The exit polls you must take with great, great caution. The 538 experts are very critical of them (it is not to object to the numbers, but a reminder as there is a severe problem of the sampling bias with them, and already it was seen there were past severe issues).
it is better to wait for the final actual voting numbers and against them apply the demographic data.
Clinton is a white woman and they didn’t vote for her either.
And we can thank another white woman for that. Thank goodness.
Trump just won states that haven’t gone Republican in nearly 30 years and even managed to make Minnesota competitive while managing to hold onto the base. He already expanded the coalition. You’re sounding more and more like an establishment shill (just calling it as it is).
Anyway, to others, while turnout may have been down from 2012 overall, that doesn’t mean that turnout was down in every state. In Florida, for example, turnout was up over 2012 and while Trump may have done worse compared to Romney among Hispanics, he did better among Blacks and Whites while Hillary did worse-- both groups of who’s turnout went up.
If turnout was down, I’d guess it was in states where the outcome really was never in doubt.
using very stupid phrases like ‘establishment shill’ while making numerically dubious assertions make you sound like a partisan propagandist.
the numbers do not seem to show any expansion on the part of Trump, this in particular in the demographic expansion context of the larger voting age population based on the pure demographics and indeed the ratio of those demographics.
this is party propagandizing, which by the user name is not the surprise but it is boring.
Perhaps not all of it is expansion, per se, but much of the Trump numbers advantage comes from him outperforming Clinton in several demographic and geographic slices of the voting public. (ETA: and, in turn, Clinton clearly underperforming, compared to Obama - much of that I got from CNN on election night, from John King and Jake Tapper, as 5pm PST became 6pm became 7pm…)
That includes white women. I think we have Trump and Kellyanne Conway largely to thank for that, as well as Ivanka, Melania, and many others.
I’ll bite. Which part of my post was numerically dubious? Considering you ignored the only part of my post which had any “numericals” (Florida), I find this humorous.
Oh, and the name of this thread is “Trump did better than Romney with Minorities, WTF?” (the second thread I’ve seen decrying the fact that Trump did better among minorities than Romney did). You taking seeming offense to my name is… ironic.
the assertions about expansion and the results without linking to the data are indeed not numerical.
Your user name means little other than that when one puts political slogans into a user name and adds in some kind of identity political coloring to it, it is the almost certain sign of the extreme partisan political person as well as often a kind of pretension for the politics.
Trump won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin-- the former two had not gone Republican since 1988 and Wisconsin since 1984. I guarantee you if I were to scroll back through this board, very few thought he had any chance of making inroads into those states. Furthermore, as of this writing, he lost Minnesota (!) by less than 45K votes. And this was with members of his own party and, I’d say, a great deal of conservative media fighting against him.
I totally stand by my contention.
Naw. Liberals are notorious for group think, where because you’re a part of group <X> then you must, or are expected, to vote for <Y>. This has been clearly evident on this board since Trump won the election, with quite a few of the left-leaning posters being unable to contemplate why a minority (or a woman) would vote for Trump that isn’t sexism, racism, xenophobia, etc. (in another thread, a few posters were blaming the fact that Hillary underperformed among Hispanics on Hispanics being chauvinistic/sexist).
Yes. This does not make your assertions numerical in respect to the ‘expansion’ of support or of coalitions or something like this, as you attempted to assert.
Of course as it is the partisan political posturing, it is not analysis, it is only not very interesting propagandizing.
For your excuse around the observation that putting the partisan political naming as a user name for a sign of being an extreme political partisan…
No, the human beings are.
That you make this something about a partisan political stance and assume automatically I have some care about your supposed position / identity in the american political system also confirms the extreme partisan orientation - and the boring political propagandizing.
Since I am outside of your political framing, I only am amused at your efforts, which are meaningless to me.
Democrats who are constantly focused on identity politics make a mistake in assuming that minority groups are all single issue voters who always vote their identity. Women will vote for a woman, Hispanics will uniformly vote against someone who is against immigration, African Americans will vote Democrat because the Democratic party is their ‘natural home’, etc.
This always struck me as being condescending and wrong. Why should a Hispanic person’s vote be any less nuanced than that of a white person? Why can’t an African American be more worried about a good education for her kids and crime in her streets than about the latest Black Lives Matter protest?
It was no surprise to me that Trump picked up a greater share of Hispanics than Mitt Romney. Hispanic American citizens are probably the most at risk of losing their jobs to illegal immigrants. Hispanic Americans who went through the laborious multi-year process of legal immigration have the most cause to be upset at people who bypass the system and then compete against them while their employers can skirt expensive regulations by paying illegals under the table.
Likewise, the Democratic Party has utterly failed African Americans. It takes their vote for granted, but does nothing while their schools fail and crime doninates their lives - in cities that have been overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats for decades. They came out in droves for the first black President, but now that he’s leaving there is a huge opening for Republicans to gain the Black vote through education reform, better policing, policies that seek to help black people get out of the ghettoes instead of bribing them to stay in.
A lot of fallacies are being exposed by this election, and a big one is the idea of ‘natural’ constituences for either party. Perhaps in the future both sides will realize that they are going to have to actually govern well to get the vote of anyone, regardless of which identity group they are part of.
but it is true that the Left on the Board and the hard Left is having great trouble digesting (the idea their Berny would win…), but this does not seem different to me that the mirror image reaction on the hard Right here in the past election cycles.
pretension to the inherent superiority by either of the political tendencies is nothing more than the self-delusions…
ah Sam Stone has wisdom, it reminds me of the wisdom spoken about the Iraqis with the wet eyes dreaming of the ideal…
Sam Stone, I doubt that the party that continues to suppress “black” votes will gain much traction with them.
But, and here’s the key, the Republicans CAN make some gains with Hispanics. They are natural Republicans, many of them: social conservatives (anti-abortion, pro-family, etc.), strong on small businesses, etc. The thing that has turned them increasingly anti-Republican (note I don’t say “Democratic”) is the fixation of the Republicans on running all the “illegals” out.
Now that the Republicans actually have a chance to do something about immigration from the south of US area, if that thing they do is done with an even hand, and treats the Hispanics (legal and otherwise) as humans worthy of respect, I suspect that the Democratic hold on Hispanics will quickly evaporate. And it’s easy to see Republicans doing that. Already, Mr. Trump has said that the initial focus is on those who have committed crimes. Then, secure the borders (not necessarily an unbroken wall now, you’ll note!). Finally, decide what to do about the undocumented residents who remain, people he has today managed to admit are decent people, willing to work and do good by America.
It’s in the hands of the Republicans. Last time, they whiffed on this. Maybe this time, they’ll get it right.
The illegal immigrants aren’t really taking the jobs of the well- established middle class, they are taking manual labor gigs from the legal immigrants.
If you think about it, they would be the group with the most to gain, if Trump’s pie-in-the-sky promises actually went and worked.
Also "Latinos"aren’t really an homogeneous group. Cubans and Mexicans don’t necessarily mix any more than they mix with Euros or Blacks.
There are a couple of factors not yet mentioned, I think.
A certain percentage of people of all ethnicities are drawn to authoritarianism. They want their President to be the strong father figure.
Speaking of which, a certain percentage of all ethnicities are strongly misogynistic and are not going to vote for a woman, period.
So the assertion is being made that committed Republican minorities turned out in larger numbers than independents or committed Democrats, but no data in support of this assertion have been provided. Do I have it right?
I cannot explain the Asian vote. A large factor in the drift of Asians away from Democrats was the veiled racism in the Republican Party. Trump pulled away that veil and we saw overt racism and slightly MORE Asians voted for him. I am flummoxed.