With all this in mind, I can see why this polling result was deliberately buried, deep.
Then I guess the same conspiratorial thinking applies to "Additionally, just 27 percent of Latinos who were polled said they would definitely vote for Trump in 2020, while 58 percent said they would not."
Nope, any admission of good news for Trump is out of bounds. To show your point (the bad news) would require showing the good news. Best to just bury the whole thing and hope no one looks past the cover story, which is what usually happens. Few look past the headlines and that is what is counted on when publishing these things.
With all this in mind, I can see why this polling result was deliberately buried, deep.
Then I guess the same conspiratorial thinking applies to "Additionally, just 27 percent of Latinos who were polled said they would definitely vote for Trump in 2020, while 58 percent said they would not."
PBS Newshour answers some of your questions. The piece also has an embedded 11-minute interview with the Director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion.
As part of the survey, 1,023 people were asked: “Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president?” President Trump was correct in that saying that 50 percent of the Latinos who were questioned in the survey said they approved of his work as president.
But only 153 Latino Americans were interviewed for the poll. The small sample size of Latino respondents had a “wide” margin of error of 9.9 percentage points, Carvalho said. That means the 50 percent approval rating among Latinos that Trump cited could range from 40 percent to 60 percent.
A statistically significant poll of Latino Americans would have a much larger sample size, a lower margin of error and would be conducted in English or Spanish. The interviews in the most recent PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll were conducted only in English. ... Trump’s tweet also asserts that the last polling survey pointed to a 19 percent increase among Latino support. However, according to a January 2018 PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll, 27 percent of Latino adults approved of the job Trump was doing as president. A year later, the 50 percent of Latino approval would amount to a 23 percent increase, not 19 percent. However, it’s not immediately clear which past poll the president was referencing.
Trump’s tweet on the poll also didn’t mention that 46 percent of Latinos disapproved of his performance as president. Another four percent said they were unsure.
Additionally, just 27 percent of Latinos who were polled said they would definitely vote for Trump in 2020, while 58 percent said they would not.
In 2016, Trump received 20 percent of the Latino vote, according to exit polls.
Marist releases information on various subgroups interviewed in the poll to be transparent about its polling methods. NPR and the NewsHour didn’t focus on the subgroup in its coverage of the latest poll, partly because of the wide error margin and small sample size.
When dealing with groups within a larger poll, it’s important “to be statistically cautious” because the results are estimates, Carvalho said.
...
And in surveys focused on Latinos’ views of Trump and his job performance, the president’s approval rating is consistently underwater. According to a Pew Research Center’s survey from October, only 22 perfect of Latinos said they approved of Trump’s job as president, while 69 percent said they disapproved.
Pew has previously explained how language barriers and cultural differences could affect Latinos’ responses in surveys.
Thank you for your interest and diligence.
Caution, what follows is without any links or citations. It's just my own analysis and opinion, which I know troubles you. You've been warned in advance. Proceed at your own risk.
Here is the take away I got from the article I posted earlier.
First it is an NPR poll. That makes it worthy and widely respected. The troubling part is that they omitted this Trump positive information in their cover story for the poll, which I read and was linked to in my article, which you did find anyway.
Second is that even if only a ten point increase, this is still a significant number, worthy of note and mention. My understanding is that the 19 point increase referred to is from the previous month's poll from December 2018 from the same group. All things being equal, regardless of sample size, it is an increase using the same methodology. So the 19 point increase would be valid as the same size group and margin of error is consistent over a month to month measurement. How this number trends in the coming months will be very important to follow. We'll also have some other polling coming through to see if this upward trend of approval amongst "Latinos" is real.
If this is a new trend, it began concurrently when the border crisis / government shutdown began. The two are surely linked imo. If this trend holds, it is most troubling for the long term thinking of the democratic party which has invested so much in courting the Hispanic voters and in which the future of the party depends on more than any other ethnic group in the USA. As mentioned below, this number does not jive with the 2016 election stats. Of course not. To think that a particular group is monolithic in its belief systems is taking them for granted in the kindest terms. I do believe that the democratic party takes the Hispanic vote for granted just as they take the Black vote for granted. By watching various polls the past year or so, I've seen a similar trend of an increase in their approval of Trump as well. Around a 10 point increase on average. A 10 point shift towards Trump could be enough to swing the vote to him in some states with other groups remaining unchanged, allowing him an electoral college victory in that state.
