A request for your thoughts on a Sunday evening.
If the nominee is Bernie Sanders, then the case is (fairly) clear The system is rigged, we need to fix it, etc.
But if the nominee is Hillary Clinton, and the GOP nominee is Trump or Cruz, what, exactly, is the argument that will sway independent voters?
Put another way:
1. Why should they vote? (Remember, these are less reliable voters.)
2. Why should they vote for HRC?
Please share widely!
robmlev says
Sanders should stick to his agenda making clear the reasoning behind his positions up to the convention. By sticking to the merits of the actions he is calling for, he has the best chance of informing the Democrat platform coming out of the convention. Sanders joined the Democratic Party a year ago to run for president. After serving in Congress for 25 yrs he was frustrated with how little of his agenda he could accomplish. The fault was not with Washington and the democratic process, the fault was Sanders in the narrowness of his Agenda that could not get a majority to support it. His talk of the primary a democratic process being one of majority rule is disingenuous because he knows the Democratic Party is more like a sports team than a democracy. Party members are team players. Play by the rules and support each other in beating Republicans. It’s bad sportsmanship to bemoan the Party when trailing in delegates and by 2 million votes. If number of people attending a rally were a meaningful criterion than Jerry Garcia would be president. “And the radical, he rant and rage/ Singing “someone got to turn the page.” Trowin Stones by the Grateful Dead.
Trickle up says
…is better than anthrax.”
Seriously, I do not understand the question. Is it Why independent voters should vote for Clinton (versus the alternative)?
Or is it How should Clinton sell herself to this voting block?
The former is obvious and the latter is a technical question that her campaign ought to be able to solve.
JimC says
Is that an opening position, or the fallback?
To restate the question: We won’t vote for Trump because we’re Democrats.
Republicans don’t like him but WILL vote for him.
Where is the differentiation? Why should independents vote for HRC?
SomervilleTom says
It seems to me that there is evidence all around us that a great many Republicans fear that Republicans will NOT vote for Donald Trump.
The mainstream media is chock-full of stories about the various efforts to deny Mr. Trump the nomination. The hand-wringing about the consequences of nominating Mr. Trump among the GOP establishment has been frequent and public. The common theme shared by these among various GOP sources (such as the WSJ) is that, in fact, many Republicans will not vote for Donald Trump. More so, that many Republicans will choose to stay home, so that Republican candidates in down-ballot races for the House and Senate may be at risk.
Regarding why independents should vote for HRC, one answer is that even as a Democrat she is driven by fact and reality rather than ideology. When faced with a conflict between ideology and facts as they are available, she has long history of choosing facts.
Her opposition from both the Bernie Sanders campaign and from the GOP has, in fact, revealed this aspect of her public persona. I think that’s the reality, and I think that’s a good reason for independents to support her.
johntmay says
of being against marriage equality and then for it, of being for the Iraq War and then against it, of supporting NAFTA and then regretting it, of pushing TPP as the gold standard and now against it, of being for universal health care and now calling it something that will never, ever happen, of being for bankruptcy bills that protect consumers and then against them….”drive by facts”, gimme a break.
This is the sort of politics that turns people off and makes that say home instead of vote because it’s all about money and power and their lives don’t seem to matter.
HR's Kevin says
For that matter, wasn’t almost everybody against it twenty years ago? Not sure that is really such a great example.
I think it is fair to say that Hillary is much more open to changing her position than Bernie. Some see it as a sign of pragmatism and compromise in order to get things done, while others see it as a sign of weakness. Personally, I do think that Clinton does change her positions to freely, but I also think that Bernie is far too rigid in his adherence to his own positions.
johntmay says
..but you ignored the long list that followed this one exception. With Clinton it’s easy to see what causes any change in policy. Just follow the money.
HR's Kevin says
You are trying to show that Hillary changes her positions while Bernie doesn’t and the very first thing you mention is an example of Bernie also changing his position. Also strange is the fact that this is a change of position most of us here feel was a good thing. Are you really complaining about Hillary changing her position on same-sex marriage? And do you really think she changed her position because of money? Huh? That makes no sense.
Christopher says
For me it’s just they’re citizens, darn it – do your duty!
Even question 2 is almost too obvious for words. Certainly all the arguments I’ve used about being best prepared still apply, but now the issue differences are so obvious. I know people don’t like to vote for the lesser of the evils, but Trump and Cruz are so extreme that just not being them should be enough.
mike_cote says
is the reason to vote for the Democratic nominee over the Republican nominee, Always. There are enough current members of the Supreme Court that there could be more than one vacancy in the next four years. That’s it! Dammit! The Sanders supporters everywhere need to pull their collective heads out of their collective asses and stop being such cry babies. Go ahead and downrate this. It won’t change a damn thing.
Trickle up says
does not appreciate the attitude.
mike_cote says
Because, as a single gay man, when women lose their rights to govern their own bodies with their own choices, it will not mean a tinker’s cusp to me. I hope you will remember this when the Sander’s voters want the rest of the Democratic Party to vote for some principle that matters to you because I, for one, will love to come back and say to you, “And What’s In It For Me?”
We are better when we stand together on for the sake of principles, but by all means, keep blubbering and stay home and get the government that you truly deserve.
jconway says
The challenge is to answer JimC’s questions on why someone who isn’t a partisan Democrat should vote *for* her rather than against Sanders or the Republicans.
mike_cote says
I, for one, have had it with this sanctimonious, whiney, cry-baby crap. The fact of the matter is that HRC has received more votes than BS, and currently has more pledged delegates and super delegates, so stop acting like this is the very first nomination process you have ever seen in your life. This is beginning to feel like feeding a troll, so I am DONE.
johnk says
people have a choice. That’s it. I’m done with the morons like Rosario Dawson, doesn’t he get me upset. The more the loss is inevitable to the true believers the dumber it’s going to be. Adults will vote for who will be best for our country the fringe morons who never voted to begin with can go back to wearing the til foil hats for all I care. I really don’t think they ever cared.
johntmay says
Are the two keys to this election.
How does HRC do with either?
jconway says
Independent voters seeing a lesser of two evils election will go home. They hate negative campaigning and hate campaigns run on fear. Ask Jimmy Carter how snubbing the supporters of your liberal challenger and focusing on your opponents extremism worked out as a general election strategy.
The only people who care about Supreme Court vacancies are voters who are already partisan. In this case, diehard Democrats who yes, are more likely to back Clinton than Sanders or the kind of Republicans flocking to Ted Cruz motivated by social issues.
It’s quite simple. Clinton and her surrogates have to adopt her husbands mantra and focus on economic inequality and new solutions that solve it and actually put money in working people’s pockets. Independents don’t care about glass ceilings, are indifferent to culture war issues, and tend to be worried about their economic and national security.
If she can run as a more hawkish Obama with bigger stones to take on Wall Street and big money she can win. I haven’t seen her team or her supporters really advance that argument. They seem to think being the last sane candidate standing is all they need to do. Ask Carter, Gore or Kerry how that strategy worked and get back to me.
