PoliGAF 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hammer24 said:
Did Trump really win the Hispanic vote? I have a hard time believing that.
Click to expand...

To expand on what someone else was saying about how it's the Republican Hispanic vote, keep in mind that what Trump is saying regarding illegal immigration may be a little more extreme, but it's not that far out of line with what the Republican party espouses in general. If a Hispanic voter is OK with the party platform itself enough to call himself a Republican, he's likely not bothered by Trump's rhetoric either. And that goes for any definable group of course, not just Hispanics.
 
kirblar said:
Youre literally arguing #notallmen. The idea that you have to preface every use of statiscal averages w a qualifier is inane and is an absurdly literal demand for something implicit in the discussion.

Everyone gets reduced to their statistics, because that is what statistics are meant to do. They make a large volume of data manageable and erase individuality.
Click to expand...

You don't have to preface anything, just be cognizant of how you phrase things. Talking about a person's voting pattern isn't reducing THE PERSON to a statistic, it's reducing THEIR VOTE to a statistic. Conversely, comparing one group of people to another group of people and asserting how similar or dissimilar they are AS A PEOPLE based on voting tendencies goes beyond just their voting information and reduces their personalities down to statistics of probability, which is absurd.
 
HylianTom said:
I wonder what Bill and Hillary are thinking while watching this happen.


Rich Lowry ‏@RichLowry
Click to expand...

Probably getting ready to write that 500 million dollar check to Trump to fist bump HRC on the first debate and then drop out. :D (SuperPAC money for the win)

RustyNails said:
Or they're just trolls. It's like asking liberals if religion should be banned in America.
Click to expand...

The percentage is a little high, but with political polls, especially if they are done online, except about a 15-20% troll rate.

But what I think really gets missed in these polls due to all the pooh-poohing and people freaking out about the voters is the anger palpable in Trump voters. Anger at everyone. Everyone keeps saying Trump has no chance in a demographic war - but I think he intends to turn it into a class war once he hits the general election, and if you all of a sudden flip it to class - the Dems find themselves at the pointy end of a very unfavorable matchup.

I don't know if Trump is savvy enough to pull it off. But what it does do is potentially double his options of something happening that ends up pushing him into the WH. We've all theorized that any kind of mass attack would lead to a GOP victor (though HRC's hawkishness actually does help mitigate that a bit) - but if you throw in the class aspect, then any kind of economic downturn (especially if it is the stock market) also becomes a path to victory.

If Trump starts breaking 50-55% - then I think he's pretty much clinched the nomination. The main way Rubio wins is that even if Trump wins the majority of states, Cruz + Rubio siphon enough off that it leads to a brokered convention, at which point, per GOP rules (IIRC), if no one hits the threshold for overall nomination, all the delegates become free. The plan everyone wants to believe will work is that if everyone except Rubio drops out, the party elites will turn their fire on Trump and finally be able to bring him down.
 
benjipwns said:
Balloting by the 168 RNC committee members: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repub...Current_Republican_National_Committee_members

2009 election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_National_Committee_chairmanship_election,_2009
2011 election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_National_Committee_chairmanship_election,_2011

Priebus was re-elected basically unanimously in 2013 and 2015.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. I guess I'll have to keep an eye out after the election is over to see if that's something the RNC might lean towards. Thanks!
 
Slacker said:
To expand on what someone else was saying about how it's the Republican Hispanic vote, keep in mind that what Trump is saying regarding illegal immigration may be a little more extreme, but it's not that far out of line with what the Republican party espouses in general. If a Hispanic voter is OK with the party platform itself enough to call himself a Republican, he's likely not bothered by Trump's rhetoric either. And that goes for any definable group of course, not just Hispanics.
Click to expand...
What's funny about this is that George W Bush WON the Hispanic vote. Not just Hispanic Republicans. The Hispanic vote in the general election. Very fat chance of Trump doing that.
 
Macho Madness said:
What's funny about this is that George W Bush WON the Hispanic vote. Not just Hispanic Republicans. The Hispanic vote in the general election. Very fat chance of Trump doing that.
Click to expand...

