Influence of Hispanic in 2016 Election is quite exaggerated.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I feel like Hillary picking Castro would backfire pretty hard as it is nothing but blatant pandering and Castro would never escape the cloak. Plus, Hillary would likely adopt a stereotypical Speedy Gonzales esque accent during the announcement speech. Especially in light of this ...


https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/8-ways-hillary-clinton-just-your-abuela/

[Simfan34]

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

...whaat?

[Sbane]

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

Did you vote for Obama?

[Ljube]

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

Did you vote for Obama?

Yes, he did, the first time.

[Virginiá]

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.

Based on what? The African American vote was trending upwards before Obama. It's highly unlikely that turnout would collapse like this just because Obama is no longer on the ballot. Studies have shown that people who actually do end up voting are more likely to vote again. Do I think turnout will drop? Yes, but not by more than 1% - 2%. It's possible that AA turnout could  keep dropping if it was only due to Obama, but it will not plunge 6% within the span of 4 years.

This wishful thinking will only hurt Republicans in 2016, but as a Democrat, I welcome this. After all, it worked so well for Romney.

[Ljube]

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.

Based on what? The African American vote was trending upwards before Obama. It's highly unlikely that turnout would collapse like this just because Obama is no longer on the ballot. Studies have shown that people who actually do end up voting are more likely to vote again. Do I think turnout will drop? Yes, but not by more than 1% - 2%. It's possible that AA turnout could  keep dropping if it was only due to Obama, but it will not plunge 6% within the span of 4 years.

This wishful thinking will only hurt Republicans in 2016, but as a Democrat, I welcome this. After all, it worked so well for Romney.

This is an interesting point that needs further analysis. I think we all agree that the black percent will drop, just not by how much. Plus we agree that the Dem vote percent among blacks will drop.

[Sbane]

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

Did you vote for Obama?

Yes, he did, the first time.

The time Colorado voted for Obama by almost double digits with a smaller Hispanic electorate?

[Ljube]

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

Did you vote for Obama?

Yes, he did, the first time.

The time Colorado voted for Obama by almost double digits with a smaller Hispanic electorate?

Yes.

[Adam Griffin]

I think StatesPoll is trolling, if only because he started a thread about black turnout and multiple people rationally explained why the real metric of lower black turnout - its share of the overall electorate - is not likely to drop by any significant measurement. I showed my ever-handy Georgia electorate chart that goes back to 1996: the black share of the electorate was 25% in 2006, 30% in 2008, 28% in 2010, 30% in 2012 & 29% in 2014.

Obama single-handedly added millions of black voters to the rolls and they have carried nearly all of their 2008-era weight back to the polls in 2010 & 2014, when Obama wasn't on the ballot. Once people start voting, they don't tend to stop. It doesn't matter of the share of black registered voters who vote in 2016 drops (somewhat likely) if the share of all other registered voters who vote in 2016 drops by an equal amount; they'll still be 13% of the electorate.

[Sbane]

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

Did you vote for Obama?

Yes, he did, the first time.

The time Colorado voted for Obama by almost double digits with a smaller Hispanic electorate?

Yes.

And thus his vote is irrelevant. If the democrats need to win Colorado by double digits, they probably need his vote. Otherwise, they can win without him.

Clinton's weakness in Colorado is way overplayed. If the Hispanic vote turns out, which they will against Trump, Colorado will be more Democratic than the nation as a whole.

[Torie]

I think StatesPoll is trolling, if only because he started a thread about black turnout and multiple people rationally explained why the real metric of lower black turnout - its share of the overall electorate - is not likely to drop by any significant measurement. I showed my ever-handy Georgia electorate chart that goes back to 1996: the black share of the electorate was 25% in 2006, 30% in 2008, 28% in 2010, 30% in 2012 & 29% in 2014.

Obama single-handedly added millions of black voters to the rolls and they have carried nearly all of their 2008-era weight back to the polls in 2010 & 2014, when Obama wasn't on the ballot. Once people start voting, they don't tend to stop. It doesn't matter of the share of black registered voters who vote in 2016 drops (somewhat likely) if the share of all other registered voters who vote in 2016 drops by an equal amount; they'll still be 13% of the electorate.

Oh, let him get his feet wet. Not everybody is some weird psephological junkie with no other real life, who finds this stuff so totally arresting, that sex and food and sleep become far lower priorities as to how one spends one's time.

[Ljube]

Clinton's weakness in Colorado is way overplayed. If the Hispanic vote turns out, which they will against Trump, Colorado will be more Democratic than the nation as a whole.

