Hahahaha
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Smelling blood, Clinton expanding campaign into Arizona and Georgia
- Thread starter giga
- Start date
- Status
User 463088
Banned
The assertion that African Americans and Latinos are going to vote Democrat regardless isn't okay with me. It's wrong to take our most reliable voting blocks as nothing more than a machine we can turn out. I'm going to argue against it every time I see it too.
Hillary's success among these groups was earned, not given. She worked hard to earn the support of African American and Latino voters in a way none of her rivals has done. Bernie didn't do it, although he sorta kinda tried. Trump hasn't even bothered.
I also think those "salty liberals" you mention aren't reliable Democratic voters anyway. They're Greens or whatever. Hillary's gains have come from consolidating the base and from getting college educated whites who trust her more on things like foreign policy and temperament. Someone like Warren would not have been as big of an attraction because of her very public stance on things like Wall Street and business.
Warren would have run into the same wall as Bernie did in the primary. Although, she at least would have had the benefit of being a Democrat which comes with some advantages.
If you think that the Latino electorate this cycle looks like it did in '00->'12, you're not paying attention. Dems have not had this kind of a margin with them before. (Thanks, Trump!)
User 463088
Banned
Again, I don't like this. You're basically arguing that voters of color can be turned out in larger than normal numbers not on policy, but because Obama goes out there and tells them to. I don't like that at all. Hillary's support has been earned. Does she benefit from her opponent being a freaking racist idiot? Yes. Of course. But, that ignores the very real work she's done too.
And also Thank you Hillary!
Generic D would be getting these margins there- we've seen this pattern before in California, where anti-immigrant platforms drove the demographic out of the GOP and turned the state perma blue in the process. Hillary's edge in this specific matchup is her experience, it's comforting to GOP moderates who are OK leaving the office in her hands because they trust her not to burn the place down. Though Clinton's not really a great candidate, she has the ability to run up gigantic margins because of these two factors working in tandem.
Do you need an injection of hopium, Cesare?
ShockingAlberto
Member
Latino voters very often have conservative values and can easily swing right under the social circumstances.
The republicans this time just happened to nominate a white nationalist.
The republicans this time just happened to nominate a white nationalist.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
They're going to vote D, though, same as urban white with graduate degrees, same as California. You don't treat anyone as granted in office, you have to pass laws for everyone. Elections, though? You focus on the marginal vote. You don't run a 50-state strategy, you don't run an every-demographic strategy. Running a presidential election on minorities as a Democrat is like running a presidential election as a Republican aimed at Wyoming - you already have Wyoming, it's a waste of money and time.
The average black voter would also have voted Sanders in the presidential. Probably with a slightly reduced turn-out rate, that probably wouldn't have made the difference from the improved performance in other demographics. Again, in no world does it make sense for them not to. Clinton might still have beaten Warren in the primaries with their support, fine. Unfortunately, the primaries aren't the electorate; being the sort of candidate placed to win your party's primary doesn't make you the sort of candidate best placed to win the presidential (see: Trump).
Well yeah, that's why you want their votes. Why would you campaign to get the votes of people who reliably vote Democrat anyway? You already have vote their vote on account of them reliably voting Democrat. That's... literally the entire point of my post.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I... don't think you read my post properly?
andythinkpad
Member
This isn't even her final form.
gutter_trash
Banned
all the work George W. Bush did to try to win as many Latino voters as possible for a Republican candidate has slowly been peeled off by the Tea Party nutters of 2008-2010 up to the the nomination of Trump 2016
It will take lots of time and healing for the Republicans to ever dream of returning to George W. Bush 2004 level of support among Latinos. I doubt that the current state of the Republican party will ever learn
I'm fairly sure the 'Latinos have conservative values' meme was disproven a number of times. It's a republican myth that also relies on them being the only party that goes to church and cares about the family. The republicans have a lock on the evangelical white religious vote - and no other. There's no basis for thinking any other religious group would automatically swing to the republicans.
The implication was that minority voters mainly vote Dem anyway. For black voters, yes, that's been the pattern. For other minority groups, it hasn't been. They've tilted D, but there were a substantial number still in the R camp.
Those "salty liberals" are written off because they're not the margin on which a race is won or lost. They'll never be happy. The last 2 days of the DNC felt like a GOP convention in message/tone to many commentators, and that wasn't an accident - they were going straight for Independents and moderate GOP voters who are the actual swings.
It's not a meme - the Latino electorate's margins have been such that there's clearly been a more conservative part drawn to the GOP in prior elections.
gutter_trash
Banned
Conservative values in the sense of Family Values and tradition, yes but hold social-economic Liberal views
Aaron Strife
Banned
The ones that vote will vote for you, but you need to make sure to drive up turnout, especially Latino voters who are notoriously low turnout.
