General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLA Times -- Did Latino voters actually turn out for Trump in the election? Not really.
Here is an article that finally sets straight one of the many big myths about this last election.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-92304395/
~snip~
As it turns out, a closer analysis in states with large Latino populations indicates that the national exit poll which is still being cited as an authoritative source is wrong. In Arizona, Texas and Florida and in California, where we just finished analyzing the data the exit poll has substantially overestimated Trumps success among Latinos.
The national exit poll is a state-by-state survey conducted by Edison Research and paid for by news media. It samples selected precincts in an attempt to gather an accurate overall count quickly on election night. But, like all polls, it isnt fail-safe. In California, the Edison exit poll data suggested that 71% of Latinos cast their votes for Clinton, and that 24% voted for Trump. According to our research, the numbers are significantly different: 83% for Clinton, and just 11% for Trump.
Instead of polling a sample of voters, our analysis is based on actual votes: The official 2012 and 2016 results in 10,121 precincts in 16 California counties (the most populous counties and the ones that certify their election results quickly). That data is combined with census information that tells us the demographics of each precinct.
The accompanying graph shows you what we discovered. The dots represent the vote percentage for each candidate in each precinct. The more votes he or she won, the higher the colored dots rise on the vertical axis. Along the horizontal axis, the vote totals are sorted by the size of the Latino population in each precinct. And the colored lines track the overall estimates of precinct vote shares for all four candidates in both elections, arrived at by a separate statistical analysis.
We know that Obama won California by 3 million votes in 2012, and Clinton expanded this margin to 4.3 million in 2016, so we would expect to see Clinton doing better and Trump doing worse than their counterparts in 2012. In fact, that is exactly what the dot pattern shows. Trump underperformed Romney across almost every precinct we analyzed, and the deficit widens as voting precincts get more heavily Latino. Clintons vote share largely mirrors Obamas except in precincts where more than 75% of the population are adult Latino citizens. In these precincts, she captures a greater proportion of the vote share. (That increase is most likely the reason Clinton won the state by such a large margin over Obama in 2012.)
One key finding from all of our analysis is this: It is virtually impossible that 24% of California Latinos cast their vote for Trump as purported by the exit poll. Instead of winning 71% of Latino votes, Clinton won more than 80%.
The discrepancy between the exit poll and our findings is similar to discrepancies found in precinct and census research in Texas, Arizona and Florida. Taken together, these results suggest that the findings of an entrance poll that was conducted in the days before the Nov. 8 election are much closer to reality than the exit poll. The research firm Latino Decisions did the survey. It put the Latino vote for Clinton at 80% in California, and for Trump, 16%. Nationally, 79% voted Democratic, and only 18% Republican.
More state level analysis needs to be done on the voting patterns in the 2016 election. At the very least, we expect scholars and policymakers will ultimately recognize that the trend in Latino voting more turnout and more votes for Democrats was buoyed and extended by Clintons candidacy, not interrupted or reversed.
Read more: http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-92304395/
2naSalit
(86,672 posts)spanone
(135,854 posts)brush
(53,794 posts)StevieM
(10,500 posts)to further belittle her.
They wanted to make her candidacy out to be a total disaster and act like she didn't even turn out minority voters. That has been a regular talking point. In reality, black turnout was up from what John Kerry got in 2004, even though overall voter turnout was down from 2004. Latino turnout was up, and was never actually indicated to be down. But some people just attached that claim to the story about her supposedly poor numbers among Latino voters.
This story is not groundbreaking. It was obvious from one look at her landslide in California, her narrow loss in Arizona and her wins in Colorado and Nevada that she did better among Latinos then the exit polls indicated.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Initech
(100,087 posts)That's who voted for Trump.
KnR
StevieM
(10,500 posts)StevieM
(10,500 posts)herding cats
(19,565 posts)The previous claims went against what I knew to be true in several districts I had contact with.
The graph at the link is illuminating. As was this part:
The discrepancy between the exit poll and our findings is similar to discrepancies found in precinct and census research in Texas, Arizona and Florida. Taken together, these results suggest that the findings of an entrance poll that was conducted in the days before the Nov. 8 election are much closer to reality than the exit poll. The research firm Latino Decisions did the survey. It put the Latino vote for Clinton at 80% in California, and for Trump, 16%. Nationally, 79% voted Democratic, and only 18% Republican.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)the false claim about Trump's strength among Latinos.