"I wish you are right. Of course electoral votes are based on State wins. But it is still an incontrovertible fact that no Republican has won with less than 40% of the Hispanic vote. So please show us “how” Trump can win in States that Romney lost?"
"Incontrovertible"? I dispute that. All of that demographic and quite literally racist propaganda comes either from exit polls from past elections or paid polls from a variety of special interest groups. The reliability of these are all over the map, they are not scientifically sound when compared to each other, and especially across multiple years. It's comparing apples, oranges, tomatoes, tacos, pizza and gatorade.
So we don't really know what hispanic support past candidates actually got, and we don't know what they really have pending today. Given these uncertainties, you believe what exactly? We should line up to support the guy who propagandists say is leading with a certain "racial" group? That would be very convenient for those purchasing these polls.
Look, at the State level it all comes down to the big twelve: OH, PA, MI, WI, IN, NC, IA, FL, NM, NV, CO, VA. That is the entire game.
Those first four are vital pickups that I believe only Trump can truly put these play: OH, PA, MI, WI. This is blue collar and union territory as well as coal energy and other white collar manufacturing interests. Your typical (R)epublicrat dies here because of that very label, someone who swings both ways should have a better shot especially if he goes straight after them - I could easily see Trump using his ex-Democrat history to attract these folks: "Look I'm not really one of them, they even say so!" There is no way that Bush or Rubio or any other (R) has a shot here and McCain and Romney just proved it yet again.
Oh but what about Walker? You would think he would take his own state? In fact I count nine governors running, Walker, Bush, Christie, Gilmore, Pataki, Jindal, Perry, Huckabee and Kasich and unless I'm mistaken ALL OF THEM won off-year elections. In short, they have not demonstrated electoral strength in Presidential year elections when the major media is out in force and when the (D)ummycrat ground game is in high gear. So no, I don't think so. You absolutely have to separate off-year elections from the on-year big one. It's possible but IMHO unlikely Walker would take WI in the on-year election because it is an entirely different animal. With the possible exception of FL, those Governors' states are NOT in play just because the ex-Governor is running. It is extremely sloppy thinking to even consider that possibility and that seems to be the (R)epublicrat mindset. Inside-The-Box thinking again.
I actually think Bush and Trump have an equal shot at FL since it has gone "blue" in 2008 and 2012, and we all know that in 2000 and 2004 that Bush43 just squeaked by. Trump has planted roots down there so he is as much a carpet bagger as Jebbie.
I'm working on collecting specific data on those twelve and will have a new map soon. But my preliminary feeling is that Trump has a good shot at eight of those twelve. With enough momentum he might even drag along all of them.
But ... we are so far away to make these predictions. Issues will come and go, mostly come. And the big variable is always momentum. The big 'Mo is something I just cannot ever see as being a Bush asset. The only thing I am personally convinced of at this early point in time is that Bush is a guaranteed loser. And even if God intervened and for some strange reason made Bush the winner, the country would still lose. So, the way I see it, the very first order of business is to crush Bush45, and crush him decisively, then we can get on the same page and decide how to run the electoral pool table.
FL, NM, NV all have high Hispanic populations. If they are energized to vote, as they will through fear or whatever, its game over. The winner in presidential elections is a small 2% band-with. I can’t see why WI, MI etc that are blue state bastions will go for Trump.