Was that euphemism necessary? Bolding mine.
I agree. All this talk about Clinton possibly winning states like Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, Arizona, and even Iowa is pure fantasy, I think.
ETA: I also believe Florida won’t be the cakewalk for her that I am reading on this board.
Georgia and Texas are fantasy in 2016, but Arizona and Iowa may not be. Arizona has an angry Latino population that has been waiting to exact revenge against Jan Brewer, Sheriff Joe, and Donald Trump and I suspect that every last one of them will show up at the polls to vote. That is going to put tremendous pressure on Trump to perform extremely well with white voters. This is a state where moderate Republican John McCain is leading by 20 percentage points in polls, and he’s done so by artfully dancing between the various factions of the electorate.
Iowa, while mostly conservative and favorable to Trump, has left-leaning population centers that could make this race interesting. They’ve supported Obama in the past, and one of Trump’s weaker primary performances was in conservative Iowa. Socially conservative Iowa may not like Hillary but unlike Southern “christians” they probably are truly sickened by Trump’s past.
Inner city?
What do you think you’re referring to when you refer to the “inner city” of Philadelphia?
If I were running, I would urge all my supporters and even my opponents supporters to lie to the pollsters. About everything. Make the polls meaningless and spend more time on the issues.
Unfortunately, I think Jan Brewer is correct about Latinos not voting, although her implication is that they’re lazy, which is incorrect. A not insignificant number of Latinos, especially in places like Arizona, are afraid of exposing themselves for legitimate reasons, and opt not to vote. There may (or may not) be an increase in Latino voting in Arizona, but there is no evidence that “every last one of them” or even most will turn out to vote, regardless how angry they are.
If Latinos are eligible to vote, there’s no fear of exposure.
That doesn’t mean that it’s right to single out those who look Latino for extra scrutiny.
I don’t think Latino voter turnout has ever cracked 50%. If the election focus on them gets them to get passed that mark it would be historic. We’ll see.
Are they under extra scrutiny? I’m just trying to figure out what a legitimate voter’s fears of being exposed would be about.
Don’t be Naive. Of course there is.
Arizona has gone out of its way to make the lives of legal Latino residents uncomfortable. Some simply prefer not to put themselves in the cross-hairs, so they keep their heads down and don’t get involved in governmental processes.
Some of these people have extended family members with questionable statuses or who are working through the naturalization process, so they are concerned (rightly or wrongly) that if they vote they may be inviting deeper scrutiny.
I have a personal anecdote of a member of my wife’s family being deported because of a documentation filing issue that was brought to light during a background check when he applied for a job, which was later resolved, but he still had to leave while the matter was addressed before he could come back.
There are probably other reasons Latinos may choose not to exercise their voting rights, but I think it all comes down to fear, some of which I believe is legitimate.
You, being white, never have to concern yourself with such things so I can understand why this is so foreign to you. Latinos, on the other hand, even second and third generation, can be consumed by it, and therefore may take a “why poke the beast” attitude toward their lives in the US, especially if they believe there is a potential extant threat against others in their families.
Okay so they don’t vote because they fear it will bring scrutiny on their illegal relatives. Fair enough.
That is not precisely what I said, but that’s fine. I am dropping this tangent as I have made my point.
In situations where the polling is so close, I think it comes down to ground game. Arizona is one of the few places in the country where Trump has more field offices than Clinton . So that is why I think he will probably win there. in Iowa and Ohio on the other hand, Clinton has a much larger presence (nearly two to one), so I’m betting those will go to her.
If you mean black voters then why not simply say black voters? Why use a demeaning and insulting euphemism unless your intent was to demean and insult, especially as not all or even most black voters in Philadelphia live in the projects?
Rochester, for one, doesn’t even have “projects.” They have all been torn down. I assume this is true for other cities as well.
Nor were they all black occupied. Or provide services only to blacks. I lived several years in the literal shadow of them. I attended a pre-school there and used its clinic for emergencies.
Actually, I think that “the projects” or “inner city” are more accurate characterizations of the relevant demographic than “black”. Yes, the inner cities contain all races, but I would maintain that a black inner-city resident has more in common with a white inner-city resident than with a black suburbanite, and that the Democratic advantage with African-Americans is mostly because they’re mostly urban, not the other way around.
Trump is catching up in some states. I think I’ll make my predictions on November 7.
Right now, I have a feeling he’s going to win Ohio, and I suspect Florida will go his way as well. But Virginia is now solid blue. The party lines are being redrawn.