Said Frank Luntz, quoted in a Politico article titled "How Donald Trump defeats Hillary Clinton/Obama’s black supporters are crucial to a Trump win, and pollsters say he has a chance with this bloc."
Another longtime Republican pollster and veteran of multiple presidential campaigns has tested Trump’s appeal to blacks and Hispanics and come to the same conclusion. “He behaves in a way that most minorities would not expect a billionaire to behave,” explained the pollster, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid damaging relationships within the party. “He’s not a white-bread socialite kind of guy.”
पोस्ट्स
५५ टिप्पण्या:
It's the Marion Barry effect. Blacks seem to like their pols theatrical.
Frank Luntz isn't a very credible pollster. His predictions in 2012 were very wide of the mark.
AKA black people feel as divorced from the establishment as inland blue collar whites. Populism doesn't have to be consistent or even that concerned with policy. It's all about Trump's personality and his perceived independence from the moneyed interests. To coastal sneering elites, Trump is the oik candidate.
The irony, of course, is that Trump's business interests are in arguably the most closely regulated economic sector. He may not need rich men to finance his campaign, but he does need politicians in both parties to play ball with him. Trump's "independence" is compromised just like any other candidate. If he loses, he still needs to work with Schumer, de Blasio, Cuomo, Christie, etc., not to mention whoever is in charge of HUD in the next administration.
I saw a headline the other day from the 538 guy that basically said, if Republicans choose Trump they are in trouble.
Isn't he supposed to be way more accurate than Luntz?
Granted, Luntz seems to be where I am. I think Trump would win in a landslide.
Then again, I thought Romney would win in a landslide. I thought, who could possibly vote for Obama twice?
Vote for Trump...The First Black Billionaire President.
The Donald's business is built on servicing the people who want to show off a high style and romance the ladies.
This is a very interesting year and nobody knows nothing until a couple of elections are held.
There is an awful lot of talk about Trump doing this or that and there is NO DATA !
I thought Romney would win in 2012 because I thought voters would never re-elect that guy who was wrecking everything.
I was wrong. HL Mencken said it pretty well, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
He also said, "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
I doubt he would call Obama that as he was a Progressive but he was correct and I didn't see it.
We could not do worse than the present Democrat lineup.
Trump and Christie have so far been gentle with each other. Trump does not care about offending Bush or Cruz or Rubio or Carson ... but Christie has considerable influence over the fate of Atlantic City. Trump needs Christie (and Christie needs Trump).
If Hillary were still senator, I doubt Trump attacks her like he has been.
Hmmm.....Trump/Carson?
Frank Luntz isn't a very credible pollster. His predictions in 2012 were very wide of the mark.
So were everyone else's.
BDNYC said...
Trump and Christie have so far been gentle with each other. Trump does not care about offending Bush or Cruz or Rubio or Carson ... but Christie has considerable influence over the fate of Atlantic City. Trump needs Christie (and Christie needs Trump).
If Hillary were still senator, I doubt Trump attacks her like he has been.
1/19/16, 11:03 AM"
If Hillary was still a senator Trump would have no need to attack her like she has been. If Hillary was still a senator she wouldn't be looking at the prospect of ending her political career in disgrace as she is now. Your observation about Christie is interesting. Trump was able to get a gaming license in NJ but not in Nevada. I wonder why.
Michael K: This is a very interesting year and nobody knows nothing until a couple of elections are held.
Exactly. (And not even then.)
We'll see. Dems save the racism accusations for the general elections. He's lived largely immune from such charges since his life was outside politics, but all that's different now.
Rick:
Racism under [class] diversity schemes or a non-institutional, unorganized prejudice?
The Left is crazy cuckoo when they speak about Trump. Some my GOP friends too.
Trump has never once uttered a bad thing about African-Americans. Not once. His beef is with ILLEGAL immigration -- so, yes, he has taken some heat from the hispanic community. But, again, not the black community.
Black Lives Matter is, also, a joke, considering that Michael Brown "hands-up, don't shoot" myth has already been officially debunked by Obama/Holder's DOJ.
So, Hillary won't get nearly the black vote that Obama got. And, Trump, a celebrity from NY, not a Conservative ideologue, will get a larger share, say, 10-15% of the black vote-- which is excellent.
Anything can happen, but I'll believe it when I see it--I've been hearing about GOP inroads with minorities since the '90s when it was Kemp and "enterprise zones" and in the '00s when gay marriage and abortion were going to make blacks abandon the Dems. The fact is the last time the GOP came close to a majority of the black vote was 1960, and even breaking 15% would be huge.
Then again, with the bar so low it shouldn't be hard to overcome it. With Obama not on the ballot, black turnout should be low and the Dem percentage should also be less than the 90%+ they've gotten in the last two cycles. Hillary is trying hard to repeat what Obama did--get a lot of minority turnout to overcome her deficit with whites--but I think that's a mistake, as she cannot meet those numbers and can only hope to scare those groups away from the GOP.
One game changer is the mess going on in China now--if that brings the U.S. into a recession by mid-year, it should be a huge boost for the GOP.
Milo Yiannopolous over at Breitbart just said the same thing about Trump as First Black President. That boy can write.
"Trump and Christie have so far been gentle with each other. Trump does not care about offending Bush or Cruz or Rubio or Carson ... but Christie has considerable influence over the fate of Atlantic City. Trump needs Christie (and Christie needs Trump)."
I think they also have similar personalities, and are very much "NY area" in that way. If Trump weren't running this cycle, Christie is likely the guy he'd support.
But if they saw each other as their primary threat (as they don't yet) then gloves come off. The GOP knows how to do internal warfare better than any group.
If Hillary was still a senator Trump would have no need to attack her like she has been. If Hillary was still a senator she wouldn't be looking at the prospect of ending her political career in disgrace as she is now. Your observation about Christie is interesting. Trump was able to get a gaming license in NJ but not in Nevada. I wonder why.
Trump's properties aren't doing great in AC, but nothing is. Even the Borgata is hardly cleaning house last I checked,
His lambasting of illegal immigration resonates with many blacks. Hispanics and blacks have always been antagonistic to each other and so they are an odd mix in the Dem coalition.
Not sure how this plays out with black women, or especially with nice black church ladies, but but I can't see a lot of black men enthusiastically voting for Mrs. Clinton (not cool). Trump must be more interesting to many. Anecdotally, I used to work with a black guy (masters degree) about 10 years ago that was a big Trump fan at the time. I can totally see him voting for DTT today. Trump will get black votes.
Rick: We'll see. Dems save the racism accusations for the general elections. He's lived largely immune from such charges since his life was outside politics, but all that's different now.
Whuh? Nobody's attacking Trump for "racism" yet? You just get back from Antarctica or something?
I'd say a large part of Trump's popularity arises from his willingness to tell the usual suspects to stuff it when they try to play the race card on him (in refreshing contrast to the cringe-inducing defensive pandering of the garden-variety 'pub pol).
Exactly right, mccullough. It's not just that the blacks fear illegals taking their jobs, but also that they see Hispanics as the new toy in the box for Democrat pandering and they're sickened by the thought of being sent to the back of the liberal bus, as it were.
Low-skilled black men have been the hardest hit by the massive inflow of low-skilled immigrants into the country, and they are much more anti-immigrant than white guilt liberal types. Plus, anyone who has seen the inside of the prison knows that blacks and Hispanics are frequently not bosom buddies.
damikesc said...
If Hillary was still a senator Trump would have no need to attack her like she has been. If Hillary was still a senator she wouldn't be looking at the prospect of ending her political career in disgrace as she is now. Your observation about Christie is interesting. Trump was able to get a gaming license in NJ but not in Nevada. I wonder why.
Trump's properties aren't doing great in AC, but nothing is. Even the Borgata is hardly cleaning house last I checked,
1/19/16, 12:24 PM"
While its true no one is doing well in Atlantic City today that doesn't change the fact that Trump apparently was clean enough for the New Jersey Gaming Commission but apparently not for the Nevada Gaming Commission. It's hard to believe that Trump wanted to do a hotel-casino in AC but only a hotel in Vegas. Something isn't quite right about Trump but at least we know he isn't a Communist and whatever his shortcomings he isn't as scummy and criminal as the Clintons.
