Latino Decisions: Clinton 70 Trump 19

[NOVA Green]

Um, she's doing much better and Trump is doing much worse. You are willfully obtuse

Latino vote share in the last four presidential elections:

2000: Gore 62, Bush 35 (-27)
2004: Kerry 53, Bush 44 (-9)
2008: Obama 67, McCain 31 (-36)
2012: Obama 71, Romney 27 (-44)

2016: Clinton 70, Trump 19 (-51)

Latino Decisions is the go-to poll with Latino voters because they do deep-dive polling in both languages, unlike the national polls who only take subsamples of 125 Latino voters

Quoted for Truth...

Personally, I believe that Clinton would be performing even stronger against Trump if she wasn't associated with several extremely unpopular decisions taken under Obama, that allowed spouses of American Citizens to be deported for minor traffic offenses, and similar "crimes".

It is not just Mexican's outside of legal paperwork status that are moving back to Mexico, but also *American Citizens* of Mexican heritage whose spouse was deported under current Federal policies.

[NOVA Green]

Um, she's doing much better and Trump is doing much worse. You are willfully obtuse

Latino vote share in the last four presidential elections:

2000: Gore 62, Bush 35 (-27)
2004: Kerry 53, Bush 44 (-9)
2008: Obama 67, McCain 31 (-36)
2012: Obama 71, Romney 27 (-44)

2016: Clinton 70, Trump 19 (-51)

Latino Decisions is the go-to poll with Latino voters because they do deep-dive polling in both languages, unlike the national polls who only take subsamples of 125 Latino voters

Quoted for Truth...

Personally, I believe that Clinton would be performing even stronger against Trump if she wasn't associated with several extremely unpopular decisions taken under Obama, that allowed spouses of American Citizens to be deported for minor traffic offenses, and similar "crimes".

It is not just Mexican's outside of legal paperwork status that are moving back to Mexico, but also *American Citizens* of Mexican heritage whose spouse was deported under current Federal policies.

Obama has really been cold to this immigration issue for some reason. I wonder if it has to do with his ability to govern and not be some activist. despite that I think she will still outperform Obama with latinos.

I would like to think it's because he understands the economic problems caused by open borders. I suspect it's just him trying to be moderate though.

Probably a mix of both... he pushed hard for DACA, and has slowed down a bit on the mass deportations over the past two years, because although *in general*, he has been trying to move the ball forward in a major direction on this issue, has run into such a political roadblock from a Republican Party that was once the party of Reagan and now the party of "Old White Men" that has an obsession with demographic changes in America not seen since 1920s America (WASP, "Red Scare") that was frightened simply because immigrants from Ireland, Italy, Eastern European Jews, Poles, were filling jobs where there was a shortage of a domestic labor force etc....

Unfortunately, the Republican Party chose to loose their souls on this issue, because of "Cultural Nativism" and instead of being a true National Party chose to go down the path of Nixon '72, but with a much weaker hand on so many issues....

[NOVA Green]

Obama lost the white vote by about 17-20 points in 2012 depending on the source you use. If there is a 5-10 point swing to Clinton this year, it would imply a race where she is winning by 9-14 points assuming non-whites swing the same amount. Instead the topline numbers show something close to Obama 2012. That can only be true if non-whites swing by about 8-12 points towards Trump compared to Romney. Perhaps that is true. I guess we will find out in November.

Have you applied your Math to the 2008/2012. Did it work?
Romney loose because of incredibly low turnout of Whites, but guess what. Even McCain didn't manage to have get high turn-out among Whites.

Ah yes, the whites didn't turn out scenario. Rather the polls are saying Trump will do better with non-whites than Romney. We shall see.

Ehm... polls are showing both. But you want to unskew them, right?

One more time, what is your point?
That polls are wrong? Why?
Need to be unskewed like in 2012? Why?

No, I don't want to skew anything. Just showing that whites are voting at a higher rate for Clinton than for Obama. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

And I just showing that  and non-whites are voting at a higher rate for Trump than for Romney, or/and that turnout among white will be higher.

It is what polls shows, right?

No Sir.... I haven't seen you present one even half-baked argument supported with facts that shows that Trump is over-performing among "minority voters".

In fact, I might go so far to argue that you are making up facts without any supporting evidence, even you were to go and "cherry-pick" individual polls that you might claim support your point.

The reality Sir, is that many of those of us on this board have been around a long time, and although there are frequent strong disagreements and debates both within and between the major political parties, and then all of the 3rd parties as well, that you are essentially hijacking what for many months and years has generally been an extremely civil (and sometimes uncivil conversations) at least based upon actual data and facts.

If you have something to say Sir, please back it up with actual evidence and statistics and not just resort to selected data that you are polling off of other websites in order to create a false narrative.

I'm always open to legitimate discussion and debate with most members of the forum, and I expect that they call me out to explain and justify my statements, and I believe it is a similar perspective from the overwhelming majority of forum members that might well disagree and/or challenge some of my statements and perspectives.

[NOVA Green]

Obama lost the white vote by about 17-20 points in 2012 depending on the source you use. If there is a 5-10 point swing to Clinton this year, it would imply a race where she is winning by 9-14 points assuming non-whites swing the same amount. Instead the topline numbers show something close to Obama 2012. That can only be true if non-whites swing by about 8-12 points towards Trump compared to Romney. Perhaps that is true. I guess we will find out in November.

Have you applied your Math to the 2008/2012. Did it work?
Romney loose because of incredibly low turnout of Whites, but guess what. Even McCain didn't manage to have get high turn-out among Whites.

Ah yes, the whites didn't turn out scenario. Rather the polls are saying Trump will do better with non-whites than Romney. We shall see.

Ehm... polls are showing both. But you want to unskew them, right?

One more time, what is your point?
That polls are wrong? Why?
Need to be unskewed like in 2012? Why?

No, I don't want to skew anything. Just showing that whites are voting at a higher rate for Clinton than for Obama. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

And I just showing that  and non-whites are voting at a higher rate for Trump than for Romney, or/and that turnout among white will be higher.

It is what polls shows, right?

No Sir.... I haven't seen you present one even half-baked argument supported with facts that shows that Trump is over-performing among "minority voters".

In fact, I might go so far to argue that you are making up facts without any supporting evidence, even you were to go and "cherry-pick" individual polls that you might claim support your point.

The reality Sir, is that many of those of us on this board have been around a long time, and although there are frequent strong disagreements and debates both within and between the major political parties, and then all of the 3rd parties as well, that you are essentially hijacking what for many months and years has generally been an extremely civil (and sometimes uncivil conversations) at least based upon actual data and facts.

If you have something to say Sir, please back it up with actual evidence and statistics and not just resort to selected data that you are polling off of other websites in order to create a false narrative.

I'm always open to legitimate discussion and debate with most members of the forum, and I expect that they call me out to explain and justify my statements, and I believe it is a similar perspective from the overwhelming majority of forum members that might well disagree and/or challenge some of my statements and perspectives.

It was Sbane's point, not mine

If Trump is doing much worse among whites (according to Sbane by 5-10%) than Romney, but still have about the same margin [in last nationall polls from IBD and Fox even better], that should imply that... [your answer here]. Otherwise math doesn't add, right?

P.S. "cherry-pick" ? Right now, according to 538's, Upshot's, RCP's, [you name it]'s average, there is a 3-4% margin.

P.S.S. Muahaha, smart boy. Ther irony, when you always bash polls, whose results you don't like. The reality... Muahaha

So.... please explain your argument bolded for emphasis regarding Trump out-performing Romney among "Non-whites".

Sir, I don't believe you actually responded to the actual content of my post, but rather shifted to an argument about Trump and the "White Vote" (WTF that means in modern America) as part of a discussion with Sbane that you had.

Not off the hook that easy.

Bet big, and back it up with actual chips, or fold your cards and wait for the next hand.

You could always do a double-down, but at this point you are running out of chips, and unfortunately there aren't unlimited rebuys.

Spent many years in Texas, and will put you all in on a 7-2 offsuit No-Limit hand that it appears you are currently holding.

[NOVA Green]

So.... please explain your argument bolded for emphasis regarding Trump outperforming Romney among "Non-whites".

You can't just quote part of my argument, can you?

If Trump underperfomfing among Whites that means that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If he doesn't outperform Romney among non-Whites, it means that he outperforms among Whites or/and turnout is higher (among Whites).

So what, according to you, do polls show?

You haven't posted any numbers whatsoever to support an argument that Trump is over-performing with "minority voters" and/or over-performing with White voters.

Please present your data on this subject or fold your 7-2 Offsuit Texas Hold 'Em hand.

You made the first raise and reraise and still have yet to provide one shred of evidence to support your argument that Trump is over-performing with minority voters....

But I will show a card, which indicates that Trump is significantly under-performing with Black voters as well as Latino voters...

2/3 are Republican leaning news organizations:

African-American/ "Black" Voters:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/13/new-polls-in-pennsylvania-and-ohio-show-donald-trump-with-0-percent-of-the-black-vote/

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/08/14/poll-only-1-percent-african-americans-support-donald-trump

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/7/hillary-clinton-dominates-donald-trump-99-percent-/

Latino Voters:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-1472827916-htmlstory.html

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/poll-clinton-has-48-percent-more-support-among-hispanic-voters-than-trump/2288135

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/clinton-trounces-trump-new-poll-latino-voters

http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/exclusive-new-poll-shows-trump-has-a-big-hispanic-problem-in-florida

Asian-Americans:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-asian-american-223502

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/28/trump-risks-alienating-asian-americans-a-rising-voting-force.html

http://www.bustle.com/articles/180214-the-asian-american-vote-donald-trump-why-they-just-dont-go-together

Again, all I see is bluster and making statements as facts without any supporting backup evidence.

