Latino vote in Michigan- the hell happened? 38% trump according to cnn

[Matty]

According to the CNN exit poll data out of michigan, trump got 38% of the latino vote to clinton's 58%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/michigan/president

Latino's made up 5% of the electorate there. Is this likely off or what?

[Shadows]

38% or not. Trump definitely outperformed Romney among Latinos & probably the level of outperforming maybe higher in the rust belt.

Again shows the pitfalls of the "identity" politics & how flawed a candidate Clinton was. Huge damage she has done to the Dem party!

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Maybe people realized Obama was deporting more people then Bush?

[JerryArkansas]

Maybe people realized Obama was deporting more people then Bush?

Or the SubSample is so small that the exit is trash. 

[BaldEagle1991]

Someone surely did the math wrong. No way Hispanics would like Trump especially in MI.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

remember this is the exit polls after beïng adjusted to fit the "real" results

[ApatheticAustrian]

not many latinos + as we know now the exit polls drastically over-estimate trump's minority numbers.

[RINO Tom]

Maybe enough Latinos actually believed that Trump's economic policies would help them more than Clinton's (well, not her advertised ones, but what they perceived to be her actual views) would ... it's not unprecedented: Woodrow Wilson won a LOT of Black votes in 1916 pretty much by arguing, "Who cares about Abraham Lincoln, the GOP hasn't done shlt for you guys and our economic policies help the poor, which a lot of you are.  You can vote how your grandpa did over something that happened a long time ago, or you can take a chance on me."  Of course, he totally backtracked on any civil rights talk, but that definitely broke the barrier of Blacks never voting Democrat.

[Pandaguineapig]

not many latinos + as we know now the exit polls drastically over-estimate trump's minority numbers.

Lol county level data suggests that Trump likely did better with Latinos and worse with affluent whites than exit polls suggested, Latino decisions whining after their exit polls were debunked is not proof of anything

[RINO Tom]

not many latinos + as we know now the exit polls drastically over-estimate trump's minority numbers.

Lol county level data suggests that Trump likely did better with Latinos and worse with affluent whites than exit polls suggested, Latino decisions whining after their exit polls were debunked is not proof of anything

Losing affluent counties doesn't mean you lost the affluent voters in those counties.  High-income people naturally have a MUCH bigger effect on the average income of a county than their one vote does on the result there.  What do you want to bet that the richest precincts in Orange County, for example, went Republican?

[Pandaguineapig]

not many latinos + as we know now the exit polls drastically over-estimate trump's minority numbers.

Lol county level data suggests that Trump likely did better with Latinos and worse with affluent whites than exit polls suggested, Latino decisions whining after their exit polls were debunked is not proof of anything

Losing affluent counties doesn't mean you lost the affluent voters in those counties.  High-income people naturally have a MUCH bigger effect on the average income of a county than their one vote does on the result there.  What do you want to bet that the richest precincts in Orange County, for example, went Republican?

Still theres no evidence that Trump did worse than the exit polls showed amongst hispanics

[RINO Tom]

not many latinos + as we know now the exit polls drastically over-estimate trump's minority numbers.

Lol county level data suggests that Trump likely did better with Latinos and worse with affluent whites than exit polls suggested, Latino decisions whining after their exit polls were debunked is not proof of anything

Losing affluent counties doesn't mean you lost the affluent voters in those counties.  High-income people naturally have a MUCH bigger effect on the average income of a county than their one vote does on the result there.  What do you want to bet that the richest precincts in Orange County, for example, went Republican?

Still theres no evidence that Trump did worse than the exit polls showed amongst hispanics

Yeah, I was just referencing your claim that he did worse among "affluent" (defining this as having a college degree is laughable, and making over $200,000 as a family doesn't make you THAT affluent, if we're being real) Whites.

[Alcon]

Sample size of 151, and that's assuming the exit poll is a random, representative sample of Michigan Latinos, which is unlikely.

[Pandaguineapig]

not many latinos + as we know now the exit polls drastically over-estimate trump's minority numbers.

Lol county level data suggests that Trump likely did better with Latinos and worse with affluent whites than exit polls suggested, Latino decisions whining after their exit polls were debunked is not proof of anything

Losing affluent counties doesn't mean you lost the affluent voters in those counties.  High-income people naturally have a MUCH bigger effect on the average income of a county than their one vote does on the result there.  What do you want to bet that the richest precincts in Orange County, for example, went Republican?

Still theres no evidence that Trump did worse than the exit polls showed amongst hispanics

Yeah, I was just referencing your claim that he did worse among "affluent" (defining this as having a college degree is laughable, and making over $200,000 as a family doesn't make you THAT affluent, if we're being real) Whites.

I was thinking about an example such as Texas where Trump badly underperformed in the Houston Metro and suburban areas while he greatly outdid past republican performances along the Rio Grande

[Meclazine for Israel]

According to the CNN exit poll data....

Found your problem.

[Badger]

not many latinos + as we know now the exit polls drastically over-estimate trump's minority numbers.

Lol county level data suggests that Trump likely did better with Latinos and worse with affluent whites than exit polls suggested, Latino decisions whining after their exit polls were debunked is not proof of anything

Losing affluent counties doesn't mean you lost the affluent voters in those counties.  High-income people naturally have a MUCH bigger effect on the average income of a county than their one vote does on the result there.  What do you want to bet that the richest precincts in Orange County, for example, went Republican?

Still theres no evidence that Trump did worse than the exit polls showed amongst hispanics

Yeah, I was just referencing your claim that he did worse among "affluent" (defining this as having a college degree is laughable, and making over $200,000 as a family doesn't make you THAT affluent, if we're being real) Whites.

[RINO Tom]

not many latinos + as we know now the exit polls drastically over-estimate trump's minority numbers.

Lol county level data suggests that Trump likely did better with Latinos and worse with affluent whites than exit polls suggested, Latino decisions whining after their exit polls were debunked is not proof of anything

Losing affluent counties doesn't mean you lost the affluent voters in those counties.  High-income people naturally have a MUCH bigger effect on the average income of a county than their one vote does on the result there.  What do you want to bet that the richest precincts in Orange County, for example, went Republican?

Still theres no evidence that Trump did worse than the exit polls showed amongst hispanics

Yeah, I was just referencing your claim that he did worse among "affluent" (defining this as having a college degree is laughable, and making over $200,000 as a family doesn't make you THAT affluent, if we're being real) Whites.

Sorry, I forgot you were always on privilege patrol.  But two parents making $100,000 each per year with 2 or 3 kids are very lucky and very fortunate, but if they're going to enjoy any of the perks that they probably feel they've earned by this point in their life, they aren't going to be rolling in dough like they're millionaires.  Characterizing them as this faceless "rich" category is ing ridiculous.  That doesn't take away from the plight of anyone else, and I suppose you could channel your inner-Democrat and lecture these types of people on what they have actually earned or how much of their money they *need*, but they probably want to live in a district with a good school, let their kids play club sports with their peers, get to go on family vacations to places their parents couldn't afford to take them but they've always wanted to go (ya know, that whole corny American Dream) or any number of things that some think they shouldn't be able to do ... but that's not my cup of tea.  They're lucky.  They're not these demonized, selfish fat cats that many on the left paint them as just because they aren't on board with economic plans that take more of their income away.