Honest view from my Republican husband on primary and beyond.

[Nonhlanhla]

121. Bush won in 2004 because he got just enough

of the racial/ethnic minority vote to get him over the edge (22% of "nonwhites, including Hispanics," - Gallup's category - compared to 14% for McCain in 2008 and 18% for Romney in 2012). The number was lower in 2000 (17%, but there was an additional 3% minority vote for Nader, for a total 20% away from Gore), and that was also a dubious result, as we all know. Bush was the last Republican who could still build a fairly multicultural coalition. I'm not in the least blaming minority voters for Bush, of course: the majority of white voters voted for the Republican in all these races, and have been the reason for both Bush's victories. My point is that, assuming current white voting patterns stay the same, given the changing demographics of the country, it is impossible to win the presidency without winning around 20% (probably higher by now) of the minority vote. Bush was the last GOP candidate that managed to build a slightly more multicultural coalition.

Demographics have changed even more since then to favor Democrats (why do you think the GOP is trying so hard to disenfranchise minority voters), and there's no way that Trump will get enough minorities. All the Dem nominee would have to do is to run ad after ad with his racist remarks. I'm sure he will get some, but not 20%.

It's theoretically possible that Trump might get enough whites to make up the deficit, but I doubt it. I also think some "moderate" Republicans will vote against Trump, so it would balance out anyway.

In short, I'm cautiously optimistic that this is quite different from Reagan or Bush. This is my own amateur analysis based on Gallup's numbers (see link). I'm sure there are far more sophisticated analyses out there.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/139880/election-polls-presidential-vote-groups.aspx