There was a moment where it seemed like the prophecy would come true. Reports came out of Latinos in Nevada turning out in droves to vote against Donald Trump. #SomosElMuro, We Are the Wall, sprang up as a hashtag. Alongside it, people shared their inspiring pictures of the demographic that would stop Trump.

And then, it evaporated. Yes, Latinos showed up for early voting, and the majority did throw their support behind Hillary Clinton, but no sleeping giant awoke. Well, one did, but it was working-class whites in the Rust Belt, and they voted overwhelmingly for Trump.

Moreover, Latinos did not behave as an angry, unified front against a xenophobic candidate who called Mexican immigrants “rapists”. A not-insignificant chunk of them cast their votes for him – 29%, in fact, according to CNN exit polls.

That does not detract from the passionate opposition many Latinos feel for Trump, but it does give us reason to pause and consider why the popular narratives about this voting “bloc” never pan out, particularly narratives the Democratic party describes.

The Latino vote is a conservative bogeyman. Conspiracy theories abound about Democrats letting Latinos into the country to boost their numbers. It’s a ridiculously one-dimensional view that doesn’t reflect reality.

But the rote script Democrats read from when talking about Latinos isn’t proving to be realistic either. Tim Kaine being able to speak Spanish didn’t seem to get Latinos amped up, as the Democrats thought it would, and the idea that Latino voters are automatic gets or, more cynically, cheap dates for the DNC doesn’t seem to hold water either in light of the exit polls.

What’s missing on both fronts is a more critical look at the Latino voter, the Latino non-voter, and how internal politics in our communities create a more complex group of people than either party assumed.

To begin with, there is a definite current of conservatism present among some immigrant families. A strong “I got mine, so forget you” ideology that helps explain a more robust turnout for Trump among Latinos than pundits expected. Reports also show a growing number of evangelical protestant Latinos who are abandoning Catholicism.

It’s also worth noting how, within marginalized groups including Latinos and black people, men were much more likely to vote for Trump than women, even if support for Clinton in those communities ultimately outweighed it. Some 13% of black male voters went for Trump, compared to just 4% of black female voters. We can’t pretend Trump didn’t appeal to some men of color, and that hints at misogyny in our communities.

Of course, we can’t divorce any of this from voter restriction laws that target communities of color, or the way Latinos have been historically disenfranchised in our elections, or the fact that the supreme court dismantled voter protection in Shelby v Holder.

But ultimately this election blindsided us on many fronts. White women didn’t rebuke Trump for his lewd remarks; the majority voted for him. Latinos didn’t reject him wholesale, and across the board men from all groups were more likely to support him.

All this is to say, there probably isn’t a Latino sleeping giant waiting to propel Democrats to power. If the rise of a xenophobic demagogue who called us out by name wasn’t enough to jolt it awake, it’s hard to imagine that anything, outside of a presidential candidate from our community, would do so.

What we have on our hands instead is a complicated demographic comprising men, women, immigrants, natural-born citizens, the college-educated, farmers, conservatives and progressives that is consistently thrown under the single umbrella of “Latino vote”, in a way that simply doesn’t happen for white people.

That was the old playbook, and it ought to be considered obsolete after this election. The rules have changed, the polls proved useless, and a left that is not ready to adapt to these changes and will ultimately prove too weak to combat Trumpism and whatever comes after it.