Latinos or Hispanics are the ones most affected by this unbridled influx of largely unskilled Hispanics from other countries. I really have a hard time understanding how any immigrant who came through our system and entered legally would be for this open border line jumping which the democrats have fought so hard to maintain. This swing in Trump's approval rating amongst Latinos is way overdue imo. Regardless of Trump's motives or intent, his shutting down of the government over the insistence of halting this mass migration is something that is good for them and they are now giving him credit. Unemployment amongst Hispanics is at historic lows as well with Blacks for that matter. Maybe that has something to do with it, but that has been the case for the past year or so, making it hard to attribute unemployment numbers for the recent and dramatic rise in his approval rating with this particular group.
With all this in mind, I can see why this polling result was deliberately buried, deep.
Trump needs to stand firm on this. It is one of the two primary reasons he was elected.
PBS Newshour answers some of your questions. The piece also has an embedded 11-minute interview with the Director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion.
As part of the survey, 1,023 people were asked: âDo you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president?â President Trump was correct in that saying that 50 percent of the Latinos who were questioned in the survey said they approved of his work as president.
But only 153 Latino Americans were interviewed for the poll. The small sample size of Latino respondents had a âwideâ margin of error of 9.9 percentage points, Carvalho said. That means the 50 percent approval rating among Latinos that Trump cited could range from 40 percent to 60 percent.
A statistically significant poll of Latino Americans would have a much larger sample size, a lower margin of error and would be conducted in English or Spanish. The interviews in the most recent PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll were conducted only in English.
...
Trumpâs tweet also asserts that the last polling survey pointed to a 19 percent increase among Latino support. However, according to a January 2018 PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll, 27 percent of Latino adults approved of the job Trump was doing as president. A year later, the 50 percent of Latino approval would amount to a 23 percent increase, not 19 percent. However, itâs not immediately clear which past poll the president was referencing.
Trumpâs tweet on the poll also didnât mention that 46 percent of Latinos disapproved of his performance as president. Another four percent said they were unsure.
Additionally, just 27 percent of Latinos who were polled said they would definitely vote for Trump in 2020, while 58 percent said they would not.
In 2016, Trump received 20 percent of the Latino vote, according to exit polls.
Marist releases information on various subgroups interviewed in the poll to be transparent about its polling methods. NPR and the NewsHour didnât focus on the subgroup in its coverage of the latest poll, partly because of the wide error margin and small sample size.
When dealing with groups within a larger poll, itâs important âto be statistically cautiousâ because the results are estimates, Carvalho said.
...
And in surveys focused on Latinosâ views of Trump and his job performance, the presidentâs approval rating is consistently underwater. According to a Pew Research Centerâs survey from October, only 22 perfect of Latinos said they approved of Trumpâs job as president, while 69 percent said they disapproved.
Pew has previously explained how language barriers and cultural differences could affect Latinosâ responses in surveys.
Wrong? I think what you mean the sample doesn't represent the actual population, or as Proclivities said, the sample was too small. Could be, but that seems just as speculative.
Could also be bad methodology or questions. Did they have bilingual pollsters? How did they pick their participants? Did the pollsters come across as ICE agents trolling for victims?
RE. the latino 50% approval rating...perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they are more likely to live in the neighborhoods where the worst elements of this issue occurs, where the MS13 or whatever other bad element eventually locates. Its an immediate concern and not some distant one read in the papers.
Or maybe it's just wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.
Certainly doesn't reflect voting in the last election.
Wrong? I think what you mean the sample doesn't represent the actual population, or as Proclivities said, the sample was too small. Could be, but that seems just as speculative.
RE. the latino 50% approval rating...perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they are more likely to live in the neighborhoods where the worst elements of this issue occurs, where the MS13 or whatever other bad element eventually locates. Its an immediate concern and not some distant one read in the papers.
Or maybe it's just wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.
Certainly doesn't reflect voting in the last election.
The sample size was surprisingly small (150? - really?), but still, they should have posted the results. *edit - 58% of Latinos said they would "definitely vote against Trump in 2020".
RE. the latino 50% approval rating...perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they are more likely to live in the neighborhoods where the worst elements of this issue occurs, where the MS13 or whatever other bad element eventually locates. Its an immediate concern and not some distant one read in the papers.
Or maybe it's just wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.
Certainly doesn't reflect voting in the last election.
RE. the latino 50% approval rating...perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they are more likely to live in the neighborhoods where the worst elements of this issue occurs, where the MS13 or whatever other bad element eventually locates. Its an immediate concern and not some distant one read in the papers.
There's is your main point right there, I have heard from many people personally that actually live on the borders and it is a totally different situation than those in Minnesota sitting in an ivory tower or better yet a gated community.
RE. the latino 50% approval rating...perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they are more likely to live in the neighborhoods where the worst elements of this issue occurs, where the MS13 or whatever other bad element eventually locates. Its an immediate concern and not some distant one read in the papers.
We will not know if we do not try. It is as simple as that, imo.
A lot is already known, because history. So feigning ignorance about this largely symbolic solution is nonsense (like firing off a bunch of cruise missiles). Optics. Looks good, makes little difference.
What comes to mind are the arguments against gun control, esp. bad hombres (which Trump likes to focus on, because fear) will have no problem with walls. When Trump needs to reiterate again and again that walls are effective - while recognizing his pathological habit of lying - then they probably aren't.
(...) If walls did not work in the past and today only work to divert, not prevent, migrant flowsâwhile simultaneously having a grave human costâwhy have so many gone up in the past 30 years? They are effective as symbols that demonstrate that politicians are doing something to address the perceived threats brought by unauthorized movement. These perceived threats can be economic in the form of smugglers or workers taking revenue and jobs from citizens. They can be cultural in the sense that migrants bring different traditions, languages, and ways of life that might not match with the local culture.
While these underlying issues are complex and very rarely solved by whether or not a border is secured, âbuild a wallâ is an evocative slogan and the barrier itself is a powerful visual symbol of action. Consequently, despite the expense and questionable effectiveness, it seems likely that in the short term there will be many more walls going up around the world. What remains to be seen, however, is how long they will stay up.
Read all of it. It's interesting. If you're looking for effective, instead of symbolic, it's gonna cost you. A lot. Bigly. As in big deficit bigly (not the tiny 5-6B$ which also is symbolic).
One number talks of 117B$ for border enforcement (which includes a lot of stuff) in the first decade of this century, while illegal immigration continued unabated. Current annual budgets are likely higher and growing.
And the ROI? Questionable. Should remind you of some MIC spending...
I do know from prior discussions that the standard for mass murder is when someone kills 4 or more people, it is then considered mass murder. A serial killer at the very least.
It was stated here in this thread earlier that dealing with mass murder was more important than just ordinary garden variety homicides by illegal immigrants. Now we have a mass murder by a suspected illegal immigrant to deal with.
Neither label seems to apply.
Mass murder generally is in a single event. And a serial killer involves abnormal psychology.
This looks like burglarizing/killing older people repeatedly.
Bad enough in itself.
Question is: would a wall have stopped him? How did he get in?
Oh noes !! Now we have a suspected illegal immigrant who is a mass murderer. Now what ?
I do know from prior discussions that the standard for mass murder is when someone kills 4 or more people, it is then considered mass murder. A serial killer at the very least.
It was stated here in this thread earlier that dealing with mass murder was more important than just ordinary garden variety homicides by illegal immigrants. Now we have a mass murder by a suspected illegal immigrant to deal with.
. This kind of support may prolong the shutdown and cost democrats the very voters they claim to be the protectors of.
That level of support is very puzzling to me. PJ Gladnick, the author of the article you pointed to, notes that the Latino vote has swung up and down for Trump a lot. Gladnick quotes another writer (Caleb Howe at Mediaite) who stated that on November 1, Trump's approval rating was at 36%.
Gladnick and Howe's percentage numbers as presented in Gladnick's piece don't seem to match up, though. For instance, Howe states that the 50% approval rating from the PBS/NPR/Marist poll was a 19% swing...but compared to when? Howe doesn't say.
Perhaps most telling: Gladnick writes "The pollsters would probably say the sample of Latinos (about 150 in December) is too small, and the margin of error too large."
That's a pretty damn small sample. Gladnick notes that NPR and PBS were happy to talk about approval rating numbers of other groups in the poll but ignored Latino numbers. It'd be interesting to find out whether Latinos' approval of Trump has actually risen dramatically over the last few months and if so, why.
However, Gladnick committed his own sin of omission by failing to mention these numbers among Latinos polled.
Thinking about the 2020 election, do you definitely plan to vote for Donald Trump for reelection as president or do you definitely plan to vote against him?
Latinos: 27% Definitely vote for President Trump 58% Definitely vote against him 15% Unsure
The survey of 1,023 adults was conducted from Jan. 10 to Jan. 13 by The Marist Poll for NPR and the PBS NewsHour. Results for all Americans have a margin of error of +/- 3.8 percentage points. There were 324 Republicans or Republican-leaning independents surveyed. Where they are referenced, there is a margin of error of +/- 6.8 percentage points. There were 417 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents surveyed. Where they are referenced, there is a margin of error of +/- 6 percentage points.
