Monkey Cage: Donald Trump did not win 34% of Latino vote in Texas.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:11:28 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Monkey Cage: Donald Trump did not win 34% of Latino vote in Texas.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Monkey Cage: Donald Trump did not win 34% of Latino vote in Texas.  (Read 2757 times)
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 02, 2016, 11:32:36 AM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/02/donald-trump-did-not-win-34-of-latino-vote-in-texas-he-won-much-less/?utm_term=.bf676afddd94

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


I'm beginning to wonder of what use are exit polls at all, and what are the true numbers for all demographics? As The Upshot (and this year's polls?) showed, WCWs were also be underrepresented and thus throwing off polls.

It never really made sense to me that Trump would do better among Hispanic voters, so now I have to wonder. It's not like there isn't a precedent with exit polls being off about support among this demographic. 2004 and 2012 saw similar issues.

So if this is true, Trump indeed did notably worse than Romney among Hispanics overall. Thoughts?



*yes I shortened original title so I could put "monkey cage" in as my intense love for primates took control of my motor functions
Logged
Mike88
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,219
Portugal


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2016, 11:37:53 AM »

And what about Florida? Exit polls show that Hillary won 62% agaisnt 35% to Trump. Do they also add up?
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2016, 11:43:37 AM »

And what about Florida? Exit polls show that Hillary won 62% agaisnt 35% to Trump. Do they also add up?

I'm not sure. This article doesn't talk about Florida. However, even in the EPs, Clinton did do better than Obama with FL Hispanics, and confirmed a continuing realignment of FL Hispanic voters since at least 2006-2008. I would assume that if so many exit polls got it wrong in other states, there is a good chance it did in Florida as well.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2016, 02:30:16 PM »

It's almost like exit polls are unreliable or something.
Logged
#TheShadowyAbyss
TheShadowyAbyss
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,027
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -3.64

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2016, 02:34:07 PM »

Doubtful. Texas would have been much closer had Trump lost the Latino vote by such a wide margin. And he also would have lost Florida. Keep in mind that Latino Decisions is a left-leaning advocacy group.

An uptick in white support could easily offset a loss with Hispanics, Florida is an example of this.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2016, 02:42:42 PM »

Doubtful. Texas would have been much closer had Trump lost the Latino vote by such a wide margin. And he also would have lost Florida. Keep in mind that Latino Decisions is a left-leaning advocacy group.

So what do you think of the article's analysis then? This article specifically talked about Texas, Arizona and Nevada, not Florida. Also, the basis for this article's claim isn't formed around Latino Decision's poll. He said he was skeptical of the exit polls based on LD's polls but that was prior to this separate look at individual precincts.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
evergreen
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2016, 03:28:57 PM »

Doubtful. Texas would have been much closer had Trump lost the Latino vote by such a wide margin. And he also would have lost Florida. Keep in mind that Latino Decisions is a left-leaning advocacy group.

he did lose florida ㄟ(ツ)ㄏ
Logged
JerryArkansas
jerryarkansas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2016, 04:35:13 PM »

Doubtful. Texas would have been much closer had Trump lost the Latino vote by such a wide margin. And he also would have lost Florida. Keep in mind that Latino Decisions is a left-leaning advocacy group.
Read the article before commenting.  It really helps one not make stupid points like this.
Logged
Young Conservative
youngconservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2016, 04:53:13 PM »

Doubtful. Texas would have been much closer had Trump lost the Latino vote by such a wide margin. And he also would have lost Florida. Keep in mind that Latino Decisions is a left-leaning advocacy group.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
evergreen
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2016, 05:11:19 PM »

Doubtful. Texas would have been much closer had Trump lost the Latino vote by such a wide margin. And he also would have lost Florida. Keep in mind that Latino Decisions is a left-leaning advocacy group.

he did lose florida ㄟ(ツ)ㄏ

Care to explain? Not sure why you think Hillary Clinton of all people would let Republicans steal an election from her. 2004 is debatable, 2016 really isn't.
"let"
Logged
ApatheticAustrian
ApathicAustrian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,603
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2016, 10:06:14 PM »

clinton would have lost FL much worse without the big latino surge,

i think this was (besides NV) the state where trump's racial rhetoric hurt him the most....
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2016, 10:09:04 PM »

So surely they should also be arguing that Trump did better with whites than the exit polls suggested.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2016, 02:48:04 AM »


Quite sloppy analysis.