Christopher says
…and certainly GWB wasn’t. Besides, Gore DID get more popular votes even if you accept Florida’s official result. If independents stay home they had better not complain. We need to make them care about SCOTUS vacancies; not sure why it’s not more obvious how important that is.
Peter Porcupine says
…that these unrolled voters nationwide agree with the leftest participants in the most blue state in the nation about how progressive the Supreme Court should be. LOTS of them care very much and will vote that way.
Disagreement with your ideals is not the same thing as apathy.
SomervilleTom says
Or perhaps Christopher is assuming that voters nationwide agree that Clarence Thomas is an embarrassment to the Court, that the effect of Mr. Scalia has been overwhelmingly negative.
Perhaps he is assuming that many voters nationwide agree that Merrick Garland is a gifted judge and an extraordinarily well-qualified Supreme Court nominee, and that the shamelessly partisan refusal to even consider him betrays the contempt that the GOP has ALWAYS demonstrated towards the Supreme Court (as exemplified by the Clarence Thomas nomination).
The currently hyper-partisan national GOP does not necessarily reflect the ideals of American voters.
jconway says
JimC was asking about independent and swing voters. The number of voters who are hardcore Democrats and the number of voters who care about the court and Garland are a list that probably matches up one to one. People that don’t join parties aren’t necessarily civically ignorant, they just tend to care more about pocketbook issues and less about the culture war.
They tend to be in the “don’t care about things that don’t effect me personally camp” so they aren’t anti choice or anti gay, but they also aren’t activists for any group either. These are your soccer coaches and white collar professionals, these are the folks that threw Brown in the Senate and defected to Baker. They don’t care about the issues partisans care about which is why they aren’t partisan.
Peter Porcupine says
And then again, they might.
Most governors in the country are Republican, as are most legislatures. Republicans have a majority in the Senate and House. These offices are decided directly by the voters, unlike the Presidency and its primary races. I haven’t heard any backlash against McConnell’s dare from anybody but news pundits and blue partisans – many think it is an excellent idea to wait until the election is over.
They just aren’t in MA or on BMG.
Christopher says
…show comfortable margins supporting proceeding with the Garland nomination, but even if they didn’t voter whims don’t override constitutional obligations.
Christopher says
…which is Bernie will be an easier sell than Hillary to a certain subset of voters. Sure, if they actually prefer Trump or Cruz they are free to vote accordingly, but I doubt many of them would vote for Sanders either.
JimC says
I think Trump and Sanders are both tapping into disaffection. How does HRC get those votes? I think she’ll need them, because I agree with jconway that lots of people will sit this out.
Trickle up says
which I do not like any better than I suppose you will, but it is a no brainer.
Mark L. Bail says
These generalizations are not timeless. I think we are in the midst of a sea change. I don’t know anyone not experiencing some level of fear about the country, the Commonwealth, the future.
The parties have never shown a starker contrast. I know a number of Republicans (Charles Koch is not one) who see Trump as a disaster, but they can’t see themselves voting for Cruz either. When the lesser of two evils isn’t evil, and the greater evil is one of the scariest presidential presumed nominees in modern history, the contrast is stark and unenrolleds will respond.
jconway says
That’s my point. They aren’t driven to vote because of fear, they are driven not to vote since they think all the options are terrible. Especially if they are from this state and no Republican will carry our votes anyway.
If I were an independent or moderate Republican I’d stay home. My parents and siblings might stay home, many of my friends might stay home if Bernie isn’t the nominee, and these aren’t dumb or ignorant people. They know their votes don’t matter in MA and they don’t want to participate in an ugly election. If Trump is the nominee it might drive up turnout amongst these demographics, but people like to vote for someone and Clinton isn’t someone they are getting excited about.
Christopher says
There is no good reason to surrender that choice to others to make for you. If the argument is MA goes Dem anyway, then why are we having this discussion in an MA context? “None of the above” cannot get elected President.
Peter Porcupine says
I can’t not vote, but can’t vote for Trump-Linton.
Didn’t vote for Reagan either.
Christopher says
Of course as in vs. rather than as ticket.
scott12mass says
the Libertarian party had scheduled it’s convention sooner (it’s the end of May) and been able to take advantage of the media frenzy Trump created by presenting itself as a reasonable alternative.
SomervilleTom says
It seems to me that Donald Trump is a case study in the crass commercialization of government. He is the only candidate in my memory who turned a victory speech into an infomercial for his own line of mediocre (or worse) private-label branded products (“not available in stores”). That is not a strategy that will appeal to independent voters (at least, if my vision of America is remotely accurate). Mr. Cruz and Mr. Kasich are only marginally different.
The America of 2016 is fundamentally different from the America of 1980. Notably, the voters of 1980 had NOT had first-hand experience of the near-collapse of the banking system not just once by twice (the first in the Savings and Loan crisis, the second in the Great Recession of 2008), the widespread loss of home equity in the Great Recession, and the long list of failed promises of “conservative” ideology.
The young people graduating from college during Mr. Carter’s presidency did NOT suffer the crushing student loan debt so widespread today, and they did NOT face the same withering drought of career opportunities. Mr. Reagan campaigned against Mr. Carter’s “out of control” national deficit of sixty to seventy billion dollars. Two years later, the national deficit under Ronald Reagan had doubled to ONE HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT billion dollars, and would go as high as $221 B under Mr. Reagan.
We have slashed taxes, we have passed Citizens United, we have dismantled government regulation, we have given corporate America unrivaled freedom to do as they please, and the result has been the devastating wealth and income concentration that you note.
Ms. Clinton offers far more than just sanity, and she reminds us that sanity IS a necessary requirement (even though, as you observe, not sufficient). The GOP has been spiraling ever-downward in its embrace of cultish and bizarre ideology and candidates. How else can the nomination of Sarah Palin be described? How else can the one-time prominence of Michelle Bachman be explained?
Regarding sanity, a better example than Jimmy Carter versus Ronald Reagan is LBJ versus Barry Goldwater — and Barry Goldwater of 1964 was an icon of probity in comparison to ANY of the current prospective GOP nominees.
I think that the general election is Ms. Clinton’s to lose. I think this election is likely to be more one-sided than any of 1980, 2000, or 2004.
I think the real and vital question is the extent to which we Democrats can make gains in House and Senate given the lack of enthusiasm by independents of EITHER likely presidential nominee. I think the behavior of Ms. Clinton and her campaign has been reasonably responsive to that real and vital question.
I wonder whether or when Mr. Sanders and his campaign will do the same.
jconway says
You are living in a bit of a bubble and are a bit out of touch with what the people on the ground are saying, even in your own community. Somerville has a lot of Sanders supporters I’ve reached out to to get involved with our efforts in Somerville, and we don’t have a candidate there we just want to register people to stay on the ballot, and they are real diehards who aren’t going to vote for Hillary.
