Trump did much better than expected among minorities (edit: based on questionable exit polls)

And yet, we have enough evidence now of shy Trumpism that I do wonder if there's a substantial effect caused by being interviewed by a specifically Latino polling firm. Perhaps it's harder to admit Trump support to them. Do we have any exit polls that were not conducted by either CNN or Latino Decisions?

I'll do some digging in election data in majority-Hispanic counties in the Southwest to compare their current results and turnout to that in 2012.

edit: Apparently Latino Decisions was actually analyzing real returns, so the shy behavior doesn't fit. Maybe CNN did screw up, given this has been a rather embarrassing election for pollsters in general. Seeing other exit polls would be good to find out if they're an outlier or not.
 
Cw0dBmcXEAEbf8h.jpg:large


Not much movement in the Southwest.
 
Actually it looks like there is a small pro-Trump shift in the overwhelmingly Latino counties in South Texas, along with the Latino regions of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. It's nothing like the Rust Belt shift, but I'm only checking to see if the results are consistent with Trump getting a slightly higher proportion of Latinos than Romney did. It could just be that the relatively few non-Hispanic whites turned out in force though, I'd need to look further to be sure.
 
Would you consider marrying or having sex with a man?

Lol. That was a good one. I'll give you that.

We are going to find out which of us has been living inside the bubble. Clinton was deeply flawed with so much baggage, Trump though is going to be wired around the necks of the Republican party for four years. Either we are right about the coming trainwreck based or Trump is going to pull an amazing Jacykle and Hyde act to be able to deliever, well deliver might be too much I would settle for not sinking the country

I hope you made the right choice

What you'd consider a train wreck is what the people knowingly voted for and what you knowingly voted for is what they consider a train wreck. That means there's tough times ahead. The republican and democratic parties are going to cease to exist as they recently were. The left has pulled the world into an irreversible series of events and now it just has to play out. This election was largely reactionary against the liberal establishment and the establishment politicians. I have no remorse and no regrets about my decision.

edit: Apparently Latino Decisions was actually analyzing real returns, so the shy behavior doesn't fit. Maybe CNN did screw up, given this has been a rather embarrassing election for pollsters in general. Seeing other exit polls would be good to find out if they're an outlier or not.

They screwed up accidentally on purpose.
 
Last edited:
edit: Apparently Latino Decisions was actually analyzing real returns, so the shy behavior doesn't fit. Maybe CNN did screw up, given this has been a rather embarrassing election for pollsters in general. Seeing other exit polls would be good to find out if they're an outlier or not.

One theory - if there's divergent behaviour by English-preferring, second-generation-or-older Latinos and newer and Spanish-preferring migrants. A generalist exit poll would be likely to undersample the latter, and not necessarily to stratify the different elements of Latino voters very well or at all. It could also be oversampling of the Cuban exile community, with the same inadequate stratification.
 
Hillary voters, millennials, insane people, brainwashed. Lots of people voted for Hillary after all. I can't think of any other reason.


Brainwashing is real.

If you don't vote for Hillary you're a deplorable rayyssis, sexist, misogynist, bigot, hater, Nazi, KKK sympathizer.
 
One of the most interesting results of the night is that Trump's voter base is not actually all-white; it's still pretty white, being the GOP and all, but it appears to be less white than Mitt Romney's voters four years ago. The margin was 65-29 for Clinton among Latinos, compared to Obama's 71-27 margin among Hispanic voters four years ago. The margins would then be 36 points now versus 44 points then, for a swing of 8 percentage points to Trump. The black vote also appears to have reverted to its pre-Obama 80-point margin rather than the 2012 87-point margin. Meanwhile, the white margin went from 20 to 21 points; I would assume this is within the margin of error.

A difference of 1 percentage point is hardly of any statistical significance. At any rate, it would appear that Trump was more successful in getting people to vote - even though he got 200,000 votes less.than his opponent. In the end, Trump won the states. And that's what counts.
 
A difference of 1 percentage point is hardly of any statistical significance. At any rate, it would appear that Trump was more successful in getting people to vote - even though he got 200,000 votes less.than his opponent. In the end, Trump won the states. And that's what counts.
Right, that's what I was saying when I said that it was likely within the margin of error.

I don't claim that Trump certainly beat Romney's numbers among Hispanics, although sifting through some more data on South Texas, New Mexico, and southernmost Colorado show in general no significant differences, with perhaps a very slight edge to Trump over Romney. This is all broadly consistent with CNN's claim, although it wouldn't surprise me if this was somewhat inflated if their exit pollsters don't speak Spanish. I'll need to check Latino Decisions' study and results from other heavily Hispanic areas to see what exactly they did to arrive at their claim. It would be good to break out Cubans from the rest of Hispanics and look at them separately.
 
Feel free. As a non-US citizen the most interesting thing to me is that you can become president with less votes than your opponent. And it's not the first time this has happened.
 
Actually it looks like there is a small pro-Trump shift in the overwhelmingly Latino counties in South Texas, along with the Latino regions of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. It's nothing like the Rust Belt shift, but I'm only checking to see if the results are consistent with Trump getting a slightly higher proportion of Latinos than Romney did. It could just be that the relatively few non-Hispanic whites turned out in force though, I'd need to look further to be sure.
That matches patterns from the primary.

Latinos who lived on the border voted Trump.
 
Brainwashing is real.

If you don't vote for Hillary you're a deplorable rayyssis, sexist, misogynist, bigot, hater, Nazi, KKK sympathizer.
I did vote for Romney and McCain, I'm atleast as deplorable. Also I think it spreads by association, I understand where Trumpers are coming from on some of these impure thoughts.
 
