eks-Maupassant skrev:Thomas31 skrev:eks-Maupassant skrev:Mht latinoerne. De er 17% af landets befolkning. Hvordan er de ligegyldige lol?
Se på dit eget kort. De bor i de forkerte stater. Det er ikke primærvalg men Winner-take-all. Hvorfor i alverden skulle Trump fokusere på latinoer i NY eller californien, hvor han alligevel taber, eller Texas, hvor han alligevel vinder (medmindre han kollapser totalt og så er det jo ligegyldigt) eller småstater med meget ringe sandsynlighed for at afgøre valget. Kun Florida er i spil, men han kan ikke prioritere den stat, når han er tvunget til at vinde i en stribe gamle industristater nordpå, hvor anti-immigration og modstand mod handelsaftaler vægter. Han skal vinde dem, formentlig også Pennsylvania, hvor han er klart bagud. Og amerikanske valg afgøres af turnout. Der skal prædikes løs for de allerede frelste for at motivere dem til at møde op. Hillary vil givetvis vinde stort blandt sofavælgere. Trumps chance ligger i, at hans vælgere vil det mere. Men her hjælper det ikke at tage til californken og kysse babyer fra Mexico.
Man kan vist koge din holdning ned til "stemmer er ikke nødvendige for at vinde et valg?"
Republikanerne analyserede sig frem til, efter at de havde tabt til Obama, at det ikke kunne lade sig gøre at vinde uden at have minoritererne med. Fordi de, som du siger, bare forærer alle de stater med mange latonoer og sorte til demokraterne når de driver dem væk fra sig.
Clintons kampagne går nu efter at tage Trumps "sikre" stater, altså at gå efter en landslipe.
Det er slet ikke nødvendigt at tage til Californien mere, fordi Trump selv fører kampagne for Clinton ved at svine folk til.
Clinton smider 2 mio $ samt Michelle Obama ind i Arizona nu. Hvis Trump ikke var en idiot der mente man vinder valg ved at svine vælgerne til, så havde de 2 mio og Michelle måske være stuck i Californien, hvor Clinton skulle overbevise latinoerne om at hun da også gik ind for konservative familieværdier. Og Trump kunne have Arizona i fred.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/us/po ... paper&_r=0The maneuvering speaks to the unexpected tension facing Mrs. Clinton as she hurtles toward what aides increasingly believe will be a decisive victory — a pleasant problem, for certain, but one that has nonetheless scrambled the campaign’s strategy weeks before Election Day: Should Mrs. Clinton maximize her own margin, aiming to flip as many red states as possible to run up an electoral landslide, or prioritize the party’s congressional fortunes, redirecting funds and energy down the ballot?
Thanks to an infusion of contributions in recent weeks, and what aides describe as a war chest they had maintained in case the opportunity arose, Mrs. Clinton is in effect trying to do both.
"In particular, Democrats hope to make an example of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, an ardent Trump supporter, by defeating the Phoenix lawman, whose incendiary comments about Hispanics and aggressive tactics with immigrants have garnered attention far beyond his jurisdiction in Maricopa County.
“If Democrats were going to win in Arizona in 2016, you’d need a Republican who turns off Republican women, who really energizes Latinos, and you’d need other races on the ground that can really drive engagement — and we have all that,” said Andrei Cherny, a former state Democratic chairman.
Alexis Tameron, the current state Democratic chairwoman, said Republican stumbles had allowed local Democrats to “jump our own timeline” for when officials expected to make the state competitive on the presidential level.
“I give credit where credit is due,” Ms. Tameron said. “
And I have been thanking a lot of people, including Donald Trump.”"