It’s Massachusetts-they don’t have to. There is a real risk their excitement for Bernie turns into apathy, and I hope my party can fill that void, but it’s unlikely Hillary will with the kind of campaign she is running. That’s just my opinion, I’m not arguing about her policies or qualifications or siding with the GOP. I just think she is running a campaign predicated on the GOP imploding and/or nominating an unacceptably toxic nominee and I just don’t see that being enough. We shouldn’t accept it as enough even if it may end up being enough. We should want a campaign fough on affirming progressive principles and not just rejecting toxicity or extremism.
Christopher says
“Either nominate Sanders or we’ll take our marbles and go home,” is what I’m hearing. The thing is, Hillary doesn’t need to be elected for her own sake. She’ll suffer a bruised ego and go back to the Clinton Foundation or making Wall Street speeches for more than a presidential salary. It’s the rest of us who get shafted if the wrong person gets elected.
jconway says
That’s all I’m asking for. Why should independents who don’t care about social issues, the court, racism, sexism, etc. vote for her?
Christopher says
…and will continue to engage in all those economic fights that we’ve been talking about it. I don’t hear that much about social issues either. This race has been entirely about economic displacement from both of our candidates. Plus, part of the job of a campaign is to explain to voters why they should care about some of the other things. These are not abstract, but have a real impact on the lives of many people, though sometimes they need help connect the dots.
johntmay says
Wages have remained flat for American Laborers. We remain the only developed nation without health care as a human right. While she’s been “fighting” for us she and her husband are now worth hundreds of millions of dollars and thy spend their time with that crowd, not us.
Tell me again what she wants to do for me?
SomervilleTom says
Hillary Clinton is not responsible for the systemic issues that have destroyed the US middle class. She did as much to advance health care as any elected official until Barack Obama. Do you condemn every individual worth hundreds of millions of dollars?
What she wants to do for you — and me, and the rest of us — is work aggressively to correct these issues. Just like what Bernie Sanders wants to do. Just like Elizabeth Warren wants to do.
I know that’s not the answer you want to hear, but it remains the truth.
TheBestDefense says
You wrote about HRC
Naww, Sal DiMasi did more than HRC did to advance universal health care than HRC did. You have a hatred of Martha Coakley and a worship of HRC. Please get over both.
johntmay says
You can’t just ignore it.
While Hillary is not solely responsible (and not what I said – “straw man”), she was part of her husband’s admin that made things a lot easier for the wealthy class.
If she wants to “work aggressively to correct these issues.” what the hell does that mean? Her campaign and her re-election campaign are going to be deeply obligated to big money and super pacs. How the hell does she manage to kill her own golden goose?
She did squat for health care and now wants to halt any progress toward healthcare as a human right and NOT as a commodity that one must purchase from the corporations that help fund her campaign. If I am wrong on this, show me. If you can’t show me. please stop the lies.
And it gets better.
Today we see Hillary attacking Trump as an out of touch billionaire with no feelings for the labor class.
Okay, the woman who can afford $600 haircuts, and $50,000 a Week Beachfront Vacations and whose daughter lives in a new $10 million pad, New York’s longest apartment – stretching an entire block from 26th Street to 27th Street off Madison Avenue, is going to attack Trump for being out of touch with the people?
I know that’s not the answer you want to hear, but it remains the truth, and please, Hillary is as far from Elizabeth Warren politically as one can be and still be a Democrat.
Christopher says
You seriously aren’t forgetting what she spent the entire first half of her husband’s first term trying to accomplish, are you? HRC has been in the trenches fighting for people a lot longer than Trump has. Wealth per se means nothing in this regard.
Christopher says
…any objective study of her record plants her firmly on the left. There are lots of people much further to the right and away from EW who are also Dems.
Mullaley540 says
Sanders got a grand total of 12,191 votes in Somerville. (HRC got 8,977 in Somerville while winning Mass overall). Do you really think a winning national campaign strategy is to kowtow to Somerville Bernie supporters?
jconway says
She mocks Bernie’s college plan without selling one of her own, she mocks him for taking on Wall Street while she persists in cashing it’s checks to this day, and she says she will overturn Citizens United while participating in all of its flaws including unaccountable superpacs. He has shown a way forward that allows a campaign to be competitive based on small donors. I have no idea how you can say income inequality and taking on Wall Street are your signature issues and the signature issues my generation cares about and then argue Clinton is the more credible candidate on those issues.
The voters my age and younger have soundly rejected that in state after state, and it’s not because we are dumb it’s because we no longer want to play by the Reagan era rules that dictate that Democrats always have to sell their souls in order to win. They don’t anymore. The sooner the Clintons and their supporters awake to that reality the better.
SomervilleTom says
I like to believe that voters who might vote for Bernie Sanders will not vote for Donald Trump. Further, I think it takes intellectual gymnastics to vote for Bernie Sanders for President (were he on the ballot) and also vote for a GOP candidate for the House or Senate. I therefore think we ought to encourage those independents to vote for Democrats in the House and Senate even if they don’t want to support the presidential nominee. I think we should not be shy about reminding them that if they choose to stay home (as so many have in prior elections), then they contribute to the problem they complain about.
I don’t think anybody needs to “sell their soul” to vote for Hillary Clinton. I think that those who care passionately about their presidential vote can do as I have done in the past and write in the candidate of their choice.
I fear that when you write of “selling their soul”, you overstate the situation. When faced with Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton versus Ted Cruz, or Hillary Clinton versus John Kasich, no spiritual property transactions are needed to vote for Ms. Clinton.
It seems to me that those who want to actually change the governance that is producing our obscene wealth and income concentration would do well to do everything in our power to replace Republicans with Democrats in the Senate and the House. A constant, regardless of era, is that when we are majority party we have more influence than when we are the minority party. I don’t know if means selling our souls, but I’m pretty sure it means doing everything we can do to turn out voters who will choose the Democrat over the Republican in a House or Senate race.
There is a difference between “the more credible candidate” and “selling your soul”. Some feel that Mr. Sanders is the more credible candidate, and some choose Ms. Clinton. I remind you that a majority of Massachusetts Democratic Primary voters fell into the latter group.
I’ve not suggested that voters your age and younger are “dumb”. The assertion that “Democrats always have to sell their souls in order to win” is yours, not mine, and in my view is not supported by facts. More importantly, voters your age and younger may perhaps need to be reminded that changing the things that desperately require changing absolutely requires House and Senate majorities who agree. Telling supporters of the leading Democratic candidate that we have sold our souls is not, in my view, likely to enhance the likelihood of that.
I think we might perhaps focus our energy on efforts to elect as many Democrats as possible to the House and Senate while we win the presidency.
jconway says
How well has our supermajority worked on this in Massachusetts? How well did the Democrats advance this the last time they had a filibuster proof majority? I’m not saying it’s incorrect, I am saying it’s not nearly the silver bullet everyone seems to think it is. So long as the Republicans are crazy, it’s too easy for the Democrats to be lazy. It’s why I think they need to be challenged in blue states where they control the agenda to have a better agenda and why it might behoove Bernie supporters to join the UIP locally and work to elect Hillary nationally with the caveat that she adopt much of their standard bearers agenda.
Christopher says
…which in this race frankly makes a lot more sense than tuition-free college, which would work better at the state level. She more than anyone has reason to take CU personally because that case was about attacking HER. I don’t think she’s the kind of candidate who can run on small donations, though she is quick to point out that the vast majority of them are. That should not disqualify her. I’m looking for the person best prepared to do the job, not the person millenials go gaga over. Besides, why is it all of a sudden the millenials that everyone needs to pander to?
jconway says
That’s the first I’ve heard of it.
And every voter deserves to be heard, the fact that you find Bernie’s engagement to be “pandering” would be amusing if the consequences weren’t an aging and stale progressive movement and bench.
johnk says
why don’t you know about it?
Christopher says
Her plans for debt-free college? She brings it up at every debate.
That CU is about her? That’s part of the record of that case.
That most of her donations are small? She mentions this a lot too.
Frankly, given your level of engagement I find it hard to believe you’ve missed any of this.
I didn’t say Bernie was pandering; he’s probably about the last person you can accuse of that. YOU seem to be suggesting that they are the only generation worth keeping happy, to the point that their hands need to be held into the polling place or they might just not bother.
Christopher says
I just noticed you accuse Clinton of mocking Sanders for taking on Wall Street. If anything she does the opposite; she claims (and Paul Krugman notably agrees), that she has a plan that goes FURTHER than Sanders’ does.
Peter Porcupine says
Citizens United was not ‘passed’. It is not a law, it is court decision. Like many progressive initiatives, which would not win at a ballot box, and so are litigated instead, causing resentment among those who disagree.
robmlev says
The answer to JimC question of why Independents should vote for Hilary is that she is the most experienced candidate of the pack to lead the nation because she has served as Secretary of State, Senator from a big powerful state called New York, and while serving as First Lady worked hard on government policies. Hilary deserves the votes of Independents because it is about time America elected a most competent woman, time to break the glass ceiling of ole boy power plays. Sexism is dripping from the rhetoric and dogma opposing H. H is qualified, has earned respect, and the naysayers are picking at the margins.
JimC says
Are we confident about this message? I think it’s fine as far as it goes, but it has one major flaw, which is that people are furious. So when we say HRC is qualified, we’re saying she’s qualified to maintain something people hate.
SomervilleTom says
For the past eight years, the GOP has relentlessly obstructed EVERY initiative of Barrack Obama regardless of its content. This relentless obstructionism was and is an explicitly personal attack on Mr. Obama. Because he is a Democrat, it was also an attack on every Democrat. It was a continuation of the equally personal and vindictive attack on Bill Clinton while HE was president. Hillary Clinton was the focus of withering attacks from the right-wing simply because she was married to the president. Much of the frequently-reported hostility to Ms. Clinton is the direct result of more than twenty years of false, vindictive, and scurrilous attacks from right-wing extremists like Richard Mellon Scaife.
For better or worse, an aspect of Mr. Obama’s administration is that it carefully focuses on those issues whose adverse consequences are real, measurable, and felt by large numbers of people. By blocking the initiatives of Mr. Obama’s administration, the GOP has in fact made life worse for millions of Americans. The GOP has increased the suffering of millions. People who suffer are generally angry (anger is often a way of expressing hurt). I therefore agree that people are furious.
In my view, it is dangerously incorrect to conflate the actions of a relentlessly obstructionist GOP with those of the Democrats. When we do that, we implicitly advance the anti-government dogma of the far right. The social and economic policies advocated by Ms. Clinton and the Democrats would have eased the suffering if they had not been blocked. The constant threat of government shutdown, the slashing of government services under the guise of “austerity”, the never-ending filibusters that threatened and delayed desperately-needed government action, all these translated DIRECTLY to increased pain, suffering, and therefore anger. I therefore disagree that Ms. Clinton advocates or represents “something people hate”.
I think, in fact, that Hillary Clinton represents the antidote to that suffering.
JimC says
How do we convince the independents?
SomervilleTom says
The answer to that question is above my pay grade. 🙂
JimC says
I’m just worried they’re going to screw it up.
jconway says
20,000 Democrats unenrolled in Massachusetts to vote for Trump.
At least 70,000 Democrats unenrolled in Pennsylvania, a major swing state and one where Trump will do better than Romney or McCain.
I am not being a pollyanna, there is a real risk Trump will put those 64 Rustbelt electoral votes in play. And I do not think the Clinton camp has a great response to that threat yet. I was heartened to see Sherrod Brown on the shortlist.
JimC says
n/t
jconway says
That’s what the times article talks about. These are two issues where Clinton is widely out of step with blue collar voters in those states. Romney infamously told Detroit to drop dead, mocked people needing government assistance and defended free trade as the market at work. Trump is promising not to touch entitlements, is a fair trader, and strongly opposes immigration which these workers feel threatens their jobs. The dual threat of offshoring jobs overseas or unloading scabs at home.
Obama lost working class white overall, but won them in these four states because of unions and Romneys lack of empathy for workers. His whole campaign “we did build it!” was targeting the enterprenuer class rather than the working class. And Obama ran great ads defining him early
as an outsourced in chief. He betrayed that by backing TPP and nobody believes Hillary sincerely is against it.
Tom Frank, Tom Edsall and other social scientists have shown how the Democrats are now a hodgepodge of white collar professionals, minorities, gays, women and millennials due to cultural issues. The GOP is increasingly the blue collar party, and these are the folks who make up the bulk of the unenrolled. Too broke to be Republican, too isolated to be Dems. And if they break for Trump in these states don’t say I didn’t warn you.
SomervilleTom says
If blue-collar workers break for Donald Trump, of all people, then they will demonstrate how desperately out of touch with reality they are. Any man or woman who thinks that Donald Trump is going to do ANYTHING except enrich Donald Trump hasn’t been paying attention for the last thirty years, never mind during this campaign.
No matter how many times GOP candidates repeat it, nor how many blue collar workers believe it, nor how many times Fox News “reports” it, Pennsylvania workers are NOT being harmed by immigration.
I lived in Pennsylvania in the early 1980s, when the steel mills were pulling out for the last time. Towns throughout the area were in collapse because NOBODY had any jobs and nobody had any money. Local news broadcasts were full of heartfelt testimonials from twenty-something young men saying, on camera, “I worked for the mill, my daddy worked for the mill, my daddy’s daddy worked for the mill, and HIS daddy worked for the mill. I’m mad as hell and I want to know when somebody is going FIX this problem.”
We did not do that worker any favor by promising him that electing so-and-so, voting for or against some international policy regarding steel, or telling him that it was the fault of the blacks, Mexicans, or Japanese.
