Fabiola Rodríguez-Ciampoli (right) with Sen. John Kerry and colleague Luis Miranda during the 2004 campaign.

In a recent panel dialogue at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., NBC and the WCVI came to a closer agreement when NBC News modified its figures from 44 to 40 percent. According to Ana María Arumi, election manager for NBC News, the numbers were modified after re-examination of their data, which NBC and several other networks obtained from exit polls conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International. But, says Arumi, “no matter how we slice it, it is clear that the Republican Party has made some significant strides.” One area in which some would like to have seen the Democrats make strides is their outreach to the Southwest region of the country, in which Hispanics have a significant presence. Lydia Camarillo, vice president of the San Antonio–based Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (SVREP), says the lack of attention given to the Southwest is the untold story of the past election.

“As long as the Democrats continue to think it is just the Midwest or the South where they can get the votes that they need, they are going to continue to lose presidential elections,” Camarillo says. “Had they spent enough time and resources building the Latino expansion in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada, that alone would have given them the electoral votes that they were trying to get in Ohio.”

As it turned out, the four Southwest battleground states — Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, who account for a collective 29 electoral votes — went Republican in the presidential race. In the final count, Bush won the election with 286 electoral votes over Kerry with 252; those 29 votes made a significant impact. Ohio, for a point of reference, only accounted for 20 electoral votes.

One particularly significant Democratic oversight in Camarillo’s eyes was Colorado, whose Ken Salazar, a strong Latino Democrat, won a seat in the U.S. Senate in November. And Camarillo calls New Mexico, with the largest Hispanic population in the nation at 42.1 percent, “a wasted opportunity by the Democrats.”

Especially if you look at its voting history. In 2000 New Mexico was carried by Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore by 366 votes; this time around Bush won the state by more than 6,000. “The lesson learned here is that the Southwest is key in presidential elections.” Camarillo says. “If Democrats had spent more resources, then they would have taken the White House.”

On the other side of the isle, Republicans also faced major challenges in reaching out to Latinos. Some analysts critique the party’s approach to its Hispanic constituents, which underestimates the degree to which Latinos take their votes seriously. “Republicans’ biggest failure is not to understand that Latinos vote not just on emotions or feelings or perception or who they would like to have a beer with,” Hernández says. “Latinos vote on who is going to create the kind of policy and programs that support an expansion of opportunity.”

But none of this is to say that either party didn’t try. What with the pre-election talk of the influence of the Hispanic vote, all eyes were on the Latino electorate. Adam Segal, director of the Hispanic Voter Project at John Hopkins University, who tracks Hispanic campaign spending, says that the parties spent a record-breaking $10 million combined on Spanish-language TV advertising in the presidential race; in 2000, combined spending was around $3.25 million.

Reyneri sees the shift in the Hispanic electorate, leading to a slightly higher percentage for Bush and the loss of previously Democratic states like New Mexico, as a signal of a shift both in the voters themselves and the issues they were voting on. “The increasing diversity of Latinos,” he says, includes a new and growing voter base of Hispanic Evangelicals who show their support for the Republican party in great numbers. In addition, Hispanic voters have a “tendency … to react as other communities do when it comes to issues of national security,” leading to a reluctance to switch presidents in the middle of war and international instability.

But according to Tara Wall, director of outreach communications for the Republican National Committee (RNC), Hispanics voted for Bush in greater numbers because his record shows that he has a sincere interest in helping them improve their lives, sending a strong message of hope and opportunity. “The mistake the Democrats made was to run a negative campaign whereas we had a positive agenda that resonated well with Hispanics,” says Wall. “Our message was about pro-family values, pro-business, and the president’s commitment to help Hispanics achieve the American dream.”

