Support NeoGAF

[entremet]

The conventional wisdom holds that sweeping demographic shifts propelled Barack Obama to the presidency.

So here’s a simple question: Why haven’t these demographics swept Hillary Clinton to a big polling lead and a smooth glide to victory? Donald J. Trump, after all, has alienated just about every growing demographic group and every category that helped push Mr. Obama to victory.

The biggest reason is that demographic change was an overrated contribution to Mr. Obama’s victory, and it will help Mrs. Clinton only at the margins this year. Analysts have conflated all of the effect of higher turnout and percentage of support among nonwhite voters with demographic shifts. In truth, the turnout and support were far more powerful components.

Mrs. Clinton is not poised to match the gains Mr. Obama made among nonwhite voters over previous Democratic nominees. That brings the pace of Democratic gains down to the slow crawl of demographic change.

Yes, demographic shifts will continue to slowly help Democrats. But Mrs. Clinton isn’t getting the same leaps in support and turnout among nonwhite voters that let Mr. Obama grow the Democratic coalition as much as he did.

On average, Mrs. Clinton leads among Hispanic voters by almost the exact same amount that Mr. Obama did in pre-election polls in 2012.

This is lost in many articles that cherry-pick the most shockingly pro-Clinton results. The results that don’t show her doing so well — like a Pew poll showing her leading by 50 to 26 — are dismissed, even though the same pollsters four years ago showed Mr. Obama faring about as well as he ultimately did.

Another reason Mrs. Clinton’s relative weakness among nonwhite voters has been overlooked is that analysts and journalists have tended to focus on how Mr. Trump is doing worse than Mr. Romney (Mr. Trump has only 15 percent support among Hispanics compared with Mr. Romney's 27 percent in the exit polls). But they leave out that Mrs. Clinton, by the same measure, is doing worse than Mr. Obama to the same extent.

Good analysis here.

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

I don't know, guys. It's gonna be rather close

 

[Wag]

I could be wrong but I think Trump will be our next president.😭

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

I'm expecting the worse from this point on.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Even if she's ultimately only doing as well as Obama with those minorities, don't the fact that Trump is doing historically low with said demographics offset that?

 

[CO_Andy]

can you imagine a world where taco trucks are on every corner?

 

[Lord Frieza]

I'm expecting the worse from this point on.

I could be wrong but I think Trump will be our next president.😭

Hillary is still well ahead of Trump and we're less than two months away from election day. Some of you are trying way to hard to bring back pre-DNC levels of panics, and just like before, you're not really paying much attention to the actual reality of the situation.

 

[entremet]

Even if she's ultimately only doing as well as Obama with those minorities, don't the fact that Trump is doing historically low with said demographics offset that?

From the article:

Mrs. Clinton is also in danger of losing at least some of the favorable shifts in turnout between 2004 and 2012, which benefited Mr. Obama. Black turnout may not exceed white turnout again, either because black turnout fades a bit, or because white turnout increases. I’m agnostic on this question: It is very difficult to project turnout with that kind of precision. But there’s more room for Mrs. Clinton to fall here than to make additional gains.

The bottom line is that Mrs. Clinton is unlikely to benefit from the same jump in black turnout and support that Mr. Obama had. Similarly, she is unlikely to repeat the same jump in support from Hispanic voters. It is possible she won’t see any gains among these groups at all.

Democratic gains from nonwhite voters have greatly slowed, to the marginal gains from demographic shifts alone.

The end result: According to The Upshot’s estimates, Mrs. Clinton’s gains from demographic change could be as small as a single percentage point.

 

[Mindlog]

We're not allowed to vote.

 

[The Technomancer]

This election comes down to two things:
-Trump's practically negative favorables with certain groups, in contrast to Clinton's "okay-ness"

-Clinton inherited Obama's Get Out The Vote ground game. Trump doesn't even have the normal RNC resources. Do not underestimate this. As we were just discussing in PoliGAF the Dems are working their asses off to get folks to vote, while a lot of white GOP members might arrive at the polls and realize that they aren't registered

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It turns out that trust and honesty are an issue for all voters, whites and non-whites.

 

[EMT0]

We're not allowed to vote.

Can confirm, cannot vote

 

[Maintenance]

From the article:

According to The Upshot’s estimates, Mrs. Clinton’s gains from demographic change could be as small as a single percentage point.

The 1% helping Hillary again.

 

[entremet]

This election comes down to two things:
-Trump's practically negative favorables with certain groups, in contrast to Clinton's "okay-ness"

-Clinton inherited Obama's Get Out The Vote ground game. Trump doesn't even have the normal RNC resources. Do not underestimate this. As we were just discussing in PoliGAF the Dems are working their asses off to get folks to vote, while a lot of white GOP members might arrive at the polls and realize that they aren't registered

What about all those Voter ID laws?

Many of those disenfranchised traditional Dem voters.

