# The Divide: The "Trumpians" vs. the expected 2016 demographics



## Statistikhengst (Jul 10, 2015)

Charlie Cook and David Wasserman just put out an interesting analysis of the 2016 election in terms of demographics, and the concensus is that it looks very, very ugly for the GOP, much uglier than the GOP wants to admit.

So, here we go:

2016 Voters by the Numbers - NationalJournal.com



> ..through a demographic lens, the modern GOP's increasing reliance on a shrinking pool of older, white, and working-class voters—and its failure to attract nonwhite voters—would seem to present an enormous obstacle to the eventual Republican nominee. In 1980, when nonwhite voters were just 12 percent of the electorate, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of white voters and was elected in a landslide. But in 2012, when nonwhite voters accounted for 28 percent of the electorate, Mitt Romney took 59 percent of white voters—and lost the presidential race by 4 percentage points. Without a total brand makeover, how can Republicans expect to prevail with an even more diverse electorate in 2016?...
> 
> ...*If the electorate evolves in sync with the Census Bureau's estimates* of the adult citizen population (admittedly, a big if), *the white share of the electorate would drop from 72 percent in 2012 to 70 percent in 2016; the African-American share would remain stable at 13 percent; the Latino portion would grow from 10 percent to 11 percent; and the Asian/other segment would increase from 5 percent to 6 percent. *If the 2012 election had been held with that breakdown (keeping all other variables stable), President Obama would have won by 5.4 percentage points rather than by his actual 3.85-point margin.
> 
> In addition, the group with which the GOP does best—whites without college degrees—is the only one poised to shrink in 2016. President Obama won just 36 percent of these voters in 2012, while 42 percent of white voters with college degrees pulled the lever for him. But if the electorate changes in line with census estimates, the slice of college-educated whites will grow by 1 point, to 37 percent of all voters, while the portion of whites without degrees will shrink 3 points, to just 33 percent of the total. In other words, the GOP doesn't just have a growing problem with nonwhites; it has a shrinkage problem as well, as conservative white seniors are supplanted by college-educated millennials with different cultural attitudes.




That's it, in a nutshell.

To back up the stats, here are the exit polls from 1976 through 2012:

How Groups Voted in 1976 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 1980 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 1984 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 1988 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 1992 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 1996 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 2000 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 2004 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 2008 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 2012 - Roper Center


Yes, the statistic from 1980 is correct but at the same time somewhat misleading. Ronald Reagan only took 56% of the White vote in 1980 and still won with a +9.74% landslide over Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter because it was a three man race and John Anderson (Independent) was also in the mix.

In 1984, the second largest popular vote landslide since 1964 and the largest EV landslide since 1936, Ronald Reagan took 66% of the White Vote, which is the high water mark in this category since Roper has been polling for voter demographics.

The main message is that Romney came close to 60% of the White Vote in 2012 and still lost to Obama by 3.86 points. The reason is obvious: a shrinking White electorate, and a elderly White electorate that is shrinking even more quickly.

So, in 2016, even if for some reason, a GOP nominee were to get 66% of the White Vote as did Ronald Reagan in 1984, since the White Vote is likely to go from 72% of the electorate in 2012 to 70% of the electorate in 2016, that would probably not be enough to get a GOPer over the top in the EC, but maybe in the PV. The problem with that is that no GOPer is likely to get to 66% of the White Vote, because the female vote is already showing a major tendency toward Hillary Clinton (D), also among White Women.

As the data shows, had Obama won with the same groups, but with the projected 2016 demographics, his margin would have been +5.4 over Romney instead of +3.9. That's an automatic 1.5 point difference, just based on expected shifts in the demographics for the next presidential cycle.

The math makes it clear: without inroads into the minority vote, there is no real path for a GOP victory at the national level, plain and simple.

And Charlie Cook's assumption that the White Vote will sink again in 2016 is exactly in line with electoral history. In fact, instead of 70%, I would not be surprised if the White Vote clocks in at 69% in 2016.

Here the exact numbers for the White Vote, vis-a-vis electorate and GOP take of the White vote:

YEAR  / % of electorate / Republican take
1976: 89% / 52%
1980: 88% / 56% (three-man-race)
1984: 86% / 66%
1988: 85% / 60%
1992: 87% / 41% (three-man-race)
1996: 83% / 46% (three-man-race)
2000: 81% / 55%
2004: 77% / 58%
2008: 74% / 55%
2012: 72% / 59%


Actually, I think that Charlie Cook's comparison of Reagan to Romney was false. It is much more logical to compare Bush 41 to Romney. In 1988, Bush 41 took 60% of the White Vote and won the election by +7.73%. In 2012, Romney won the White Vote by 59% (he did better than Bush 43 from both 2000 and 2004!), but lost by -3.86%. That's an 11.59% difference, in spite of the fact that both gentlemen took essentially the same amount of the White Vote.

This is how much of a difference the electorate shows when it goes from being 85% White (1988) to 72% White (2012).

Let's look at the shifts as well. In every cycle EXCEPT 1992, the White Vote shrunk over the previous cycle. And since 1996, the White Vote has shrunk by no less than 2% over the previous cycle, so a prediction of 70% for the White Vote in 2016 is absolutely in-line with electoral history.

Also, let's think about the Women's vote:

Obama won the women's vote by +13 in 2008 and by +11 in 2012. Hillary is polling between +15 and +21 in the women's vote and has been the entire time - and I am being VERY conservative with this estimate here: against Ted Cruz, it's +29. Let's take a mean of +18, 5 points higher than Obama's margin from 2012. Assuming 90% of the Black Vote for Hillary, 70% of the Asian Vote and at least 70% of the Latino vote, this can only mean a certain amount of that rise in the women's vote must come from White women voters, which leads to the logical assumption that it is going to be very hard for a Republican to get above 59% of the White Vote overall, much less even hold at 59%.

So, at a time when Donald Trump is holding a mega-anti-immigration rally in a state well known for it's antipathy toward Latinos, namely, Arizona, the demographics are pointing clearly to a need for the Republican nominee to make inroads into the Latino vote.

It's that simple. And it is also the reason for the title of the OP: "The Divide" - because there is a huge divide between that which seems to attract the ultra-conservative majority of the Republican party in a primary election - and that which will attract General Election voters in November 2016.

In other words, the phenomenon of the  "red-meat" that Mitt Romney threw to the Right in 2012, which then ended up being a poison-pill for him in the General, appears to be even more prominent looking toward 2016.

George W. Bush (43) managed to get to -9 in the Latino vote in 2004 and he took 58% of the White Vote, and that barely got him over 270 EV (286, to be exact). With a reduced White electorate looming in 2016, a GOPer cannot afford anything worse than -10 in the Latino vote, and it looks like the cleft might be as large as -60. That is a math that they cannot win with.

Yepp, the demographic numbers look brutal for the GOP in 2016.


----------



## PredFan (Jul 10, 2015)

ZZZZZzzzzzzzz....bunch of left wing nutters trying to tell us how to vote, how to win elections, Blah blah blah.

ZZZZZzzzzzz......


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 10, 2015)

PredFan said:


> ZZZZZzzzzzzzz....bunch of left wing nutters trying to tell us how to vote, how to win elections, Blah blah blah.
> 
> ZZZZZzzzzzz......



Uhm, no.

And Charlie Cook is anything but a Leftie.

Try again.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 10, 2015)

PredFan said:


> ZZZZZzzzzzzzz....bunch of left wing nutters trying to tell us how to vote, how to win elections, Blah blah blah.
> 
> ZZZZZzzzzzz......


They are concerned for us...........It's enough to make you sniffle.............Do you have a hankie..........


----------



## PredFan (Jul 10, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > ZZZZZzzzzzzzz....bunch of left wing nutters trying to tell us how to vote, how to win elections, Blah blah blah.
> ...



ZZZZZZZzzzzzzz.......


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 10, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > ZZZZZzzzzzzzz....bunch of left wing nutters trying to tell us how to vote, how to win elections, Blah blah blah.
> ...


LOL

I'm so glad you are concerned for the GOP............It's moving................


