Presidential election, 2016

[pbrower2a]

Donald Trump has said the vilest stuff ever about any large group of Hispanics by national origin. I can see Donald Trump getting more Hispanics out to vote, and in a larger proportion D. Does anyone think that Donald Trump causes Puerto Ricans or Cuban-Americans to think "He's not talking about me"?

Even if the Hispanic vote reached the level of non-college whites in level of participation and of blacks in partisan identification in the vote, Democrats would pick up only three states from 2012 -- but those three states are North Carolina (close in 2012), Arizona (on the margin of contest), and Texas. Hillary Clinton comes close to 400 electoral votes.

Don't expect white people to compensate for losses by Donald Trump among minorities. Donald Trump is likely to do about as well among non-college white people who see ethnic minorities as competition. For educated white people, the people that Donald Trump says nasty things about might be relatives by marriage (who are not dopers, rapists, robbers, etc.) or co-workers. This might be a poor year in which to extol the virtues, whatever they are, of Donald Trump for President at the office.

Hispanics are still heavily Catholic, so just imagine what parish priests have to say about the 2016 Presidential election. Blacks can at most swing only one state, and only if they vote like college-educated white people -- which isn't likely. The only state that the black vote can swing toward Hillary Clinton is North Carolina, the only state that Barack Obama lost by a small margin in 2012.

I'm guessing that under-educated white people are severely atomized in their voting, that they are heavily Protestant, and that they are more vulnerable to visceral appeals than to moral suasion or even economic self-interest. I can't see its participation rising any in 2016. It's R swing likely peaked with Obama as the Democratic nominee for President.

This should be familiar to us all: the 2012 Presidential election



Obama (D) 332
Romney ® 206

 

This is also the map that I get with any jiggling of the "Asian and other" vote for partisanship or level of participation. Because the "Asian and other" vote (the "other" is largely American Indians and Alaska natives) is heavily concentrated in states that can't swing much in 2016 (AK, AZ, CA, HI, MT, NV, NM, OK, OR, WA) there's just not much that anyone can do to jiggle the partisanship or participation of "Asians and others" to swing any state. No effect, no map.

I have other maps, though.


I can quickly dispense with jiggling the black vote because reducing its participation level nationwide to 28% (from 66%) would flip four states necessary for a Trump win. Those would be Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Colorado and Nevada would still go for Clinton. Getting the black vote to go 30% for Trump, which is probably about what Eisenhower got in the 1950s, would still not bring about a Trump win.





Trump 286
Clinton 252

which would happen if black participation in the election went down to just below 30% (which isn't going to happen, because such would depend upon tampering with electoral laws) or if Trump got 32% of the black vote (which isn't going to happen because Donald Trump isn't Dwight Eisenhower).  

If Hispanics voted with the partisan intensity and at the level of participation of blacks (93%D, 66% participation, then the 2016 map would flip only three states:



Clinton (D) 396
Romney ® 142

But the states to swing would be [size=15pt]North Carolina[/size], [size=12pt]Arizona[/size], and

[size=38pt]TEXAS [/size]

Highly unlikely.