 

[Lord Frieza]

From the article:

I don't understand what this is implying then? That minorities simply aren't going to come out and vote, period?

 

[Torokil]

I'm shocked that a rich white girl from Arkansas isn't getting the same amount of minority love as a young black man from Chicago.

 

[exmachina64]

Fuck.

 

[Slayven]

To be fair Obama was historic

 

[Maintenance]

Calm your butts though, until Hillary loses Florida Trump can't win.

 

[Measley]

I refuse to believe that Clinton does worse than Obama among certain segments of the white population. I also refuse to believe that Trump beats Clinton among white women.

In the end though, it looks like its up to Brown and Black people to save the country once again.

 

[Lord Frieza]

What about all those Voter ID laws?

Many of those disenfranchised traditional Dem voters.

Most of these have been stricken down, though? Or at least this was my impression by the last round of articles about this. Have the Voter ID issue actually gotten that worse from 2012 to now? What specifically are we talking about here?

 

[entremet]

Most of these have been stricken down, though? Or at least this was my impression by the last round of articles about this. Have the Voter ID issue actually gotten that worse from 2012 to now? What specifically are we talking about here?

Not all. Many still remain.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

I don't think any candidate from the DNC was ever going to touch Obama with minority votes and for the GOP...ahahahaha....sorry couldn't keep straight face for that thought.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Sad!

 

[Lord Frieza]

Not all. Many still remain.

Can you be specifc? And is this issue more widespread now than in '12 or '08? What about the ones that were recently struck now, I think in NC and SC maybe? Those don't make a difference at all?

 

[jack_package_200]

I don't think any candidate from the DNC was ever going to touch Obama with minority votes.

This.

Obama had unprecedented support

 

[entremet]

Can you be specifc? And is this issue more widespread now than in '12 or '08? What about the ones that were recently struck now, I think in NC and SC maybe? Those don't make a difference at all?

Ohio, a battleground state is notable.

I need to look up more.

 

[Aaronology]

I am not going to assume this article is all over the place and contradictory, rather that I am tired from just getting home from work and incapable of accurately parsing what the author is trying to say.

That said, it seems to jump from saying one thing to the opposite in the next paragraph.

But Mrs. Clinton isn’t getting the same leaps in support and turnout among nonwhite voters that let Mr. Obama grow the Democratic coalition as much as he did.

On average, Mrs. Clinton leads among Hispanic voters by almost the exact same amount that Mr. Obama did in pre-election polls in 2012.

But they leave out that Mrs. Clinton, by the same measure, is doing worse than Mr. Obama to the same extent.

Mr. Obama, for instance, led the final Latino Decisions poll by a margin of 75 percent to 23 percent, about the same as Mrs. Clinton's current 71-19 lead in a recent survey.

And then this gem:

Mrs. Clinton isn’t doing better than Mr. Obama among black voters, either.

Did anyone, ever, at any point think any one was going to get more support from black voters than Obama?

I'm going to go make my supper and then maybe after unwinding I'll be able to get through this article.

 

[Jarmel]

Seems like a lack of enthusiasm on both sides. Turnout should be interesting this year.

 

[Delusibeta]

I don't understand what this is implying then? That minorities simply aren't going to come out and vote, period?

That seems to be the conclusion drawn, yes. Certainly, I don't think as many black Americans are going to vote for a white person than they did for Obama.

 

[Lord Frieza]

This article really doesn't make a lot of sense to me, to be honest. It seems that the basis of the article is that Hillary doesn't have the support that Obama did, which as mentioned was historic for obvious reasons, and that means she may be trouble because of that. But it also ignores the fact that her opponent is polling at historic lows with those same demographics, and not even polling at the same level as Obama's '12 opponent with whites. But she won't get help because...minorities won't come out to vote at all, I guess? But I don't know, I have a hard time buying that when Trump has been the most racially controversial candidate in years and race has become a central issue in this election. Unless I'm misunderstanding the thesis of this article, I don't really see the logic behind it.

 

[The Beard]

So, the hot sauce in the purse attempt at "relating" didn't work? That's odd.

 

[Nakazato]

It ok the we will get to polls

 

[BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO]

This article really doesn't make a lot of sense to me, to be honest. It seems that the basis of the article is that Hillary doesn't have the support that Obama did, which as mentioned was historic for obvious reasons, and that means she may be trouble because of that. But it also ignores the fact that her opponent is polling at historic lows with those same demographics, and not even polling at the same level as Obama's '12 opponent with whites. But she won't get help because...minorities won't come out to vote at all, I guess? But I don't know, I have a hard time buying that when Trump has been the most racially controversial candidate in years and race has become a central issue in this election. Unless I'm misunderstanding the thesis of this article, I don't really see the logic behind it.

.

 

[Koyuga]

Should this really be too surprising? She's not Obama, and it isn't 2008.

