How important are Hispanic voters in the 2016 Elections?

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

I said no such thing and your claim is the premise of a straw-man argument.

Unfortunately your chart link is an unclickable blue question-mark on my cellphone. But I did have another look at the very slow loading Washington Post article, and I couldn't find any such chart as you describe. I did see poll results for Hilary Clinton late May, compared to Obama's results last fall, asked to Blacks:

"Strongly favorable"

Obama 68%
Clinton 53%

"Honest"

Obama 91%
Clinton 70%

"Understands the problems of people like you"

Obama 91%
Clinton 70%

The poll has a very large margin of error, however.

As for the rest, there's nothing to refute. I said that a decline in the voter participation rate and/or voting share of Blacks could offset increased Hispanic votes, and it could. I said that in a close race this alone could cost the Democrats the election, and it could. You seem to think that there is something written in stone about the win margin of Obama over Romney in the popular vote. There isn't. I said that White Democrats could also turn out in fewer numbers if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, and they could, with even larger results than for Black Democrats. Finally, I said that presidential elections are decided by the Electoral College, and as a result comparatively small differences in swing states could be leveraged into larger differences in electoral vote ratios.

The link in my chart came up blank because the whole chart is a screenshot from the very same Washington Post article that you, yourself, referred me to in a previous post. In fact, the poll you mentioned in your last post, involving the numbers for "honest" and "strongly favorable", are located directly beneath my chart in the Washington Post article that you linked to previously.

Somehow, you feel my chart is invalid because you can't locate the source, when the source is the very same article which contained the poll you tried to refute the chart with. Very odd.

The chart shows that Hillary is about as popular among blacks, early in the campaign, as Barack Obama was at the same stage. This would tend to weigh against your idea that blacks will not turn out for Hillary as they did for Obama or even Kerry. Couple that with the fact that black participation is in a generally upward trend since 1996, and your thesis of a Hillary loss to whatever Republican gets the nomination seems like a long shot.

Finally, there are these two sentences you posted.
Quote puzzledperson:


Well, yes, theoretically it could. On the other hand, some years ago I came across a mention in a journal that down South there was an organization, I forget the name, dedicated to proving that with more men, more weapons, and better strategy, the Confederate side could have won The Civil War. The article's author asked some military experts, and they all agreed that with more men, more weapons, and better strategy, any side could have won any war.

I feel your assertions make about as much sense as the assertions of those sons of the South.

I didn't say anything about the validity of your chart: I said that I couldn't see it. Nothing strange about that: I explained that my Wi-Fi connection is painfully slow, and that applies particularly to graphics and to the ads that load with them at the end of web pages. The Washington Post site is particularly bad in this respect, for some reason.

I did manage to discern that the title of the chart indicated that Clinton's popularity among Blacks was specified with respect to a match-up against Jeb Bush. Aside from the fact that Bush is unlikely to be the nominee and is particularly unpopular among Blacks, a poll which compares relative Black support for the two candidates says nothing about how many Blacks would bother voting if Clinton was the Democratic nominee. It merely asks Black abstract preference in a hypothetical match-up in which the choices offered are to vote for Bush or to vote for Clinton.

According to an ABC News story published three months after the Washington Post article:

"But, after a period of missteps chiefly focused on her handling of e-mails as secretary of state, her unfavorable rating is up by 14 points even among blacks. Her main trouble, regardless, rests in the fact that she’s so broadly unpopular among whites."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-water-trump-polarization-grows-poll/story?id=33461702

And between July and September of the same year Clinton's support among Blacks drops from 83% favorable (already below the historical average) down to 70 % (scroll down to the end to see the Public Policy poll):

https://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/1/1426765/-Hillary-Clinton-s-standing-among-black-voters-declines-sharply-in-new-poll

Here's a poll from the same period showing Donald Trump getting 25% of the Black vote and 31% of the Hispanic vote:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-beats-hillary-clinton-in-poll-and-gets-25-percent-among-blacks/article/2571545

As I said, presidential elections are decided by the Electoral College. But within a state, Electoral College votes go to whoever wins the popular vote. To see the implications, consider that in 2012 Obama won the important swing state of Florida (29 electoral votes) by just 73,189 votes:

http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/2012-presidential-election-vote-summary.html

Of course, polls change over time: but the volatility of Clinton's support among Blacks, and even more so her unpopularity among Whites, demonstrate that she's by no means a shoe-in. All Democrats need to lose is for fewer Democratic voters to bother casting ballots in a general election, or for Republican voters to be especially energized.