The data set is truncated, and it appears they used the truncated set for their analysis. Alternatively, they used the entire data set, and then when they realized they lost some of their data, fudged the article.

Their classification of large, medium, and small counties is totally moronic. Hidalgo is not a small county. Cameron is not a small county. Webb is not a small county.

Why would anyone classify El Paso as a large county, Collin as medium size, and Hidalgo as small. That is something a junior high student would do, not someone who is supposedly a doctoral student.

Rather than attempting to make a representative sample, they selected certain counties. Even if they include 75% of Hispanic VAP, they do not necessarily include 75% of Hispanic CVAP, or 75% of Hispanic voters.

Higher income, or more integrated Hispanic voters would be more likely to vote for Trump, and may have been carelessly excluded from the study.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2016, 03:20:57 AM »
« Edited: December 03, 2016, 03:24:51 AM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

There's no way that Trump won 34% of the Latino vote in Texas and I'm not sure why Republicans are keen on arguing against this. Shouldn't you guys be happy that you can win national elections without feigning concern for immigrants and their spawn?

"Higher income, or more integrated Hispanic voters would be more likely to vote for Trump, and may have been carelessly excluded from the study."

There's a clear positive correlation between income/education and a swing against Trump in California among Latinos. As far as I can tell, it's working class Tejanos, Mexican-Americans and Hispanos who swung towards Trump, which makes sense considering that border patrol agents, ICE employees and cops in southern Texas are Latino.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2016, 07:00:22 AM »

There's no way that Trump won 34% of the Latino vote in Texas and I'm not sure why Republicans are keen on arguing against this. Shouldn't you guys be happy that you can win national elections without feigning concern for immigrants and their spawn?
Did you read the article in the Washington Post?

Did you download the data set that they provided?

Why aren't you guys be out ... (whatever)?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

"In rural counties, Clinton won an estimated 77 percent of the Latino vote against 19 percent for Trump."

They treated Webb, Presidio, Starr, Hidalgo, Zapata, Potter as rural counties.

Look at the swing in South Texas.

This study purported to be by a doctoral candidate at UCLA. It was junior high level incompetent. If you are in junior high, no personal insult intended.
Logged
BaldEagle1991
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,660
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2016, 07:04:32 AM »

No way. The Rio Grande Valley would be freaking red and Houston would've voted for Trump heavily if it were that case. Also the state overall swung more Democratic.

I'd say it was near 25-30%. I'd say the 9 point gap victory for him in the state is more fueled by more White Texans voting more for Trump, as he is very popular among White Texans.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2016, 07:04:46 AM »
« Edited: December 03, 2016, 07:11:23 AM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

There's no way that Trump won 34% of the Latino vote in Texas and I'm not sure why Republicans are keen on arguing against this. Shouldn't you guys be happy that you can win national elections without feigning concern for immigrants and their spawn?
Did you read the article in the Washington Post?

Did you download the data set that they provided?

Why aren't you guys be out ... (whatever)?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

"In rural counties, Clinton won an estimated 77 percent of the Latino vote against 19 percent for Trump."

They treated Webb, Presidio, Starr, Hidalgo, Zapata, Potter as rural counties.

Look at the swing in South Texas.

This study purported to be by a doctoral candidate at UCLA. It was junior high level incompetent. If you are in junior high, no personal insult intended.