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 10, 2015)




----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 10, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...




You misunderstand.

It's not concern.

It's math.

Now, wake up and look at the math for yourself and decide whether or not the GOP should fucking stop hating on brown people before it is too late.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 10, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> That's an 11.59% difference, in spite of the fact that both gentlemen took essentially the same amount of the White Vote.
> 
> This is how much of a difference the electorate shows when it goes from being 85% White (1988) to 72% White (2012).



So a 13% drop in the white vote equated to an 11.6% drop in support for the GOP candidates.

And it is going to be a 15% drop by 2016 which will make the difference over 13% in GOP support without factoring in the female vote swing.

It means that the GOP has to make up a deficit in white votes without replacing them with minority votes.

There is no way that someone like Trump can close a gap that big. In fact the only slim possibility out there might be Kasich and he isn't even showing up on the 1st primary debate radar.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 10, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


The day I need a Statist to tell me what I should think is the day I'll take a stroll in hell....................Your side's position is transparent............refuse to enforce immigration laws on the books............yell Amnesty.............vote early and often.............

The immigration debate to the left is about votes and nothing more.............it's understood that you ignore laws with glee and say you are for the country.............

so.................

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......................


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 10, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...





Well, ok, you go with that, mkay?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 10, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


----------



## Shrimpbox (Jul 10, 2015)

Remember stat has bet the farm on Hilary winning and winning big. He must do everything he can to brainwash everyone that Hilary is an unstoppable force of nature. His numbers don't match up with head to head poll numbers with some,of the leading republicans, remember he cherry picks his polls. He also is relying heavily on the women vote thing. While there are drones who will vote for her even if she is lucifer, many women are not happy with the foundation, the lies, and the artifice. If republicans are lucky enough to get a Rubio or cruz(both of whose poll numbers are going up) she will be demolished in a debate. She goes down more every month and the future looks bleak with revelations coming out every month. It is all smoke and mirrors and money.

Hillary Clinton s poll numbers signal trouble ahead - Annie Karni and Gabriel Debenedetti - POLITICO


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 10, 2015)

Democrats continue group think and pigeonhole people in groups from which the democrats don't let them escape. 

What you could well see is the general dissatisfaction erupt in a primal scream of rage of the majority, which might just include members of the classified groups.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 10, 2015)

Hillary ahead by 34% in her 2020 reelection bid. 57 state sweep?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 10, 2015)

Shrimpbox said:


> Remember stat has bet the farm on Hilary winning and winning big. He must do everything he can to brainwash everyone that Hilary is an unstoppable force of nature. His numbers don't match up with head to head poll numbers with some,of the leading republicans, remember he cherry picks his polls. He also is relying heavily on the women vote thing. While there are drones who will vote for her even if she is lucifer, many women are not happy with the foundation, the lies, and the artifice. If republicans are lucky enough to get a Rubio or cruz(both of whose poll numbers are going up) she will be demolished in a debate. She goes down more every month and the future looks bleak with revelations coming out every month. It is all smoke and mirrors and money.
> 
> Hillary Clinton s poll numbers signal trouble ahead - Annie Karni and Gabriel Debenedetti - POLITICO



Gosh!

The entire GOP clown cavalcade are taking pot shots at her and she is taking friendly fire on the left too and her poll ratings are taking a hit.

Who would have guessed that might happen?

Note too that the Hillary campaign hasn't bothered to fire back yet because so many of the barbs are coming from losers who won't even make the 1st GOP primary and many who won't even make it as far as Iowa either.

No point in wasting funds on those deadbeats.

When clear frontrunner's emerge from the GOP rabble that will be the time to start returning fire.

Needless to say none of the GOP clowns are capable of withstanding the kind of onslaught that she has endured for the past 25 years. None of them are as battle hardened and have the experience that she has.

So the GOP is fighting a losing battle on too many fronts. 


They are up against a formidable opponent on the left.
They are disorganized and engaging in petty squabbles within the GOP itself.
They don't have a platform that will appeal to minorities.
They don't have a clear vision for the future of their own party, let alone the nation.
They cannot control their own messaging.

So that is why the Hillary campaign isn't in the least bit worried because there is no cohesive threat from the GOP. Right now Bernie Sanders is more of a threat to her election chances than everything the GOP has combined.

And no, Bernie isn't going to get the Dem nomination because he doesn't have the organization to make that happen and he doesn't have the time or funds to get it together either.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 10, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Democrats continue group think and pigeonhole people in groups from which the democrats don't let them escape.
> 
> What you could well see is the general dissatisfaction erupt in a primal scream of rage of the majority, which might just include members of the classified groups.



You can scream all you want but you cannot alter the math of the demographics in the OP!


----------



## defcon4 (Jul 10, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


How is the weather over there? Hey it is bedtime for you!!! Put your PJs on and go to bed!


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 10, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats continue group think and pigeonhole people in groups from which the democrats don't let them escape.
> ...


It doesn't matter because people are individuals and not groups.  Only democrats believe in the hive mind.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 10, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...



Ironic coming from the GOP Borg.

Try refuting the numbers in the OP.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jul 10, 2015)

Do you mean, Stat, that Trump is NOT going to be our next president? But Trump said that he was going to get the Latino vote! I have already ordered my Trump Collection suit from the factory in Mexico!


----------



## Toro (Jul 10, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Charlie Cook and David Wasserman just put out an interesting analysis of the 2016 election in terms of demographics, and the concensus is that it looks very, very ugly for the GOP, much uglier than the GOP wants to admit.
> 
> So, here we go:
> 
> ...



I didn't read any of this because it was too long and there were too many big words, but Trump rools!  

America, fuck yeah!


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 10, 2015)

Toro said:


> but Trump rools!



You dropped the 'd'!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 10, 2015)

Toro said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Cook and David Wasserman just put out an interesting analysis of the 2016 election in terms of demographics, and the concensus is that it looks very, very ugly for the GOP, much uglier than the GOP wants to admit.
> ...




Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 10, 2015)

Shrimpbox said:


> Remember stat has bet the farm on Hilary winning and winning big. He must do everything he can to brainwash everyone that Hilary is an unstoppable force of nature. His numbers don't match up with head to head poll numbers with some,of the leading republicans, remember he cherry picks his polls. He also is relying heavily on the women vote thing. While there are drones who will vote for her even if she is lucifer, many women are not happy with the foundation, the lies, and the artifice. If republicans are lucky enough to get a Rubio or cruz(both of whose poll numbers are going up) she will be demolished in a debate. She goes down more every month and the future looks bleak with revelations coming out every month. It is all smoke and mirrors and money.
> 
> Hillary Clinton s poll numbers signal trouble ahead - Annie Karni and Gabriel Debenedetti - POLITICO


It's not about me.

It's about simple math.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 10, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


And only fools ignore simple math.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 10, 2015)

Fourth dumb "let's make fun of trump" thread today. Meh.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 10, 2015)

Whoops I mean the sixth.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 10, 2015)

Not surprising the RWs don't understand the OP.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 10, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Fourth dumb "let's make fun of trump" thread today. Meh.



koshergrl dimbulb nazi

IOW, it went right over your head too.

Where is anyone making fun of Drumpf?

Its math. Just pure facts.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 10, 2015)

From the OP:

_"It's that simple. And it is also the reason for the title of the OP: "The Divide" - because there is a huge divide between that which seems to attract the ultra-conservative majority of the Republican party in a primary election - and that which will attract General Election voters in November 2016."_


This^^^

Its very much what we have seen in past elections as well. In the case of the low-info RWs, they get all excited over some idiot ... Then, the idiot shows his true colors and he falls from grace, only to be replaced by yet another idiot. This election will be the same.

Stat, your OP really is way too intelligent for the red meat RWs. They're in love with Trump BECAUSE he doesn't fool with silly things like facts. He tells them the lies they want to hear. Let's hope he keeps doing exactly that.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jul 10, 2015)

You can tell that not ONE rightwinger read the OP.  What were you thinking Stat?  You know they haven't gotten past My Pet Goat.