All polls are sketchy a year before a presidential election. However, even comparing sketchy polls like that, it still shows Hillary beating someone who was considered a leading Republican at the time. If you think Jeb was a bad example to use, what Republican besides the Trump phenomenon would do better among blacks? This is the group which routinely votes over 85% for Democrats.

The article about 25% of blacks voting for Trump was taken in September, 14 months before the election when most people except political junkies are not following any races. Under these circumstances, fresh new faces on the political scene get attention from the public, and Trump is no exception. However, you cannot seriously compare a poll taken when Trump is being a fresh new face and saying all sorts of attention getting things to a poll taken a week before the election when the choice between two candidates has winnowed down and become clear cut. Well see how many blacks plan on voting for Trump then, if he gets the nomination.

I should also point out that the Washington Examiner, your link, is a right wing rag and Michael Barone is a right wing hack who guaranteed that Romney couldn't miss a week before the election in 2012.

The Clintons have proven vote getting ability among black voters. We have no idea if Bernie would have anything comparable. The Clintons have also had proven success surviving the hate-filled rants and usual excesses of the Right and emerged victorious. Just as an example, in her first run for the Senate, there was a period in the summer where Clinton had a slight lead on her Republican opponent but never seemed to break 50%. This was jumped on by Hillary's critics as being VERY significant, meaning she had "topped out" and there was no more room for her to move up. She ended up winning with 57% of the vote.

Indeed, Bill's second run for Arkansas governor, (a two year term), and Hillary's rather close finish to Obama in 2008 are their only electoral defeats in several decades of politics. Bernie is a good speaker who comes from a mostly white liberal state who has not established his ability to get votes from a diverse electorate yet.

I have no idea what you plan to accomplish putting up worse case scenario after worse case scenario a year before the election. The black vote for Democrats in presidential elections increases in both percentage and turnout percentage since 1992, so going back to use the turnouts of the 1970s is just silly. That's a whole generation ago or more, the kids in junior high in 1976 now have grandchildren in junior high or older. I already proved, in a previous post, that if we go back and use past turnouts and percentages for 2012 that Obama still wins the popular vote in that election. And every election the groups which vote Democratic get bigger, and the groups which vote Republican get smaller. So the Republicans can look forward to an even more difficult time in 2016 than 2012.

Like the sons of the South trying to prove the Confederacy could have won The Civil War if only they had more men, more weapons and better strategy, so too can Clinton lose this election if nominated if the blacks decide to have turnouts and Democratic voting percentages of the early seventies. But Democratic black turnouts and voting percentage have been in an upward trend since 1974, so I don't see why using those percentages now prove anything.

You seem to think that the best way to deal with problems is to deny and ignore them, and that anyone who wants to take a coolly objective look at these issues must have some nefarious or at least hostile objective. That's both fatuous and paranoid.

Public Policy Polling isn't right-wing: in fact they are routinely accused of liberal bias by Republicans. The Clinton favorability poll I referenced and linked to above showed that she had a 55% UNfavorable rating among the Democratic base at large, a 64 % unfavorable rating among Whites, only 70% favorable among Blacks, and 45% unfavorable rating among Hispanics. Being heavily upside down among the base and among the largest racial racial demographic in the country (Whites), opposed by half of the Hispanics, and surprisingly weak among Blacks, is not a recipe for winning a presidential election, whether you are willing to admit that or not.

Clinton consistently polls unfavorably among Whites, month after month after month, so we're not talking about the kind of fickle polls that will change closer to the election. All she needs to lose is for White Democrats to not bother casting ballots in greater numbers, and White Republicans to go out and vote enthusiastically. I believe I mentioned at the beginning that Romney's record high percentage of White votes despite losing means little since White voter turnout was low. Additional problems with a divided or indifferent minority vote merely add to the fundamental problem.

Yes, even her favorability ratings vary considerably, but every time her email scandals come up in the media, her ratings decline; and with releases of the emails guaranteed to continue right up to the general election, as well as an unresolved FBI probe, that's practically a gift to Republicans.

Incidentally, none of this constitutes a "worst case scenario": Clinton could lose by only a small margin, consistent with any of this: but a loss is a loss.

The latest polling averages at Real Clear Politics have Clinton losing in a close race to Cruz and Rubio and barely edging out Trump:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

The problem with match-up polls, as I explained above, is that they give potential voters two abstract choices: vote for A or vote for B. There is no choice for "stay home and watch TV". Those polls say nothing about voter enthusiasm for a candidate or about engagement in the electoral process. For that reason they're notoriously unreliable.

So are polls 10 months before the election unreliable, because relatively new candidates who make a lot of noise get support but then lose it as the election narrows down. You are taking worst case scenarios. As I pointed out in my analysis, (for which I went to the source and did not quote an article), take the 2012 election, substitute the black vote for Kerry in terms of black percentages and voting participation for Obama's black vote and participation, and the Democrats still win. Plus the Democratic voters, (the young and minorities), are growing as a percentage of people who vote, and the Republicans are declining from that point.

In presidential elections, the Democrats have a working majority within their base. They do not need to win the independent vote, as they did not win the independent vote last time, yet they won the election handily. Nothing you have presented refutes that.

Are you Hillary's cousin or something? I've never seen such blind devotion to a candidate.

Quote McGentrix:

There are several people on the board who are tearing apart Hillary on almost every post, yet you find no fault with them. Defend Hillary, and I get characterized as being monomanic. When I see you chastize the Hillary bashers as well as her defenders, I'll be able to take you more seriously.

*psh*, You'll be waiting a looooooooooooooong time for that.

That's okay. I wasn't holding my breath anyway.

And like Lash you'll be a loooooooong time getting anyone to pay much attention to what the two of you have to say about the Clintons.

Blickers wrote: "In presidential elections, the Democrats have a working majority within their base."

According to Gallup:

"In 2014, an average 45% of Americans identified as Democrats or said they were Democratic-leaning independents, while 42% identified as Republicans or were Republican-leaning independents. However, the three-point Democratic advantage for all of 2014 obscures the change that occurred during the year. On a quarterly basis, Democrats started out 2014 with a five-point edge, similar to their advantage in 2013. That dipped to two points by the third quarter. In the fourth quarter, likely in response to Republicans' success in the 2014 midterm elections, Republicans held a slight advantage of one point."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

So it isn't at all clear at present whether Democrats plus Democratic-leaning independents outnumber Republicans plus Republican-leaning independents. These polls have a margin of error that's larger than these small differences anyway.

More importantly, not every Democrat votes Democratic: some vote Republican (e.g. Reagan Democrats) and some don't vote at all. Similarly, some Republicans vote Democratic and some don't vote at all. So the absolute number of registered voters doesn't determine who wins.

Ive already dealt with the rest of your points.

Loved what this Hispanic woman had to say.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/24/1474547/-Powerful-and-Moving-Endorsement-of-Bernie-from-NV-Politician-Lucy-Flores-D

Quote puzzledperson:


Your example is taken from 2014, a midterm year, when Democratic support is at a low ebb. It is during Presidential elections that Democratic groups' interests rise and they supersede the Republicans'. Here is a chart of the independent vote in the last election in swing states-Obama got trounced in the independent vote, yet won the election handily.

The Gallup figures on the number of Democrats, Republicans, independents and the political leanings of the latter were determined by telephone polls, so the fact that 2014 was a mid-term year is irrelevant. You're missing the point as usual.

Incidentally, two can play the reflex vote-down game.

A. I didn't vote you down.
B. The fact that it was a midterm does reflect a lessening of interest in following politics in midterm periods among Democratic voting groups, hence a possibility of being temporarily slightly swayed by whatever message the Republicans are trumpeting. When presidential elections are underway Democratic voting groups are paying more attention, hence their Democratic leanings are likely to peak.

But that's okay, you can use midterm election periods as a gauge for behavior and opinions during Presidential election periods, I don't mind. Of course, Dick Morris got expelled by Fox News for doing that and being wildly off, but you take your chances.