 

[sixteen-bit]

 

[Lord Frieza]

That seems to be the conclusion drawn, yes. Certainly, I don't think as many black Americans are going to vote for a white person than they did for Obama.

Sure, but do we really not think at least a sizable amount of them will come to vote against Trump considering there are polls out there that literally have him polling at zero percent with blacks? If Trump were just your normal hum-drum guy maybe, but with as important as race has been in this election, are we really expecting minorities to be so complacent?

 

[excelsiorlef]

So, the hot sauce in the purse attempt at "relating" didn't work? That's odd.

Can we drop this nonsense? She's carried hot sauce in her purse since like at least the early fucking 90s

 

[Slayven]

So, the hot sauce in the purse attempt at "relating" didn't work? That's odd.

Brah

 

[Trojita]

I'm shocked that a well off white woman from Chicago isn't getting the same amount of minority love as a half black man from Hawaii.

Fixed for accuracy.

There were a lot of voters in the last 8 years that weren't going to be voting in this coming election no matter what Democrats stated. Obama was a historic one time thing.

 

[Particle Physicist]

On average, Mrs. Clinton leads among Hispanic voters by almost the exact same amount that Mr. Obama did in pre-election polls in 2012.

Wait, if I am reading this correctly, they are saying that she is getting similar support, she just has not increased support?

 

[Sir Alemeth]

I could be wrong but I think Trump will be our next president.

Oh fuck no. Fuck. No.
With all the shit that happened over the last week and she's still leading him by 5 points in the polls. He is fucking done.

There aren't enough old racist white men that can save that orange fucker.

Fuck Trump.

 

[entremet]

This article really doesn't make a lot of sense to me, to be honest. It seems that the basis of the article is that Hillary doesn't have the support that Obama did, which as mentioned was historic for obvious reasons, and that means she may be trouble because of that. But it also ignores the fact that her opponent is polling at historic lows with those same demographics, and not even polling at the same level as Obama's '12 opponent with whites. But she won't get help because...minorities won't come out to vote at all, I guess? But I don't know, I have a hard time buying that when Trump has been the most racially controversial candidate in years and race has become a central issue in this election. Unless I'm misunderstanding the thesis of this article, I don't really see the logic behind it.

It's saying the demographic advantage isn't translating to a substantial polling advantage.

The support is there, but there won't be a big jump reflected since growth remained flat.

 

[jack_package_200]

So, the hot sauce in the purse attempt at "relating" didn't work? That's odd.

Are we really back at the fucking hotsauce crap from the primaries? Really?

 

[Aaronology]

Can we drop this nonsense? She's carried hot sauce in her purse since like at least the early fucking 90s

I don't know. I kind of like it when people say things that immediately identify what type of poster they are.

 

[NeonZ]

I am not going to assume this article is all over the place and contradictory, rather that I am tired from just getting home from work and incapable of accurately parsing what the author is trying to say.

The article is saying that Clinton's numbers with Blacks and Hispanics are lower than Obama's, but people ignore that due to Trumps' own numbers with those demographics also being lower than the last Republican candidate's, resulting in the difference between the candidates for those demographics remaining mostly the same as in the last election, rather than Clinton's lead increasing compared to Obama's due to Trumps' lower numbers. This doesn't mean that Trump is anywhere close to her though.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

It's saying the demographic advantage isn't translating to a substantial polling advantage.

The support is there, but there won't be a big jump reflected since growth remained flat.

She's at the exact same percent Obama was at during this stage in the race in 2012.

 

[Delusibeta]

Sure, but do we really not think at least a sizable amount of them will come to vote against Trump considering there are polls out there that literally have him polling at zero percent with blacks? If Trump were just your normal hum-drum guy maybe, but with as important as race has been in this election, are we really expecting minorities to be so complacent?

Honestly? Given how "Trump's polling is terrible" is a regular article on the more liberal news sites, I would honestly say yes, they would be that complacent.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I don't know. I kind of like it when people say things that immediately identify what type of poster they are.

Touche

But it spreads misinformation

 

[Lord Frieza]

It's saying the demographic advantage isn't translating to a substantial polling advantage.

The support is there, but there won't be a big jump reflected since growth remained flat.

I'm still not following. If doesn't translate to polling advantage? But she has significant polling advantage over Trump in these demographics. It's not even really that close. Or are we saying it stagnating from election to election for democrats and that's bad? I guess maybe I am just confused on what the overall message being conveyed is.

 

[entremet]

She's at the exact same percent Obama was at during this stage in the race in 2012.

But wouldn't you think she would be leading more comfortably based on the huge demographic gap between her rival?

It's not as big. That's the point of article.

I'm still not following. If doesn't translate to polling advantage? But she has significant polling advantage over Trump in these demographics. It's not even really that close. Or are we saying it stagnating from election to election for democrats and that's bad? I guess maybe I am just confused on what the overall message being conveyed is.

The polling advantage in the demographic isn't translating to bigger win in the national polling.