Hillary Clinton Would Crush Trump Among Latino Voters, Poll Finds

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Eight in 10 Hispanic voters said they had an unfavorable view of Trump.

GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump’s harsh immigration rhetoric may have launched him to frontrunner status for the Republican nomination, but it’s hurting him dearly among Hispanic voters, a new poll suggests.

The Washington Post-Univision News poll found that Democratic contender Hillary Clinton would win 73% of the Hispanic vote compared to just 16% for Trump. The ebullient property tycoon would fare worse among Latino voters than any of his GOP opponents, the poll found. Cruz, Rubio and Kasich would lose to Clinton by 38%, 30% and 43%, respectively.

http://fortune.com/2016/02/25/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-latino-voters/?xid=timehp-category

[MADem]

1. Love that gif--especially the popcorn eater in upper left!

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. Every time I see this my first thought is that he is going to expose his Junk.

Though, the shit he usually says is even more offensive.

[DCBob]

3. This is why the GOP is frantic about taking him down.

They know the importance of the Hispanic vote in many key states.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. If he loses the Latino vote 80-20 and the African American vote 92-8 ...

Demographics being what they are if he loses the Latino vote 80-20 and the African American vote 92-8 we can probably win with Walter Mondale like numbers among white voters. Mondale got 34%...

My math might be off a bit but close...There are some great statisticians like godhumor on this site.

[DCBob]

8. Fricking landslide in the making.

However, Trump is sly sneaky dog who has no problem lying and getting people to believe his lies. I suspect he will come up with something that might narrow that gap.

[Lucinda]

4. And anyone with a brain.

[Marr]

5. Among Latinos. He beats the pants off her in the election overall.

Sanders, on the other hand, trounces Trump in national polling.

I mean, really-- Clinton does much better with Latinos than Trump? No shit? Trump has made Latinos his favorite bogeyman. I think a random toaster would get more of the Latino vote than Trump. Sanders does even better than Clinton.

This sort of cherrypicking for deceptive headlines doesn't help anyone. If we nominate an unelectable candidate like HRC, someone all the polling is already telling us just can't win, then we are going to lose.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. I will defer to the peer reviewed research...

This sort of cherrypicking for deceptive headlines doesn't help anyone. If we nominate an unelectable candidate like HRC, someone all the polling is already telling us just can't win, then we are going to lose.

I will defer to the peer reviewed research and not the subjective analysis of a value laden random internet poster. The peer reviewed research suggests asking voters who they think will win is the best predictor of electoral success, ergo:

Simple surveys that ask people who they expect to win are among the most
accurate methods for forecasting U.S. presidential elections

https://forecasters.org/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/7-2a51b93047891f1ec3608bdbd77ca58d/2013/07/Graefe_vote_expectations_ISF.pdf

[div class="excerpt]

.

Studies of prediction market accuracy for election forecasting commonly compare the
daily market forecasts to results from polls published the same day. These studies generally find
that prediction markets yield more accurate forecasts than single polls.

https://forecasters.org/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/7-2a51b93047891f1ec3608bdbd77ca58d/2013/07/Graefe_vote_expectations_ISF.pdf

Hillary Clinton is a 10/11 favorite at the offshore betting sites and the VT senator is a 7-1 underdog


http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner


If you bet on Hillary you have to put up $1,100 to win $1,000.00

If you bet on Bernie you have to put up $145.00 to win $1,000.00.



The efficacy of polls nine months out in predicting a general election winner is essentially null:

Trial-heat polls, hereafter simply referred to as polls, ask respondents for whom they
intend to vote if the election were held today. That is, polls do not provide predictions; they
provide snapshots of public opinion at a certain point in time. However, this is not how the
media commonly treat polls. Polling results are routinely interpreted as forecasts of what will
happen on Election Day (Hillygus 2011). This can result in poor predictions, in particular if the
election is still far away, because public opinion can be difficult to measure and fragile over the
course of a campaign. However, researchers found ways to deal with these problems and to
increase the accuracy of poll-based predictions


https://forecasters.org/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/7-2a51b93047891f1ec3608bdbd77ca58d/2013/07/Graefe_vote_expectations_ISF.pdf

My observations are for the most part empirical and not normative, and most definitely not based on the selective reading of the evidence.

[Marr]

15. What's the date of your CBS poll there?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. It was an ABC poll

What's the date of your CBS poll there?

It was an ABC poll


If you have peer reviewed research that contradicts the findings of what I cited please post it. And if you have actual data that shows Hillary Clinton isn't doing much better than Bernie Sanders in predictions markets and voter expectations surveys please cite them.

Thank you in advance.

[Marr]

17. What's the date on your ABC poll there?

Here's a good summary of polling that supports my position. It's very recent.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. The peer reviwed research suggests polling this far out lacks predictive power

Trial-heat polls, hereafter simply referred to as polls, ask respondents for whom they
intend to vote if the election were held today. That is, polls do not provide predictions; they
provide snapshots of public opinion at a certain point in time. However, this is not how the
media commonly treat polls. Polling results are routinely interpreted as forecasts of what will
happen on Election Day (Hillygus 2011). This can result in poor predictions, in particular if the
election is still far away, because public opinion can be difficult to measure and fragile over the
course of a campaign. However, researchers found ways to deal with these problems and to
increase the accuracy of poll-based predictions


https://forecasters.org/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/7-2a51b93047891f1ec3608bdbd77ca58d/2013/07/Graefe_vote_expectations_ISF.pdf

[Marr]

19. I can't help but notice you refuse to give me the date on the poll you cited.

Can I assume that was another bit of deceitful misdirection, and it's an old poll?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. I have provided peer reviewed research and then data that flows from the research.

Can I assume that was another bit of deceitful misdirection, and it's an old poll?

Making ad hominem attacks in the form of suggesting I am deceitful does nothing to buttress your argument. Providing peer reviewed research that contradicts the peer reviewed research that I cited would. That, and citing actual data that suggests Senator Sanders outperforms Hillary Clinton in voter expectation surveys and predictions markets.

Waiting

To paraphrase Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire "show me the data." And while you are at it you can show me the peer reviewed research as well.

[Marr]

21. You posted an old poll without a date, implying it was recent.

You cited polling data that shows Clinton beating Trump with the Latino vote, implying this means she would beat him in the actual election.

When confronted with recent polling that shows HRC loses to Trump nationally while Sanders wins, you provided a document on the accuracy of market voodoo and urged people to ignore the polls.

You're all over the place.

I've already shown you polling data from a reliable source that backs up my position. You've offered two pieces of deceitful misdirection and an urge to ignore polling data.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. I made a simple request:

If you have peer reviewed research that contradicts the findings of what I cited please post it. And if you have actual data that shows Hillary Clinton isn't doing much better than Bernie Sanders in predictions markets and voter expectations surveys please cite it.


I will check back later to see if you complied with my request.

Thank you in advance.

[Marr]

23. I've already shown you polling data that supports my position. If your argument is that

we should ignore the polls and trust the market predictions instead, you shouldn't have made your initial arguments with polling data.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I made a three fold argument

I made a three fold argument and supported each argument with peer reviewed research. Any poster can look at the arguments I made and the peer reviewed research those arguments rest upon.

Argument One- Voter expectation surveys are the most efficacious predictor of electoral results;

Argument Two- Predictions markets are also highly efficacious predictors of electoral success, but not as efficacious as voter expectation surveys,

Argument Three- Polls months out from an election are the least efficacious predictor of electoral success.

I then put theory into practice and cited data in support of the theories I cited...

All straightforward, above board, and honest, that's who I am. Tricks are for kids.

_______________________

P.S. You are claiming the voter expectation survey I cited might not be of the most recent vintage. That's a fair argument. If you can cite a more recent voter expectation survey that contradicts the one I cited please cite it.

Thank you in advance.

[mythology]

7. I'm reasonably sure my cat's hairballs poll higher than Trump

With Hispanic voters.

[LexVegas]

9. To be fair, Bernie would probably do that as well.nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. If he wins the primary we will support him...

And Hillary would whup Trump worse than Fabricio Werdum Bellator would whup Kevin Hart in a MMA match, lol

[Nonhlanhla]

25. Which means she wins. nt

[Politicalboi]

26. If only they were the only voters

[sadoldgirl]

27. Any democrat could and would. so what?