Influence of Hispanic in 2016 Election is quite exaggerated.

[StatesPoll]

Well, Many media and people says ‘Vote of Hispanic gonna decide 2016 election.’

Well it could be a partially right. but it is too much exaggerated. because of these four main factors.

1. Registered Hispanic voters share in 2016 gonna be 12% of the USA.
(Hispanic population in USA, it is 17.4%(2015). But average age of hispanic is just 29 years old. so many young minor hispanics they dont have the vote in 2016.)

2. Hispanic turn out is quite low compare to White and Black. in 2012 election it was just 48%.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/05/09/record-hispanic-voter-turnout-in-2012-myth-census-numbers-show/

Compare to White turn out 64%(I'd predict it would be increase in 2016) and about 1,2 factors, Hispanic actual influence in whole USA.It is about 8.76% (=12% x 73%

3. More than half of the Hispanic are living in ‘Three non-swing states’
Hispanic population in USA, 55millions. and 28.6 millons Hispanics are live in California,Texas,New York. Califorinia and New york are typical blue states And Texas is a typical Red states. Those 3 states total populations are 84million.

so in other 47 states in USA. Hispanic population is 26.4 million / 236 million= 11.18%. and thinking about vote shares,turn out factors. actual hispanic vote infulence in 47 states in USA. it gonna be about just 7 percents.

and Not all hispanic votes for Democrat. there are about 30 percent Hispanic vote for GOP. so in 2016 election. Democrat gonna take 2.8% advantage to against GOP from the hispanic at 47 states in USA.

(70%-30%) x 7%(actual hispanic influence in 47 states) = 2.8%.

4. Especially, among of swing states even lower influence of Hispanic.

Florida? Those Hispanics are many of them from the Cuba. so They are not lean to Democrat like other states. That’s why Donald Trump has a leadto Hillary with 49.2%(TRUMP) vs 40.5%(Hillary).
Polls : Florida Atlantic University - College of Business
[url]]http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/05/09/record-hispanic-voter-turnout-in-2012-myth-census-numbers-show/

Compare to White turn out 64%(I'd predict it would be increase in 2016) and about 1,2 factors, Hispanic actual influence in whole USA.It is about 8.76% (=12% x 73%

3. More than half of the Hispanic are living in ‘Three non-swing states’
Hispanic population in USA, 55millions. and 28.6 millons Hispanics are live in California,Texas,New York. Califorinia and New york are typical blue states And Texas is a typical Red states. Those 3 states total populations are 84million.

so in other 47 states in USA. Hispanic population is 26.4 million / 236 million= 11.18%. and thinking about vote shares,turn out factors. actual hispanic vote infulence in 47 states in USA. it gonna be about just 7 percents.

and Not all hispanic votes for Democrat. there are about 30 percent Hispanic vote for GOP. so in 2016 election. Democrat gonna take 2.8% advantage to against GOP from the hispanic at 47 states in USA.

(70%-30%) x 7%(actual hispanic influence in 47 states) = 2.8%.

4. Especially, among of swing states even lower influence of Hispanic.

Florida? Those Hispanics are many of them from the Cuba. so They are not lean to Democrat like other states. That’s why Donald Trump has a leadto Hillary with 49.2%(TRUMP) vs 40.5%(Hillary).
Polls : Florida Atlantic University - College of Business
http://http://business.fau.edu/departments/economics/business-economics-polling/bepi-polls/index.aspx#.Vn_Jq1kzz1L

Colorado? Those Hispanics have 20% populations. and have 14% actual influence.(turnout,age,registered voter factos)But instead of that only 4.5% Black living in there.(which vote for democrat 90%+). That’s why Trump has a lead to hillary with 48%(TRUMP)vs 37%(Hillary).

http://http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/co/co11182015_c23tbvm.pdf

Nevada and New mexico.which are just total 11 electoral votes (Nevada 6 + New mexico 5)

Else, Hispanic just has a 5% or lower influence(3~4%) on the Most swing states. (North Carolina: 9% Population, Actual vote shares influence about 5%.) with 3~5% influence Democrat party only can takes 1.2~2% advantage against to GOP.(recently on the polls Hispanic supporting ratio about Democrat/GOP is around 70 : 30 )

1.2~2% edge isn’t a nothing. But 1.2~2% edges(from the Hispanic) That decide the US presidential election? Are you serious? It is horrirbly exaggerated.

Influence of Hispanic in 2016 Election is quite exaggerated.

[Blair]

Well there's a reason that Romney lost to Obama in Florida in 2012, and it wasn't the white vote

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes, it will be exaggerated with Dems losing FL, but Ca, CO, NV, NM Clinton wins over Trump or Cruz and Murphy winning FL senate

[Ljube]

Yes, it will be exaggerated with Dems losing FL, but Ca, CO, NV, NM Clinton wins over Trump or Cruz and Murphy winning FL senate

CO and NV will be battleground states in a Clinton - Trump election.
The other battleground states will be IA, OH, PA, VA and FL.

Trump only needs OH, PA and FL.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump isnt gonna win Pa, though.

[Ljube]

Trump isnt gonna win Pa, though.

Of all candidates, Trump and Christie have the best chances to win PA.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This map perfectly sums up why it's exaggerated:

R: 269 EV
D: 269 EV (but basically a GOP victory)

That being said, the Republicans can't ignore the Hispanic vote forever. It will be important in many Senate races, in Florida (which is a must-win for the GOP) and other battleground states as well.

You really think GOP will lose Va & win WI with Ron Johnson, who is gonna get Santorumed

[bobloblaw]

Well there's a reason that Romney lost to Obama in Florida in 2012, and it wasn't the white vote

Romney needed 72% of the hispanic vote to get to 270

[StatesPoll]

Well there's a reason that Romney lost to Obama in Florida in 2012, and it wasn't the white vote

Romney needed 72% of the hispanic vote to get to 270

No he did not need. if He just made more white voters turnout.
He could takes Florida,Pannsylvania,Michigan,Ohio.

[EliteLX]

Yes, it will be exaggerated with Dems losing FL, but Ca, CO, NV, NM Clinton wins over Trump or Cruz and Murphy winning FL senate

CO and NV will be battleground states in a Clinton - Trump election.
The other battleground states will be IA, OH, PA, VA and FL.

Trump only needs OH, PA and FL.

Here's my repeating weekly post:

As OC said, Trump will never come close to winning a statewide majority in PA, as long as college educated whites from hugely population dense suburbs surrounding Philly exist + the resounding African American voice in the state exists. Trump has nowhere to go but down with educated whites and has an absolute cap of black vote at 10% (won't happen, more like 8-9% max) and with this in mind it is statistically impossible to turn out enough votes, not even near enough.

[mds32]

Trump isnt gonna win Pa, though.

Of all candidates, Trump and Christie have the best chances to win PA.

No they do not. I would argue maybe Rubio and Christie. Trump turns off the Philadelphia voters I think.

[EliteLX]

Trump isnt gonna win Pa, though.

Of all candidates, Trump and Christie have the best chances to win PA.

No they do not. I would argue maybe Rubio and Christie. Trump turns off the Philadelphia voters I think.

Rubio and Christie for sure. Jeb if he didn't hold Bush fatigue, he'd be a wonderful fit for PA.

For those arguing about whether GOP needs to crank Hispanics vs turn out the "courageous conservatives", the answer is neither. They need to expand the umbrella in all directions and reach out to minorities with fiscal appeal and adapt social policies to stronger recognize and unite all demographics.

[Torie]

Oh Hispanics matter certainly in Colorado, in a close election, and maybe Nevada. Heck, even Iowa now has its little pockets of Hispanics. There are some Hispanic precincts in Philly (that was that zone that voted for Hillary over Obama in the 2008 Dem primary, and no, no doubt has expanded). They are popping up just about everywhere now.

[Likely Voter]

a few points.

1. One has to look at Hispanics and Asians who combined have gone from 9% of the vote in 2000 to 13% of the vote in 2012
2. Hispanics and Asians have trended together in the last 4 elections, always within a few percent of each other.
3. Asians and Hispanics show a much greater swing than blacks and whites. In the last 4 elections the GOP share of Whites have ranged from 55-59%, Blacks at 4-11%, but Hispanics has ranged from 27-44% and Asians 26-43%. 
4. The only time the GOP has won the popular vote in the last 6 elections was when it was at that high point with Hispanics and Asians (and blacks), notably the high point with whites was 2012.

Bottom line, there isn't that much more to squeeze out of the white vote, but there is a lot of potential for the GOP with the Hispanic and Asian vote, if they can find a way to tap into it.

[Ljube]

Bottom line, there isn't that much more to squeeze out of the white vote, but there is a lot of potential for the GOP with the Hispanic and Asian vote, if they can find a way to tap into it.

We'll see about that.

[pbrower2a]

Well there's a reason that Romney lost to Obama in Florida in 2012, and it wasn't the white vote

Yes. His campaign put out Spanish-language ads attempting to link President Obama to Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, and those did not work. Romney seemed likely to win Florida before those ads appeared.

The "Cuban" population isn't so monolithic as it once was. It used to be one of the strongest constituencies of Republican voters when Cuban-Americans were middle-class and upper-class, largely and usually unambiguously white, political refugees from Fidel Castro. Over fifty years there are shifts in such a population as occupational group or level of education becomes more important than ethnic identity. But as significantly, the Cubans entering America during the Mariel boat lift are more working class and less decidedly white. Such makes a huge difference.

Many of the Hispanics in Florida are not Cuban-Americans. People from Central and South America, Mexican-Americans, and Puerto Ricans don't spend their thoughts on such a concept as iJ--- Castro! (the Spanish word here depicted in this sentence translates as a four-letter word that begins with an F in English). 

But in any large state, let us say Ohio or Pennsylvania, even a small Hispanic population could be the difference between a D win and an R win.

[Adam Griffin]

If Latinos in 2012 had voted like Latinos in 2004...

State	2012 Actual	2012 Hypo	Swing	EV
NV	Obama +8	Obama +4	R+4	6
CO	Obama +5	Obama +2	R+3	9
NM	Obama +10	Obama +2	R+8	5
FL	Obama +1	Romney +5	R+6	29
NC	Romney +2	Romney +4	R+2	15

So you nail down 29 EVs outright and put another 14 in play. That gives a 289-249 result. You also lock down more or less NC (where Romney spent $50 million dollars on ads) for the GOP, freeing up resources to be spent in CO, NM & NV, the last of which also becomes competitive enough in that scenario that the GOP's efforts there wouldn't have been in vain.

But here's the thing: Latinos ain't the only problem the GOP is facing. They've got the same problem with Asians, who have swung even more toward the Democrats than Latinos and are now the fastest growing group in the country. If you include them (as you really should) in the GOP's ticking demographic time-bomb, then you add to the mix...

If Latinos and Asians in 2012 had voted like Latinos in 2004...

State	2012 Actual	2012 Hypo	Swing	EV
VA	Obama +4	Obama +1	R+3	13
OH	Obama +2	Obama +1	R+1	18

Not to mention...

If Latinos and Asians in 2012 had voted like Latinos in 2004...

PV	2012 Actual	2012 Hypo	Swing
USA	Obama +3.8	Romney +0.6	R+4.4

So I mean, yeah, if you want to be all "RABBLE RABBLE those s[inks]c votes wouldn't have handed us the election in a vacuum so screw them!!!", then be my guest. Presidential elections are not that black and white: they're multi-faceted and feature a million different puzzle pieces that all interact with each other in odd and interesting ways.

An election where Romney was earning 45% of the Latino and Asian vote like Bush did in 2004 would have hardened up some previously-red states that are trending purple, giving the campaign an actual opportunity at expanding the map (as opposed to that joke plan they had) by being able to focus resources in more of these states and actually whittle the margins down to the point of meaning something. At the very least, wouldn't it have been nice for Republicans to claim that they not only denied Obama a majority of the vote, but beat him in the popular vote outright? No? OK then.

Of course, it's worth noting that Romney HQ had themselves deluded into thinking that they were on the precipice of victory even on Election Night itself, fueled by the reassurance that a dramatic wave of whites would usher them to victory. How'd that work out? Yet we got people here thinking that someone even nuttier will inspire "muh Silent Majority". If you stay on this track, then you'll see the effects of the Latino and Asian vote making a true difference soon enough in multiple states compared to where it was 10 years ago...when they're voting for Democrats in numbers closer to black levels of support than Latino/Asian 08 D support, and when they're twice the electorate they are currently.

[Adam Griffin]

Not to mention...

If Latinos and Asians in 2012 had voted like Latinos in 2004...

PV	2012 Actual	2012 Hypo	Swing
USA	Obama +3.8	Romney +0.6	R+4.4

...

At the very least, wouldn't it have been nice for Republicans to claim that they not only denied Obama a majority of the vote, but beat him in the popular vote outright? No? OK then.

Allow me to clarify. That last part assumes Obama would have still won despite losing the PV: under that PV scenario of Romney winning by 0.6 points, Romney had a real shot at actually winning outright. He wouldn't have been guaranteed to win the PV but lose the EV.

That PV scenario, which projects Latino/Asian D support regressing to 2004 levels nationally - combined with all of the states I outlined in my last post flipping (except for NV; the biggest outlier) - could have produced a 280-258 EV victory for Romney, via NC, FL, VA, CO, NM, and OH. Hell, Romney still could have lost NM and won with 275 EV. Would everything have needed to go just right in order to win? Yes, but everything needed to go right for him in win in 2012 anyway and the blockades in the way of achieving that were a lot higher. At the very least and in retrospect, Romney would have had a real chance in states like NM, OH, CO & VA while locking down FL and keeping NC out of play.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

From an electoral college standpoint, blacks are more important. They have big numbers in Florida, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.

In 2004 GW Bush won 11% of blacks nationally with 60% black turnout, and either narrowly won most of these states or won them by a decent margin (the exceptions being Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, but all were battlegrounds, Wisconsin especially).

In 2012, Romney won only 6% of the black vote nationally, but this was maginified by black turnout being 66%. Obama won most of these states except South Carolina and Georgia (somewhat close, but not targeted) and North Carolina (close margin of 92,000 votes).

Hispanics really matter in Florida and Colorado and Asians in Virginia, but in close elections in other states they can provide the margin of victory in other states when the election comes down to just a few thousand votes or so. However, the black vote is critical to the Democrats in putting them over the top and keeping swing states favorable to them.


AdamGriffin didn't you do some calculations on this with the black vote last year?

[henster]

The black vote matters much more than Hispanics in 2016. The black vote was absolutely crucial in OH, PA, FL, & VA. Blacks were 15% of the Ohio electorate even though their 12% of the population there, so even a small drop in turnout could be a huge difference.

[Kingpoleon]

This map perfectly sums up why it's exaggerated:

R: 269 EV
D: 269 EV (but basically a GOP victory)

That being said, the Republicans can't ignore the Hispanic vote forever. It will be important in many Senate races, in Florida (which is a must-win for the GOP) and other battleground states as well.

Flip WI for MN. Walker has ruined the GOP in WI this cycle.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The black movement is gonna matter in Philly and she is gonna take Castro for CO & NV. As for Iowa, she needs college students turnout. That gives you 270/272 for WH.

[Ljube]

The black movement is gonna matter in Philly and she is gonna take Castro for CO & NV. As for Iowa, she needs college students turnout. That gives you 270/272 for WH.

College students hate her. So do Iowa natives.
She is a racist, so she won’t pick Castro. Colorado hates her. Nevada doesn’t like her.

But the most devastating thing for her is going to be the black turnout drop and the black percentage drop. I can see Trump campaigning only in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

[StatesPoll]

The black movement is gonna matter in Philly and she is gonna take Castro for CO & NV. As for Iowa, she needs college students turnout. That gives you 270/272 for WH.

College students hate her. So do Iowa natives.
She is a racist, so she won’t pick Castro. Colorado hates her. Nevada doesn’t like her.

But the most devastating thing for her is going to be the black turnout drop and the black percentage drop. I can see Trump campaigning only in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

yes. I'd predict black turn out gonna drop to 60%(as 2004) from 66%(2012).
because there is no black candidates in democrat in 2016.

[5280]

I sure as hell don't like Clinton, people need to stop assuming she's guaranteed to win Nevada and Colorado.