Segal also says Bush had an advantage because of his strong message of “moral values,” falling on the same side of social issues such as abortion and gay marriage as many Hispanic voters — especially men. “The Republicans found going into their research that Hispanic men were moved by the strong decisive leader and by the moral values and religious-leadership theme,” says Segal. “Hispanic men were particularly moved on the issue of parental consent for abortions, and [Republicans] started to use that as a wedge issue to bring together otherwise liberal-to-moderate Hispanics into the Bush camp.”

So, while Kerry still won the Hispanic vote, “It became clear that the Kerry campaign’s message was less narrowly defined and less powerful,” Segal says.

In general, Bush’s support was stronger among males than females, according to the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey. In 2000, 34 percent of Hispanic male voters supported Bush, while in 2004, his support rose to 46 percent — but the percentage of Latina Bush-voters hardly shifted, from 35 in 2000 to 36 in 2004.

“It’s clear that Latinas voted more for Kerry while Latinos voted more for Bush,” says Hernández. “It is the same dynamic that happened in the general population among white males who tended to vote more for Bush than females.”

Hernández attributes this difference to a “gender gap” that has men and women voting on different issues. Hispanic men focused their votes more on national security and religious issues, pulling them toward the Republican side, whereas Latinas voted on domestic issues and saw more eye-to-eye with the Democrats. “Latinas understand that national security is measured not just in military terms,” says Reyneri. “They are also concerned about education and healthcare.”

It is important to keep in mind the power of the Latina voter. In essence, one Latina voter can mean more than one vote; whereas Hispanic men usually vote alone, Latinas stand out for their tendency to bring additional voters, such as family members, with them to the polls. Especially in Hispanic households, Latinas run the show. “Women are the ones in charge of the daily expenses and raising the kids,” says Rodríguez-Ciampoli. “And in many cases in our community women are the heads of the household.”

This position inevitably influences their vote. “I think from that perspective they are the ones that are in touch with how much they have to struggle in the economy to give their kids a good education,” Rodríguez-Ciampoli adds. “I think that influences their decision.”

With diverging polls and analyses, and with all the partisan political spin, it might never be entirely clear what happened with the Hispanic electorate in 2004. What is clear, though, is that the Hispanic vote counted. The Hispanic voice was heard, represented by both its voters, in record-breaking turnout, and its elected officials, breaking records of their own.

And at least in this respect, Republicans and Democrats are on the same page. “Latinos are ascending in both parties almost in equal measure, and that has a significant impact,” says Hernández.

One of the most important inroads Hispanics made in politics in 2004 was increasing its representation, both in number and in level of office. For the first time since 1977, Latinos have representation in the U.S. Senate—times two! The election of U.S. Senators Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) and Mel Martínez (R-Fla.) was among the most important gains for the Latino community, Hernández says.

In addition, 80 Latinos and Latinas were elected at the state and federal levels; 68 were incumbents and 12 were newcomers, according to figures by the National Association of Latino Elected And Appointed Officials (NALEO).

Though significant breakthroughs, these gains come as no surprise to some. “Every election cycle a Latino [or] a Latina breaks a barrier somewhere in America,” says Marcelo Gaete, senior programs director at NALEO.

According to NALEO records, Latino elected officials are represented in 30 out of 50 states, and one-quarter of all Latino elected officials are Latinas. In one of the more striking political gains, more than half of the California Congressional delegation is Latina, Gaete says.

Striking, too, were 2004 races won by Latinos in regions less heavily populated by Hispanics, such as Georgia, Rhode Island, Kansas and Wisconsin, as well as for offices not typically won by Hispanic men or women. “We are looking at Latino elected officials’ growth in terms of non-traditional areas, like a Latina sheriff being elected in Dallas,” Gaete says.

From sheriff to state representative to U.S. senator, there is no limit to how high Hispanics are willing to reach so that their communities are represented and their voices heard. The excitements and successes of the 2004 election leave a lot to look forward to in 2006 and 2008. Keep your eyes on Latinos — and especially Latinas — as they climb the political ladder.

Says Gaete, “I can only speculate that in the future some of these women will be moving to higher political office.”

And, of course, never forget to vote.