Fox News latino poll: Clinton 62, Trump 23 among Hispanics

[Skye]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

How much did Romney get in 2012?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

How much did Romney get in 2012?

27%.

[ProudModerate2]

Wow.
That's almost 3-to-1.
Makes me wonder how much Arizona really does come into play this year.
(And gives Nevada to Hillary, easily.)

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

That's a terrible result for Clinton.

[beaver2.0]

That's a terrible result for Clinton.

Yeah, with Trump it seems like she should be getting upwards of 75%.

[Frodo]

23% still seems too high.  

Though then again, it is Fox after all, so what they say can be taken with a grain of salt. 

[Matty]

Isn't it sad how in American politics, we can determine elections based on numbers from specific racial groups?

I can't think of another country in the world besides s.africa where our political parties are basically homes for specific demographic groups.

[Ebsy]

The poll found unusual results for the "issues" portion with very few Latino voters rating immigration as important, something that is not in line with most other polls.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Isn't it sad how in American politics, we can determine elections based on numbers from specific racial groups?

I can't think of another country in the world besides s.africa where our political parties are basically homes for specific demographic groups.

Well if the GOP didn't demonize Hispanics in Mexican immigrants along with subtle racism still towards the African American community Maybe they would look at the Republican party as a possible party to support the GOP has itself to blame for this

[Likely Voter]

The poll found unusual results for the "issues" portion with very few Latino voters rating immigration as important, something that is not in line with most other polls.

While immigration may not be their most important issue, it is a 'gateway issue' with Hispanics (and Asians). As noted in the GOP 'Autopsy' from 2013...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Isn't it sad how in American politics, we can determine elections based on numbers from specific racial groups?

I can't think of another country in the world besides s.africa where our political parties are basically homes for specific demographic groups.

As a foreigner that's one of the very strangest things about American politics.

[Virginiá]

Isn't it sad how in American politics, we can determine elections based on numbers from specific racial groups?

I can't think of another country in the world besides s.africa where our political parties are basically homes for specific demographic groups.

Looking at how specific demographics (race, age, gender..) vote can tell you a lot about the future of politics in this country. Contrary to the belief of many, people of all demographics (save for, usually, the very youngest) are stubborn when it comes to party support and extraordinary events are typically required to get people to break from normal voting patterns.

I'd like to think that if Republicans hadn't gotten so effective at alienating minorities, there wouldn't be as much focus on racial voting patterns, as those voters were would be more evenly dispersed.

[Fargobison]

FIU/Adsmovil has it at

Clinton 68
Trump 15

http://latinousa.org/2016/05/19/latest-fiu-online-national-poll/

[Landslide Lyndon]

FIU/Adsmovil has it at

Clinton 68
Trump 15

http://latinousa.org/2016/05/19/latest-fiu-online-national-poll/

That's where most Latino-specific surveys put his support.
In the GE polls the Latino subsample is pretty small with big MoE.

[psychprofessor]

FIU/Adsmovil has it at

Clinton 68
Trump 15

http://latinousa.org/2016/05/19/latest-fiu-online-national-poll/

That's where most Latino-specific surveys put his support.
In the GE polls the Latino subsample is pretty small with big MoE.

This is the type of gap that would make Arizona in play. Calling Miss Universe "Miss Housekeeping" isn't going to bring those numbers up.

[Matty]

Isn't it sad how in American politics, we can determine elections based on numbers from specific racial groups?

I can't think of another country in the world besides s.africa where our political parties are basically homes for specific demographic groups.

As a foreigner that's one of the very strangest things about American politics.

Unlike the red avatars on this board, I think both parties are to blame. Democrats benefit when they convince minorities that it's us vs them on many issues, from voter id to welfare reform to guns, etc. Republicans benefit when they convince whites that new social programs are taking money from them to give to blacks, mexicans, etc.

I mean, for all the talk about republicans being bad among minorities, democrats got like 37% of the white vote in 2014. Considering that whites still make up a hefty hefty majority of the coutnry, that's a pretty low number.

the labor party in england, the SPD in germany, the PS in france, etc do MUCH better with whites than the democratic party.

[RaphaelDLG]

This is shockingly, disconcertingly high for Trump.  But, like others have said, it's just one poll.

[RaphaelDLG]

Re:  The discussion on whites, it's the south that's the problem - Democrats fight Republicans to a draw for whites in the rest of the country, it's just that white people in the South vote almost as monolithically as AAs do nowadays.

The reason why they left the Democratic party in the latter half of the 20th century has been empirically proven to be race by many scholars.

You can argue that the reason why they stayed was due to increasing cultural differences (God, guns, etc) with the Democratic party, or if you're cynical, you can look at Trump and say it's still race.  I tend to say the former, but, even though I've lived in the South all but 3 years of my 26, I'm probably naive.  There probably isn't a clear-cut single reason why Democrats suck so much down South.

I read some interesting articles today suggesting two different opinions for how Democrats can win back the South:

1) In states where trends favor Democrats (North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Virginia, Texas, arguably Mississippi), start running squarely mainstream liberal campaigns (as opposed to Republican-lite) to stoke turnout and build a turnout infrastructure

2) In states where Democrats are screwed (Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, arguably South Carolina), run candidates who aren't culturally tone-deaf to white southerners but can still turn out AAs and Latinos like John Bel Edwards and hope for a favorable electoral climate that year

[Likely Voter]

FIU/Adsmovil has it at

Clinton 68
Trump 15

http://latinousa.org/2016/05/19/latest-fiu-online-national-poll/

There is something strange with that survey. Trump does significantly better with educated Latinos over less educated and with female Latinos over male Latinos.  Exactly the opposite of his results with whites.  Not sure if this pattern has been replicated with other Latino polls.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

10 percent puts TX in play. This is really pissing off those of us who have worked to steamroll Democrats every year.

[Kingpoleon]

23% still seems too high.  

Though then again, it is Fox after all, so what they say can be taken with a grain of salt. 

Ironically, FOX and CNN seem to have their polling all be about the same. I think they publish the truth sheerly because of the risk of not doing so.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LBJ: I'll have those N***ers voting democrat for the next hundred years.

[Angrie]

FIU/Adsmovil has it at

Clinton 68
Trump 15

http://latinousa.org/2016/05/19/latest-fiu-online-national-poll/

That is probably more likely to be correct. This FOX poll is just people from normal national fox polls who said they were Hispanic previously. That will not include Spanish speakers who didn't make it into the original FOX national polls. So even though this follow-up poll includes bi-lingual interviews, the fact that it is based on a pre-defined sample means that doesn't fix the problem in the same way that polls from Latino Decisions and organizations like that does.

[Ebsy]

Just took a look at the FOX poll's methodology, and it looks like only the post-sample interviewers were bilingual.

Also, to note, Democrats currently have huge advantages in party id and favorability with Latino voters.