Please explain, why Trump is performing better with "Non-White" voters....

[NOVA Green]

Seriously, are our mods not seeing this ↑? I have him on ignore and he still takes up more space than an unignored post.

I have chosen not to put on ignore yet, but granted there are many Republicans/Libertarians/Democrats/Greens/Socialists/Independents/Constitutional/ that I have many discussions with over the years although I disagree in some cases on certain core fundamental beliefs, can at least make a reasoned argument for a position that I might disagree with, but is still intellectually sound and solid as a debating point, and lacking any kind of animosity towards various minority populations in America...

Am almost at the end of my rope to put the dude on ignore (And i try to be extremely patient with those I disagree with because I recognize that almost all of us on this forum actually welcome open debate), albeit with disagreements and political philosophies, and one of the main reason most us joined the forum is because it is one of the best places on the internet to actually discuss in a relatively free and open environment, based upon facts and data.

[NOVA Green]

Never mind.... the man from "Sweden" appears to be yet another poseur and hack, who runs away every time anyone brings up factual evidence....

Honestly, if the dude doesn't respond with a legit defense of his claim regarding "increased minority support for Trump" he will be the first and only person ever that I have moved to an "Ignore List".

There are so many Democrats that I have major issues with and called out as hacks during the primaries, Republicans that I have had significant policy differences with over the years---- but still are extremely sharp and educated when it comes to Political-Science where I can agree on basic analysis and interpretation, Libertarians and Greens of whom I voted for in multiple Presidential Elections over the decades, however once in a blue moon there is someone on the forum, for whom reason and debate has become more of a spammer element on various national/cable/Internet websites where any attempt at reasonable discussion and dialogue becomes impossible.

LittleBigOctopus has become the first individual ever on this forum, whom I am adding to my "Ignore List".

It is an extremely difficult decision, for a Libertarian minded individual, that does not identify primarily with either major political party, and although I plan on voting Democrat this November is not where my heart nor soul is at.

All being said, unless Mr. Octopus actually provides real data to support "his" (assumption) points, I would rather devote my time and attention debating/discussing/arguing without what appears to be the equivalent of a hack/bot/operative in a forum where I enjoy debating and discussing with real Democrats/Republicans/Libertarians/Independents/ Socialists/Constitutionalists /Greens... etc regardless of fundamental disagreements on policy platforms, and how we move forward as Americans to solve the major issues of our times from the economy, to war and peace, and even the "third rail" of social policies.

[NOVA Green]

My statement is fact. Trump can't  be doing worse (in marginal seance. Read, what we've been talking with Sbane) among Whites and non-Whites at the same time, if turnout is the same as 2012.

We take 3 latest A polls.
IBD/TIPP
Tie
Whites:       Trump +15% (5% worse than Romney)        47% vs 32%
Black/Hisp:  Clinton +52%                                             15% vs 67%
 
Fox News
Clinton +2%
Whites:        Trump +13% (7% wrose than Romney)       46% vs 33%
Non-Whites: Clinton +42                                               21% vs 61%

Monmouth:
Clinton +7
Whites:        Trump +12  (8% worse than Romney)        44% vs 36%
Non-whites:  Clinton +51                                              14% vs 65%

Since we are talking about margins.  
 
Just look at first Sbane's post

I agreed with you that my opinion doesn't really matter, only facts......

Like the fact that Clinton is doing about 5-10 points better among whites than Obama in 2012, and about the same as Obama 2008. Do you disagree with that?

She's not, but she's better margins.

Apologies for going a bit "on tilt" last night, however it does appear that much of this discussion involves 2012 Exit Polls, that provides a real data point to work off of regarding Latino/Non-white voters in various states, versus assumptions about Latino turnout and candidate preference, in an election not yet conducted.

I believe that it is entirely possible that Clinton is actually doing better with White voters than Romney, as well as among "Non-white" voters as well.

One of the key gaps among Latino voters is frequently a mixture of occupation, age, income, and language, and it is not unusual to see dramatic shifts between polling organizations, that oversample older, wealthier, fluent English Language speakers, and undersample working-class and younger Latinos.

There are multiple examples in heavily Latino states, of election day results being significantly different than polling results, because of an under-representation of this demographic.

I wouldn't necessarily agree that Clinton is doing 5-10% better among Anglos than Obama, however it is patently clear the Trump has an "educated White voter problem", and for whatever gains he has made among non-college educated White voters, it appears that it has been offset by Clinton gains among college educated Whites.

Still, i am patiently awaiting any types of data or facts to support the argument that come Nov 16 Trump will outperform Romney with minority voters....