You forgot “voter fraud” - make it as difficult as possible for minorities to vote. Kind of backfired on them last election.
I’ll see your “welfare queens” and raise you “bitter clingers”.
Them you’d lose, since Obama was trying to defend and explain those who oppose him, rather than blame the problems of the country on them.
Wouldn’t lose by a long shot. Democrats ended up accepting the argument and reformed welfare.
It kinda diminishes your racism claims when you say, “That’s racist!”, lose, and then concede the issue three elections later.
There was a compromise, but that doesn’t mean that the Democratic party “accepted” the welfare queen myth.
This is kind of a silly game of gotcha. The best arbiters, by far, of anti-black racism in America have always been and still are black Americans… they’re the best source of information on which party is more opposed to their interests.
It wasn’t a myth. People were making welfare a lifestyle. The reform put an end to that. Democrats have a habit of crying racism whenever they lose, then promise to implement the same policies they decried as racist once they get tired of losing.
Saying all races are equal isn’t anti-white.
Although admittedly there are some white people who feel they are entitled to superior status and mere equality is an insult.
Very few, if any.
Must have been a lot considering how many fewer people are on it now.
So–the subject of this thread is “Hispanic voters and the 2016 election.”
adaher has expended considerable effort to change the subject. As he does, so, so often. Whenever things are looking bad for his side.
WEll, we established early on that Hispanic voters can’t affect the outcome of the election.
Yeah, never-mind that recent elections are usually close, the flaw in your idea was even in the cite you made.
It is really naive to think that if Trump is the Republican nominee that it will not male the Hispanics more motivated to vote, as noted Trump has a -51 rate among Hispanics.
And then what you cited is only one model.
No.
Gigo, while winning the popular vote is important to me, the GOP would actually need 60% or more of the Latino vote to win the electoral vote assuming all else remains the same. Or, they could lose EVERY Latino vote and still win the electoral vote if they just win 4% more of the white vote.
The same goes for Democrats. They could win 100% of the Latino vote, or they could just win 1% more of the white vote, or they could turn out African-Americans at the same rates as 2008 and 2012.
There is no plausible strategy for winning the 2016 election that revolves around Latino voters. They are almost completely irrelevant.
And as noted, that extra 4% is less likely.
As pointed before your imagination is what is telling you that it is not plausible, and it is telling you that because it is Mr. anti Hispanic Trump the one that you will have to carry water for in the general election, most likely.
It will be an effort that I not would like to do if the situation was reversed. But I know that you can do it. 
It’s easier for the GOP to win 100% of Latinos than 4% more whites?
I will not be carrying water for Mr. Trump should he win the nomination. Which is why it would be nice if the Democrats could give me an alternative. Anyone in the current field but Clinton is fine.
No I’m not saying that silliness. The GOP can not do that with Latinos, The advantage in thus case is for the Democrats. And I do remember that in the past presidential elections the number of white votes is getting a bit lower on each election, add to that then that if Trump is the nominee there will be many reasonable Republicans that will not vote for him and that is why that extra 4% is not likely.
Oh then this will be better then, if Trump is the nominee I will see you after November.
If Trump is the nominee you’ll see a Democratic President. But if Trump isn’t the nominee, winning 65% of white votes is not out of the realm of possibility.
Indeed, but remember that you were talking about irrelevance; in reality as I pointed before Hispanics are relevant, it just so happens that they are more relevant to the Democrats, and you also were assuming numbers by ignoring the elephant in the room. As Time magazine had in the text of the cover with Trump’s mug:
**Deal with it. **
Because otherwise you will not even have the possibilities that you are wishing for.
Even if Trump is the nominee, Latino voters aren’t going to be the ones to stop him. White and black voters still decide who wins elections in this country, white voters by swinging back and forth and black voters by turning out or not turning out. Latinos are still too concentrated in states that don’t matter in the Electoral College. And really, if you take out California and New Mexico, Latino voters don’t even vote all that Democratic. In Texas and Florida, where Latinos COULD make a difference, they don’t seem all that inclined to back Democrats in as large numbers.