You should have started them out with a chart or something.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 11, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > That's an 11.59% difference, in spite of the fact that both gentlemen took essentially the same amount of the White Vote.
> ...



A Kasich/Rubio ticket is about the only ticket I can imagine having any chance of winning, because it would give Republicans a much better chance of capturing both Ohio and Florida.  If Jeb wins the nomination, he needs an Hispanic on the ticket, but Rubio is also from Florida, so that becomes a problem.  A Bush/Kasich ticket would be a disaster, and Cruz is not a viable VP choice for Bush.  Maybe Bush goes with Martinez if he wins the nomination.


----------



## guno (Jul 11, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Democrats continue group think and pigeonhole people in groups from which the democrats don't let them escape.
> 
> What you could well see is the general dissatisfaction erupt in a primal scream of rage of the majority, which might just include members of the classified groups.


----------



## guno (Jul 11, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...




In other words, either you didn't read the OP or two many big words or reading numbers hurt your head


----------



## guno (Jul 11, 2015)

PredFan said:


> ZZZZZzzzzzzzz....bunch of left wing nutters trying to tell us how to vote, how to win elections, Blah blah blah.
> 
> ZZZZZzzzzzz......


Just keep on doing what you guys are doing and you will go the way of the wigg party 

White deaths outnumber births for first time - The Washington Post


----------



## guno (Jul 11, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Fourth dumb "let's make fun of trump" thread today. Meh.





Luddly Neddite said:


> Not surprising the RWs don't understand the OP.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 11, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Fourth dumb "let's make fun of trump" thread today. Meh.
> ...



Luddly Neddite


And the point is that, _aside from the pure math_, it is not so much about Trump at all, but rather, the raw, unbridled hatred of minorities that is just seething right under the surface of the Conservative wing of the Republican Party, which Donald Trump has tapped-into quite sucessfully, at least at present.

The point is much more that the GOP continues to make the very same mistake of having personalities with high name recognition within their party say very, very inflammatory things about minorities, in this case, specifically targeted at Latinos, and the bigger mistake is that they make no distinction between Latinos who are illegal immigrants and Latinos who are legal US-Citizens.   The GOP has completely underestimated the power of the sleeping bear that is the Latino vote and many GOPers are unwilling to show even the most basic of kindness and decency to Latinos for fear of losing the extreme RW-base vote in the primaries.

You just cannot undo the words that so many GOPers have said about Latinos. It's on video, it's in the print media, and most importantly of all, it's in the minds of the US-Latino community. This doesn't mean that Latinos are inclined to automatically vote for a Democratic candidate at all, but seeing such a tidal wave of hatred aimed at their community by the Republican Party (and mind you, the GOP doesn't even bother to cloak this hatred in code-words anymore, it just throws it out there), then most Latinos have no choice but to vote for a Democratic candidate.

They also know who fought like hell FOR immigration reform in the last 6 years, and who did not.

Take this as an example: Chip Saltzman, then-head of the RNC in 2009, put out a Christmas CD for the Republican Party with cool tune titles like "Barack the magic Negro" and "Jose, can you see" (the Star Spangled Banner, ala Latino.... and not complimentary at all). As a result of this fiasco, Saltzman lost his posting as Head of the RNC by a narrow vote, but only narrowly. To those Republicans, this bullshit is "humor".  I doubt that many Latinos found it to be humorous.  Tom Tancredo, first as a Republican, then as a Consitution Party candidate for the US Senate in Colorado in 2010 (after Dan Maes fell under 10%), said that Latinos should have to take literacy tests in order to be able to vote. Yes, Jim Crow all over again. This did not sit well with the Latino community. Mitt Romney looked at Latino constituents while on the campaign trail and told them they should "self deport". This did not sit well with the Latino community.

Donald Trump said that Mexico is sending rapists, murderers and drug traffickers across the border. He is referring to Latinos from Mexico and Middle America. He then says that he would, as POTUS, build a complete wall between Texas and Mexico and force the Mexican government to pay for this.  Perhaps the worst part of what he said was the flippant end to the one sentence with 'and some are good people', as just an afterthought.  There are just so many problems with this, it's hard to know where to begin. First, Mexico is not 'sending' anyone anywhere. Mexico has as many problems controlling its border as we are having. Second, it's probably true that some of those who come across the border illegally are indeed criminals; it only makes sense that criminals would want to escape capture and prosecution in their land by disappearing somewhere else (American criminals do this also, many often disappear to a foreign country), but Trump generalizes and the direct feel is that he is referring to *all* Latinos, which is precisely how they are interpreting it.  This is not sitting well with the Latino community, which sees that Univision has cut all ties to Trump, that Latino/Latina personalities with high name recognition have broken ties with Trump, etc.

But no one needs to take my word for it: just wait until the series of Latino Decisions polls comes out. I am pretty sure that the results, over the next many months, are going to be disastrous for the GOP,  and that at a time when approximately 50,000 US-Citizens of Latino descent come of voting age and are legally eligible to vote - EVERY MONTH. And most of them are located in the SE Quadrant of the USA (New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, California). This is complicated by the fact the Bill Clinton had a very good relationship to US-Latinos, and they are showing the same affection for Hillary.

The fact that other GOP candidates took more than two weeks to even think to start a pushback against Trump's comments shows what pussies they are. They have no guts.  Any GOPer with even a minimum of common sense in his head would have said immediately after Trump's weird announcement speech that this stuff about Latinos is just bullshit. But they didn't. They headed for the hills, stuck their hands in their pockets and acted as if it never happened. Their silence speaks just as loudly as their words in this case.

The GOP is like a man with a large cut in his left arm and, instead of bandaging it, takes a knife, sticks it in the wound and slices even deeper. And then he stands there, totally astounded that he is bleeding out. *It is a self-inflicted wound.*

And just wait until Trump starts doing anti-immigration rallies all over the place. Don't forget, this stuff will be on video and it is going to get ugly. We are going to see almost 100% white rally-audiences with people screaming all sorts of truly hateful shit. And Latinos are going to see this and realize that this directly connected to an official event by a Republican presidential candidate and that this hatred is directed at them._ 'Latinos are rapists, murderers, druggies with calves the size of grapefruits. You suck. Vote for us because we tell you that you suck!' _That's how crazy this message is going to come across to the entire US-Latino community. I honestly don't know how a young, dynamic Senator like Marco Rubio can look at himself in the mirror and not be totally ashamed to be a Republican.

Especially the upcoming Trump rally in Arizona could be especially raucous. These are images that are going to remain through and beyond the 2016 presidential election.

It's really that simple. And a shame, since many, many Latino families, with a staunch Catholic background, may even consider themselves a better fit for the GOP than for the Democratic Party, if only the GOP were not absolutely batshit crazy.

I will also remind that no US President has put more boots on the border and put his foot down more on illegal immigration than Barack Obama. That is a statistical FACT.

There. Now I wrote a lot of words. Smart people will understand them and RWNJs' eyes will probably just glaze over....


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 11, 2015)

guno said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


I read the OP..........and responded....................Your side wants Illegals here for the vote.............and the POTUS ignores the laws of the land and picks and chooses the laws he enforces..............................

Which is a violation of his Oath......................and your side doesn't care as long as you get the votes......................

It's that simple.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 11, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...




So much ignorance.... so much ignorance.

I am very glad that you are a Conservative.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 11, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > guno said:
> ...


I understand the demographics Mr. Statist................and understand why the shift is so large................

And I understand that your side doesn't care that it is being done in violation of the immigration laws of this country.

Your side picks the laws it wants to follow..........and disregards the laws that don't suit your ideology................

Tells a  lot about the ethics and morals of your side................

As long as you yell Amnesty, and Sanctuary you get millions of votes..........and that is all you care about..................even as it over burdens the states with budget shortfalls..............and fills the prisons with those caught time and time again, committing crimes here in the United States..............Like the young woman killed on the pier in San Fran Sicko.............killed by a repeat offender...............

You can keep your ethics, and lawlessness to yourselves..................I choose not to go that path.............and if you taint the elections with this..to a point that our voice no longer counts.....................well there is always the 2nd Amendment option..............

