Pages

Sunday, September 4, 2016

There is a danger in going too far courting minorities...

Clinton isn’t doing better than previous Democrats with Latinos — even against Trump
A new Latino Decisions poll released Friday found that 70 percent of registered Latino voters said they would definitely vote for Clinton or were leaning toward doing so, a drop from 76 percent who said the same in April. The survey, conducted for the immigration advocacy group America’s Voice, also found that support for Trump rose from 11 percent in April to 19 percent in August.
“When you have less than 20 percent in your polling with Hispanics, how much worse could it get?” said Florida-based Republican strategist Al Cardenas, referring to Trump. “It’s not so much that Donald Trump is doing better with Latino voters, but she’s doing worse. That’s tightened up the race in Florida and Nevada.”
Obama won Latino voters in 2012 by 71 percent to 27 percent for GOP nominee Mitt Romney — the largest for a Democrat since Bill Clinton won 72 percent of Hispanics in 1996. Latino turnout in 2012 also hit a high of 11.2 million voters.
This year, an average of recent Post-ABC polls shows Hillary Clinton leading Trump by 70 percent to 25 percent among Hispanic voters — similar to Obama’s margin over Romney.
So basically Hillary is doing about the same as Obama, while Trump is falling short of where Mitt Romney was in 2012 (but not that much short).  There may be a hundred and one arguments as to why this is, but the bottom line is that minorities were excited by Obama, and came out and voted in record fashion. They simply are not inspired by Clinton, no matter how much they might dislike Trump. This leaves open the possibility that Trump could move the needle as things move forward, but more importantly it suggests that the "record turnout" for Hispanics that some are predicting may not materialize.

More to the point, Donald Trump is playing a numbers game. He's openly appealing to discouraged working class voters (mostly white), at the expense of the more recently generally accepted requirement of appealing to minority voters. This, of course, has led to charges of racism,  dog whistles, white supremacy, the Ku Klux Klan, and everything else. Bottom line, is that all of these charges the left is leveling at Trump and his policies are attacks on millions of Americans (not just Trump)... and are aimed to shore up support with the minority voter with fear tactics. These over the top charges of racism were not part of the Obama campaign, because they didn't need to be.

The fact that it's not working (as well as they probably expect) should be setting off some serious alarms. Because while it may not appear that way to her supporters, she is actually drawing lines, pitting races against each other, with the hope that it appeals enough to minorities that it will more than offset any of the losses she might incur with White Voters. Believe it or not, being told that supporting tighter border security or better vetting methods for refugees aligns you with the KKK, doesn't make you want to go vote for the person making the accusation.

The reality is that Mitt Romney had no road to victory by courting more Hispanic voters. He literally would have had to win a fairly strong majority (around 60%) to swing the election. But yet had he done about three points better with White Voters... he wins the Presidency.

This doesn't change in 2016. Donald Trumps quickest and easiest path to victory is not to improve with Black voters, Hispanic voters, or Asian voters or any other ethnic group. His path to victory lies with his ability to attract a more White voters than Romney got. Of course, even attracting 3 percent more is obviously harder than it sounds. But it just may be helped along with these sorts of over the top KKK attack tactics used by the Democrats to try to secure minority voters.

For every action there is a reaction. That reaction might just be more White voters voting Republican and Donald Trump.

23 comments:

Roger Amick said...

OK, Donald. MSNBC's Chris Matthews then asked Trump whether his very rich Muslim friends would be allowed to enter the U.S. during President Trump's Muslim ban.
"They'll come in," Trump said. "And you'll have exceptions."

His rich friends.

Roger Amick said...

George H W Bush got 59% of the voters you think will work. Romney got the same 59%.

Bush won the EVC by a significant margin. Romney didn't do as well.

Do you think it will work?

Roger Amick said...

So let's see his path to victory is to get out the white male vote. Do you really understand, that your party probably will not win for some time, if they follow this path? The changing demographics don't favor that path.

You are no fan of James Carville, but http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/james-carville-presidential-election-2016 he has a persuasive argument.

the last time we had a Republican president we had a disastrous war and a disastrous recession. To the extent that peace and prosperity matter to anybody—which have traditionally been the two biggest drivers in American politics—they do not bode well for the Republicans. It’s hard to expect that you are going to do very well if that’s people’s most recent memory of your party governing, in addition to being a party whose primary appeal is to the shrinking demographic that is non-college whites. In some ways it’s amazing to me that they are not doing worse. Honestly.

I've been making this argument for months. You call me stupid.

Your argument is stupid. And is guaranteed to lose.

Commonsense said...

Along these lines:

Young Blacks Voice Skepticism on Hillary Clinton, Worrying Democrats

They may not vote for Donald Trump, but they're likely not vote for Hillary Clinton either. And Clinton needs them to turn out to win.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - Mitt Romney would have had to win over 60% of the Hispanic vote for him to have won the Presidency... or he would have had to win over 25% of the black vote (in a two way race).

Those are numbers according to Sean Trende and others.

So a marginal improvement with Hispanics isn't going to make a difference.

Bush won getting 58% of the white vote against Kerry because Whites made up 77% of the electorate. That has dropped to around 71% as of the last election. That can only be partially explained by a change in demographics, but may also have a lot to with how minorities came out in record numbers to support Obama.

Many of the prognosticators and pollsters are using a similar number 70% or less for White Voters. Of course in 2014 they made up 75% of the voters. If they are closer to 75% than 70% it may made a huge difference.

C.H. Truth said...

What's interesting... is that nobody sees a problem if 95% of blacks vote for the Democrat, or if Hillary Clinton makes specific appeals to the Hispanic voters...

