascent of Donald Trump’s hardline nativism – and perhaps its prominence as a source of momentum for his campaign – seems to highlight the GOP’s troubles with appealing to Hispanics over a longer period.

In July, Story Hinckley of the Monitor reported that Hispanics expressed the least fear about this year’s election of any ethnic group in a Gallup survey:

Trump may have a more hard-edge presentation of deportation, say experts, but the overall message isn’t all that different from other Republican presidential contenders.

“If you’re Hispanic, and you see a headline that someone said something racist about Hispanics, that’s kind of old news….They see it, they get it, but they aren’t surprised by it,” says Stephen Nuño, a professor of American and Latino politics at Northern Arizona University. “For most Hispanics, it’s not a total shocker that the Republican Party is supporting racist comments.” 

Since the late 1990s, the percentage of Latinos who identify as or lean Republican has hovered around a quarter of respondents, ranging no higher than 28 percent. For the Democrats, that percentage declined during the Bush administration years (2001-2009), but rose during the Obama administration.

That doesn’t mean Democrats can assume Latino support in the future: like young voters across ethnic lines, Millennial Hispanics are less enthusiastic about Mrs. Clinton and the Democrats than older generations. Only 48 percent say they’ll plan to vote for Clinton, and of them, 64 percent describe it in negative terms, as a vote against Mr. Trump.

“What’ll be a fascinating conversation in four years with the Democratic Party,” says Dr. Camarillo, “is if you get a really strong Latino candidate that brings out the ethnic vote. We haven’t seen that yet. Had Clinton taken one of the possible Latino running mates, I think we’d be having a different conversation.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.