Donald Trump's Hispanic voter 'doomsday' - BBC

[TomSea]

Despite the headline sounding anti-Trump; there is some good info in this article.

But my rationalization is, Hispanics generally don't vote Republican so?

Donald Trump's Hispanic voter 'doomsday'

Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente should probably be a Republican.

The walls in the lobby of his San Diego, California, office are dominated by photos in which he's smiling alongside Republicans - Presidents Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and George W Bush, and 2008 nominee John McCain.

He's donated thousands of dollars to Republican politicians over the past several decades.

When the self-made millionaire talks about government meddling in private industry - his car dealerships, currency exchange stores and real estate ventures - he takes a page right out of the Republican playbook.

"In my business 30% is owned by the United States government and 10% is owned by the state of California. I didn't pick them as partners, but they sure know how to mess in my business," Mr De La Fuente says. "It appears that the more people are trying to be productive, the more government tries to disrupt."

The Rocky De L Fuentes of the world ought to have been easy pickings for a Republican Party whose leaders just over three years ago acknowledged that they were facing a demographic doomsday scenario if they didn't broaden their appeal to the growing numbers of Hispanic voters.

Because of population growth rates, if the Republican presidential candidate won the same percentage of the Hispanic vote in 2016 as nominee Mitt Romney did in 2012 (27%), according to a study by Republican strategists, he would have to win 64% of the white vote. No Republican has done that since Ronald Reagan's re-election landslide in 1984.

More At: http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36462555

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Sorry, but we have to take a stand somewhere. If proposition 187 is too much for Hispanics, then we'll have to die upon this hill I guess. I'll never agree that "undocumented" immigrants should get government benefits. Never ever ever. And I will consider voting for Trump, despite finding him unqualified et al. We cannot withstand the wholesale importation of the world' poor people and still have government benefits. That will not work.

[HAPPY2BME]

[sinkspur]

For California Republicans, Barajas says, the tragedy is that they were just starting to put the damage from past battles behind them by focusing on an economic message that could unite a diverse electorate.

"In California, we have a tremendous amount of new jobs that have been created," he said. "But a lot of these jobs are part time and they pay lower wages, and they don't have health insurance or they tend to be in service or in retail. That doesn't do much to provide a leg up for families."

Instead, the Republican Party is left playing defence - in California and in essential general-election battleground states with large Hispanic populations, like Florida, Nevada, Virginia and Colorado.

Barajas worries that even traditionally conservative states like Texas and Arizona could be fertile terrain for Democrats.

Trump has destroyed every bit of progress made in the last 15 years with Hispanics.  He will be lucky to get 20%.  With that level of support, he would have to get nearly 80% of whites supporting him.

Impossible.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Trump has destroyed every bit of progress made in the last 15 years with Hispanics.  He will be lucky to get 20%.  With that level of support, he would have to get nearly 80% of whites supporting him.

Impossible.

Ehhhh, I really wonder about the wisdom of targeting subgroups. Why not go after the popular vote? It's the most accurate predictor of who will be president we have?

The thing is that all these variables are so fluid. Hispanics may hate Trump, but blacks may stay home. Bernie voters may stay home. Etc. The cumulative affect could be devastating for Hillary. Does Hillary really inspire anybody? I didn't see much enthusiasm.

Not a Trump fan but so sick of this targeting of subgroups BS. Trump has high unfavorables that will make it hard for him to win, period.

[RedHead]

"Trump needs to be stopped at all costs," Mr De La Fuente says, repeatedly referring to the Republican by his derogatory Spanish nickname, "pelos del elote" (corn hair).

Love the nickname.  I might wind up adopting it over Sleazy Donald.

[RedHead]

Ehhhh, I really wonder about the wisdom of targeting subgroups. Why not go after the popular vote? It's the most accurate predictor of who will be president we have?

Those subgroups make up part of the popular vote.  I'm not saying that the Republicans need to pander to them but we have a candidate who is going out of his way to be offensive to Hispanics, to Blacks, to women.  That's a short road to disaster.

The thing is that all these variables are so fluid. Hispanics may hate Trump, but blacks may stay home. Bernie voters may stay home. Etc. The cumulative affect could be devastating for Hillary. Does Hillary really inspire anybody? I didn't see much enthusiasm.

So then it could vote down to those who go out to vote against Trump and not necessarily for Clinton.  Stay-at-home voters might hurt Hillary more.  Yet Trump gives them reasons to go out and vote just to keep him out of the Oval Office.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Those subgroups make up part of the popular vote.  I'm not saying that the Republicans need to pander to them but we have a candidate who is going out of his way to be offensive to Hispanics, to Blacks, to women.  That's a short road to disaster.

So then it could vote down to those who go out to vote against Trump and not necessarily for Clinton.  Stay-at-home voters might hurt Hillary more.  Yet Trump gives them reasons to go out and vote just to keep him out of the Oval Office.

If enough liberal subgroups stay home, it simply will not matter. Trump will win. And Hillary is a dispiriting candidate, maybe not as big as a jackass as Trump, but depressing enough.

Not that that will happen, but it's a reason to stay strong and true to what you believe no matter the consequences. The "subgroups" do not mechanistically vote, they all have their own reasons for voting and how.

[Oceander]

If enough liberal subgroups stay home, it simply will not matter. Trump will win. And Hillary is a dispiriting candidate, maybe not as big as a jackass as Trump, but depressing enough.

Not that that will happen, but it's a reason to stay strong and true to what you believe no matter the consequences. The "subgroups" do not mechanistically vote, they all have their own reasons for voting and how.

And Trump is going out of his way to give the dispirited liberals substantial good reasons to go out and vote against him to keep him out of the White House. 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Those subgroups make up part of the popular vote.  I'm not saying that the Republicans need to pander to them but we have a candidate who is going out of his way to be offensive to Hispanics, to Blacks, to women.  That's a short road to disaster.

So then it could vote down to those who go out to vote against Trump and not necessarily for Clinton.  Stay-at-home voters might hurt Hillary more.  Yet Trump gives them reasons to go out and vote just to keep him out of the Oval Office.

Trump like him some Taco Bowls so it's all cool.