I don't understand why this matters. If the objective is to estimate the Latino vote as a whole, this type of error is totally irrelevant and has no bearing on the outcome of the study. Is it comically absurd? Yes, of course, but I wouldn't underestimate the difficult of gathering such a large data set; this is a very labor-intensive, time-intensive process and I know because I've conducted studies myself. It took me a very long time to gather the data. I'm mostly happy that someone did this.

Anyways, no, I have not downloaded the data set but I have looked at precinct results. Considering the huge turnout spikes in poorer immigrant-heavy neighborhoods, which tend to be located in larger metropolitan areas like Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and El Paso, even though there wasn't much of a swing towards Clinton, the changing nature of the Latino vote itself ought to have resulted in a pretty sizable swing towards Clinton. Tendency seems to be: larger swing towards Clinton among more affluent, assimilated Latinos in major cities; slight swing to no swing among poorer Latinos who speak Spanish. I haven't seen data around Brownsville or McAllen so I can't say much about that but I've trawled through precinct maps of Travis County, Harris County and El Paso County. These are the tendencies I noticed.

I still maintain that the desire to defend the exit poll makes sense: you don't need us now. You can stop pretending to care about Latinos!
Logged
eric82oslo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,501
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2016, 10:53:36 AM »

Keep in mind that Latino Decisions is a left-leaning advocacy group.

Lol, keep telling yourself that. Over and over and over again. You Trump people are the most hilarious species of humanity that has ever existed.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2016, 11:49:27 AM »

The point Jimrtex made, that Hispanics living in mostly white precincts, who may be higher income, and more assimilated, might vote differently, than Hispanics in the barrio. I emphasize the word "might." Hispanics tend to spread themselves around more than blacks when they can afford it, is my impression.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2016, 12:06:34 PM »

I agree with jimrtex observations. A study that puts Hidalgo in the small category looks suspect. Hidalgo is the seventh largest pop in TX and is larger than El Paso, which is in the large category. Also the study relies on ecological inference, which is not a simple methodology and one needs to take care to account for changing demographics over time among other things to get it right. If the study doesn't understand the size of the counties I would subject it to added scrutiny.

One the basic point, it is quite possible to get move votes in a category and still have the percentage of votes in that category decrease. The cause would likely be due to the overall increased turnout which changes the denominator as well as the numerator.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2016, 12:41:35 PM »

@jimrtex  ty. that was the kind of opinion I was looking for.

I agree with jimrtex observations. A study that puts Hidalgo in the small category looks suspect. Hidalgo is the seventh largest pop in TX and is larger than El Paso, which is in the large category. Also the study relies on ecological inference, which is not a simple methodology and one needs to take care to account for changing demographics over time among other things to get it right. If the study doesn't understand the size of the counties I would subject it to added scrutiny.

Do you think it's possible to verify the exit polls at all along the parameters of this study? Or is it an inadequate method even with better implementation?
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2016, 03:26:50 PM »

Maybe the % of the Latino Vote that Trump won is halfway between the exit polls(34% Trump)(Edison Research) and Latino Decisions result of 18% of Latino's that voted for Trump in Texas which would be a total of 25-26% of the Latino Vote that Trump won in Texas. Just throwing it out there...
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 03, 2016, 03:29:49 PM »

There's no way that Trump won 34% of the Latino vote in Texas and I'm not sure why Republicans are keen on arguing against this. Shouldn't you guys be happy that you can win national elections without feigning concern for immigrants and their spawn?
I still maintain that the desire to defend the exit poll makes sense: you don't need us now. You can stop pretending to care about Latinos!
I'm sure Latino's have their complaints about the Democrat Party too as well as the Republican Party.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2016, 03:32:02 PM »

Doubtful. Texas would have been much closer had Trump lost the Latino vote by such a wide margin. And he also would have lost Florida. Keep in mind that Latino Decisions is a left-leaning advocacy group.
No I don't buy the Latino Decisions is a left-leaning advocacy group argument. They just oversample Hispanics in high dense area's.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 03, 2016, 03:49:00 PM »

No way. The Rio Grande Valley would be freaking red and Houston would've voted for Trump heavily if it were that case. Also the state overall swung more Democratic.

I'd say it was near 25-30%. I'd say the 9 point gap victory for him in the state is more fueled by more White Texans voting more for Trump, as he is very popular among White Texans.
The state overall did swing Democratic. Like everywhere else, the swing was in the more populous counties.

"Instead, we draw on 4,372 precincts across Texas. These precincts cover all regions of the state and more than 75 percent of its Latino population. You can download our data here."

If you download the data set, you will indeed find that it has 4372 precincts. It also stops in Travis County, though they claim to have included Webb and Zapata. So either they did not include Webb and Zapata in the study, or they did, and then lost part of the data, and saw that they only had 4372 rows, and fudged their report.

"Some analysts looking at county-level data think that rural Hispanic voters shifted toward Trump, as Geraldo Cadava argued,"



Note the counties listed and the percentages in the next paragraph.

"In rural counties, Clinton won an estimated 77 percent of the Latino vote against 19 percent for Trump. In medium-size counties, such as Corpus Christi, Lubbock, Amarillo and Plano, Clinton won an estimated 73 percent of the Latino vote — still 12 points higher than the exit poll estimate of 61 percent. And in large cities, such as Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin, Clinton won an estimated 80 percent of the Latino vote, while Trump won just 14 percent."

Webb, Presidio, Starr, Hidalgo, Cameron, Zapata, and Potter are not rural counties.

Hidalgo, Collin, and El Paso counties are quite similar in population, yet the study classified one as large, one medium, and one small. Corpus Christi, Amarillo, and Plano are not counties. And besides they classified Potter as a small county, not a medium county. But they did classify Randall as medium. Maybe I should give them half credit: half moronic and half idiotic.

The counties they did include (at least in their data set) are Bexar, Cameron, Collin, Denton, El Paso, Fort Bend, Harris, Hidalgo, Lubbock, Nueces, Potter, Presidio, Randall, Starr, Tarrant, and Travis.

They did not include Denton, Ellis, Montgomery, Brazoria, Galveston, Williamson, Comal, Guadeloupe, Atascosa, Zavalla, Dimmit, Tom Green, Ector, Midland, etc.

Imagine that you were doing a study of the Pennsylvania elections and you wanted 33% of the population. So you choose Philadelphia, Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware, and Chester. You find that 90% of "Pennsylvanians prefer the Phillies, Flyers, Eagles, Villanova and LaSalle to the Pirates, Penguins, Steelers, and Penn State."

See any problem with the sample?

They picked a sample that included 75% of Hispanics, but which is not representative of 100% of Hispanics.

Their charts show "net Clinton" - "net Obama", which is presumably: (Clinton - Trump) - (Obama - Romney), but that is not how swing is measured. If Obama had 75% of the vote, and Clinton got 70% there might be a net increase in the margin, but not in the share of the vote.

"In the 864 precincts in which 75 percent or more voters are Hispanic, Clinton won more votes than Obama in 723 of them, fewer votes in 130, and tied in 11.

If we compare Clinton’s vote margin over Trump to Obama’s margin over Mitt Romney four years ago, Clinton had a higher margin than Obama in 692 of these 864 precincts — or 80 percent. "

Using their data, Clinton's margin of victory was greater than Obama's in 696 of 867 precincts (with greater than 75% Hispanic population). This data set at least got to Webb County.

However, Clinton's share of the two-way vote was only greater in 548 of those 867 precincts. Trump improved on Romney's performance in 37% of the heavily Hispanic precincts.

Trump only improved on Romney in 18% of the precincts that were less than 25% Hispanic.

Did they take into account black voters?  Did they take into account citizenship? Non-citizens likely favored Clinton, but how many voted?

The study is total amateur hour. Maybe UCLA should be merged into LACC.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 13 queries.