But lord forbid one Party actually garners more of the evil White vote. Obviously that appeal is entirely racist and must associate that entire party with the KKK.

The Republicans have never made the elections about race. Democrats have always done so. The fact that Trump is making a play in this direction (albeit attaching himself to the discourages working class voter rather than the "white voter") suddenly this is a racist play.

Appeal to Blacks - perfectly acceptable
Appeal to Hispanics - perfectly acceptable
Appeal to Whites - You are a member of the KKK

rrb said...


Appeal to Blacks - perfectly acceptable
Appeal to Hispanics - perfectly acceptable
Appeal to Whites - You are a member of the KKK
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

hypocrisy.

bedrock.

you know the rest.

Roger Amick said...

The unfortunate truth, is that the David Duke type, support Trump.

You have not, or will you, see Hillary or her campaign authorized speakers, will associate Trump with David Duke or the KKK.

Do some say that? Yes.

Name calling is common here, by the usual suspects on the right. Mr Beaners is a prime example.

So your opinion is factually incorrect.

Roger Amick said...

Not only that, if he does decide to follow your direction, it will add fuel to those who have a deep hatred of Trump.

That could add to turnout across the board against Trump.

Roger Amick said...

The networks are pointing out that Trump will cost the Republicans control of the Senate.

C.H. Truth said...

Hillary herself has associated Trump with David Duke. She did it the last time she was in Minneapolis.

The Clinton campaign has a video ad running saying Trump is the candidate of the KKK.

It's all over her twitter account

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/768823064033308673?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Loretta Russo said...

A quick reminder....

It isn't Trump supporters murdering cops, or killing each other and innocent bystanders in drive-by shootings.

Myballs said...

David Duke type??

I call bullsh*t. How about that other grand dragon who endorsed Hillary.

Or senator Byrd, Hillary's hero?

Loretta Russo said...

"Hillary herself has associated Trump with David Duke. She did it the last time she was in Minneapolis."

...while the CPUSA, the SPUSA stand firmly with her and she openly admits her admiration of Robert KKK Byrd.

Rat's right.

Hypocrisy

Bedrock

C.H. Truth said...

Roger

Sometimes I wish you would actually READ my posts before commenting on them. The only thing I stated about Trump is that he is going after the discouraged working class voters...

If you believe that it's somehow wrong to cater to the needs of working class voters who have seen a net income decline of several thousand real dollars over the past few years... then you have something wrong with you.

The post is about the fact that Clinton is gone past just trying to subtly associate Trump with racism and the KKK... to actually coming out in campaign ads, Twitter posts, and speeches and declaring that Trump, his policies, and those who support his policies... are associated with the KKK.

The post points out that the reason she is doing this is because her support from the minorities is soft (compared to the support Obama got). Not just in terms of percent, but in terms of excitement. So she is going all out in her attacks of racism and KKK to try to shore up that support.

The post suggests that there is a danger from this... in turning off White people (especially those who do not find border security and vetting of Syrian refugees a bad thing).

No other Presidential Candidate ever has just come out and called their opponent a racist and then said their policies and supporters are associated with the KKK.

I think there is a chance that this backfires with many people. I think both candidates are drawing lines. Trump not afraid to court white working class voters, and Hillary not afraid to call Trump a racist.

But if nothing else Roger...

You prove my point. You believe that it's racist for a Presidential candidate to talk about issues important to White working class voters. But you find no racism in Presidential candidates openly courting the Black or Hispanic vote.

In my mind... it tells me that the Democratic Party will never care about what I want... because they believe caring about a White guy is racist.

Roger Amick said...


In my mind... it tells me that the Democratic Party will never care about what I want... because they believe caring about a White guy is racist.

Some are. Mr Beaners is a prime example.

Not you. Not most. But they vote Republican.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - people with criminal records are more likely to vote Democrat. Does that may you a criminal by association?

But the reality is that the real racists in 2016 are BLM and those who support those sorts of racist causes. Those who walk around with Mexican flags and throw rocks at Trump supporters are racists.

The racists are not the people who want to elect someone who is willing to address the problems with income stagnation, lack of GDP growth, and other problems associated with average every day Americans. Someone is not a racist because they are not willing to put the desires of BLM and Illegal Immigrants ahead of their own and their families needs.

James said...

Ch, do you not hear racists screaming loud and clear in many of the responses to The Donald's rhetoric at his campaign events?

Loretta Russo said...

"Some are. Mr Beaners is a prime example."

You liberals can't call conservative women vile, despicable names and then claim some faux moral high ground.

I won't insult this blog by reminding you what you yourself have called Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Michelle Malkin.....

C.H. Truth said...

Well James...

I guess if you consider a group of Republicans to be a bunch of racists, then that tells us more about "you" than about them.

Bigotry is what bigotry does.


And calling am entire group of Republicans "racists" make you a bigot.

C.H. Truth said...

By the way James...

Bigots don't understand that they are bigots. They truly believe that large blocs of people can be labeled any way they want to label them (as you do with Republicans).

Loretta Russo said...

"But the reality is that the real racists in 2016 are BLM and those who support those sorts of racist causes. Those who walk around with Mexican flags and throw rocks at Trump supporters are racists."

Throwing eggs at a woman was a nice touch....

It's not the Trump supporters trying to shut down free speech, burning the American flag, shouting vulgarities.

Republicans don't "do" protests, never have.

We leave the fire and brimstone fascist tactics to the left.

Loretta Russo said...

"I guess if you consider a group of Republicans to be a bunch of racists, then that tells us more about "you" than about them."

A skunk smells it's own hole first.