The plain fact is that we made steel workers obsolete. Democrats and Republicans BOTH did that. Conservatives and liberals did that. We did that when we bought lightweight vehicles with good fuel economy. We did that when demanded that our government use the lowest cost steel it could buy. We do that when we invested in modernization, productivity, and research. We did that with the research performed in the metallurgy departments at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, founded by and named after Andrew Carnegie, a vicious predator and steel baron who built many of the mills and recruited those steel-workers into their way of life.
If we respect and genuinely care about these blue collar workers, we will tell them the TRUTH. We will make it possible for their children to get a good-quality education. We will find new and more equitable ways to distribute the wealth that people like Donald Trump have been hoarding.
We do not help them by pandering to their prejudices, fears, and ignorance. Their suffering is NOT caused by “free trade” agreements, and is NOT caused by immigrants. It is, instead, caused by people like Donald Trump plundering everything he can.
jconway says
Worked for Presidents Gore and Kerry both terms they won…oh wait
Christopher says
…and still lose to Clinton.
No kidding, you aren’t being a Pollyanna, more like her evil twin Debbie Downer.
jconway says
Polls at this stage showed Bush decisively beating Gore and Kerry decisively beating Bush. You forget that once Trump wins the GOP will fall in line and the voters saying they would never vote for him will come back to the fold. That’s how polarization works, for many he will be the lesser evil to Clinton on the lean R side. Which as you and others have pointed out, will benefit Clinton since many Sanders supporters will do the same duty.
The flip side is with independents and under 30 voters where Sanders has consistently done better than Clinton. Independents could defect to a Trump as he adopts a more Perot like poise for the general rather than a Buchanan one, and the under 30s could stay home.
And you gotta hold people’s hands Christopher! It’s the only way to get a lot of people to the polls, failing to do that is like Coakley not shaking people’s hands at Fenway. You gotta do all the work when your campaigning and all the heavy lifting so the voters don’t have to. Failure is not an option which is why I’m deeply concerned about the direction of the listless Clinton campaign.
SomervilleTom says
There is a difference between encouraging people to vote and telling them lies. Some Democrats told those steel workers in 1982 that if they voted “D”, the Democrats would “get their jobs back”. I’m sorry, my friend, but that’s just a lie. Other Democrats held local “town meetings” with those same workers where they shook their hands, hugged some of them, looked them in the eye, and told them that, if elected, they would strive to obtain worker retraining programs, extended unemployment benefits, and federal relief so that the schools their children needed could stay open. One is pandering, the other is reaching out.
Telling those workers today that by voting for Bernie Sanders (or Mr. Trump) they will restore their middle class lifestyle, or end the dominance of big money on politics, or create good jobs for young people graduating from college is, in my view, just pandering. Telling those workers that Ms. Clinton OPPOSES those things is simply lying.
Al Gore was substantially harmed by the Ralph Nader campaign — a campaign that attracted large numbers of idealistic young people who were appalled at the “corruption” of Al Gore, and who claimed that there was no difference between the two major party candidates. The effect of those young idealists was to put George W. Bush (and Dick Cheney) in the Oval Office. The irony of hearing them subsequently oppose the Iraq invasion has not escaped me, and most of them in my own circle of acquaintances now acknowledge that they erred in supporting Mr. Nader.
John Kerry was an uninspiring presidential candidate, just as he had been an uninspiring Senator. While I hear the argument, I don’t agree that Ms. Clinton is comparable.
I simply don’t agree that “independents and under 30 voters” who have supported Bernie Sanders will vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. I think that is especially unlikely after Mr. Sanders pivots and enthusiastically endorses Ms. Clinton after she wins the nomination (which he will surely do).
I think the dynamics of the general election will be driven, to a great extent, by the contrast between voters who typically lean GOP and who choose to stay home rather than vote for Mr. Trump and voters who typically lean Democrat and who choose to stay home rather than vote for Ms. Clinton.
I agree that there is a group of enthusiastic supporters of Mr. Trump who will turn out to vote for him. I don’t think that group will vote for either Democratic candidate. I think there is another group of enthusiastic supporters of Mr. Sanders. I don’t think that group will vote for any GOP candidate.
I think the question is how many of that last group will turn out to vote for Ms. Clinton, or at least vote for the other Democrats on the ballot. I think that those of us who want to see the agenda of Mr. Sanders advanced after the November election should be working to make that number as large as possible. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to encourage new voters who cannot in good conscience vote for Ms. Clinton to leave the Presidential line blank and vote Democratic for the other races.
I think that the more groundless attacks we make against Ms. Clinton, the more we erode that last number.
jconway says
Obama successfully painted Romney as an out of touch elitist and outsourcer in chief, and then he went on to push the TPP. It’s is far more likely Trump, not Clinton can make that argument. And the “he can’t be bought” piece resonates with people indifferent to his bigotry. So he will appeal to independents.
David Axelrod and David Plouffe agree with me on this, last night on Axelrod’s podcasts they both argued correctly that he will be harder to beat than Ted Cruz. He has already pivoted on abortion, entitlements, and trade and is right in the populist center where a lot of irregular voting downtrodden Americans find themselves whether you think they are dumb or not.
Your nuanced arguments won’t resonate with them, they need slogans and someone to blame and someone to fight back. Clinton has to be that candidate or she’s fucked.
Lastly, the under 30 won’t vote for Trump but they won’t lift a finger for Clinton if she and her supporters keep disparaging the genuine passion of the Sanders campaign and its supporters. Calling them idiots, comparing them to Nader or telling them to grow up and suck it up is a sure fire way to get them to stay home. Christopher’s civic duty to vote for the lesser of two evils doesn’t work on this crowd, it never has and it never will.
This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t vote for Clinton. I’m not arguing that, I am arguing she and her campaign has to try a whole lot harder and work on this. It’s evangelism, you don’t just build a church and mock everyone who walks on by, you welcome them to the table and break bread. Her campaign isn’t doing that right now.
HR's Kevin says
I have seen pretty obnoxious statements on the internet from both Sanders and Clinton supporters (or people pretending to be that), but I don’t think they truly represent the campaigns themselves nor do I think that most voters are even aware of their behavior. It is easy to forget that when you spend so much time reading blogs.
You are right, insulting voters is not the way to win their votes. I don’t think it necessarily follows that they can only be won over by crude slogans.
I also disagree that Clinton is not welcoming to Sanders supporters. I think she has already explicitly incorporated Sander’s key issues in her pitch. I guess the complaint is that she hasn’t adopted Sander’s positions whole hog? I have already seen many comments complaining about how she has “copied” her positions from Sanders. It seems that she probably can’t win in the eyes of some subset of Sander’s supporters no matter what she does. Nevertheless I do think she is trying. The question remains to what degree Sanders will help her do that.
JimC says
n/t
SomervilleTom says
I agree that Donald Trump will be harder to beat than Ted Cruz.