I'm very glad you are in Germany...................and you are soooo concerned with America...............as the Euro Zone falls apart with the Socialist Utopian Dream...........Greece was just the beginning there..............


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 11, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


Nice butthurt!!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 11, 2015)

auditor0007 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



I agree that the Kasich/Rubio makes the most sense. But this is the GOP that we are talking about so the odds of that ticket coming to pass are virtually zero.

Right now I am expecting the "Clown Flavor of the Month" parade to begin as soon as Donald T Rump flames out. Then they will all rise to the top in succession only to fizzle out as soon as the media scrutiny exposes their flaws.

That will weed out the bulk of the field and we will be left with Jeb and the Hangers On (which sounds exactly likely a garage band) playing out the same song that we heard with it was Mitt and the Gang in 2012.

Probably going to take longer since the field is larger and who has the funding and fortitude to be the last Santorum standing remains to be seen.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jul 11, 2015)

Toupee or not Toupee that is the question whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the wisps of over comb's outrageous fortune or take up comb and brush against a sea of troubles and thereby defeat them...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 11, 2015)

Nothing but pointless deflection by the ridiculous right.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 11, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Toupee or not Toupee that is the question whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the wisps of over comb's outrageous fortune or take up comb and brush against a sea of troubles and thereby defeat them...


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 11, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


Nice butthurt................ahhh...............that is how you defend the lawlessness of our current administration...........and them not fulfilling their oath's of office to enforce the laws of this country........................

Pointing that out is butt hurt.........................Your purpose here...........We've got the latino vote.............nah nah nah nah..............rant..............

I'm pointing out that you are a bunch of Hypocrites......................and that you applaud the lawlessness of the current administration........and his utter disregard to the laws he is supposed to enforce..............


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 11, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


Rather than engaging in this ignorant and pointless partisan stupidity, do your own analysis of the election data and explain why the OP premise is wrong, that republicans can continue to remain a relevant National party by continuing to alienate Hispanic Americans, in addition to other minorities and women.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 11, 2015)

Trump is gonna stir some shit up..............It is what he does..........................

And it will force key issues to the front...................and not in a PC way..................which is why I like him...................

And why the GOP and DNC will attack him relentlessly.................................and will try to destroy him..............they don't want to really discuss the key issues in this country.....................they want soft ball questions so they can talk in circles...............saying a whole lot of words that say absolutely nothing................

Hopefully, TRUMP will make them pick a side instead of being a bunch of sniveling whiny bitches this time.....................

Could be entertaining...................as the political chickens dance on the stage............with the agenda already set..........either side of the coin.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jul 11, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...





Um, illegals don't vote.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 11, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


How about you .

I'm on topic......................the Latino votes are from the flood from south of the border...................and your side uses them to win elections..............

Your side doesn't really give a shit about them.............your side just wants their votes............and you are willing to violate the laws of this country to do so.............

If we had a real Congress and Senate.............Obama would have been impeached many a moon ago...............as would Bush.............as would many others....................

They have long ago stopped representing the people of this country...............This is one aspect..................Yes the growing Hispanic vote matters in the elections...............as your side knows.........which is why they want more of it...............and don't want secure borders............create Sanctuary Cities....................................where the local law enforcement is told to let them go...............without notifying ICE..................as ICE lets them go anyway......................and States' budgets are overburdened by the influx..................................as the jails fill to over capacity..................and crime goes up in the areas of the illegals...........

A side of the equation you don't want a discussion on..............................All you want to say is LOOK AT THE VOTES WE GOT.............

Which is the mission of the OP.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 11, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > guno said:
> ...


BS.............JUST LIKE THE DEAD DON'T VOTE EITHER...............In many areas of this country they have 150% turn outs.............50% more than the population of the county..............and there is no problem................RIGHT...............No need to update voter registration roles................no need for I.D.'S...........That would be Racist to show a danged I.D. ...........oops illegals get i.d.s here as well.......................work here as well..............and they are illegal..........................

But it's against the law...................your side and the Chamber of Commerce stopped caring about the law long ago.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 11, 2015)

FBI data backs up Trump claims on illegals and crime

The FBI’s latest National Gang Report extensively documents criminal gangs, some comprised in large part of illegal aliens, are indeed importing drugs and committing a high percentage of violent crimes throughout the U.S.

One section of the 79-page report details “Gangs and the U.S. Border.” It documents gangs, “especially national-level Hispanic gangs, such as MS-13, the Eme, Sureños, and TB, continue to pose a significant threat to the Southwest border region.”

The report reveals that “in many cases, gang members who commit criminal activity in the region are not U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.”

The FBI documented that surveys conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection indicate in some southwest border sectors “the percentage of non-U.S. citizen gang members was as high as 80 percent.”

The report states that once deported, gang members have been documented as repeatedly attempting to re-enter U.S. illegally “in order to re-join the gang and engage in criminal activity.”

The FBI statistics show gangs “exploit opportunities along the nearly 2,000 miles of contiguous U.S.-Mexico territory” to engage in a multitude of crimes, “including drug-related crimes, weapons trafficking, alien smuggling, human trafficking, prostitution, extortion, robbery, auto theft, assault, homicide, racketeering, and money laundering.”

“Of these offenses, drug-related crimes – such as production, smuggling, trafficking, and distribution – are the most widely reported criminal acts committed by gangs of all types,” according to the 2013 report.

The report relates gangs are establishing and maintaining “mutually beneficial relationships” with international crime syndicates, including Mexican Transnational Criminal Organizations.

These cross-border relationships, the FBI warned, “increase profits for gangs through drug distribution, drug transportation, and the commission of violent crimes to enforce drug payment and protect drug transportation corridors from rival usage.”


Read more at FBI data backs up Trump claims on illegals and crime


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 11, 2015)




----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 11, 2015)




----------



## Carla_Danger (Jul 11, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...





I think it's pretty obvious that DEAD people don't vote either.  I've been voting for a long time, and I have never witnessed a dead person in line with me.

Of course a person who is here illegally, isn't going to take the chance on voting. When people think about breaking a law, they are not thinking about how they can get away with voting. Law breakers normally don't want to draw that kind of attention.

I realize you have been getting different information from your right wing extremist sites, but it is simply not true. In fact, over the years there has been very little voter fraud.  Usually voter fraud is done by someone that doesn't understand the state voting laws.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 11, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


Then you’ve decided to continue to propagate your ignorance and partisan stupidity – so be it.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 11, 2015)




----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 11, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Enforce the laws on the books......................Don't pick and choose which laws you will Obey and Not Obey................Close the border..........stop the BS of Sanctuary Cities.................rejecting our laws overtly...................................

Then we'll talk...............after you have ended your LAWLESSNESS......................


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 11, 2015)




----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 11, 2015)

Loophole Created by Executive Amnesty Means Millions of New Illegal Votes for Democrats - BuzzPo

In news that should surprise no one, The Washington Times reports that President Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty “will make it easier for illegal immigrants to improperly register and vote in elections.” Testifying before Congress on Thursday, state elections officials say that the driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers illegals will be granted “create a major voting loophole.”

Wasn’t that the end game all along?

It is illegal for non-citizens to vote. But since when do those who enter the country illegally worry about complying with the law when it comes to voting?  Although anyone registering to vote must attest s/he is a citizen, many illegal immigrants simply ignore that part – kind of like crossing the border illegally. And states lack the tools to weed them out.

Testifying before Congress on Thursday, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted said mass registration drives via shopping malls, motor vehicle bureaus, curbside or other efforts often can’t or won’t differentiate between legal and illegal status of registrants, so illegal immigrants will still get through.

Kris W. Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State, also said some motor vehicle bureau workers automatically ask customers if they want to register to vote, and that some noncitizens have broken the law on that basis.

Last November, Obama announced executive action granting tentative legal status and work permits to nearly 4 million illegal immigrant parents whose children are either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents.