I'd rather focus on amping up minority turnout than trying to win over Bernouts, who can be notoriously stubborn ("I don't trust you and nothing you do or say will change my mind, also if you modify your platform to accommodate me that will only fuel my belief that you're a dishonest flip-flopper").
Especially if you take a state like Georgia, where Clinton won the primary easily and liberal resentment can't be that large. She would win that state by turning out more minorities and winning over moderate suburban white voters who've voted GOP in the past. Same with Arizona and Latinos. And frankly that's a far more stable coalition than relying on young marginal voters who are liable to stay home if their feelings are hurt.
Not like appealing to black/Latino voters is inherently off-putting to young white liberals, unless it is, in which case fuck them.
Btw how hilarious and ironic would it be for all the bitching in the primaries about Clinton racking up wins in red states (which should count less because reasons) she actually then went and flipped many of those red states. Because most of the red states that are on the table now (NC, MO, MS, SC, AZ, GA, maybe even TX?) voted for Clinton in the primaries, most of them overwhelmingly based on her strength with minorities. IN and AK are the only red states that voted for Bernie that anyone is really talking about going blue right now.
I'd rather focus on amping up minority turnout than trying to win over Bernouts, who can be notoriously stubborn ("I don't trust you and nothing you do or say will change my mind, also if you modify your platform to accommodate me that will only fuel my belief that you're a dishonest flip-flopper").
Especially if you take a state like Georgia, where Clinton won the primary easily and liberal resentment can't be that large. She would win that state by turning out more minorities and winning over moderate suburban white voters who've voted GOP in the past. Same with Arizona and Latinos. And frankly that's a far more stable coalition than relying on young marginal voters who are liable to stay home if their feelings are hurt.
Not like appealing to black/Latino voters is inherently off-putting to young white liberals, unless it is, in which case fuck them.
Btw how hilarious and ironic would it be for all the bitching in the primaries about Clinton racking up wins in red states (which should count less because reasons) she actually then went and flipped many of those red states. Because most of the red states that are on the table now (NC, MO, MS, SC, AZ, GA, maybe even TX?) voted for Clinton in the primaries, most of them overwhelmingly based on her strength with minorities. IN and AK are the only red states that voted for Bernie that anyone is really talking about going blue right now.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
I don't disagree with the premise. I just personally didn't think the state would get there for another 2 election cycles. Make no mistake I agree with the trend. The article just has it further along than I thought.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think Pew research found the Latinos do have slightly more conservative values than the average white voter, it's just that a) it's a huge demographic and covers everything from staunch Catholics to committed Atheists same as whites, so the fact that Latinos on average are more conservative doesn't mean Republicans (or anyone, really) can win Latinos as a block, and b) there are just so many other issues that matter to Latinos (or anyone, really) aside from their religion. White Evangelicals don't vote Republican *just* because abortion, they agree with them on every other issue, which is very obviously not the case for Latinos given the Republicans' dreadful immigration policies and general racism.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Ah, no, I think you misread/I wasn't clear enough. My comment was specific to this election. In 2004, very different argument. But in this election, the Democratic candidate, regardless of who they are, probably doesn't have to invest much into campaigning on minorities because Trump is doing absolutely all the work there.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yes, but that doesn't stop them being more socially conservative than the average American.
The Democratic Party is a big, big tent.
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
Revengence for 84
Minority turnout is lower than for other (white, better-off) groups. You do have to invest the money because it "costs" these groups more to go to the polls.
The mix of left/right views among latinos is why they haven't been a solid bloc for either party. Overt racism, it turns out, overrides everything else.
demosthenes
Member
This is what I don't get. Getting back on message doesn't make all the other stuff he said not happen? Do people forget?
I think Clinton would do better than Warren for a different reason, and that's white Southern (suburban) women who voted for Romney, who are moving the needle in states like Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Her foreign policy experience, qualifications, and residual Southern charm (however little is left...) is a better fit for them than a Massachusetts liberal (and Trump is toxic to them, etc.).
Which is so sweet.
Revengence for 84
Minnesota and Washington D.C.: the TRUE ride-or-die bitches.
googleplex
Member
True. This fact was something that was lost on Bernie and his supporters.
I just found out recently that my Uncle, who was a hardcore Trump supporter, is going to abstain from voting in this election now. He really goofed up, my parents and everyone who was/are going to vote for him are really embarrassed.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Apologies, that was a very poor figure of speech on my behalf. Investment there was meant in terms of time and policy focus. You have only so many media hours and so many opportunities for state-wide campaigns; you can't headline thirty different policies you have all at once because there's only so much room in headlines. The best electoral policies to run on are going to be the best ones they've always been, more or less: here's why the economy will be better, because of our three reasons X, Y, and Z. That is the best media investment.
In terms of literal money investment, you are quite right that GoTV is incredibly important - but they're run by loads of different teams around the country and don't really "compete" (aside from for money) in the same way that potential policy headlines do for Clinton. I'm saying that if Clinton wants to use her media exposure most effectively, she needs to tell people why she's bringing jobs and wages. Swing voters are mostly white and they don't want to hear about minority issues, sadly. The more disaffected part of Clinton's base is white, and while they appreciate minority issues, they want to hear economic stuff more. So from both ends, that's where the votes are.
There's the likes of joe arpaio. I guess that's why.
Revengence for 84
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Catholics tend to split into different voting blocks.
Classical view points held that northern immigrants that were Catholic tended to vote D as they were working class union types.
The Catholic base has diversified a ton since those days though. You have a the old EU immigrant base. The new Hispanic block. Modern influx of Africa and Asian minority Catholics.
Plus they live all over the country now vs just the North East and Mid West.
So a lot of times they vote with the rest of their area. Southern white Catholics might vote closer to an Evangelical. Northern Catholics tend to still vote D like they have historically.
Plus the age divide where as older Latino Catholics tend to be more conservative in some of their views than their younger counter part.
Trump will skew the #s this time around though due to him being so harsh, crazy, racist, mean or whatever.
ShockingAlberto
Member
No lie, even considering Trump and his supporters in this election, the most insidiously hateful stuff I have seen has come from Bernie supporters on Reddit.
At least Trump supporters have the decency to be cartoonishly racist. During the most contentious parts of the primary, there was just a general assumption among some that black voters simply needed to be educated about Sanders, or educated in general, and that they didn't realize the great white hope was trying to help them.
That's the kind of racism that festers. The old and ignorant will die out, the young and holier-than-thou will stay for decades.
Yes, actually. People have short memories. However we both know Trump is phisically unable to keep his fucking mouth shut if the world depended on it (literally, lol). He's going to slip up again sometime this month, and there's gonna be a huge controversy, and his numbers are going to slip again.
Only because he's being increasingly seen as a loser.
People point to his treatment of the Khans, yet it's nothing new for him. Back in June 2015 (I think it was June 2015 at least) he actually criticized John McCain for being a POW. Like, I'm not talking about saying that being a POW doesn't in and of itself make you a hero (which is an example of the kind of blunt straight talk that his supporters wish he had). I mean he actually held John McCain's victimization against him
Nothing has changed except his perception.
gutter_trash
Banned
Texas voter turn out is still crap. Work needs to be done to turn out the vote
Whomever has been the Democratic party lead has always got 80-90% of the black vote. This hasn't changed since the 50's. They are the most static and predictable voting population in the country.
Latinos on the other hand have varied more. If the Republican party wasn't so intent on running an extreme anti-immigration policy loaded with racism. The vote would be more split and many times, Latino and Asian voters vote on the side of conservative values. Trump is basically doing her work for her in this regard.
"The general electorate doesn't pay attention till the conventions" seems to still be a true statement.
Safely past? No.
I was always under the impression that we'd have to wait until Labor Day to really get an accurate view of how each candidate is performing.
But, she isn't losing *any* of her bump... If anything, the gap is widening. I don't think that whatever bump she's experienced is going to be greatly diminished unless she fucks up badly within the next few weeks.
whyamihere
Banned
Jesus christ, and that's before any real Clinton presence in the state.
Obama lost GA by 304k votes, so intense voter registration plus all of Trump's issues and lack of a ground game (and being blindsided in places like GA, AZ) could cost him.
Even if she loses, it's an investment for 2020/2024.
Haunted
Member
Clinton should deny Trump any debates until he releases his tax returns.
Nah, Trump's already tried to weasel out of the first debate. Doing that would give him an out while still framing her as manipulating the media.
Saint Gregory
Member
It was really only DC since all Mondale did in Minnesota was win his home state... something considered a given until the gift to the far right Al Gore came on the scene :x
ShockingAlberto
Member
"Heavyweight boxer should not fight scared loud-mouth in the audience until he agrees to do something he didn't want to do."
Naw, it'd be better to simply hammer him on it during the debate.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
2024 was always in my mind the year the state finally flipped.
That's some big registration numbers though.
Earthstrike
Member
The objective is to win the election, not wyoming. Not spending money on wyoming is the correct, tryhard decision since it increases your odds of winning the election by allowing an investment elsewhere. I'm not even sure if you are being sarcastic, but if not, this is probably one of the stupidest things I've read.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked