Mort Walker wrote:Dipanker wrote:^
Basic math should tell you that 2% shift in 11% Latino population, or a 5% shift in 12% Black population is orders of magnitude smaller than a 5% shift in 70% of the white population when total caste votes are ~131 million.
What is true though that a 2% shift in Latino vote, or a 5% shift in Black vote alone was sufficient to be responsible for Hillary's loss given that the total vote difference in 13 of the swing state was about 80,000 votes!
A 5% shift in white votes who are 70% of the population roughly translates to ~4.5 million additional white votes, I am not surprised if it is being labeled as WHITELASH.
7% Indian American does not mean 7% Asian.
There wasn't a +5% shift in white votes. It was a +1% shift of whites by race. There was +5% shift by males. To blame this on blacks not voting is a bunch of crap as they still voted heavily in favor of HRC. The black vote was however +7% for DT.
Oops..my bad this time, I will accept that. The posted link above talked about less than 5% shift in white votes and I used the 5% number hurriedly for some quick back of the envelope calculation, turns out the actual shift is much less as you point out.
5% shift in male vote definitely explains at least where some of the democrat missing millennials went.
I personally think the missing millennials are much more responsible as they are missing by the millions than 5% blacks or 2% latino and I wouldn't blame them.