Why do you think Trump will fare worse among Hispanics than any other Pub candidate?
Most Democrats and most Establishment Pubs think this way.

[Adam Griffin]

I think StatesPoll is trolling, if only because he started a thread about black turnout and multiple people rationally explained why the real metric of lower black turnout - its share of the overall electorate - is not likely to drop by any significant measurement. I showed my ever-handy Georgia electorate chart that goes back to 1996: the black share of the electorate was 25% in 2006, 30% in 2008, 28% in 2010, 30% in 2012 & 29% in 2014.

Obama single-handedly added millions of black voters to the rolls and they have carried nearly all of their 2008-era weight back to the polls in 2010 & 2014, when Obama wasn't on the ballot. Once people start voting, they don't tend to stop. It doesn't matter of the share of black registered voters who vote in 2016 drops (somewhat likely) if the share of all other registered voters who vote in 2016 drops by an equal amount; they'll still be 13% of the electorate.

Oh, let him get his feet wet. Not everybody is some weird psephological junkie with no other real life, who finds this stuff so totally arresting, that sex and food and sleep become far lower priorities as to how one spends one's time.

Well, considering he's doing the whole "my numbers" shtick while promoting a website that attempts to do just that...

[Torie]

I think StatesPoll is trolling, if only because he started a thread about black turnout and multiple people rationally explained why the real metric of lower black turnout - its share of the overall electorate - is not likely to drop by any significant measurement. I showed my ever-handy Georgia electorate chart that goes back to 1996: the black share of the electorate was 25% in 2006, 30% in 2008, 28% in 2010, 30% in 2012 & 29% in 2014.

Obama single-handedly added millions of black voters to the rolls and they have carried nearly all of their 2008-era weight back to the polls in 2010 & 2014, when Obama wasn't on the ballot. Once people start voting, they don't tend to stop. It doesn't matter of the share of black registered voters who vote in 2016 drops (somewhat likely) if the share of all other registered voters who vote in 2016 drops by an equal amount; they'll still be 13% of the electorate.

Oh, let him get his feet wet. Not everybody is some weird psephological junkie with no other real life, who finds this stuff so totally arresting, that sex and food and sleep become far lower priorities as to how one spends one's time.

Well, considering he's doing the whole "my numbers" shtick while promoting a website that attempts to do just that...

Tell me more about promoting a website. If it is more than links in a post in context, the Cave considers that spam, and that needs to stop, particularly if he is associated with it.

[Adam Griffin]

I think StatesPoll is trolling, if only because he started a thread about black turnout and multiple people rationally explained why the real metric of lower black turnout - its share of the overall electorate - is not likely to drop by any significant measurement. I showed my ever-handy Georgia electorate chart that goes back to 1996: the black share of the electorate was 25% in 2006, 30% in 2008, 28% in 2010, 30% in 2012 & 29% in 2014.

Obama single-handedly added millions of black voters to the rolls and they have carried nearly all of their 2008-era weight back to the polls in 2010 & 2014, when Obama wasn't on the ballot. Once people start voting, they don't tend to stop. It doesn't matter of the share of black registered voters who vote in 2016 drops (somewhat likely) if the share of all other registered voters who vote in 2016 drops by an equal amount; they'll still be 13% of the electorate.

Oh, let him get his feet wet. Not everybody is some weird psephological junkie with no other real life, who finds this stuff so totally arresting, that sex and food and sleep become far lower priorities as to how one spends one's time.

Well, considering he's doing the whole "my numbers" shtick while promoting a website that attempts to do just that...

Tell me more about promoting a website. If it is more than links in a post in context, the Cave considers that spam, and that needs to stop, particularly if he is associated with it.

His name. No, to my knowledge, that's not against the rules. Yes, that is promoting a website, and one that basically frames him (as you put it) a "psephological junkie". Therefore, criticism of his bunk commentary is fair game, as far as I'm concerned. I haven't been really mean to him thus far.

[Torie]

I think StatesPoll is trolling, if only because he started a thread about black turnout and multiple people rationally explained why the real metric of lower black turnout - its share of the overall electorate - is not likely to drop by any significant measurement. I showed my ever-handy Georgia electorate chart that goes back to 1996: the black share of the electorate was 25% in 2006, 30% in 2008, 28% in 2010, 30% in 2012 & 29% in 2014.

Obama single-handedly added millions of black voters to the rolls and they have carried nearly all of their 2008-era weight back to the polls in 2010 & 2014, when Obama wasn't on the ballot. Once people start voting, they don't tend to stop. It doesn't matter of the share of black registered voters who vote in 2016 drops (somewhat likely) if the share of all other registered voters who vote in 2016 drops by an equal amount; they'll still be 13% of the electorate.

Oh, let him get his feet wet. Not everybody is some weird psephological junkie with no other real life, who finds this stuff so totally arresting, that sex and food and sleep become far lower priorities as to how one spends one's time.

Well, considering he's doing the whole "my numbers" shtick while promoting a website that attempts to do just that...

Tell me more about promoting a website. If it is more than links in a post in context, the Cave considers that spam, and that needs to stop, particularly if he is associated with it.

His name. No, to my knowledge, that's not against the rules. Yes, that is promoting a website, and one that basically frames him (as you put it) a "psephological junkie". Therefore, criticism of his bunk commentary is fair game, as far as I'm concerned.

Promoting a website is against the rules, at least if it is your own, and one poster got a 7 day time out for that conduct. Spam is next to socking as right up there precipitating rapid Cave action.

Sure, if the guy claims to be a pro, go after him based on the merits. More power to you. Taking down purported experts based on the merits, is indeed doing the Lord's work, just like taking people in power down is based on the merits. That is indeed what in part makes America great - the distrust of authority, and willingness to, and indeed joy taken in,  challenging it at every turn, based on the merits. 

[tallguy23]

I really don't think the AA vote will drop by much. Clinton is very popular/loved by African Americans.

I also think female turnout will increase quite a bit due to the historic nature of having the first female president.

[ProudModerate2]

I really don't think the AA vote will drop by much. Clinton is very popular/loved by African Americans.

I also think female turnout will increase quite a bit due to the historic nature of having the first female president.

Agree.

[StatesPoll]

I really don't think the AA vote will drop by much. Clinton is very popular/loved by African Americans.

I also think female turnout will increase quite a bit due to the historic nature of having the first female president.

I know Bill clinton is loved by AA. But Hillary? I don't think so that much.

[Virginiá]

I really don't think the AA vote will drop by much. Clinton is very popular/loved by African Americans.

I also think female turnout will increase quite a bit due to the historic nature of having the first female president.

I know Bill clinton is loved by AA. But Hillary? I don't think so that much.

Honestly, this is irrelevant right now. Virtually any Democrat starts with about 60% of the Hispanic vote. Trump's rhetoric/plans on immigration and his strategy to make immigration central to this election is definitely going to drive up turnout and further push remaining GOP Hispanics away from the party. If it was just about immigration reform and nothing else, I could see less effect but Trump's platform has been literally to round up all undocumented workers and deport them. One of the the most efficient ways to drive up turnout among a demographic is to make central to your campaign a promise to deport millions of people from that demographic. It doesn't matter if Trump is the nominee or not, because he has been on air for almost 6 months now yelling about a wall and to deport, deport, deport.  This has already cornered other candidates and painted the GOP as very unfriendly to Hispanics.

Hispanic voters were central to Obama's wins in Florida in 2008 and 2012, and with Clinton likely to enjoy more of the white vote and probably (at least) 2008-levels of Hispanic support. With Florida off the map for the GOP, they have no realistic path to victory. That is hardly exaggerated. The only exception to this I can see is Rubio winning the nomination and garnering enough Hispanic/Cuban support to take the state.

StatesPoll, your predictions are incredibly narrow-minded and reek of confirmation bias. It reminds me of die-hard Trump supporters who mindlessly declare he will attain Reagan (84)-levels of white support while conveniently neglecting to consider all the white voters he will alienate with his banter and divisive plans. In this case, I believe you have underestimated the influence Hispanics have in key states like Florida, Colorado and so on. But more so, you seem to have completely neglected to consider what effect Trump is going to have on this electorate and the topic of immigration as well.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This is why the Jeb phenomenon swung the election back towards the Dems Jeb could have made a difference in NV, moreso Colorodo, but sticking to Dubya on Iraq was telling and flawed.  And with Trump or Cruz, wont come close to matching Dubya's numbers with Latinos and Jeb could have.  Dubya did win New Mexico.

[Sbane]

Clinton's weakness in Colorado is way overplayed. If the Hispanic vote turns out, which they will against Trump, Colorado will be more Democratic than the nation as a whole.

Why do you think Trump will fare worse among Hispanics than any other Pub candidate?
Most Democrats and most Establishment Pubs think this way.

Its not that I think other Republicans will do great with Hispanics, but Trump will bring the Republican numbers to new lows with Hispanics. And even more importantly, he will drive turnout among Hispanics and Asians which is pretty low compared to Whites and Blacks.