No he didn't

-2000 Al Gore, 62% George W. Bush, 35% +27

-2004 John Kerry, 58% George W. Bush, 40% +18

2012HispanicVoting.png
 
Officerrob said:
No he didn't

-2000 Al Gore, 62% George W. Bush, 35% +27

-2004 John Kerry, 58% George W. Bush, 40% +18

2012HispanicVoting.png
Click to expand...

I remember a ton of talk after the 2004 election about the GOP being on track to potentially get a majority of the hispanic vote going forward, that the hispanic vote was abandoning the Democrats.

We take for granted now the modern GOP is posion to the wider Hispanic vote, the GOP had a really good shot after 2004 to have a different outcome but they blew it big time.
 
Cheebo said:
I remember a ton of talk after the 2004 election about the GOP being on track to potentially get a majority of the hispanic vote going forward, that the hispanic vote was abandoning the Democrats.

We take for granted now the modern GOP is posion to the wider Hispanic vote, the GOP had a really good shot after 2004 to have a different outcome but they blew it big time.
Click to expand...
2002:
51OEC1gM1TL.jpg


2006:
514K7RG5D4L.jpg


nevr 4get
 
Cheebo said:
I remember a ton of talk after the 2004 election about the GOP being on track to potentially get a majority of the hispanic vote going forward, that the hispanic vote was abandoning the Democrats.

We take for granted now the modern GOP is posion to the wider Hispanic vote, the GOP had a really good shot after 2004 to have a different outcome but they blew it big time.
Click to expand...

The Bush team did a great job of reaching out to Hispanics. They even tried to make inroads with black communities, it just didn't work as well. Pretty amazing how the GOP has just dropped that even as minorities become larger voting groups.
 
brainchild said:
You don't have to preface anything, just be cognizant of how you phrase things. Talking about a person's voting pattern isn't reducing THE PERSON to a statistic, it's reducing THEIR VOTE to a statistic. Conversely, comparing one group of people to another group of people and asserting how similar or dissimilar they are AS A PEOPLE based on voting tendencies goes beyond just their voting information and reduces their personalities down to statistics of probability, which is absurd.
Click to expand...
Comparing the data about the way two groups vote in order to learn more about them is "wrong"? Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?

By this logic, the entire field of economics is "wrong", as its based entirely on putting numbers on humam behavior.

Im tapping out of this topic cause clearly we arent going to be getting through to you.

Re: predictions- the demographics always favored the dems long term. Thats why Bush actually cared about minority demos, despite his party. They simply didn't understand the beast they had crrated was slipping out from under heir control.
 
Roland_Gunner said:
They even tried to make inroads with black communities, it just didn't work as well.
Click to expand...
This was a good speech imo:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?182838-1/bush-campaign-speech
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/23/se.01.html
Ours is a solid record of accomplishment. And that's why I've come to talk about compassionate conservatism and what I envision for the future.

I'm here for another reason. I'm here to ask for your vote.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, you know -- I know, I know, I know. Listen, Republican Party's got a lot of work to do. I understand that.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

You didn't need to nod your head that hard, Jesse.

(LAUGHTER)

Do you remember a guy named Charlie Gaines (ph)? Somebody gave me a quote he said, which, I think, kind of describes maybe the environment we're in today. I think he's a friend of Jesse's. Yes.

He said, "Blacks are gagging on the donkey but not yet ready to swallow the elephant."

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

Now, that was said a while ago.

(LAUGHTER)

I believe you've got to earn the vote and seek it. I think you've got to go to people and say, "This is my heart, this is what I believe, and I'd like your help."

And as I do, I'm going to ask African-American voters to consider some questions. Does the Democrat Party take African-American voters for granted?

(APPLAUSE)

That's a fair question. I know plenty of politicians assume they have your vote, but do they earn it and do they deserve it?

(APPLAUSE)

Is it a good thing for the African-American community to be represented mainly by one political party? A legitimate question.

(APPLAUSE)

How is it possible to gain political leverage if the party is never forced to compete?

(APPLAUSE)

Have the traditional solutions of the Democrat Party truly served the African-American community?

That's what I hope people ask when they go to the community centers, places, as we all should do our duty and vote. People need to be asking these very serious questions.

Does blocking the faith-based initiative help neighborhoods where the only social service provider could be a church?

BUSH: Does the status quo in education really, really help the children of this country?

(APPLAUSE)

Has class warfare or higher taxes ever created decent jobs in the inner city? Are you satisfied with the same answers on crime, excuses for drugs and blindness to the problem of the family?

Those are legitimate questions that I hope people ask as this election approaches.

I'd like to hear those questions debated on talk radio. I'd like them debated in the community centers, the coffee shops. It's worthy of this country for this debate to go forward and these questions to be asked and answered.

I'm here to say that there is an alternative this year. There's an alternative that has had a record that is easy to see.

If you dream of starting a small business and building a nest egg and passing something of value to your children, take a look at my agenda.

If you believe schools should meet high standards instead of making excuses, take a look at my agenda.

If you believe the institutions of marriage and family are worth defending and need defending today, take a look at my agenda.

(APPLAUSE)

If you believe in building a culture of life in America, take a look at my agenda.

If you believe in a tireless fight against crime and drugs, take a look at this agenda.

If you believe that our men and women in uniform should be respected and supported 100 percent of the time, take a look at my agenda. (APPLAUSE)

If you're struggling to get into middle class and you feel like you're paying plenty of taxes, take a look at my agenda.

(APPLAUSE)

BUSH: If you're a small-business owner who's trying to expand your job base and are worried about excessive lawsuits, increasing taxes and over-regulation, take a look at this agenda.

And finally, if you believe in the power of faith and compassion to defeat violence and despair and hopelessness, I hope you take a look at where I stand.

(APPLAUSE)

You see, I believe in my heart that the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, is not complete without the perspective and support and contribution of African-Americans.

(APPLAUSE)

And I believe in my heart that the policies and actions of this administration, policies that empower individuals and help communities, that lift up free enterprise, and respect and honor the family -- those policies are good for the nation as a whole. That's what I believe. And I'm here to thank you for giving me a chance to come and express those beliefs.

I'm proud to be with an organization that does so good, so much good for the American people. I'm honored that your chairman would extend an invitation to me.
Click to expand...


A bunch of the 2008 candidates didn't even bother to attend NAACP and Urban League and etc. forums.
 
Crocodile said:
No one ethnic group is a monolith but there is a shared experience between them. There is a reason Black people overwhelming vote Democratic - Republicans time and time again enact policies or use language that is either directly harmful to Black people, routinely ignore and downplay the issues important to Black people and/or try to appeal to people who are racist towards Black people in ways Democrats (who aren't free of racism, lets be clear) can never hope or even try to achieve. There is a basic and consistent logic behind the differences in support.

A Black person who votes Republican isn't inherently a bad person, being an outlier isn't inherently a bad thing, but it runs counter to the voting logic of most people like them for very specific reasons. As such, they are an outlier - that's a fact and its not racially insensitive in anyway. Like you are just strictly wrong here. They don't represent the interests of their racial demographic and someone voting against their best inserts is something to be acknowledged but not condoned. This is of course assuming they are voting against their specific interests as individuals - "Fuck You, Got Mine!" is a mentality that transcends race, gender, age, etc. X on X ____ism also isn't a rare circumstance. There is also of course the fact that that not all Republican politicians are equivalent when it comes these issues - there are many local ones who are better able to serve the interests of their community than any local Democratic candidate.

In the end of the day, basic social sciences allows us the language to speak of individuals vs. groups and the rationales for their behavior. As a Black man myself, I just think you are incredibly off-base here and yes, I would say that these posts you've made on this subject make you seem thin-skinned. I have no qualms saying Black people who vote for Republicans on the national scale are voting counter to how most Black people vote. In fact, I'll go further - Black people who vote Republican on the national scale given the current presidential candidates, make up of the Republican Congress, the language they use, the polices they support and the manner they completely ignore many issues important to us are doing a disservice to the majority of Black people across the country. I can't relate as strongly to the Hispanic experience but I at least certainly feel comfortable saying the Hispanic voters who voted overwhelming for Trump in Nevada represent a small slice of Hispanic votes both in the State and in the country overall.

I can only assume your trepidation is because your cousins have gotten heat within the Black community for their views? Is that a fair assumption or am I off-base? Do you think this conversation is in the same vein as "all Black people are lazy" nonsense?

A) To the first point, I'm certainly not trying to throw shade on specific individuals I don't know at all. I'm sorry if your cousins have been thrown shade they don't deserve. Furthermore, not all Black Republicans are equivalent - I can respect and appreciate Micheal Steele while thinking Ben Carson is a piece of shit. However they just straight up don't vote in the same manner as most Black people. That doesn't make them bad people, that's just a fact. IF (and I'm not trying to say this is true since I don't know your family) the reason they are voting the way they are is for a "problematic" reason - like some of the ones I've already described - than they aren't immune to criticism.

B) As to the second point, this conversation is looking at the specific actions of people taken of their own free will, why they take them and how that compares to others like them. We aren't making prejudicial judgments on people based on immutable aspects of themselves (like skin color, facial features, hair, name, etc.) - we are only looking at their actions and rationale. I just don't plain see any comparison.



This conversation isn't borderline racist though. It's.....nothing.
Click to expand...


I hate to tell you that 90% of your post was a waste, but I don't disagree with the legitimacy of demographic statistics in the least, nor at any point did I say or imply that I disagreed with them. My point has to do with the presentation of data or the conversation about the data, and how that relates to talking about people, not the data itself. I'm all about the facts, so we don't disagree about the utility of statistics.

Sometimes there can be a disconnect between understanding the place of objectivity vs. social/human sensitivities, and people might not know where to draw the line. In this case, referring to people as outliers is a lot more personal than just referring to the fact their their statistical information is unusual. It potentially carries the implication that, as a person, they are unusual compared to other people in their minority group just because they vote differently.

So the wording is the issue here, not the data. Unfortunately, it has become so common to discuss demographics without respect to social sensitivities that regardless of how insensitively the data is discussed, many people wouldn't even pick up on it. However, bring this topic up on national television, and you might be surprised to see lots of people who feel the same way that I feel about it. There's lots of things we do unconsciously that don't really receive any kind of backlash until it's brought to public attention.
 
2008:

Attended only by Tom Tancredo. All 10 Republican candidates were invited, only Tancredo attended.

This was held during the NAACP 98th annual convention. It was hosted by Russ Mitchell.
Click to expand...

PBS television hosted a Republican debate in Baltimore, Maryland, at Morgan State University that aired live on PBS and on www.pbs.org.[41][42] Dubbed the "All-American Presidential Forums," it was the first prime time debate with a panel exclusively of journalists of color. Questions were asked by host Tavis Smiley and panelists Ray Suarez of The NewsHour, Cynthia Tucker of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and NPR's Juan Williams.

The six debaters were Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Alan Keyes, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo. Absent were Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson, who, according to public opinion surveys,[43] were the leading Republican candidates. The organizers put empty podiums on the stage in place of the candidates who refused to attend.

Most of the questions focused on racial issues.
Click to expand...

They haven't bothered with anything like that since.
 
kirblar said:
You are the only person who thinks we are doing this when we discuss demographic trends. No one else is saying they're a monolith. People aren't monolithic.

This isn't tone-deafness, this is data.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%, I'm just wondering if he even knows how this data is gathered. It seems like he thinks pollsters either sit in their ivory towers and make blanket projections about brown/black looking people without any idea of who they are or he thinks they look at people and check a box for whatever ethnicity they look like. Most of these polls are self identifying ones where the people participating give the ethnic/racial classification they self identify as and then answer the questions. So each data point is a unique person, but their race/ethnicity is defined by themselves. And if you have enough of those data points, you absolutiely CAN draw metadata and conclusions about these groups from them. The fact that anyone even has to say this is incredible, but id wager it's just symptomatic of ignorance on his part.
 
Combined, 4-state popular vote:

Donald "The American dream is dead" Trump 420,251 (32.7%)
Cruz 265,756 (20.7%)
Rubio 257,103 (20.1%)
Kasich 107,314 (8.3%)
Carson 80,853 (6.3%)
Click to expand...

Rubio is such a mess.
 
brainchild said:
Sometimes there can be a disconnect between understanding the place of objectivity vs. social/human sensitivities, and people might not know where to draw the line. In this case, referring to people as outliers is a lot more personal than just referring to the fact their their statistical information is unusual. It potentially carries the implication that, as a person, they are unusual compared to other people in their minority group just because they vote differently.
Click to expand...

Saying they're an outlier is bad because the implication is that they're unusual so we should say that their statiscal information is unusual instead? How is that any different?

I always had you in the opiate category of scientific indifference so I can't imagine you use the same approach when discussing other topics that involve people and statistics outside of politics.
 
Officerrob said:
No he didn't

-2000 Al Gore, 62% George W. Bush, 35% +27

-2004 John Kerry, 58% George W. Bush, 40% +18

2012HispanicVoting.png
Click to expand...

W didn't win them over Kerry, but W is the one Republican who had the best results and made the most efforts into opening up to them.

well that has all been destroyed in the last 8 years
 
The media posting articles still about how Dems aren't excited about or don't like Hillary in the face of literally all polls about those questions is astounding.

She won the main Dem voting block by maybe 50+ points in Nevada too.
 
Dick Morris just jinxed Trump:
Why Rubio Can't Win

---

And PPPolls has tweeted a string of new polling results on swing state senate races, with the SCOTUS battle as context. The results are pretty bad for the GOP.

ABYSMAL approval ratings for @SenateMajLdr Mitch McConnell in Senate battleground States, via @ppppolls:
NH - 14%
OH - 14%
PA - 13%
WI - 14%
Click to expand...

57% of indys in NH, 56% in WI less likely to vote for GOP Senators because of obstructionism on Supreme Court issue: publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/02/k…
Click to expand...

51% say they're less likely to vote for Kelly Ayotte this fall because of Supreme Court stance, 26% more likely: publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/02/k…
Click to expand...

53% say they're less likely to vote for Ron Johnson this fall because of Supreme Court stance, 26% more likely: publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/02/k…
Click to expand...

Strong support for filling the Supreme Court vacancy this year- 62/35 in Wisconsin, 59/36 in New Hampshire: publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/02/k…
Click to expand...
 
kirblar said:
Comparing the data about the way two groups vote in order to learn more about them is "wrong"? Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?

By this logic, the entire field of economics is "wrong", as its based entirely on putting numbers on humam behavior.

Im tapping out of this topic cause clearly we arent going to be getting through to you.

Re: predictions- the demographics always favored the dems long term. Thats why Bush actually cared about minority demos, despite his party. They simply didn't understand the beast they had crrated was slipping out from under heir control.
Click to expand...

I am not making the argument that comparing information about different groups of people is wrong. I'm saying that we're no longer just talking about the information and statistics about people when you refer to them (as a person) as different from their own kind, and saying that they (as a person) are different from their own kind based on relatively limited information like voting trends is offensive.

euphemism said:
I agree with you 100%, I'm just wondering if he even knows how this data is gathered. It seems like he thinks pollsters either sit in their ivory towers and make blanket projections about brown/black looking people without any idea of who they are or he thinks they look at people and check a box for whatever ethnicity they look like. Most of these polls are self identifying ones where the people participating give the ethnic/racial classification they self identify as and then answer the questions. So each data point is a unique person, but their race/ethnicity is defined by themselves. And if you have enough of those data points, you absolutiely CAN draw metadata and conclusions about these groups from them. The fact that anyone even has to say this is incredible, but id wager it's just symptomatic of ignorance on his part.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with the data or how the data was acquired, as I've stated many, many times before. The problem is in how people are being talked about when discussing data relevant to them.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
The media posting articles still about how Dems aren't excited about or don't like Hillary in the face of literally all polls about those questions is astounding.

She won the main Dem voting block by maybe 50+ points in Nevada too.
Click to expand...

To be fair it'll be hard for her to energise the vote once she's arrested and jailed for life for treason, which according to reddit should be any day now.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
The media posting articles still about how Dems aren't excited about or don't like Hillary in the face of literally all polls about those questions is astounding.

She won the main Dem voting block by maybe 50+ points in Nevada too.
Click to expand...

Links? I want to know where they're getting their information.

I think it's fair to say Hillary isn't exciting some of the Democratic base but saying it about all is a stretch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sports betting |OT|
7
11K
Hideous Snake replied
ItalianGAF |OT| - Italia
3
1K
Azzurri replied
Food |OT| GAFeteria
2
77
17K
SLoWMoTIoN replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
395 396 397 398 399
20K
1M
PKrockin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Top Bottom