Well, maybe the horrors of racism, sexism and other ism are not perceived to be as horrific as it seems to liberal elites engulfed in holy madness by constant self-flagellation in trying to achieve sainthood. Maybe actual minorities more troubled with economy and stuff, who knows. As for women, it is obvious: women dislike other women and love strong, confident men. So even using the powerful propaganda machine, Democrats could not overwhelm these basic women drives.
 
One of the most interesting results of the night is that Trump's voter base is not actually all-white; it's still pretty white, being the GOP and all, but it appears to be less white than Mitt Romney's voters four years ago. The margin was 65-29 for Clinton among Latinos, compared to Obama's 71-27 margin among Hispanic voters four years ago. The margins would then be 36 points now versus 44 points then, for a swing of 8 percentage points to Trump. The black vote also appears to have reverted to its pre-Obama 80-point margin rather than the 2012 87-point margin. Meanwhile, the white margin went from 20 to 21 points; I would assume this is within the margin of error. College-educated whites and non-college educated whites did split by quite a bit, but the college-educated group still stayed 4 points more Republican than usual. The gender gap did get quite a bit wider as expected, but this is about the only demographic prediction that really came true.

Here's the link: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...s-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

It would appear that mainstream liberals greatly overestimated the role of racial demography in this election, and that Trump had substantial appeal to Latino citizens, presumably especially Latino men. I have a radical suggestion, which I got from the polling thread when inno predicted the polls were going to be crap and that dividing people up by demographic groups is both flawed and dehumanizing. I thought he was wrong, but as often happens, it turned out he had made the right call.

Is it possible that people really don't like being chopped up and treated as racial/religious/gender/etc. demographics, and is it possible that attitudes among different racial and ethnic groups are more similar to those of whites than liberals assumed? There are still big differences, obviously, but maybe we should dial back the use of race to explain everything.

Finally, is the fact that the Trump Train contains a significant number of Latino citizens going to have any moderating effect on how he will behave towards Latinos, or towards blacks?

Please stop citing those statistics, because they are wrong. Latino Decisions specializes in polling Latino voters, and they report that Hillary Clinton won Latinos by a 78-19 margin.

The Rundown on Latino Voter Election Eve Polling and Latino Exit Polls

by Latino Decisions on 11/09/2016

Washington, DC – On a press call and webinar held today, Matt Barreto, UCLA Professor of Political Science and Chicano Studies, and Co-Founder of Latino Decisions, presented the results of the Latino Decisions Election Eve poll. The key finding: Latinos backed Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by a 78-19% margin.

Barreto also highlighted why the national exit polls miss the mark when it comes to capturing sub-groups such as Latino voters, and why the exit poll estimate that Clinton beat Trump by a narrower 65-29% margin among Latinos should be greeted with extreme skepticism.

As pointed out in the presentation, the Latino Decisions finding on national presidential margin is consistent with high-quality, large-sample, bilingual polls carried out by a number of groups in recent months. For example, the Latino Decisions’ Election Eve finding is similar to the findings of theUnivision/Washington Post poll, which had Trump at 19% among Latinos; the NBC/Telemundooversample which found Trump at 17%; the NALEO/Telemundo poll which found Trump at 14%; the FIU/New Latino Voice which found Trump at 13%; and the Justin Gross statistical model that found Trump at 18%.

Further, Barreto pointed to an examination of the actual election results from counties and precincts which are majority Latino show higher rates of Latino voter turnout in 2016, and show Clinton winning roughly 80% of the Latino vote. Barreto also presented initial findings assessing Latino turnout across the country. In county-level analyses of Latino-heavy sections of Florida, New Mexico, and Texas, for example, Latino voters were voting in higher numbers and in candidate margins similar to the margin found in the Latino Decisions Election Eve poll.

During the presentation today, Barreto pointed out that by its own admission, Edison Media Research, who carries out the exit polls, admitted that its sampling “is not designed to yield very reliable estimates of the characteristics of small, geographically clustered demographic groups.” He noted the lack of transparency in the selection of precincts to sample, and suggested that journalists should ask the following questions of the exit polls before accepting them as useful for conclusions regarding Latino voters: “Which precincts did they select? How many were in Latino neighborhoods? How many Spanish interviews did they conduct? And did they match Latino sample to known Census demographics?”

Edison, the firm who does the exit polling that the media outlets then all report, does a poor job reaching a representative sample of Latino voters by their own admission. They themselves seem to be agreeing that Hillary pulled about 80% of the Latino vote. Now to be fair, this isn't being ascertained through actual exit polling, but by examining turnout and vote totals in majority Latino precincts, but given the unreliable data from Edison, and the fact that LD is using actual voting data, I'd wager it's more reliable.

The margins among black voters were down a bit, assuming those are reliable. But Trump still only pulled a reported 7% of black voters. I don't know a person out there who didn't expect some drop among African-American voters, and this is neither surprising, nor even particularly noteworthy.
 
Last edited:
65-29 for Clinton among Latinos, compared to Obama's 71-27 margin among Hispanic voters four years ago

That's not really such a huge difference. Wow so 2% more Latinos voted for the Republican candidate this time around. Big deal, it doesn't mean anything
 
That's not really such a huge difference. Wow so 2% more Latinos voted for the Republican candidate this time around. Big deal, it doesn't mean anything
Considering the rhetoric of Trump, which was very vitriolic toward south migrants, even keeping stable is something to ponder.
 
Back
Top Bottom