How important are Hispanic voters in the 2016 Elections?

No Brandon. You are not pro-immigrant. When I say "pro-immigrant" I use the term the way that most immigrants use the term.

Pro-immigrant means that you are in favor of more rights for all immigrants, whether they came legally or illegally or in the legally gray area surrounding the asylum laws. Pro-legal immigrant means you are in favor or making it easier for immigrants to become legal immigrants. Amnesty for immigrants and family members of immigrants is pro-immigrant.

Many immigrant families are mixed-status (some are here legally and others are not). A legal immigrant is not going to believe that you are "pro-immigrant" if you are in favor of deporting their family members.

I get the political word game you are playing here. But it doesn't make any sense. If the great majority of immigrants strongly disagree with you, calling yourself "pro-immigrant" in any sense is really ridiculous.

Immigrant community and immigrants (with few exceptions) are anti-Republican. They not only disagree with your point of view, they despise it.

That is the reason that Republicans are screwed outside of predominantly White conservative (often gerrymandered) districts. Some Republicans realize this.

To me it is a wonderful bind that you angry White people are putting the Republican candidates. You won't let them win the primary until they screw themselves for the general election (where they need Hispanic and other minority votes).

I think Rubio is the one candidate who has the slightest chance to pull this off... but the pivot that he is going to have to execute flawlessly to convince angry White people that he hates immigrants without saying anything that prevents him from convincing minority voters he doesn't hate them will be amazing. He will literally have to say things that are different in English than they are in Spanish without anyone noticing.

Fortunately I think conservatives will nominate Cruz or even Trump, and we won't have to worry.

First of all, I'd like you to stop using my race as a pejorative term. It's racist and has no place on A2K. No one but you here is referring to any poster's race.

Secondly, I don't take my definitions from you. I am pro-immigrant because I believe that the US benefits from the periodic infusion of new ideas and I wish all legal immigrants well. Being pro-immigrant doesn't compel me to also favor people who entered or stayed in the country illegally. You said:



It doesn't mean that at all. It means that I welcome and support legal immigrants. You don't get to be in charge of the prefix "pro."

Come on! I am not using your race as a pejorative term. I am just as White as you are.

I am using White as a demographic term which is completely appropriate in a thread about demographic voting blocks. My use of the term "angry White" could be considered a pejorative... but it is the emotional state, not the race, that makes this a pejorative. So calm down a bit.

The real point is that your political position on immigration is not a political winner in 2016. In fact, the stronger you push your political position; the more you push the poor Republican nominee to say extreme things to win the primary, the more you will alienate the very voters that the Republicans need to win the general elections.

If I thought you would understand this, I wouldn't be telling you this. After all, you are part of the reality that will put Hillary Clinton in the White House (this is not something I am super happy about, but it is better than any Republican alternative).

So go ahead... keep pushing the Republican candidates to the right. Nominate Cruz or Trump... or push Rubio so hard that even he (someone who is actually Hispanic himself) will piss off Hispanics.

Interesting topic. Some relevant observations:

* Romney won a large percentage of Whites who voted, but White voter turnout was low.

* Blacks voters, by contrast, had historically high participation rates in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.

* Romney won 27 percent of the Hispanic popular vote, nationally, in 2012.

* Presidential elections aren't determined by the popular vote, but by the electoral college. Obama barely squeaked by in 2012 where the popular vote is concerned, winning just 51.06% nationally; but he won the electoral college vote by a landslide, 332 to 206.

* Electoral college votes are determined by statewide popular vote results. Most states are solidly Republican or Democrat in their federal politics. That means a few extra Hispanic votes won't make much difference in most states, everything else remaining equal. Only in states "purple" enough to involve a close to balanced mixture of Democratic and Republican voters, will a marginal group like Hispanic voters make a critical difference. These "swing" states include Florida, Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia.

* Factors in ethnic voting, from least to most important: how many in each group (White, Hispanic, etc.); how many voting age in each group; how many citizens (native or naturalized) of voting age in each group (federal elections exclude permanent resident non-citizens); how many in each group are registered to vote; how many registered voters in each group actually vote in an election.

As of 2015, according to the Census Bureau, of citizens 18 or older:

154 million Whites
27 million Blacks
25 million Hispanics
9 million Asians
5 million Other

But Hispanics have lower turnout rates than Whites and Blacks (i.e. smaller percentages actually vote).

Somehow I don't think that Black voters will turn out as enthusiastically for Hillary Clinton as for Obama.

Hispanic voters were mobilized by immigration issues in Obama's elections, when he promised to change immigration law. But the Democrats didn't follow through on their promise of comprehensive immigration reform when they had control of Congress, and now they don't.

Voter turnout may be affected by two things: enthusiasm for a candidate; fear of the other candidate.

Minority groups may cancel each other out. If Blacks arw less enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton and voter turnout is less, but Hispanics hate the Republican candidate and make a point of voting against him, the result may not be as decisive as could otherwise be the case. At the same time, the demographics of swing states are more important than the national popular voting trends by ethnic group.

Your post is contradicting itself Puzzled...

1) The key swing states you are talking about Florida, Nevada, Colorado all have high percentages of Hispanic voters. Three of the four states you list as important are over 20% Hispanic (and 20% counts).

2) You claim that Hispanics and Black voters will cancel each other out. Black voters consistently vote for the Democratic candidate at a very high rate. The rate of Hispanic voters voting for the Democratic candidate is above 70% and goes up every year.

This year, the Republican party is going out of its way to insult immigrants. There is no way that more then 20% of Hispanic voters are going to vote for the Republicans this year.

If Black voters will vote for the Democratic candidate, and Hispanic voters are going to vote for the Democratic candidate... your claim that these votes will cancel each other out doesn't make very much sense.

My post is not self contradictory. I am aware that several key swing states have significant Hispanic populations.

I don't claim that Hispanics and Blacks will cancel each other out. I merely point out the possibility. It doesn't matter if Blacks usually vote Democratic if fewer Blacks vote because Hillary isn't Obama. Even a lot of Whites are lukewarm about Hillary.

If fewer Blacks (and maybe White Democrats) vote, simply because Hillary doesn't float their boat, and more Hispanics do vote (for whatever reason) the mathematical result is at least a partial offset. Note that some swing states also have large Black (and White!) populations.

There is no possibility that either Blacks or Hispanics will vote Republican in significant numbers.

The Republicans have given up on Black voters (they aren't even trying) and they are doing everything they can possibly do to piss off Hispanic voters in their effort to win the primary (which not only pushes them fully into the Democratic camp, it also makes it more likely they will get out and vote).

They are not going to cancel each other out.

I didn't say anything about Blacks voting for Republicans in significant numbers. I said that fewer Blacks might vote in a presidential election where Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party candidate than in two elections where Obama was running; and for that matter, fewer White Democrats might turn out to vote, since many White Democrats are lukewarm about Hillary.

You don't seem to understand that one less vote by a Black or a White Democrat will offset one more vote by a Hispanic Democrat. It isn't one less vote because they're voting Republican; it's one less vote because they aren't voting at all.

Well over 90% of the black voters voted for Gore in 2000, so you don't have to be Obama for black voters to vote for the Democratic candidate. The major reason so many blacks voted for Gore is that Bill Clinton was even more popular among blacks than the average Democrat. There is no reason to think that this popularity will not carry over to Hillary.

You're missing my point. The fact that 90% of Blacks who voted in the 2000 presidential election voted for Al Gore, has nothing to do with my point about Black voter participation rates. If only 10 Blacks go to the polls in 2016, and nine of them vote for Hillary Clinton, she'll still get 90% of the Black vote, but she'll only get nine votes from them. Of course more will vote for her, but I'm trying to illustrate the difference between vote share and voter participation rates as clearly as possible.

In 2012 62% of Blacks voted for Obama. In 2008 the figure was 60.8%. Those were the highest figures ever, and the highest since 1964, when 58.5% of Blacks voted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/upshot/black-turnout-in-1964-and-beyond.html?referer=

The Washington Post actually churned some numbers on this topic. I didn't check their math but Democrats could lose if either Black voter participation rate or Black voter share (for Democrats) returns to historical averages:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/11/how-black-voters-could-determine-the-2016-election/

And then there are White voters. If White Democrats are unenthusiastic about Hillary Clinton, their voter participation rate might drop too. And many White Democrats are lukewarm about Hillary. On the other hand, a Republican candidate who really fires up Republican voters could bring more of them to the voting booth.

One can also distinguish participation rates by race, by race within those old enough to vote, by race among adults who are citizens and who haven't lost the elective franchise through criminal convictions, and by race among registered voters of that race. These are different figures and can tell different things about the voter registration rate and voter participation rates of racial demographics.

P.S. The New York Times and the Washington Post give different voter participation rates for Blacks: the Washington Post specifies "among eligible Black voters" whereas the NYT seems to be giving the participation rate by race alone (or at least among a broader group by race than WaPo).

It also appears that the Hispanic vote is neither as monolithic nor as consistent as is commonly supposed. According to the Pew Hispanic Center:

39% of Hispanics in the swing state of Florida voted for Romney in 2012.

Nationally, 40 percent of Hispanics voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and 35% did in 2000. In Florida in 2004 56% of Hispanics voted for Bush.

On the subject of illegal immigrants, nearly a fifth of Hispanics nationally said they should be deported rather than be given a path to legal status. So I would expect Trump to have little difficulty finding Hispanic supporters to show off to television viewers if he should make it to the general election. Interviews with the leader of Hispanics For Trump saying how unfair the mainstream media has been to misrepresent his views about Hispanics would not surprise me. (Of course, his views have NOT been misrepresented, but I'm talking about a possible media strategy rather than the facts of the matter.)

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/11/07/latino-voters-in-the-2012-election/

In other words, over four fifths of Hispanics say that undocumented immigrants should be given a path to legal status.

At least we agree on this much.

Reagan correctly identified Hispanic voters as essentially conservative. Typically religious and patriotic, they should be fertile ground for a moderate, right wing, conservative argument, but now days the right routinely demonizes them. Both Bush and McCain championed immigration reform but you really don't hear any of that these days.

definitely a good point for everyone to remember

getting the vote out is what matters in the end

Unless black voter participation rates take a HUGE step backwards, they should easily give the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, a margin of victory. Example:
In 2012, 17.8 Million blacks voted, over 90% for Obama.
In 2004, 14.0 Million blacks voted, over 90% for Kerry.

That means in eight years, the black vote increased by 3.8 Million, and estimating 93% voting Democratic, that's a jump of 3.5 Million votes for the Democratic nominee.

Obama won by 5 Million votes over Romney, 65.9 Million to Romney's 60.9 Million.

So as you can see, your proposed scenario of not enough blacks showing up to vote for the Democratic nominee, (because the nominee won't be black this time), isn't going to happen unless black voter participation takes a HUGE downturn. Unlikely, since if blacks show up even in the numbers they did to vote for Kerry, the Republicans will still not have made up enough to win the popular vote.
Source:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-568.pdf

Correction. In 2004, Kerry got 88% of the 14.0 Million black votes cast. Overall, 12.3 Million black voters voted for Kerry.

In 2012, Obama got 93% of the 17.8 Million black votes cast.
Overall, 16.6 Million black voters voted for Obama.

So Obama got 4.3 Million more black votes in 2012 than Kerry got in 2004. And in 2012, Obama won by 5 Million votes.

So even if black voter participation levels return to what they were in 2004, (unlikely), and even if the black Democratic voting percentage falls back to 2004 levels, (also unlikely), the Democratic nominee still does not lose the edge the Democrats have had over the Republicans.

I guess you didn't read the Washington Post article I linked to above. The historical average is that Democratic candidates get 85% of the Black vote. The year 2004 was also atypical, so you're not justified in using that as a reference year.

As for what the Republican candidate needs to get to win, that rather depends on the specific details of the race and on how close it is. All it takes for Democrats to lose is for enough voters (of any race) to be indifferent enough to the Democratic nominee not to vote. There are also Democrats who vote Republican in specific races. The term "Reagan Democrats" comes to mind. And in fact, Donald Trump is very strong among the demographic consisting of registered Democrats who self-identify as Republicans, according to the New York Times.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that the popular vote will adhere to the particular margins of the Obama-Romney match-up. The popular vote doesn't determine the presidency anyway. And the point is that a return of Black voter turnout and Black voter share to historical averages could offset Democratic gains from Hispanic voters. Furthermore, in swing states like Florida, it is by no means unknown for a majority of Hispanic voters to vote for the Republican candidate.

PuzzledPerson, you say that there is no Reason to believe that Hispanics will support the Democratic candidate in numbers.

Would you make the same statement going the other direction. Is there any reason to believe that gun-owning NRA members will vote for the Republican candidate in numbers?

There are some assumptions you can safely make for who will vote for whom (and Hispanic voters in key battleground states are posed to sink whatever Republican candidate is nominated in the primaries).

I did read the Washington post article you linked to above, and it just backs up my post. If the black voter participation levels and the black Democratic voting percentage return to the same levels as when Kerry ran in 2004, the difference in total votes would still not have put Romney over the top in the total votes.

Fact is, both black voter participation levels and and black Democratic voting levels have gone up since 1996, which your Washington Post article makes clear. Also, 2008 might not have been typical if you take the average going all the way back to 1972-it IS average if you go back since 1996.

Finally, the Washington Post article contained this chart,which shows that Hillary's support among blacks last May was comparable to Barack Obama's support at a comparable time in his 2008 campaign. So don't look for any big dropoffs in black Democratic support if Hillary gets the nomination.



The article merely supports my post, I have no idea why you cited it to try to refute my post.