"Did Glenn Youngkin Really Win Among Latinos? Or Did Terry McAuliffe Crush Him?"

|

From Politico (Sabrina Rodriguez & Marc Caputo):

Republican Glenn Youngkin pulled off the unthinkable in his victory in the Virginia governor's race Tuesday: He won the Latino vote by roughly a dozen percentage points.

Or perhaps not.

Youngkin's impressive performance was one of the exit poll findings from the Associated Press' VoteCast. But according to Edison Research, which conducts the exit poll for the TV networks, Democrat Terry McAuliffe crushed Youngkin among Latino voters, carrying the group by a hefty 34 points….

In Virginia, none of the exit polls or surveys leading up to election night had a large enough sample of Latinos to be statistically significant — Latinos only account for between 5 and 7 percent of the state's registered voters….

Exit polls have [also] become trickier to perform today than in the past, when most people voted on Election Day and it was easier for interviewers to grab voters at precincts after they cast their ballots….

NEXT: Could the OSHA Vaccine-or-Test ETS Fall Prey to the Congressional Review Act?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Simply spin to minimize the totality of the Democrat defeat.

    1. Most of Virginia is populated by old-timey bigots and half-educated losers. There are a few shining pockets of modernity, reason, education, skill, science, and achievement -- a few legitimate universities, even -- but most of Virginia belongs in West Virginia, Pennsyltucky, or Missibamasee. Democrats should expect to lose a Confederate state occasionally -- despite all of this country's great progress since the traitors, losers, and bigots were defeated -- without much consternation.

      1. Art, go back to commenting in WAPO, where everyone agrees with your bigotry.

        1. He's still yammering over there, too? I finally dumped my subscription following the "Austere Religious Scholar" headline.

      2. Arthur can't be more right about this.

        The first step in fixing a problem is understanding that it exists. Right-wing voters, and especially centrist swing voters, can't begin to address their old-time bigotry unless they are frequently reminded by progressives that they are bigots and half-educated losers.

        So keep it up, guys! Focus on the centrist swing voters, they are the ones most likely to be helped.

        Arthur is truly doing the Lord's work here.

        1. When you begin to scold Profs. Blackman and Volokh for aiming their incessant ankle-nipping at the modern mainstream, I will begin to consider whether there might be some substance to your observation.

          (Confusing centrist swing voters with the wingnuts I mock seems foolish.)

          1. "Confusing centrist swing voters with the wingnuts I mock seems foolish."

            It is foolish.

  2. He whipped McAuliffe among personas and that’s all that counts.

    Or personx, whichever you prefer.

    1. Is 50.9% to 48.4% a whipping? As much as the news networks tried to convince me this was important, I just couldn't gin up any interest in who will be the governor of Virginia. I hope for Virginia's sake Youngkin does a good job.

      1. I'd say it was a whipping, but only because McAuliffe was in free fall in the polls those last few days. The election happened in time to spare him being beaten like a rug, that's all.

        Though his defeat was as much his own doing as Youngkin's; Telling parents that they weren't entitled to have a say in their own childrens' education handed Younkin a pretty big club to beat him with. The only reason I'd credit Youngkin, too, is that many Republican candidates wouldn't have picked it up and started whaling away.

        1. Splitting hairs over whether or not CRT is taught in K-12 schools didn't help either. Dems need to be able to convince swing voters that they can limit discussion of race in classrooms so that it doesn't dominate other topics, and that they can have meaningful discussions about race without teaching that white people are devils.

          1. Well, he had to split hairs, because it IS being taught in K-12 schools, and McAuliffe was in large measure responsible for that.

            "Dems need to be able to convince swing voters that they can limit discussion of race in classrooms so that it doesn't dominate other topics, and that they can have meaningful discussions about race without teaching that white people are devils."

            And they can only convince people of that by lying, that's the real problem.

            1. Except that does not say anything about teaching it in schools. They're talking about the teachers learning about critical race theory, not about it being in the curriculum for students.

              1. "–Anti-racist Education: a set of pedagogical, curricular, and organizational strategies that promote racial equality by identifying, then eliminating, systemic racism. It moves beyond prejudice and discrimination as a problem to be corrected in individuals in order to examine critically how institutional structures support racist practices economically, politically, and culturally."

                Sounds an awful lot like they're teaching CRT.

                But in any event, CRT in popular discourse is now just an umbrella term for any of the crazier stuff coming out of the D&I field.
                (Language evolves, deal with it.)

                If parents are concerned about CRT in schools because their children are being taught that white people are devils, and the left's response is, "don't worry, that's not CRT," they're going to lose.

              2. That's a really, REALLY dumb take on it, David. They're learning it in order to NOT apply it in class?

                Did you think that one through?

                1. No, you don't get it: applying it is not the same thing as teaching it.

          2. Anti-racism in Education (Official Virginia DOE document)

            For instance:

            "–Color-blind Racism: a post-civil rights approach that essentially denies the subtle forms of discrimination that have replaced the blatant or explicit racism of the past. The color-blind approach ignores the evidence that skin color plays a powerful role in shaping an individual’s life experiences, and denies the measurable damages of a dynamic system of oppression against people of color based solely upon a false notion or assumption of superiority by the dominant racial group. (MD DJS Office of Equity and Reform. (n.d.). Language of Equity Glossary) "

            1. Meh, Youngkin is a Balls Deep State Republican…the Trump Republican in NJ “lost”.

      2. Like physics, it's all relative. Biden won the state by 10%. A year later, McAuliffe lost by a comfortable, albeit small margin.

        Think of a plane. If it is travelling at 5000 feet, that is pretty high. But if it descends from 10,000 feet to 5000 feet in a few minutes, the people inside will be vomiting.

        1. McAuliffe's victory in 2013 was also a bit surprising since gubernatorial elections in Virginia had gone against the President's party since 1974. (Ford carried a Republican to victory?) For New Jersey, the last time it happened was 1985, so Murphy broke a trend.

        2. I take your point. But actually planes do that all the time. Modern passenger jets can descend at 3000 feet per minute pretty comfortably.

          1. Interesting. The descent speed slows as you approach the ground, not because of physics or approach needs, but because people get scared if you are coming down too fast near the ground.

            1. Well, also because they can't very well continue that decent rate all the way to the ground, as the decent rate drops to zero at the ground regardless of what it was one inch higher.

              And 3000 feet per minute is 34 mph, you really don't want to touch down at 34mph vertical speed. That would accurately be described as "crashing".

              At that rate of decent, you'd have to take at least a couple of seconds reducing your vertical component, just to avoid over-stressing the airframe, to say nothing of the passengers' hearts. That requires that they start reducing the decent rate a hundred feet or more above ground.

              Actually physics and approach needs!

              1. That's why they "flare" before landing. 3,000 ft./min. is actually a mild descent rate.

      3. Sometimes even a narrow win feels like a whipping when you thought you would win.

        But I certainly don’t read it as Virginia going back to purple, yet. Perhaps if Democrats keep alienating voters, and voters Youngkin like what they see they will continue to vote for Republicans, but there are no guarantees.

        I was paying attention, and it was clear to me that McAuliffe was cruising to at least a 5-6 point win, despite having Brandon hanging around his neck. But McAuliffe had about as spectacular a self-immolation as I’ve seen from a politician in many a decade, and he only lost by 2 points. Republicans won’t always be that lucky, but they have the voters attention now and if they keep their approval I could plausibly see Younkin getting a senate seat and Winsome Sears following him as governor in 4 years if voters like what they see.

  3. Statistically speaking, the smaller the sample size the greater the standard deviation in the results. I would not put too much weight on these results. Besides sampling variability it only takes a very few people to misidentify as Hispanic to skew the outcome.

  4. The individualists that tend to vote republican do not talk to pollsters or exit interviewers.

  5. An employee of Edison interviewed/surveyed me last year on election day (on the sidewalk outside of the polling place where I voted here in Pittsburgh) and anyone else who was willing to be interviewed/surveyed (as they left the polling place).

    But Edison didn't use scientifically based survey methods (especially since two thirds of votes were cast by mail in ballots), and instead all participants were self selected (which biases the results).

    1. I often wondered if they had sufficient people to sample different times of the day properly. Being overwhelmed in mornings and evenings as working people vote, would cause them to miss sampling, and sampling during the day (unemployed, unions with time off for voting, etc.) would lead to oversampling them. They'd have to count all voters exiting and multiply by the statistical results for that time segment, and not just total for the entire day.

  6. In Statistics Class the instructor listed a few other variables to consider about polls. Most of it was how the question or questions were phrased.
    Another was the time of day that people were questioned. He used a local Mall as an example (this was 1998). He used a question that was aimed at Liberals and Conservatives. If you questioned people from say 10 AM until 2 PM, the answers would tend to swing towards the Liberal side. If you questioned from 7 PM to 9 PM they would swing towards the Conservative side. His reasoning for this is that people who worked non-traditional hours leaned towards the Liberal side, while Conservatives were more likely to work traditional hours. (9 AM to 5 PM)

  7. Amazing what happens when the vote counting is not stopped in the middle of the night. Note, this happened "by accident" in NJ, which is why they are doing a very careful count of the 1% that didn't report from the strongly Dem district. Note, the media called it for the Dem, despite the Republican actually being up in the tally. Sound familiar?

    GOP districts would be wise to hold their vote tallies as long as possible, and not release them until the inner city districts report their tallies.

    1. Did you post this from Four Seasons Vaping, Roll-Your-Own, And Chaw Emporium, you bigoted loser?

  8. I think it's more likely that we'll see whites became even more red, and non-whites become even more blue. Excellent news.

    1. My guess is different. Hispanics will increasingly identify as white as time goes one. Pretty much, like Italians did in the past. After awhile, some guy named Cardozo who only eats "hispanic food" on the holidays when his grandma makes it and who is Catholic in name only who looks as white as an Italian, will identify as white.

      There is already a huge squabble in Latin America on who is a mestizo vs who is a Criollo

Please to post comments