----------



## jillian (Jul 11, 2015)

PredFan said:


> ZZZZZzzzzzzzz....bunch of left wing nutters trying to tell us how to vote, how to win elections, Blah blah blah.
> 
> ZZZZZzzzzzz......


Idiota, math is not a left wing construct


----------



## Jroc (Jul 11, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...




Laws? What laws? it's all about advancing their ideology with the left


----------



## Jroc (Jul 11, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Charlie Cook and David Wasserman just put out an interesting analysis of the 2016 election in terms of demographics, and the concensus is that it looks very, very ugly for the GOP, much uglier than the GOP wants to admit.
> 
> So, here we go:
> 
> ...




Turn out.. Turn out... Turn out.....Your numbers are meaningless German boy. Obama is increasing the gop turn out everyday independents as well


----------



## Shrimpbox (Jul 11, 2015)

Let's simplify this for the rabid left wing eggheads. Tell stat to crank up his vast arsenal of computers and tell us if anyone has ever been elected president who had a 57 per cent untrustworthy character rating.


----------



## Shrimpbox (Jul 11, 2015)

Nice post eagle. I guess our resident socialists also missed the news story that only appeared on Fox News about the administration violating the ruling of the Texas court that put a halt to the executive amnesty for the time being. In violation of,the court order Obama went ahead and started granting illegal amnesty. When the court subpoenaed the head of immigration, homeland security, and,others about the criminal behavior the administration said it was just a mistake. The subpoenas stand as the court awaits an explanation. There is no limit to the lawlessness of Obama, and no one would ever know about this story if it was not for Fox News. It is not faux news, it is real news, no it is the truth, which is toxic to the liberal agenda. Wonder where the presumed democratic dowager empress stands on that?


----------



## Zander (Jul 11, 2015)

There is a 62.78% probability.that whomever the GOP nominates will be the next POTUS. 

It's math.Nothing personal. Just simple math. 

Click here for full calculation.


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 11, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


According to the math, Kerry should have won in '04.  Polls don't mean shit.  Do you know why?  Because nobody answers honestly.  Not only that, when certain folks, the folks that matter are polled, the ones that actually vote, they don't like to participate or interact with social scientists.  On top of that, the different polling companies have different agendas and different sampling methods.

I can tell you right now, that the folks on this site most likely to vote, the conservatives on this site, are the ones most likely to hang up on a pollster.  The towns in my state that have large Hispanic and Arabic populations that have conservatives in them, those conservatives act the same way.  What does that tell you about the accuracy of these polls?

I took statistical analytics classes at University for my poli-sci major.  I know what these polls mean.  These polls are a waste of time.  They are there to manipulate and brain wash the masses only.  The exit polls tell the truth.  The truth rarely matches up with reality skipper.

The only people here that care about your cognitive bias are the partisans that need to have their own reality reinforced.  You better hope that what you are posting is reinforced with a win for your candidate, or you will have no currency at this site any longer.  Seriously.


The establishment and the power brokers are the ones that decide who becomes president.  We saw that with the Republican and Democrat Conventions and primaries last year.  The people did not get to choose their candidates, neither will they get to choose them again this year.

The elites already know who they want to have be the POTUS.  Our POTUS has already been decided.  I have a feeling it is going to be a Republican this year.  You best start getting used to that idea.  But that's just a hunch.  No one thought that there was a snowball's chance in hell that Bibi would win in Israel, but look what happened, eh?  There is a reason for everything, and the reason is the corportacracy.


Of course, it will look like a nail biter again.  However, thinking that it can be analyzed and predicted is just being naive.  You make all of us chuckle.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jul 11, 2015)

* Don’t Believe GOP Criticism – Donald Trump Speaks For The Party And The Base *

Donald Trump's truly vicious remarks targeting Hispanic immigrants exposed conservative racism that permeates the Republican base…


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 11, 2015)

MisterBeale said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


Only, that's a lie. Composite polling showed Bush a nose ahead and predicted between 279-286 EV for the President. Better luck next time.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## imawhosure (Jul 11, 2015)

Truth is, Hilly will win if it is Jebster.  It is what it is!

The demographics from this person are certainly skewed.  Why?  Because over 70% of Americans see themselves as conservative, or ultra conservative.

This does NOT mean that our best candidate is Trump.  What it DOES mean is that the WORST candidate for the democrats is Hilly or Sanders; and they are in the lead on that side.

Put up a conservative republican who is not a bible thumper, and the democrats will fold like a house of cards.  The toughest part of getting a conservative to win the Presidency is NOT the general election, but rather the republican nomination.

Both sides of the aisle have to understand one real truth.............both sides want to keep their power, and rinos and democrats both would rather see someone from the other party in office, instead of a conservative, or libertarian.

It is NOT about the American people, rather it is about the Washington elites from both parties, holding on to power.

This is why if ANY candidate from EITHER side puts up big trouble numbers for Hilly or Jebster, you will see the media attacking those people instantly.  What the rino and libs want is, Hilly versus Jebster, so either way they all keep their power.

And guess what.  If that is the general election, we as citizens, under either one of them, will lose more, and more of our power and freedom!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 11, 2015)

imawhosure said:


> Truth is, Hilly will win if it is Jebster.  It is what it is!
> 
> The demographics from this person are certainly skewed.  Why?  Because over 70% of Americans see themselves as conservative, or ultra conservative.
> 
> ...


No. The demographics are based on census data and the Roper presidential exit polling data. Both are non-partisan, with no dog in the race. You are allowed your own opinion, but you are not allowed your own facts.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jul 11, 2015)

Saying he was “glad to be out of the house” a retired and now bearded David Letterman was a surprise guest at a Steve Martin and Martin Short show at San Antonio’s Majestic Theater Friday night, saying Donald Trumps’s entry in the 2016 Presidential race made him realize he retired to early.

“I was complacent, I was satisfied, I was content, and then a couple of days ago Donald Trump said he was running for president,” Letterman said, pausing a beat to add. “I have made the biggest mistake of my life, I tell you.”

Letterman then proceeded to tick off one of his famous Top 10 lists, listing ten “interesting” facts about the bombastic businesman.

A selection includes, “That thing on his head was the gopher in Caddyshack,” and “Donald Trump weighs 240 pounds, 250 with cologne.”

WATCH David Letterman returns from retirement to deliver scathing Top 10 list on Donald Trump


----------



## imawhosure (Jul 11, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> imawhosure said:
> 
> 
> > Truth is, Hilly will win if it is Jebster.  It is what it is!
> ...


 
But your statistics are based upon how the statistic taker ses the each group voting, because it takesthe liberal point of view, that libs have successfuly Balkanized these groups, and that they wll vote en mass.

My pol is what ALL AMERICANS say they are, and they do NOT say we are Balkanized according to what/how the left wing wants us to be.

Understnd, I am NOT saying you are wrong.  What I am saying is...........a rino can not win, period; because even I can NOT vote for Jebster or any reasonable facsimile of him.  There is no line; or very little line, of distinction.

I am of the supposition, we give AMERICANS a choice this time, not the same old, same old.  I think it is a fair choice, and sice ou are so confident in your assessment, I am sure you are all for it.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 11, 2015)

imawhosure said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > imawhosure said:
> ...


No. They are not "my" statistics. You are apparently extremely weak on comprehension. You also made the outlandish claim that 70% of Americans are Conservative. Link? Or is it hard to pull a link out of your ass? Just for your information, I have no patience with the politically retarded.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jul 11, 2015)

* Military Analysts Warn That Donald Trump’s Deranged Plan to Bomb Iraq Oil Fields Is Trouble *

Donald Trump's "solution" to ISIL sounds a lot like the Bush Cheney solution, but on steroids. His idea is to bomb "the hell" out of the oil fields…


----------



## guno (Jul 11, 2015)

imawhosure said:


> Truth is, Hilly will win if it is Jebster.  It is what it is!
> 
> The demographics from this person are certainly skewed.  Why?  Because over 70% of Americans see themselves as conservative, or ultra conservative.
> 
> ...





imawhosure said:


> Because over 70% of Americans see themselves as conservative, or ultra conservative.



Well that explains why Obama was elected in 2008 and 12


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 11, 2015)

imawhosure said:


> My pol is what ALL AMERICANS say they are,



Where is the  to this poll of yours that states that 70% of Americans call themselves conservatives.


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 11, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


Fine.  If you want to believe in your fantasy world so much, go on then.  I already explained to you why Composite polling is way less reliable than exit polls.

The exit polls clearly showed the corruption going on in the system.  We know it happens in every other nation.  The administration would not allow the UN or foreign observers to monitor our elections, yet you wish to live in a state of denial, go on then, continue to live in your loopy dream world.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jul 11, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> imawhosure said:
> 
> 
> > My pol is what ALL AMERICANS say they are,
> ...


----------



## guno (Jul 11, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> imawhosure said:
> 
> 
> > My pol is what ALL AMERICANS say they are,
> ...




Looks like the little nimrod disappeared , I wonder why


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 11, 2015)

MisterBeale said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...




Uhm, no.

You are trying that trick with the wrong person here.

The composite polling pointed to Obama 303 Romney 206 tossup 29 in 2012.  Obama won the tossup.
Composite polling averages pointed to Obama 359-375 in 2008. He won with 365.

A number of exit polls in 2012 were perfect, others were quite off. But the composite average was not far off and pointed in the right direction. The exit polls in CO showed a tie 49-49, Obama won by +5.4. The exit poll in Oregon showed Obama +5, he won by +12. And so on and so on and so on.

Nice try, better luck to you next time.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 11, 2015)

guno said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > imawhosure said:
> ...



Probably trying to find which RW disinformation site had that poll.


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 11, 2015)

What ever you want to believe Statist.  If it helps you sleep at night, keep on believing what those research outlets are telling you.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 11, 2015)

MisterBeale said:


> What ever you want to believe Statist.  If it helps you sleep at night, keep on believing what those research outlets are telling you.



And yet you cannot produce a single  supporting your claim.


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 11, 2015)

Sure I can Derideo_Te.  My father, my friends. . . and my experience at University.  If you bothered to watch that documentary I posted, it might open your eyes.  You would see I am not partisan at all.

You know Statist, every time a pollster calls me, and I purposely give them wrong answers, completely at odds with what I think, I smirk and I think of you.  When I get off the phone, I get this warm fuzzy feeling of knowing how totally full of shit the media, organizations, and self-righteous folks on the left and the right, just like you, really are.  

Thanks for confirming your actual ignorance to me.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 11, 2015)

MisterBeale said:


> Sure I can Derideo_Te.  My father, my friends. . . and my experience at University.  If you bothered to watch that documentary I posted, it might open your eyes.  You would see I am not partisan at all.
> 
> You know Statist, every time a pollster calls me, and I purposely give them wrong answers, completely at odds with what I think, I smirk and I think of you.  When I get off the phone, I get this warm fuzzy feeling of knowing how totally full of shit the media, organizations, and self-righteous folks on the left and the right, just like you, really are.
> 
> Thanks for confirming your actual ignorance to me.



Thank you for disqualifying yourself from any further meaningful participation on this topic.

Have a nice day.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Jul 11, 2015)

eagle1462010 said:


> Trump is gonna stir some shit up..............It is what he does..........................
> 
> And it will force key issues to the front...................and not in a PC way..................which is why I like him...................
> 
> ...



Even though he's too far to the left for me, I think Sanders resonates with your average American Main Street voter much more than Trump.  Can Middle Class working Americans even identify with Trump.  He is completely clueless about the working class.
Trump might be appealing the the GOP base but not to the general populations who has seen flat wages and lost of wealth to the Trumps of the world.
Now whether Hillary can pull it off remains to be seen.  I understand she has a major policy speech coming up. where she addresses flat wage growth and the minimum wage.
So, while the GOP is pushing wedge issues, the Dems are pointing at economic issues of the working class.  Hmmm, which has a larger audience, wedge or economic issues of the working class?
While the GOP voted to give a huge tax break to top 0.02% (Death Tax), while voting against the minimum wage (supported by 75% of the public), the GOP is going to a rough time identifying enough voters who they appeal to.
Sanders basic message about inequality, which is catching people's attention and awareness.  He has forced Clinton to address the subject and it will force the GOP to explain themselves regarding their anti-working class mentality.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 11, 2015)

MisterBeale said:


> What ever you want to believe Statist.  If it helps you sleep at night, keep on believing what those research outlets are telling you.


I don't "believe" anything. I compare final polls to actual results and bingo, this is how a polling firm builds a track record. Data is data is data.

As far as demographics are concerned, both the census bureau and Roper are neutral.

I will say it one more time: it's simple math.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jul 11, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> Probably trying to find which RW disinformation site had that poll.


*On Social Ideology the Left Catches Up to the Right*

*



*


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 11, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Probably trying to find which RW disinformation site had that poll.
> ...



Given that the conservatives have been dominating the agenda on social issues since the (im)moral majority became a political force it is nice to see that liberals are retaking that lost ground again.

I am expecting that graph to continue those trends in the future. The only reason why there was that glitch around 2009/2010 was because the economy was the #1 priority for liberals. 

Note how it resumed where it left off had that event not occurred.


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 11, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > What ever you want to believe Statist.  If it helps you sleep at night, keep on believing what those research outlets are telling you.
> ...


I agree.  The final exit polls, and the results of the past several elections haven't matched up.  Simple.

Investigations have been done to find out why this has been so.  Naturally, it has been covered in the MSM.  Those of us who care are aware and pay attention.  

If you don't care, you accept the establishment statistical research produced, b/c it fits the establishment paradigm.  Stay asleep, if it is more comfortable for you.  Cognitive dissonance is a bitch I am sure.

OR. . . . . you could just accept the truth.


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 11, 2015)

Exit polls are the most reliable indicators.  When they are not truthfully reported, the system is broken.

*The Stolen Presidential Elections*
The Stolen Presidential Elections
Exit polls are an exceptionally accurate measure of elections. In the last three elections in Germany, for example, exit polls were never off by more than three-tenths of one percent. Unlike ordinary opinion polls, the exit sample is drawn from people who have actually just voted. It rules out those who say they will vote but never make it to the polls, those who cannot be sampled because they have no telephone or otherwise cannot be reached at home, those who are undecided or who change their minds about whom to support, and those who are turned away at the polls for one reason or another. Exit polls have come to be considered so reliable that international organizations use them to validate election results in countries around the world.


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 11, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Charlie Cook and David Wasserman just put out an interesting analysis of the 2016 election in terms of demographics, and the concensus is that it looks very, very ugly for the GOP, much uglier than the GOP wants to admit.
> 
> So, here we go:
> 
> ...



From your article:


> Even if Romney had done 10 points better with Latinos in every state in 2012—winning 37 percent instead of 27 percent nationally—he would have won only one additional state: Florida. That's primarily because Latino voters tend to be concentrated in states such as California, New York, and Texas, which aren't Electoral College battlegrounds.


Translation - The Latino vote at this point is still not as critical as it is being stated to be.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 12, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Charlie Cook and David Wasserman just put out an interesting analysis of the 2016 election in terms of demographics, and the concensus is that it looks very, very ugly for the GOP, much uglier than the GOP wants to admit.
> 
> So, here we go:
> 
> ...



I hate to say it but you're 100% right. The gop should come out for brith control, exception for abortion in case of rape, incest, etc...Certainly it should be for the family but it needs to play its cards wisely.

I'd say Rubio needs to be on any ticket that the republicans have....

Republicans need to soften their stances on fiscal issues and be for infrastructure, science, r&d and education. It can't afford to be stupid.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 12, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> imawhosure said:
> 
> 
> > Truth is, Hilly will win if it is Jebster.  It is what it is!
> ...



Yep, what's funnier is the fact that conservatives only make up 38% of the electorate. 41% are moderates like I am and cutting infrastructure, science, r&d will turn us off too. 

What conservatives don't get is Hispanics are only coming out 46% of who can vote...Blacks come out 66% in 2012 of who can vote!!! If trump pisses them off then maybe 55 or even 60% could come out and that would be closer to 14-15% of the electorate. Hispanics are now 17.7% of the population of this country so they really have been pulling their punches.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 12, 2015)

Illegals and the non-living still favor Democrats


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 12, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Cook and David Wasserman just put out an interesting analysis of the 2016 election in terms of demographics, and the concensus is that it looks very, very ugly for the GOP, much uglier than the GOP wants to admit.
> ...




But being stupid has worked so well for so long.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 12, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Illegals and the non-living still favor Democrats



~99% of the Hispanic vote is LEGAL!!!!! Only 46% of that vote even came out in 2012 so you better hope it doesn't come out with a higher percentage and holds 73%  towards the democrats as it did in 2012.

It is nearly impossible for the republicans to get 60% or more of the white vote this election. Not with Hillary pulling away white votes with the womans I have a pussy vote.

Republicans are fucked.


----------



## Zander (Jul 12, 2015)

Matthew said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Illegals and the non-living still favor Democrats
> ...



 

Sure we are. Just like we were in 2014.......it's demographics.....


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 12, 2015)

Zander said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Midterms are base elections between whites!  Presidential elections are far bigger and far more diverse.


----------



## jillian (Jul 13, 2015)

Shrimpbox said:


> Let's simplify this for the rabid left wing eggheads. Tell stat to crank up his vast arsenal of computers and tell us if anyone has ever been elected president who had a 57 per cent untrustworthy character rating.



y ou still have to run someone who isn't a rightwingnut psycho.


----------



## jillian (Jul 13, 2015)

Zander said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



no... like in 2012

try again.

rightwingnuts can't win a general election.


----------



## imawhosure (Jul 13, 2015)

jillian said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



1.  Romney was not a wingnut, he was moderate.  So was Mcain.  So, if moderates can't win, better move right.  The only candidate that can win faaar out is on the left.  Look at Obama, he is closer to a socialist then socialists from 20 years.  That is probably why Sanders thinks he has a chance, he is just slightly further left than Obama, and Obama won a 2nd term against a moderate!

2. To believe that Hispanic Americans want free flowing people from over the border is ridiculous.  I am Hispanic American, and I want it shut down 25 years ago.

3. You can't win an election; nobody can, if people won't vote for what is good for them, or against what is bad for them.
a. Is illegal immigration good for anyone besides the illegal or the chamber of commerce?  ANSWER, NO!
b. Who does illegal immigration hurt the most?  Poor people, African American teenagers, and American business owners who are in the construction business.

4. A conservative doesn't need 60% of the white vote.  Why?  Because if the nominee is Hilly, African Americans won't vote for her, and if she isn't, who is going to vote as an American for an avowed Socialist?

5. More than 1% of the vote isn't legal, that is exactly why democrats fight tooth and nail to stop voter ID.  It has not as much to do with the Hispanic vote, as it does with big city voting where people who are dead, magically vote.

In the end, it is going to come down to who wins the republican nomination, and has less to do with who wins the democrat nomination.  The democrat will win if Jeb, Trump, Huckabee, Santorum win the nomination.  If Cruz, Walker, Carson, win the nomination, the democrat loses.  If Paul wins the nomination, you have to lean democrat 51/49, but could go either way.  Rubio is the BEST chance for the repubs to win, but he and Jeb are Hilly lite.  Why elect someone to keep the status quo until a democrat can get elected again, and roll us towards oblivion?

Why he is he the best chance?  Not because he galvanizes republicans, that is for sure; it is because he is Hispanic and leans towards amnesty and no fence.  He will get a large % of Hispanics, and take lots of them from the Democrats.  Still, if illegal immigration is a high priority for you, (as it is for over 60% of Americans) Rubio is NOT your person in the primary for sure.


----------



## jillian (Jul 13, 2015)

imawhosure said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Romney was a moderate when he was governor of Massachusetts. He did not run as a moderate. He ran to appease the right and supported lunacy like personhood laws and refused to support the Lilly Ledbetter law. and spewed winger nonsense to satisfy the "base" of loons. he went so far winger as to disavow his own health care plan.

your other garbage about more than 1% of the vote not being legal is winger nonsense.

women didn't support romney because he took the side of the radical religious right

minorities wouldn't vote for romney because he bought into the rightwing rhetoric hook line and sinker

and young people wouldn't vote for a candidate who, again, took on the rightwingnut rhetoric


----------



## imawhosure (Jul 13, 2015)

jillian said:


> imawhosure said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



No offense Jillian, but that is ridiculous.

1.  Both Mcain and Romney were moderates.  The reason you see them as so far right, is because the democrats have moved so far left.  If Obama was JFK or even Clinton, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.  Hell, JFK would probably be a republican today, which should tell you how far the democrats have gone off the reservation.  And oh, by the way, Reagan was a democrat for many, many years when they actually were for the little guy instead of socialism.

2. As far as the vote totals, you can't prove a negative, so I won't even try.  But, you would think that insuring the integrity of the vote would be on both parties agenda.  Sadly, it is not.  Oh, by the way, do you know who created the pol tax?  That is correct, the DEMOCRATS; and it was enforced by none other than the Klu-Klux-Klan, which was a wing of the democratic party.  Are you surprised?

3. As far as minorities not buying into Romney because of his "wingedness," why should anyone be surprised!  If Hilly gives you a dollar every year, and I say I will take it away, who does anyone think you would vote for?  In the old days, we call that buying votes.  Today, you use redefined words and call it compassion.

4. The young people voted the way they did because they were lied too.  Look at what the pols say now, and you will see the young people who are now in their mid 20s have changed their tune a lot.  And why shouldn't they!  All the money being borrowed, the bill is going to be left to them and the people behind them, some who can not even vote yet.

The real problem with young people lies with their parents. (myself included)  We send our children off to liberal indoctrination at some of these schools, and pay through the nose for it.  And we all know that young people believe they are invincible, and know everything; especially if they went to college.  And what do they know?  Why everything some left wing hack taught them, like Obamas buddy the terrorist prof, Ayers..........with the help of his wife, the other terrorist, Bernadine Dorn.  (if you don't know what they did, look it up)

And oh, by the way, just as a simple question...............do you actually know what a community organizer does, and how they do it?  Look it up and understand people like YOU elected one to the Presidency.  Once you understand their methods, you will realize if you have any smarts, why socially what comes out of the Whitehouse, is what it is.  He is doing EXACTLY what he was taught, and people like you are falling for it, hook, line, and sinker!


----------



## Nyvin (Jul 13, 2015)

> 1. Both Mcain and Romney were moderates. The reason you see them as so far right, is because the democrats have moved so far left. If Obama was JFK or even Clinton, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Hell, JFK would probably be a republican today, which should tell you how far the democrats have gone off the reservation. And oh, by the way, Reagan was a democrat for many, many years when they actually were for the little guy instead of socialism.



When you give speeches about "self-deportation", repealing Obamacare, cut food stamps, cut medicaid, cut drilling regulations, increase military spending, no to increasing minimum wage, and being "pro-life" (after being pro-choice in Mass), it's safe to say he ran as a conservative.  

What's really crazy is compared to a lot of the candidates "Now" he actually does look "moderate" but that's only because the GOP has gone further right since then.

Heck,  GW Bush's approach to immigration alone would make him look like a *liberal* in today's field, lol!


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 13, 2015)

Democrats getting their panties in a wad over Trump. 

Trump is making the elections n fun, so far.


----------



## jillian (Jul 13, 2015)

imawhosure said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > imawhosure said:
> ...



there is nothing "ridiculous" in what i posted. what i posted is the truth and why you lost. had romney stayed the moderate he was, he might have won.

i guess you don't remember how he wouldn't criticize the creep who talked about "legitimate rape".

and if you're wondering if he supported the ledbetter law or personhood laws, i'd direct you to do some research on that. you'll find i'm correct and no sane woman would vote for someone who failed on every woman's issue.

and no working person should have voted for someone who had nothing but disdain for people who work.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 13, 2015)

Papageorgio said:


> Democrats getting their panties in a wad over Trump.
> 
> Trump is making the elections n fun, so far.




Democrats are enjoying every minute of it. GO TRUMP!!!


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 13, 2015)

jillian said:


> imawhosure said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


 
Except you use the term *moderate* interchangeably with *left*.


----------



## imawhosure (Jul 13, 2015)

jillian said:


> imawhosure said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Yes, it was ridiculous.

He was Moderate, stayed moderate, and that is why he lost.  The base didn't vote for him because he was moderate.  Obama got far less votes in 12 than he did in 08 because people got tired of his shtick and figured him out.  Romney got less votes than Mcain; and yet, there were MORE voters yet less votes cast.  That should tell you they were BOTH losers!

The Lily Ledbetter act, really?  Are you telling me, that a woman would vote to put a guy in office because he SUGGESTS he likes the legislation, while he pays his female staffers less than their male counterparts?  Really?  Seriously?

He wouldn't criticize the creep about legitimate rape.  Good point!  Did Obama criticize Louis Farrakhan who is a democrat for all his racist remarks?  Did he criticize "god damn America the very reverend Wright" after sitting in his church for 20 years?  Did he apologize for lying through his pearly whites about if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?  How about for Rahm when he said, "let no crisis go to waste?"  How about him lowering our healthcare bills 2500 bucks a year?  Has he apologized for letting his democratic cronies have federally illegal sanctuary cities?  How about his promise to get spending under control, as he has now racked up over 7 more TRILLION in debt?  Etc, etc, and I won't waste the bandwidth to list them all as I probably wouldn't live that long.

You are obviously a woman.  You believe there is a war on women, lol.  I find that kinda funny as I am sure you are well schooled in the buzzwords of the far, far, faaaaaaaar left.  The dems have gotten you hooked.  You are a victim, aren't you.  Instead of worrying about America, you are worrying about............women?  Go tell the Kartrashians they are victims, lol.  Tell Jenifer Lopez she is a victim too.  Don't forget Taylor Swift.  Celine anyone?  Katy Perry?!?!?!  Oprah, oh my, a double minority!  Beyoncé?  Rihanna?

It appears to me that anyone who accels in their field can get wealthy to me, how about you?  But I know, I know, you are a victim, forgive me.  And I bet you learned that either in some liby college, or on MSNBC, lolol!


----------



## Nyvin (Jul 13, 2015)

Papageorgio said:


> Democrats getting their panties in a wad over Trump.
> 
> Trump is making the elections n fun, so far.



Oh great, this gag line again.....just like Democrats were so terrified of Palin right??   Yeah,  that's not how it is sorry.

Trump is popular right now for two reasons

1.   Democrats enjoy laughing at him

2.   Conservatives are in shock and awe of him


----------



## Nyvin (Jul 13, 2015)

> He was Moderate, stayed moderate, and that is why he lost. The base didn't vote for him because he was moderate. Obama got far less votes in 12 than he did in 08 because people got tired of his shtick and figured him out. Romney got less votes than Mcain; and yet, there were MORE voters yet less votes cast. That should tell you they were BOTH losers!



Obama kicked the crap out of Republicans in 2008 because of the plethora of Bush failures around Republican's necks at the time.    The Democrats could've nominated a dead fish in 2008 and won the presidency.    In 2012 things normalized again and Obama actually had a semi-fair fight instead of a pushover.   I say semi because the GOP is screwed regardless due to their alienation of minorities.


----------



## jillian (Jul 13, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > imawhosure said:
> ...



no.


----------



## imawhosure (Jul 13, 2015)

Nyvin said:


> > He was Moderate, stayed moderate, and that is why he lost. The base didn't vote for him because he was moderate. Obama got far less votes in 12 than he did in 08 because people got tired of his shtick and figured him out. Romney got less votes than Mcain; and yet, there were MORE voters yet less votes cast. That should tell you they were BOTH losers!
> 
> 
> 
> Obama kicked the crap out of Republicans in 2008 because of the plethora of Bush failures around Republican's necks at the time.    The Democrats could've nominated a dead fish in 2008 and won the presidency.    In 2012 things normalized again and Obama actually had a semi-fair fight instead of a pushover.   I say semi because the GOP is screwed regardless due to their alienation of minorities.




You may very well be correct.  Many, many of us though, think you are wrong.  We believe the democratic working class is tired of this crap, and we don't want another Bush or Romney, we want real contrast, and let the chips fall where they may.

We know that Hilly or Sanders will be a disaster; but that Jeb and his ilk will be not much better.  Why fight over next to nothing?  We will push and take our chances, win, lose, or draw with a real conservative who is not a religious fanatic.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 13, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats getting their panties in a wad over Trump.
> ...



Yeah, that's why you dumbshits are crapping on him. 

Your paranoia is pretty touching.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 13, 2015)

Nyvin said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats getting their panties in a wad over Trump.
> ...




Keep making me laugh, you guys are yapping about anything he says, if you didn't care, you'd ignore. 

Your theory is way of by the Dems actions.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 13, 2015)

Papageorgio said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...




I'm not aware of anyone actually crapping on him, and I would oppose that actually happening,  but there is a lot of pointing and laughing.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 14, 2015)

Will democrats be able to hang onto black voters while kissing mexican ass as the mexicans are killing blacks?

It's not politics,  it's magic.


----------



## blunthead (Jul 15, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Charlie Cook and David Wasserman just put out an interesting analysis of the 2016 election in terms of demographics, and the concensus is that it looks very, very ugly for the GOP, much uglier than the GOP wants to admit.
> 
> So, here we go:
> 
> ...


Look who likes Wasserman...

"Nate Silver of the New York Times' FiveThirtyEight Blog has written: "Wasserman's knowledge of the nooks and crannies of political geography can make him seem like a local," and the Los Angeles Times recently called David a "whip smart" and "scrupulously nonpartisan" analyst whose "numbers nerddom was foretold at a young age."

David has served as an analyst for the NBC News Election Night Decision Desk in 2012, 2010, and 2008, and has appeared on NBC Nightly News, ABC World News, C-SPAN Washington Journal, CNN, and NPR. His commentary on House races has been cited in numerous print and online publications including Politico, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, and RealClearPolitics.com."

In other words Wasserman is just another left-wing tool.


----------



## blunthead (Jul 15, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > ZZZZZzzzzzzzz....bunch of left wing nutters trying to tell us how to vote, how to win elections, Blah blah blah.
> ...


Charlie Cook - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Cook worked on Capitol Hill for then-Senator J. Bennett Johnston, Jr., a Democrat from Shreveport who served from 1972 to 1997. Cook also worked for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Policy Committee. In addition, he worked as a pollster and campaign consultant and on the staff of BUILD-PAC, the political action committee of the trade association, the National Association of Home Builders.[1]

In 1984, he founded the newsletter _The Cook Political Report_,[1] which publishes analyses of the primaries and general elections for federal political offices and state governorships. The _Report's_ predictions are accorded high credibility among journalists and politicians.[2] CBS News' Bob Schieffer called the Cook Political Report "the bible of the political community."[_citation needed_]

_The New York Times_ has called Cook "one of the best political handicappers in the nation" and has said the Cook Political Report is "a newsletter which both parties regard as authoritative."[_citation needed_] David Broder wrote in _The Washington Post_ that Cook was "perhaps the best non-partisan tracker of Congressional races."[_citation needed_]"

Yawn. Democrat. I don't listen to them anymore.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 15, 2015)

blunthead said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Cook and David Wasserman just put out an interesting analysis of the 2016 election in terms of demographics, and the concensus is that it looks very, very ugly for the GOP, much uglier than the GOP wants to admit.
> ...




Just because someone from the Left respects him does not make him tilted to the Left, Right or anywhere.

You do understand this, right?

Or are you mebbe a little bit retarded?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 15, 2015)

blunthead said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...




Excuse me, asswipe.

The COOK PVI rating for all congressional candidates is based on pure, simple math. Righties use the values every bit as much as Lefties.

I see you have alot to learn, noob.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 15, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...




Crude and crass, but essentially on the mark. Not bad for a frothing racist.


----------