While its true no one is doing well in Atlantic City today that doesn't change the fact that Trump apparently was clean enough for the New Jersey Gaming Commission but apparently not for the Nevada Gaming Commission. It's hard to believe that Trump wanted to do a hotel-casino in AC but only a hotel in Vegas. Something isn't quite right about Trump but at least we know he isn't a Communist and whatever his shortcomings he isn't as scummy and criminal as the Clintons.
At the time they opened, AC was a MUCH easier market to clean up in than Las Vegas. AC casinos are crap. The Sands is fucking abysmal. The Tropicana is a joke.
mculllough wrote:
His lambasting of illegal immigration resonates with many blacks.
WEll yeah. Because their commumity is hardest hit when we allow more illegal immigration. That should be a point that repubs hammer home to the black community every day.
Well he has Omarosa Manigault on his side!
"Something isn't quite right about Trump "
Yes, it's called Harry Reid.
Anglelyne said...
Whuh? Nobody's attacking Trump for "racism" yet?
If you think those are attacks wait until the general. The criticisms of Trump thus far have mostly been wedge attacks on his supporters, a thinly veiled warning for Republicans not to associate themselves with racists. When we get to the general though they'll be calling every contract he's ever signed evidence of his own racism.
n.n said...
Racism under [class] diversity schemes or a non-institutional, unorganized prejudice?
Bay Area Guy said...
Trump has never once uttered a bad thing about African-Americans. Not once.
That charges of racism are both forthcoming and damaging among blacks has nothing to do with reality. Hillary Clinton was a racist in 2008, but in this election she's still going to win 80%+ of the black vote.
Wonder if Hillary, under a fair assessment, could get a Nevada gaming license?
Trump is supporting the ONE SINGLE THING that will help the black community more than almost any other "guvment" program. Reducing the labor pool.
Forcing businesses to go back to training folks on the job.
I expect he will get more of the black vote than any republican in recent history.
"Trump is supporting the ONE SINGLE THING that will help the black community more than almost any other "guvment" program. Reducing the labor pool."
Republicans at least since the 1990s have been far more restrictionist when it comes to immigration than Democrats (excepting union-dominated districts). If it hasn't helped them win the black vote then, why would it now?
If Trump does (relatively) well among the black vote this year, it'll be because Obama isn't on the ballot. No amount of GOP positioning is going to move the numbers.
"That charges of racism are both forthcoming and damaging among blacks has nothing to do with reality. Hillary Clinton was a racist in 2008, but in this election she's still going to win 80%+ of the black vote."
I never understood the black love for the Clintons. There's really no reason Hillary should do better than Sanders among that demo, but somehow they feel loyal to her and her husband. It was the only part of that "first black president" crap that wasn't total BS.
Republicans at least since the 1990s have been far more restrictionist when it comes to immigration than Democrats (excepting union-dominated districts). If it hasn't helped them win the black vote then, why would it now?
It can be argued that we even had a black President and they got screwed over. You cannot really blame racism on this one.
Rick: If you think those are attacks wait until the general.
Of course they'll ramp up the "racist!" hysteria in the general. It's what they do. But it's nonsense to claim he's thus far been immune to charges of racism.
...a thinly veiled warning for Republicans...
I guess you and I just have different ideas about what constitutes subtlety.
Brando: Republicans at least since the 1990s have been far more restrictionist when it comes to immigration than Democrats.
...and have the deepest respect for the voters who elected them or maintained them in office, the morning after election night, when they've run on "immigration restriction" or "enforcement of immigration law".
Well . . . Trump puts on a pretty good minstrel show, so - - - -
I'm dubious about this statistic.
Palin endorsing Trump is unfortunate, but not surprising given their past support of each other.
But it was disappointing that she dissed Cruz, and, through the colossal non-entity of her daughter. That was pretty shabby. If, as part of her endorsement of Trump, Palin starts attacking Cruz, she will lose what little credibility she still has with conservatives, and it is not clear for whom she then can claim to be speaking.
After Hillary Clinton is recommended for prosecution on multiple charges, one wonders what Democrats will do.
"Trump has never once uttered a bad thing about African-Americans."
I noticed that NPR was concern-trolling strenuously when reporting on The Great Two Corinthians Scandal, in part because, well, Trump of all people, gave a speech. On Martin Luther King Day! The inappropriateness of it all caused much tut-tutting. How dare he! NPR couldn't even.
Low-skilled black men have been the hardest hit by the massive inflow of low-skilled immigrants into the country, and they are much more anti-immigrant than white guilt liberal types.
And that’s why Trump will get more black votes than has previously been thought possible.
But how can that be true since, according to Nate Silver using a Gallup poll, 70 out 100 Democrats rate The Donald unfavorably. That finding is the antithesis of a Mercury Analytics poll that finds that 20% of Democrats will cross over and vote for Trump.
Yeah, I can see that the data from the two polls is not necessarily contradictory, but Silver has identified Trump as the carrier of more negative baggage than all other candidates.
Pew Research throws in another contradiction, noting that in Reagan's day 78% of blacks were Democratic while the current number has fallen to 69%. So how is it possible that the greatest number of black voters since the 1980 Ronaldus Magnus days are going to vote Republican?
Numbers and liars - I pass. Bring back those Reagan Democrats, no matter what color.
grackle wrote:
And that’s why Trump will get more black votes than has previously been thought possible.
But trump isn't in fact making this argument. He's just saying 'immigration bad" style stuff. You know it impacts african americans, I know it. but do african americans know it? I haven't really heard any evidence that blacks are in fact going to Trump in droves.
"If you think those are attacks wait until the general."
And then the mainstream media's attacks will finally be effective against Trump because...
I'm around a lot of black people being a musician. Not just white collar blacks but a true cross section of mainstream black culture. People who are completely themselves around me since I'm in the minority and treated as a peer because I'm respected as a musician. I mention this only in that it allows me to observe the culture without the racial filters most white people are subjected to. I can tell you doubting Thomases that Trump does indeed have a lot of support in the black community, and until now I have seen zero support for any other Republican.
"It can be argued that we even had a black President and they got screwed over. You cannot really blame racism on this one."
Who's blaming racism? I'm saying I don't think the immigration issue is going to cause a big swing among black voters. They've long voted for the Democrats because generally they see them as the lesser of two evils on a whole host of issues that matter most to them. Social issues (school prayer, gay marriage, etc.) haven't moved them, and I doubt immigration will either.
There will be SOME movement, maybe a few points, simply because Obama isn't on the ballot. For most black voters, the actual first black president (i.e., not Bill Clinton) was enough to boost their turnout and get over 90% of the vote. Pander as she might, Hillary won't replicate that. But I suspect she'll at least get in the mid 80s.
"I can tell you doubting Thomases that Trump does indeed have a lot of support in the black community, and until now I have seen zero support for any other Republican."
Ok--we'll see. If Trump cracks 20% of the black vote, it would be a big deal for a Republican.
"...and have the deepest respect for the voters who elected them or maintained them in office, the morning after election night, when they've run on "immigration restriction" or "enforcement of immigration law"."
Are you suggesting the reason black voters haven't been swayed by the GOP's immigration politics is because the GOP doesn't deliver? Because the Dems certainly haven't delivered on a much longer history of promises to black voters, and they still get around 9 in 10 black votes.
Who's blaming racism?
In the end, black leaders could always say that the white President didn't care about black folks and that is why these inane Democrat policies didn't work.
It's hard to make that claim about a black President. A black President couldn't make inane Democrat policies work either.
At a certain point, people are going to note that stuff isn't getting better. And the constant "Trump isn't really a Republican" vitriol isn't hurting him there, either.
I don't think the immigration issue is going to cause a big swing among black voters. They've long voted for the Democrats because generally they see them as the lesser of two evils on a whole host of issues that matter most to them. Social issues (school prayer, gay marriage, etc.) haven't moved them, and I doubt immigration will either.
Who's to say? Eventually, they're going to notice that Democrats worry far more about Hispanics then about them (why are Dems so interested in ignoring crimes by Hispanics but far less interested in ignoring crimes by blacks?) and will note that their interests aren't being met by them as well. It won't take a majority of blacks voting for Trump to cause Hillary nightmares. If 25% do, that is a massive problem for the Dems. Their coalition cannot handle many defectors.
Money moves people better than many other things. And blacks have been KILLED, economically, under Obama by any known measure.
Pander as she might, Hillary won't replicate that. But I suspect she'll at least get in the mid 80s.
Possibly. But I'd also imagine we'll see a HUGE drop-off in black turnout. Nobody wants to spend hours in line to vote for her. Especially given that her lies are so blatant.
"In the end, black leaders could always say that the white President didn't care about black folks and that is why these inane Democrat policies didn't work."
That's true, but I think economics and criminal justice issues matter more than simply this idea that the GOP doesn't care about black people, which is why when some Republicans spend a lot of time trying to appeal to black voters (e.g., Kemp, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul) they don't get much traction. Blacks on average tend to be poorer and tend to have more run-ins with the law, and even those that don't are more likely to identify with those that do (maybe having a relative or friend who fits that demo). They think--wrongly, in my view--that the social programs the Dems push are preferable than the GOP alternatives, and that the Dems are more sympathetic to those who fall on the wrong side of the law. I doubt further outreach would make much difference until blacks change ideologically.
"If 25% do, that is a massive problem for the Dems. Their coalition cannot handle many defectors."
Well, I'll believe 25% when it happens--even Reagan with his blowouts never topped 12% of the black vote, and the last time the GOP did better than 25% at the presidential level was 1960. I agree that a lower black turnout (which is a given, with Obama not on the ballot) will also hurt Hillary. Will it be enough to overcome other voters turned off by Trump, though?
There are also a few unknowns that could upend all of this, even assuming the election comes down to Hillary vs. Trump. I think a recession is starting, and it's possible a well-funded third party candidate jumps into the mix. And there's always the possibility of a major terror attack or other disaster.
Brando: Are you suggesting the reason black voters haven't been swayed by the GOP's immigration politics is because the GOP doesn't deliver?
No, I was (too) subtly suggesting to you that you stop chronically beclowning yourself with silly claims that the GOP wants to deliver.
Brando who is jazzed up about Hillary? No one is. That's the problem for the Democrats. Yes she will get the near monolithic black vote but just not the numbers. 1988 was overall a good year economically and 2016 so far isn't and it is going to get worse. While it's possible the Republicans can screw things up it will take a lot of effort for them to lose this year. Perhaps the best thing for the Democrats as a party longterm is to have Sanders become the nominee and go on to lose by a landslide. That will cleanout the Clinton's from the party, Obama as well and the party will have to rethink it's going so far left. Or they stay stuck on stupid in which case they remain mostly out of power for several election cycles.
"No, I was (too) subtly suggesting to you that you stop chronically beclowning yourself with silly claims that the GOP wants to deliver."
Much as I enjoy a fine morning of beclowning, nothing I wrote on this suggested the GOP "wants to deliver". I was simply talking about what promises sway which voters.
"Brando who is jazzed up about Hillary? No one is. That's the problem for the Democrats. Yes she will get the near monolithic black vote but just not the numbers. 1988 was overall a good year economically and 2016 so far isn't and it is going to get worse. While it's possible the Republicans can screw things up it will take a lot of effort for them to lose this year. Perhaps the best thing for the Democrats as a party longterm is to have Sanders become the nominee and go on to lose by a landslide. That will cleanout the Clinton's from the party, Obama as well and the party will have to rethink it's going so far left. Or they stay stuck on stupid in which case they remain mostly out of power for several election cycles. "
Hillary cannot get people excited about her--she doesn't have it in her. But what she will do is stir up fear of the GOP. The message will be "these people are extreme, they hate you, they want to destroy this country--and if they take the White House, they will have nothing to stop them". I doubt it'll be enough to hit Obama levels of turnout, and some of that "war on women" crap probably won't play the second time. But that will be their strategy.
The Dems actually would benefit by losing (with Sanders or Clinton) as if they are the "out" party they will have a chance to rebuild and figure out why they no longer appeal to certain groups. Sometimes a total enough loss can make you regroup. And of course winning has its downsides, as keeping a larger coalition together is much harder.
Brando: Much as I enjoy a fine morning of beclowning, nothing I wrote on this suggested the GOP "wants to deliver". I was simply talking about what promises sway which voters.
OK. I'll try to remember that the next time you appear to be claiming that the GOP differs from the Dems on immigration in any significant way.
Has Trump been asked or otherwise addressed if he is comfortable putting all of his holdings into a blind trust if elected?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा