And how I wish that it was just generalizations, but Trump did go to Arizona to get Arpaio’s support.
After Arpaio already had been told by the courts to stop his abuse of power against Hispanics (not just illegals indeed) Arpaio is not in trouble just because he defied the Justice Department, he is even trying to force a mistrial or have another judge removed from the case, this time by using investigators to find dirt on the judge.
Trump was either an incompetent if he did not know what was going on with Arpaio and continues with his weaponized ignorance, or that he knows what was going on and still he did not care about what his fellow traveller was and is up to.
But as I said, it doesn’t matter. If Republicans win zero Latino votes or 51% of Latino votes, it changes nothing. They’d have to win about 65% for it to a make a difference.
Winning 15% more of the black vote would be very tough. But 4% of the white vote? That’s quite doable. If black turnout falls to historical levels with Obama not on the ticket, the Republicans actually only need to win a mere 2% more of the white vote than they did in 2012 to win the election.
Only two ethnic groups matter in 2016: whites and blacks.
This assumes that Latino voters won’t increase their turnout to match white and black voters. We all know that they will at some point, the question is when - if something, whether an inspiring candidate or opposition to a hateful one can catch on with Latino voters, then turnout could easily increase. We’ve seen how it happened in just a single election in '08.
Further, if Latino voters further shift towards the Democratic candidate, then Republicans would need even more than 4% (or whatever) extra from the white vote.
Plug it into the utility I linked to. I messed with Latino turnout and unless you’re talking a HUGE swing, it makes absolutely no difference, even in a close election.
I just tested it: I increased the Latino turnout to 70%, an unheard of number. Same result. 4% more white voters wins it for the Republicans. Then I gave Republicans ZERO Latino votes. Know what effect that had? Republicans would then need a 5% increase in white support to win rather than 4%.
I played with it and got similar results (5-6% more: I put Latino and Asian turnout at 60%, and reduced their Republican support to 15%). But it’s hard for me how to see how Republicans increase their white share by so much, if any at all – Barack Obama was pretty much the perfect candidate to run against to maximize the white vote… Hillary, or Joe, or Sanders don’t seem nearly so attractive as far as getting more white voters to oppose.
If the Democratic candidate gets just a bit more (1 or 2%) white vote than Obama did, then a moderate victory turns into a blowout.
Actually, if you adjust black turnout and vote share to pre-Obama levels, the result is 303-235, actually a little worse than Obama did.
However, here’s an interesting result: if black turnout falls below 50% in 2016, and black voters vote 10% for Republicans, then Republicans only fall 6 electoral votes short. Which is why BLM is going to matter a lot in this coming election.
Also for shits and giggles, I gave the GOP zero minority votes, meaning they have to win with only white voters. In order to do that, they’d need only 69%. Hard to do, but not out of the realm of possibility. It seems to me that some effort should be made to win some black voters, since they matter in some crucial states, but the GOP’s biggest priority, and the Democrats’ as well, should be to win over white voters. As you said, if the Democrats win just 2% more, the Republicans can’t win under any likely scenario. And if the Republicans win 2-5% more, they win under most scenarios.
Bravo, keep fueling the fire.
Let’s get real here for a minute. What white voters care about most is money – taxes, health insurance, 401K balances, home values, etc. Is there a valid perception that illegal immigration negatively impacts those concerns? Is there a valid perception that more recent immigrants (of all colors) seem unwilling to assimilate? Is there a valid perception that some Muslim immigrants might have more allegiance to their religion than to the U.S. Constitution?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Adaher’s 4% actually becomes 10%! Hell, whites who voted Obama and are now pissed about the ACA will yield a percent or two, then there’s the Iran deal, HillaryGate, and don’t forget the perception that the Democrat Party (don’tcha just hate that) has become the Anti-White Party…
Just a hunch, but I’m assuming people who would view the Democratic Party as an “anti-white” party, whatever that means, would already be voting Republican.
Largely because I think there’s a small but significant percentage of white voters who opposed Obama entirely because of race (and possibly “other-ness” due to his name and heritage) and otherwise generally support Democratic candidates.
I agree. There are also many white voters, especially young white voters, who supported Obama because he was different and won’t be nearly as friendly to Hillary Clinton.
Young voters came out for Obama in record numbers, as did black voters. They did not show up for elections during his administration where he was not on the ballot. Those elections were more in line with historical averages.
Democrats on SDMB no less are deluding themselves into thinking that “Presidential elections are different” even though the only evidence for that is the last two where the same guy just happened to be at the top of the ticket. This idea that Democrats come out for Presidential elections is nonsense on stilts, unless you believe there’s a “new normal”. Those predicting a “new normal” are wrong 99% of the time.
Those were not presidential elections. Again, non-presidential elections tell us nothing about presidential elections. Presidential elections get orders of magnitude more media coverage.
We won’t know if black 1st and 2nd time voters for Obama will come out in 2016, but it’s silly to assume that they won’t. I think they will, for the most part, but I’m far from certain.
Presidential elections are always, or nearly always, different. In any case, you’re predicting the “new normal” for presidential elections, not Doper Democrats. I believe that '08 was the “new normal”, or close to it (and borne out in 2012), as far as voter turnout for presidential elections. So 2016 won’t be a “new normal”, it’s just “normal”.
In addition to the obvious, there are the outcomes of the WV, KY, TN, AR, and OK primaries and caucuses in 2008. Basically, Hillary won over Obama in states with Southern attitudes but not many blacks.
But Presidential elections do. Why are 2000 and 2004 not considered to be reasonable predictors of what an electorate will look like with an old white person at the top of the ticket?
Ah, yes, but will they vote at higher rates than whites going forward, or was that a product of a black Presidential candidate? I think it highly unlikely that blacks voting at higher rates than whites is a new normal.
No, I’m predicting normal, as in the electorate will look a lot more like 2004 than 2012.
Or the ones focused in identity are in reality focusing on worse ideas:
Remember my crazy Florida relative? Many of the memes he sent me on Facebook were a variation on that Anti-white theme and were specifically geared against Obama and then the democrats. What the extremists also miss is that women are can be also white and a lot of them are more likely to vote for the democrats if the candidates are Hillary and Trump. I can see several reasons why women will prefer Hillary and dismiss Trump.