R_P wrote:

At least 4 grandparents born in America.

If that's her minimum standard...what's the maximum?

Dear Ann Coulter: Ben Franklin didn’t think you or Trump are White, Either (2016)

 kurtster wrote:
 
Unless you want to rely on paranoia, then intent still requires evidence. So far you haven't provided any. You should get by now how that works.

 R_P wrote: 
You're up late.  I'm pretty much done and going to get flat soon.

and I have not yet heard Trump's specific remarks on this. Sure that I will soon enough.

g'nite

So, did Trump mention the Latino view on re-election? Or does he only present the good news?

 R_P wrote: 
You are forgetting republican support is a given and must show up.  It doesn't count as good news, unless it drops.  What matters most are the I's and the D's.  Or D's really because most polls only mention the two parties.

So other than the republican approval numbers, anything else that might show good news is buried and glossed over by omission as in this particular piece's cover story.  It's quite common to do that, right ?  Like good news will only show in the backs pages of anything printed.  And retractions get buried in the back pages to make sure that the original version of a story sticks.  The Intercept article you posted goes into that.

So with the one exception taken, there is no contradiction.  If you don't allow the exception for the republican approval numbers, then yes there would be a technical contradiction.  The intent however, remains unchanged and the intent matters most.

 kurtster wrote:
 
You've already asserted that good news is out of bounds and thus they won't do that. In your conspiracy they only report the bad stuff (never mind that 69% of Republicans would re-elect, which sounds pretty good if you're in that gang). Then why not just post the additional bad news? Because then they would, all of a sudden, have this obligation to post the good news, which supposedly they won't/wouldn't do anyway. SRSLY?

PS: Did Trump mention the Latino view on re-election?

 R_P wrote: 
Nope.  No contradiction.

Hiding good news even if it means hiding the bad news.  No news is what we get / got instead.

 kurtster wrote:
 
You don't see the contradiction there, right?

 R_P wrote: 
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.

 kurtster wrote:

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."

 kcar wrote: 
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. 

Fact-checking Trump’s claim that he has a 50-percent approval rating among Latinos

What the poll actually says

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.

The $5.7 Billion Hole in Shutdown Coverage

black321 wrote:


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?

 Lazy8 wrote:

 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.

 Lazy8 wrote:
 
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".

black321 wrote:

Or maybe it's just wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

Certainly doesn't reflect voting in the last election.

 black321 wrote: 
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.