I disagree that we have to embrace his style to win. Too many Americans — including those at the top of the Executive branch — said that the most appropriate response to the Daniel Pearl execution was to do the same to Muslims. That response was a significant part of our failed “war on terror”, leading to our catastrophic invasion of Iraq in 2003. I think they were wrong. I think a better response would have been to vent our horror and anger in private, and be resolutely impassive in our foreign policy.
I agree that they need slogans, someone to blame, and someone to fight back. Hillary Clinton is NOT the person to blame, and I suggest that she is better qualified to fight back at the GOP than Mr. Sanders — she’s been doing it, relatively successfully, for more than twenty years.
I agree with you that it’s evangelism. I agree that you don’t mock everyone who walks by. I ask you to agree that when someone walks in off the street and starts disparaging our ordained women, prominent minorities, and enthusiastic embrace of our gay and lesbian population, we lovingly and candidly articulate our values. I suggest that we do NOT arrange to schedule a “traditional” service for them (sexist language, straight male celebrants, all white, etc).
My sense of the Clinton campaign is that they are very much doing what we want right now. I think her campaign will do more of that after she is the nominee and has rebuilt her bridges with Mr. Sanders.
Christopher says
She was laying on her appreciation for Sanders supporters pretty thick, and yes, reminding them they have a lot more in common with her than either she or they do with Republicans.
Christopher says
…but she is the one who knows how to accomplish things that will go far toward alleviating that anger anyway.
johntmay says
Please, illustrate this point with more than “she knows”.
Christopher says
She has worked with and receive praise from both sides of the aisle (and yes, that is still on balance a positive). She was instrumental in getting CHIPs through. I’ve already done a whole post on her accomplishments.
jconway says
Again, JimC’s two simple questions won’t be answered by repeating boilerplate partisan talking points. We can do better than this BMG.
Christopher says
She is who she is, and BTW is leading most national and state polls over Trump. How do you separate partisanship? Every issue we raise you respond with, oh that’s just partisan, it’s not good enough, nobody cares, etc. If she starts sounding too much like Sanders then she will be accused of pandering, and with some merit. Sometimes, not being the other guy is a YUUUGE deal!
HR's Kevin says
Even Republicans and Democrats cannot be easily characterized by stereotypes, but Independents are even more diverse. Some are to the left or right of major parties. Some are low-interest voters. Some are disaffected Republicans or Democrats. Some have sympathy with issues from both parties.
It really isn’t reasonable to talk about whether a “message will work with independents” because there isn’t ANY message that can possibly work with all of them.
JimC says
Technically we’re talking about the subset of independents who could be persuaded to vote Democratic, so (in theory) there is a single message that appeals to them. They’re a bloc like we’re a bloc, just not as identifiable.
For example, “preservation of Social Security” used to be something we owned. Now Trump has staked a claim on that, and found success with it.
HR's Kevin says
If you mean to refer to some “subset of independents” you really need to be saying that explicitly, not assuming that everyone always knows precisely what subset you are talking about.
I think it is ridiculous to say that people that cannot be identified form a “bloc” in any meaningful sense.
jconway says
1) under 30 millenials
The risk isn’t that they vote for Trump but that they don’t vote at all.
Being clearer about college, employment, and how she will move the country in a more progressive direction is vital. Simple and easy to digest talking points about her values rather than her policy points or governing experience.
Examples include my sister in law
2) Reagan Democrats/Trade Union members
They are voting for Trump or the Socialist! They are in unions and vote for the D locally but liked the Gipper, McCain, Perot and Scott Brown. They need to be convinced she will protect their jobs and secure their children’s future. Someone who will take care of them and “stick it!” to their boss.
Ex: The Lynch/Baker ticket splitter
3) Independent suburbanites
Perot, McCain 2000, loves Charlie Baker and John Kasich. Fiscally conservative, self employed or in a white collar industry. Naturally skeptical of the GOP social agenda and Dem economic one. Has a gay daughter and Mexican co worker or black in law and can’t vote for Trump under any circumstances but would stay home if not motivated. Examples include Central Mass Dad (a specific exception in this case) or my own dad and older brother.
HR's Kevin says
Although I think those categories are still too broad. Do you really think that all “independent suburbanites” have the same issues. Or all under 30 millenials for that matter?
I am afraid that in reality “independents” could be split up into 50 subgroups.
Christopher says
My own answer is possibly, but not completely sure. Not sure you need all three either for that matter. She already has a lot more in common with groups one and two than either GOP candidate does. ICYMI (not sure how that’s possible), she HAS used slogans like “fighting for you” and “breaking down barriers”. Trump is going to have a much harder time keeping his coalition together than she is. Why do you insist scoring own goals and giving our side the worst possible spin and prognosis?
johntmay says
After watching his prepared speech yesterday about foreign policy and protecting the American worker, I think his move to the left of Hillary on this is something she will have trouble with. She brags about her foreign friends. She was for the TPP and NAFTA. She tells a poor woman who cannot afford health insurance to “keep shopping”. I think Trump’s populist base is with him and growing each day.
Christopher says
Experts mostly panned it both on substance and form. The simple truth is, that whatever Sanders supporters want (with the slightly possible exception of trade) they are a lot more likely to come a lot closer to getting it with Clinton in the WH than Trump. (and DARN IT – she is AGAINST the TPP! – plus I want a cite for Clinton being as dismissive as you make it sound toward someone having trouble affording health insurance.)
jconway says
I am not diluting the unpopularity of Sec. Clinton or Mr. Trump. Over 50% of the electorate says they won’t vote for Clinton under any circumstance, over 60% say the same about Trump. Head to heads show her with a substantial lead at present. But popular votes don’t win presidential elections.
But there are troubling trends in the five states I am most concerned about. Florida has gone increasingly to the right at the state and congressional level since 2012 and Trump drew more voters to his primary win there than she did. Ditto WI, MI, PA, and OH. Those last four states have low Latino populations, high white working class populations and have lost the most votes to foreign trade. PA just lost 79,000 Democrats who unenrolled to vote for Trump.
The most voters torn between Sanders and Trump. And my concern is the Republican establishment and money machine will back Trump to block Clinton, he will get away with pivoting to the middle on many issues, and on the issues where he has his unique blend of populism and bigotry he can outflank Hillary on workers issues in a way Romney couldn’t.
You’ve consistently argued Hillary is a progressive populist who supports complex policies that protect the working class. I don’t disagree, all I’ve been arguing has been that this is not the public perception of her and blaming the public for that is not what winning campaigns too. First step to solving the problem is admitting we have one. That’s all I’ve been doing consistently.
Christopher says
I do know how the Electoral College works after all. She has also in the primaries garnered many more votes than Trump has. I’m pretty sure I have linked to all this previously. My concern is that you seem to think everything will fall into place for Trump, but out of place for Clinton, and I see zero evidence or reason for that predictions. You also have yet to prove your theory that there is any correlation between shifts in party registration, which happens every cycle, and the strength of Trump. Due to a secret ballot you may never get it either. In other words, you have no way of knowing that a net loss of 79K voters in PA was so that all 79K of them could vote for Trump. She beats him by every measure and there is no reason to think that she is not capable of both holding her own AND doing the necessary voter outreach to pull off a victory. She no doubt knows what is coming since it’s been coming for a generation.
doubleman says
Can you link to the state matchup polls? I have not seen any.
Yes, but Trump is also setting the record for most votes in a Republican primary EVER. So there’s another data point.
jconway says
I neglected to mention that. I think the onusnisnon you Christopher to prove they didn’t unenroll to vote for Trump. That didn’t happen in any other cycle and there was no need to unenroll to vote for Sanders and it’s unlikely they voted for Ted or Kasich who got crushed in that state. Trump won a historical high number of primary voters in a GOP primary in Pennsylvania.
I’ve never argued Clinton would lose, I’ve argued she’s more likely to lose if she and her supporters continue to assume the present strategy is successful or write off these troubling trends.
Christopher says
My stance is make no assumptions, including about motives to vote for Trump. It could be because the GOP race is more interesting or to troll the GOP. I’m still not sure what it is exactly she is/is not doing that she should change. She’s doing everything possible to get as many votes as possible as far as I can tell.
Christopher says
If I sound frustrated it’s not at anyone here, but at my stupid computer that is slow to load webpages and makes looking for information rather onerous. Just now it took 10 minutes to get to info it should have taken two, but here you go. Yes, many states are going Dem regardless, but NH, FL, WI, MI, OH, and PA are also going our way unless they nominate Kasich and a couple of those while the media insist on calling them swing states have actually been consistently Dem in the last few cycles. There’s even one poll suggesting Clinton has a shot at beating Trump in Utah! I have seen that Trump is setting a GOP record, but I spin that as if he’s setting a GOP record and STILL losing to Clinton that’s just one more reason to be very satisfied about our position in this race.
SomervilleTom says
Perhaps I misunderstand your comment, the vote totals I see differ from what you’ve said.
You write “Florida has gone increasingly to the right at the state and congressional level since 2012 and Trump drew more voters to his primary win there than she did. Ditto WI, MI, PA, and OH.”
In Florida I see:
Clinton: 1,097,400
Trump:1,077,221
Similarly, here the final totals from Pennsylvania:
Clinton: 918,689
Trump: 892,702
While the margin is small, It appears to me that Ms. Clinton got 20,000 MORE votes than Mr. Trump. Her margin in PA was larger.
Here’s MI, a state where Ms. Clinton famously finished second:
Clinton: 576,795
Trump: 483,751
Here’s WI, where Mr. Trump finished second to Mr. Cruz:
Clinton: 432,767
Trump: 386,370
In fact, the only state of the list you offer where Mr. Trump got more votes than Ms. Clinton is Ohio. This is a primary that turned out overwhelmingly to support it’s favorite son, so the total number of GOP voters greatly exceeded the total number Democratic voters:
Clinton: 679,266
Trump: 727,585
Finally, I think it’s worth mentioning that Mr. Trump got more votes than Mr. Sanders in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.
It again seems to me that you overstate Mr. Trump’s success and understate the success of Ms. Clinton.
lodger says
Could read “… my own dad and older brother, and my friend Lodger”.
FTFY.
Christopher says
….I wish there were a “parent” link on each comment so we can easily jump to what was being answered.
Trickle up says
that I could tell what comment you wrote this one…oh.
Well played, sir.
Christopher says
My comment referred to Porcupine’s titled “Correction” and addressed the fact that CU was case rather than statute law. I did realize after I commented that it suffered from the same issue as the other one.
JimC says
is now thinkable.
johntmay says
From Donald Trump: All government policy will be focused on helping the American Worker.
From Carly Fiorina: Our Founders knew that too much wealth in the hands of the few was a danger to our Republic.
Really?
Did I fall into the looking glass?
Christopher says
Cruz has used similar rhetoric, but that’s one way to show we are winning the message war. Time was many Dems co-opted GOP rhetoric.
SomervilleTom says
Ask the workers who were foolish enough to sign up for Trump University or the Trump Network (the “Ideal” scam) about how much he “helped” them. Or check out his proposed tax changes.
Carly Fiorina is just being Carly Fiorina. Even Republicans have already rejected her, Ted Cruz’s desperation notwithstanding.
johntmay says
Maybe so. But again, to the independent voter and those with just a casual knowledge of politics, this sounds good.
Hillary sound bites of “I’m having foreign leaders ask if they can endorse me to stop Donald Trump.” … foreign leaders are privately reaching out to her to ask if they can endorse … suffice it to say, there are many arguments that we can use against him.” … “Some have done it publicly,”
Followed by this sound bite from Trump..”We’re rebuilding other countries while weakening our own. Ending the theft of American jobs will give us resources we need to rebuild our military, which has to happen and regain our financial independence and strength. I am the only person running for the presidency who understands this and this is a serious problem.
I’m the only one — believe me, I know them all, I’m the only one who knows how to fix it.
Secondly, our allies are not paying their fair share, and I’ve been talking about this recently a lot. Our allies must contribute toward their financial, political, and human costs, have to do it, of our tremendous security burden. But many of them are simply not doing so.”
Seems like all the foreign “takers” want Hillary to give them our tax dollars and not use those tax dollars to help Americans……..at least that’s the spin I would put on this if I were running Trump’s campaign.
HR's Kevin says
Trump has been saying stuff like that all a long, and has been doing very poorly in head-to-head general election polls (for whatever they are worth), so I am not convinced that we should be worried all that much. Furthermore, there are too many logical inconsistencies and outright contradictions in Trump’s proposed policies to hold up to prolonged scrutiny.
SomervilleTom says
I’m reminded of verse from a great Louis Armstrong classic (2:11-2:40)
We might call those voters “those with a casual knowledge of politics”. Another characterization is “those who are uninformed or misinformed”. Neither characterization changes anything about the truth or untruth of Mr. Trump’s statements.
I don’t doubt that some of “those with a casual knowledge of politics” will be swayed by his lies, false promises, and scapegoating. In my view, the best response to that is to reach out to them, educate them, and tell them the truth. That is how we treat those voters with respect — rather than the contempt that permeates everything Mr. Trump utters.
For some of those voters, Donald Trump will remain their “good-for-nothing sweet hunk of trash”. So be it.
You did not fall into the looking glass. Mr. Trump and Ms. Fiorina are lying. They are, specifically, lying about their own proposals and the impact of their own proposals on the American worker and on wealth concentration.
That was the point I was making in response to your comment, and I stand by it.
johntmay says
Have you not seen Hillary’s negative ratings? Hint: They are very high. Are you unaware of a Quinnipiac poll where a mere 34 percent of Colorado voters think she can be trusted; 62 percent do not. In Iowa, those numbers are 33 percent to 59; in Virginia, Clinton is underwater on trust, too, 39 percent to 55 percent?
Pots calling kettles black is a tossup election.
SomervilleTom says
The lies of Donald Trump are easily documented and have been, the allegations against Ms. Clinton are not. That’s why the voters who believe either have a “casually knowledge about politics”.
Public opinion about Ms. Clinton’s “honesty” is primarily evidence of the effectiveness of media advertising — her attackers have invested billions of dollars over the past twenty-odd years creating those negatives.
Conflating Ms. Clinton with Mr. Trump is both false and, well, Naderist.
johntmay says
The flip flops of Hillary are well known, on line, and many. The transcripts will be found, no doubt, by the Trump people. The negatives are not imagined, they are very, very real. Take a guy like me, for example. Health Care as a human right is my #1 issue and on that, Hillary has taken a complete and firm 180 degree turn. Tell me this was something “made up” by her attackers and the media!
SomervilleTom says
When you keep your “talk” button depressed, you can’t hear anything.
Enough is enough with your repetition of right-wing talking points. Your claim about Ms. Clinton is simply incorrect. Ms. Clinton has been arguing that the ACA is a starting point for what we do next. The GOP has filed dozens of bills to REPEAL the ACA. Donald Trump will be the nominee of the GOP. He, and they, are NOT going suddenly support the ACA.
If you can’t or won’t acknowledge the difference between Ms. Clinton’s position and that of the GOP, then conversation with you about this topic is a waste of time.
Enough is enough.
HR's Kevin says
EVERYONE flip flops on something or another. Some anal transcript search can make ANYONE look like a hypocrite, but who really cares? I can assure you that Donald Trump has been FAR, FAR more inconsistent than any other person who has been running in this election. Hell, half of the things he says are contradicted within days of weeks of saying them. If you believe that this hurts Clinton, then you have to believe that it will hurt Trump even more.
In the end, most people are going to care more about what they think someone will do as president, not what they said about something twenty years ago.
In the end are people going to care more about whether someone uses the “health care as a human right” rhetoric or whether they actually can get affordable health care? And is it only a “human right” if it is something that you personally want or need? Why isn’t housing a human right? Sadly, no one, including Bernie Sanders, is demanding that we totally eliminate homelessness by guaranteeing everyone housing. Homeless populations in cities such as Boston and San Francisco have pretty good access to health care but they don’t have anywhere to live. Seems like an even more important human right than healthcare, and yet no one really wants to talk about it.
jconway says
Which is why I think Trump benefits more from voter amnesia since the areas where he’s been consistent have been opposition to trade, opposition to globalization, and opposition to foreign entanglements. The internationalist worldview is at stake this election and it worries me that the isolationists have the upper hand in the polls.
HR's Kevin says
The problem with Trump is that he is switching positions from day to day (sometimes even in the same day) in a way that is unlike any candidate I can ever remember. That is going to be noticed by all but the most forgetful voter.
Trump is also going to get embarrassed in one-on-one debates in which he is going to have to explain in depth policies that he doesn’t even understand. Also don’t forget that he has almost no self-restraint when reacting to perceived injuries to his ego. He will make himself look like a fool many times over. Clinton will tear him apart.
Christopher says
…have in fact been made up by the VRWC and amplified by the media, on which I have posted extensively.
jconway says
Every response you and Tom have had in this thread has been “Clinton is a good democrat, we’re good democrats, so we should vote for her”. And the title of the thread was about getting non-Democrats to vote for Hillary.
You’re strategy for that has been insisting they aren’t allowed to vote for her in a primary, insisting if they are dumb enough to believe Trump they are beneath “pandering” to, and insisting everything will be fine since people like Democrats and their priorities and the GOP is liked least. It’s why I’m getting shades of Coakley/Brown since none of you are on the ground talking to voters this cycle and seeing how many people who are rational, smart,
normal people are unexcited and turned off by this race and refusing to vote. In a low turnout race the conservatives are favored.
I think Trumps supporters are more motivated to vote and send a message to the man than our voters will be motivated to vote against Trump. Even fewer will be voting for Hillary who is disliked and distrusted by the majority of the American people.
I am asking us to get outside our comfort zone and personal bias and really put ourselves in the shoes of voters who aren’t natural Democrats who we will need to defeat Trump in 2016. It shouldn’t be a hard thought exercise.
Christopher says
Why do you think we of all people have not been on the ground talking to voters this cycle? Many of us have canvassed, made calls, etc. We do still have a campaign to run and get people motivated to vote. I was responding to johntmay with my VRWC reference and stand by it.
It’s not just Dem partisans, but the original diary as I understood it posed the question primarily in reference to Sanders voters. Whatever issues they care about, they are going to get closer to what they want with Clinton than with Trump. I have no interest in turning Clinton into the woman they want to have a beer with and if we tried those same independents you are concerned about would smell that inauthenticity a mile away.
As far as people in the middle I feel you’ve put us in a no-win situation. Politics is about issues, and I do think we can win on the issues, but you inexplicably seem to be saying issues don’t count. I don’t want to turn this into a popularity contest. Those same voters you talk about deserve better than that.
Christopher says
Trump’s negatives are even higher than hers AND polls show her beating Trump. If the GOP knew what was good for them they would nominate Kasich.
Christopher says
…was his relationships with international heads of government. I want my President respected by those leaders. Clinton is; Trump isn’t.
jconway says
Most voters resent foreign leaders telling them what to do, which is why Obama’s trip to the UK backfired and more voters support Brexit after the visit. It’s why we were wise to stay neutral in the SNP vote.
Christopher says
We’re the US after all; I think we’ve made it clear time and again nobody tells us what to do. However, if WE want other countries to do what we ask, our President needs to be respected. Why must we play on the turf of these voters rather than try to bring them to our side? I feel like you are playing the same game so many complain the Dems played over the last generation on domestic economics – advocate the same as the other side, just not quite as much.
jconway says
I’m an internationalist and foreign policy is my wheelhouse, in just saying the average voter doesn’t care about it and feels we are getting screwed supporting the rest of the world. Understanding this is how they feel is the first step to redirecting their anger in a more productive direction, instead of just assuming world leaders elsewhere will help us here. Didn’t work for John Kerry.
Christopher says
…based on the idea that we should coddle rather than correct misimpressions. If these voters truly want America to win on the world stage then we need to have a President that will be able to bring the rest of the world along. For all his braggadaccio, Trump will be much worse ultimately in this regard. I’m not suggesting everyone automatically understands this, but there is still 6.5 months to make this case, and I’m sure we will.
Mark L. Bail says
such thing as “Independents.” The are just voters unenrolled in a party. It makes no sense to generalize about them as a group. No party is a monolith, but “independents” are even more so. Many independents always vote Democratic. Many always vote Republican. Others flip and flop.
From Pew Research: