It’s time for everyone here to stop denying it and work their asses off to fix it. The Editors should use all the pull they have at the convention to ask everyone about this problem and what they plan on doing about it.
538 has caught up to what I’ve been arguing since this campaign started. We can’t write off white working class voters, and Trump is now projected to win the Presidency by carrying several important rust belt swing states battered by trade and uncertain about immigration. He is now leading in PA, FL, NV, OH, NH, and NC. Losing PA is a big deal, Romney never had a lead there and a Republican hasn’t carried that state in 28 years. Obama lost white working men 55-45 in swing states. Clinton is losing them 70-30. This is a big deal.
And no, the attack ads running locally saying “please think of our children” won’t cut it. Sorry Christopher, her message may be good but nobody who matters is hearing it. Sorry Tom, you can’t just attack people as racists and hope they vote for your candidate. We have to do real outreach and we have to recognize this is a massive problem, that the entire Democratic establishment has become so corporate it no longer knows how to appeal to working people allowing a wannabe despot openly backed by the Russian government to take over our country.
He’s soft on defense, Hillary is strong in defense. He’s going to raise working people’s taxes, she won’t. He’ll kill the safety net, she won’t. He’ll destroy our alliances, she won’t. The stakes are too high for anyone to stay home and for anyone not to vote for Clinton. That should be her message. America doesn’t need a grandma, it needs a champion. Channel her inner Bill and be that fighter for working families America is waiting for.
jconway says
Every speech she mentions her humble roots and that she will be a Prime Minister for everyone, not just the connected few. She’s even plastering these ideas across 10 Downing instead of paintings so she and her staff don’t forget this. It’s not hard. This isn’t the year to be a wink and Ezra Klein doesn’t carry any swing voters. You need to feel their pain, you need to lift them help and make sure those who play by the rules get ahead. This is 1992 with the benefit of being a national security hawk running against Moscows candidate. Go there, bring guns to knife fights and be the girl from Park Ridge and not Chappaqua.
doubleman says
This says so much.
Christopher says
…and I also simultaneously posted a diary indicating the current EC odds are 312-197 in her favor.
jconway says
Doesn’t make it true.
Christopher says
I’m not sure what you want us or her to do. Nobody can be forced to listen to her. HRC can only control what she says. Your concern trolling is not helpful and I sometimes wonder whether, like Ted Cruz, you are setting yourself up to say see, we need to appeal to the base in 2020 if we lose. Given his outrageous comments and the idea that he is the most bigoted candidate since George Wallace, if we can’t defeat him I will have a very hard time saying I’m proud to be an American after November. If a majority really do vote for him I will no longer be able to defend my fellow citizens.
jconway says
And that’s a real problem. At this point, if Hillary loses to this opponent whom you among others gleefully predicted a landslide against, it is a repudiation of her cautious centrist career and a call to real empowering populist politics. I don’t see how you can read it any other way.
Like I said here three years ago, the major fault lines in America will be class going forward. And we don’t want to be the party of the elites, and I can’t believe I’m one of the few people here pained at the prospect that the party of FDR and ONeil is now the party of Hollywood and Wall Street. Tom Frank, Matt Taibbi and yes even John T May are canaries in coal mines we ignore at our own peril. Just as we did in 2010 and 2014. Barely any statehouse in Dem control and the ones that are are corrupted as fuck, other than MN and OR.
sabutai says
I don’t think “class” really explains the global political cleavages that we’re seeing her in the US in our presidential election. I don’t think a rural upper class voter in Indiana has much in common with a rich Manhattanite. By the same token, I don’t see the precariats of Athol, Idaho and Miami having much in common. Issues from immigration to abortion divide them.
There are many labels being offered to contrast those welcoming to a globalized 21st century and those who are not. That’s the true cleavage, between those voting with a mind toward the 1950s and those voting with a mind toward the 2050s. I don’t believe that’s based on class as much as a muddle of ethnicity, education, location and class.
Christopher says
HRC has said in practically every public appearance that she is fighting for these people, not to mention that an honest look at her career should speak for itself. Sometimes, though, I feel I have no choice than to blame voters for not hearing what is clearly being said.
SomervilleTom says
I understand the implications of the statistics you cite. I disagree most emphatically with this comment: “Sorry Tom, you can’t just attack people as racists and hope they vote for your candidate.”
If enough Americans (especially “white working men 55-45” — your characterization, not mine) embrace the racist hate-speech and bigotry of the GOP, then the “game” is already lost. I do not want to live in a nation where my candidate must join in the lynch-mob hate-speech of the GOP in order to gain votes. If that’s what it takes to win PA, then as far as I’m concerned PA is lost.
We’ve had much talk of morality here in the ten years (give or take) I’ve been participating in this community. There is NOTHING “moral”, in my book, about advocating that we pander to racism and racists in order to win an election.
It could be that America was not, in fact, ready for a black President. It is clear as day that the GOP has been pouring the kerosene of racism on the floor for the eight years that Barack Obama was President — Donald Trump lit the match.
I am, frankly, less tolerant of racist white ass-hats today than I was in 1972 when Richard Nixon sent Spiro Agnew out to pander to them (they were then called “hard hats” and the “silent Majority”. The “silent Majority” was an immoral and cynical play to the worst elements of our culture in 1969, and it remains the same today — no matter how much lipstick we try to smear on it. Richard Nixon invoked it in order to defend and obscure his own lies and machinations.
I reject the premise that Democrats must do this in order to win — if that is the case, there is nothing to be gained by winning.
jconway says
Since we’ve been over this before. There is a Venn diagram of Trunp supporters who like him on trade and immigration, those that are racist, and those that are in between. We lose the true racists and good riddance to them, we lose some of the folks in between, but I’m talking about the Carrier workers who felt Trump was the only person standing up for them deserve help. The yellow dog Dems in Leominister who I encountered canvassing that have given up on both parties and think Trump is the shake up the system needs.
You are always talking about helping organized labor, yet I don’t see Hillary really making that a focal point of her campaign. Has she ran any ads about it? We have to play offense to win these voters back, and we haven’t done that since 1992. Bill knows how to do this, why can’t he show his wife the way?
SomervilleTom says
I think Ms. Clinton and the Democratic Party is already reaching out to the segment of the Venn diagram that we agree should be targeted. Yes, we perhaps might (and will) do more, but in my view you painted me with too broad a brush.
You brought up PA, and you spoke of “white working men 55-45”. By the time we whittle it down to white working men, 55-45, who live in PA and are leaning towards or voting for Donald Trump, I suggest that we are squarely in the middle of that section of the Venn diagram that you agree we should lose.
Meanwhile, pieces like this suggest that those “Carrier workers who felt Trump was the only person standing up for them” were, in face, just another Donald Trump lie (emphasis mine):
I think we are already reaching out to disaffected workers. In my view, what we are NOT doing is pandering to white racist fears. Donald Trump is, for example, telling West Virginia coal minors that he’ll “bring back coal” and that climate change is a lie. We are not — and I argue should not be — doing that.
You explicitly called me out in your thread-starter, and in my view mis-stated my position. We agree that we should not pander to racists. We agree that we should pursue disaffected workers. I hope that we send Bernie Sanders back into those meeting-halls where he can encourage those Carrier workers to vote for Ms. Clinton.
I hope we agree that we should not be shy about calling racists what they are, and winning this election without them.
jconway says
And a black man named Barack Hussein Obama got those ratios in PA, OH and Fl in 2012. Clinton, a white candidate, is losing the same demo by a 70-30 ratio today. Gosh, I wonder if those Obama voters who are now with Trump are all racist? Or perhaps they aren’t convinced Hillary has their back? Which is the reality based explanation?
We definitely agree on the way forward, I just hope you recognize in a way our friend Christopher does not, that this is a winnable campaign but it falls on the shoulders of the nominee to win it. It has to be fought a lot smarter and better than the half assed job Team Clinton has done. And calling it a half assed job is NOT sexist or the same as voting for Trump. For the love of god this blog has to stay reality based and not a politburo for the DNC.
SomervilleTom says
I misread the “55-45” part, I apologize. I’m trying to both chat here and simultaneously prepare a release. I hope I’m reading the release code more carefully than I read your comment. 🙁
I agree with pretty much everything you’re saying in this most recent comment.
Still, I ask you to recognize that a significant part of that shift from Barack Obama to Donald Trump might well be driven by racism (“I tried voting for the black, and look what happened”). I am perhaps mistaken about this, or unduly influenced by my own experiences in PA, WV, MD, southern VA, and elsewhere.
I’m simply trying to say that the demographic we’re discussing DOES include a significant racist (and sexist) component. These are men who, for example, view “ambitious” as a fault in a woman or a black man, while admiring it in a fellow white man. Donald Trump “has balls”, while Barack Obama “has an attitude”.
We agree that these racists exist. We agree that we should not pander to them. Perhaps the primary difference between us is our sense of the size of the group. I certainly hope that we learn, in November, that the group that worries me most is smaller than I fear.
jconway says
And where I attacked your comment initially was in painting half the country that is leaning Trump as racists, when maybe a half of that half is but the other half is persuadable.
I think Hillary is blowing a historic opportunity to win upscale suburban Republicans by pointing out how our greatest geopolitical foe is hacking her party and leaking information, paying for her opponents debts and sharing advisors with his campaign. Why are liberals so uncomfortable making this argument? It’s not red baiting when it’s true and when the Russkie in question is a fascist nationalist like Trump without a socialist bone in his body. She should make it loud and often that he is Moscows candidate, not Americas.
Second, she should force Kaine to repudiate TPP and make an ironclad commitment to bailing out the deindustrialized heartland from white Appalachia to black Detroit to middle of the road Akron. All areas where the Democrats have historically written off the voters or the people and all areas trade and automation left behind. Recognizing the economy of the past can’t come back, how do we plug these off the grid areas into the new economy?
Third, highlight Flint as a failure of GOP government. It keeps black turnout high while playing to a basic swing voter suburban need for the government should keep us safe.
Fourth, connect terrorism to the NRA. This is how we win back Bucks County and keep VA, NC and FL in the Dem column. Anyone who supports unlimited gun rights is soft on terrorism.
dave-from-hvad says
white, middle-class voters, and that is reflected in things like her opposition to the TPP and perhaps even in her selection of Kaine. I agree that white middle and working-class voters have seen their economic condition plummet in recent years, and that has contributed to the rise of Donald Trump. The Dems didn’t do enough about this.
But if Clinton loses in November, it will also be because a lot of Sanders supporters sat home rather than vote for her because she and Kaine were not ideologically pure enough for them. If that happens, I’m going to hold those Sanders supporters personally responsible for her defeat.
jconway says
Kaine voted for TPP so how does he help again?
And please point me to these mythical Sanders voters staying home. He endorses her, campaigns for her, and endorses Kaine and he and his supporters will still be blamed come the fall for Hillarys failure? I find that unbelievably insulting. Nobody on this site is voting for Trump. Few in the real world who voted for Sanders is voting fo Trump. My criticisms of the Clinton campaign have nothing to do with ideologically purity and everything to do with her losing the election due to flawed assumptions about the state of the race and the electorate.
We are quite friendly off site and I don’t mean any of this to be taken personally, that goes to anyone else I’ve disagreed with today. Understand I want Clinton to win and have a justified concern America is not ready for her today. Maybe it will be in two weeks, but these polls are alarming. A candidate as unacceptable as Trump should never have a lead of this magntitude after the 73 minute hate last week.
dave-from-hvad says
and got booed when he urged them to vote for Clinton and Kaine. That’s an indication to me that a lot of these people will stay home on election day. I won’t blame Sanders for that. He has endorsed Clinton and recognizes the the threat posed by Trump. But there are apparently a lot of his supporters out there that would rather Trump wins than that the Democratic candidate they wanted won’t be the nominee.
As I said, Kaine is not perfect. He did support the TPP. I think Clinton chose him because he is perceived as a moderate who will attract those disaffected white voters.
Mullaley540 says
Tell me again how Sanders ran a positive campaign.
Sanders spent months and most of $200 million demonizing Hillary as a tool of Wall Street and telling his followers how the election was somehow rigged. (When did the DNC suddenly become so super competent that it can now rig elections? Of course the DNC preferred HRC. Why not? HRC was a long time Democrat and, as Bernie admitted himself, Sanders only became a Democrat so he could run in the Democratic primaries. The DNC is comprised of people. What do you think they would do when Sanders was demonizing the DNC daily. And so what that the DNC favored HRC? Is there any action that the DNC did or did not do that accounts for HRC receiving millions more votes than Bernie? In fact, I suspect DNC favoritism actually cost HRC votes.)
Now, we are reaping what Bernie has sown. From the looks of things at his address today to his delegates, Bernie can not control his own delegates. So, will Sanders delegates actually do as Bernie asks and behave on national TV, or will they act out which could undermine everything by helping elect Trump?
Mark L. Bail says
anticipating a victory and wants a VP she can work with who won’t leave a hole in the senate.
Christopher says
…and specifically called out Carrier earlier in her campaign as an example of a company which got help from the taxpayers then bailed, and from whom she wants to get our many back or penalize for doing so. It’s no wonder we can’t reach the voters you complain about when someone as active as you doesn’t seem to be paying attention!
jconway says
Did she talk about Carrier before trump? Where? If she said it an ad that would be helpful. Only ads I see on the Sox games are the lame Jeb! like ones where she says “our children are watching” . Hassan’s attacks on Ayotte for cutting Medicare are really effective and are models for how to hit Trump on pocket book issues.
I’ve seen some positive ones on the Sunday shows which are generic and biographical. She needs to say in simple sentences “I won’t outsource jobs” and “I won’t raise your taxes like Trump will” and “I’m not a pawn of Putin”. Her last major foreign policy speech was good, as was her Roosevelt Island speech where she emphasizes the 99%. More of that would be helpful, especially in ads and sound bites.
And no, I’m not on her email list and I don’t watch MSNBC that often, so how else will I hear about her? I read the Times and Washington Post daily, the Herald and Globe, get Massterlist and MA Politico daily emails, and haven’t heard shit about her stance on carrier. That’s her failure to communicate not my failure to listen.
Christopher says
…of which rally or stump speech she said which things, though I’m fairly certain I heard about Carrier from her before Trump (and come to think of it I don’t recall hearing about it from Trump). Pretty sure it was prior to major midwestern primaries. In fact, I think part of the reason her comments stuck with me is because we were already having this discussion and I remember thinking here is a perfect example of Clinton addressing the issue of jobs moving out of the country.
dave-from-hvad says
The 538 site under this link has Clinton up 53.7 to 46.2. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
SomervilleTom says
Perhaps the convention bounce for Mr. Trump is already over.
dave-from-hvad says
n/t
johnk says
for Trump. But it shows how close polling had been. Clinton has some difficulty closing the deal so far. I would expect that it does back to +D next week. But for all the alarms, it does show there is a competitive election.
dave-from-hvad says
The 538 site still shows Clinton ahead: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Or am I missing something?
johnk says
Polling model:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoNj7oVWAAAgKUv.jpg
Polling Only, if election was today:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoNjE1xXYAAH_9p.jpg
SomervilleTom says
If you look more closely, there are three different forecasts on the front page, selected via radio-button in the top left pane:
– Polls-plus forecast: What polls, the economy and historical data tell us about Nov. 8
– Polls-only forecast: What polls alone tell us about Nov. 8
– Now-cast: Who would win an election today
The thread-starter is using the final choice, “Who would win an election today”. The other two (projecting to Nov 8) are more like the link you found.
I think the thread-starter is reflecting the convention bounce for Mr. Trump. The other two appear to be discounting that bounce.
dave-from-hvad says
I don’t think it matters that much who would win the election today.
sabutai says
Even McCain/Palin was leading between the conventions. Worrying about the race at this moment is like being concerned your football team is losing the game when they haven’t had the chance to go on offense yet.
jconway says
We ignore the data at our peril. Every Hillary supporter here to a person laughed at Trumo and anticipated a landslide. We all called his convention a shit show yet he got the biggest bounce form one since HW Bush in 88′. Do you think our convention with its discredited chair, milquetoast message and bland running mate will fire up middle America to come back? We are in serious trouble and we ought to be concerned.
paulsimmons says
…and I know firsthand how successful he’s been in Pennsylvania.
Regarding that last point: I’ve noted my concerns on occasion.
sabutai says
You’re cherry-picking data like a reverse “polls r skewed” person from last time. I know it supports the failure you’re cheerleading so hard for, but it’s still an inaccurate comparison.
If Trump is leading two weeks from now, then it’s time to be concerned.
jconway says
Neither is paulsimmons. I expected better from you sabutai, you’ve been very critical of this campaign throughout the cycle as have I for its tone deaf approach to the issues animating voters. I want to win and more importantly to defeat Trump by the widest possible margin.
I think that’s possible in November, but recognizing we would lose today is the first step in making the changes needed to correct the record. But I agree-let’s see where we are in two weeks. To Christophers credit, he has made a persuasive case that Trump gets all the free media. Let’s see if HRC handles the week, but lets also be prepared to suggest new tactics to win.
sabutai says
But I maintain that chasing a vanishing demographic isn’t smart politics. GA+NC+AZ > MI+PA Not that those are all in play, but in the long run I would make that trade.
I don’t think the solution is to try to out-patronize the Republicans. Those manufacturing jobs aren’t coming back. Period. If the factories move back from Vietnam or Bangladesh, they’re returning with robots. There needs to be a stronger platform plank on this issue, yes, but I’m trying to make clear I’m not going to join the “we’re all doomed” chorus during this very narrow and unrepresentative window during the process.
centralmassdad says
You seem a little panicky here. In the primaries you shat on 538 after pretending it was a Nostradamus oracle, ignoring the copious warnings about the quality of polling. Now you’re ignoring the copious warnings that conventions screw up polling for a few weeks during summer. You’re abusing data by cherry picking it.
Of course it is going to be a close election. The country is polarized, has been for 20 years, and no amount of Wall Street bashing will change that. Certainly, Dems aren’t going to win 47 states by running left.
Although the election will be close, there are factors that favor Dems, which is why the probabilities posted by Christopher show a more likely HRC win. Those are demographic factors that you seem to wish to jettison in favor of chasing a steadily shrinking demographic. It’s like you work in marketing for Blackberry.
Christopher says
…unless the EC margin is comparable to 1964 or 1988 in Clinton’s favor. Otherwise, I have to face the reality that in 2016 way too much of the country is willing to vote for the least qualified, least tempermentally fit, most bigoted candidate for President we have seen in decades. Trump’s candidacy DELENDA EST!
jconway says
If 60% of the electorate were persuadable like it was in 1964, Hillary would be winning an LBJ landslide. Instead, the electorate is starkly polarized in 45/45 camps with 10% in the middle. That 10% is low information, unreliable voters who tend to lean against an incumbent administration, and the economic indicators indicate that is the case. It also doesn’t help that polls show independents breaking for Trump, though those are national polls and I have yet to see state by states showing the same breakdown.
The 538 numbers could be an aberration since NV and NH haven’t really been in play. I don’t see NV going for Trump due to latinos, nor do I see NC due to an influx of tech workers and a reaction against local right wing rule. I do see PA, OH, IA and FL being neck and neck until November and that isn’t good.
SomervilleTom says
I think the “low information” voter segment is FAR larger than the 10% “in the middle” you cite.
The fact that 45% of Americans support a man and party who is so demonstrably dishonest, incompetent, incorrect on virtually EVERY measurable count, and filled with hate, bigotry, ignorance, and misogyny is an indictment of our entire political system.
It is, in particular, an indictment of our current toxic stew of:
1. A completely unregulated mass media owned by the one percent with NO constraints on balance, truth, or accuracy.
2. A decades-long strategy of disinvesting in education, so that we have an increasingly ignorant and illiterate electorate unable or unwilling to sustain even basic rational analysis and thought.
3. Historic concentration of wealth and therefore power in an ever-narrowing oligarchy.
The content of Fox News has been utter rubbish since its founding. A majority of Americans relies on Fox News for their information about the world. The other major broadcasters follow Fox News by the nose in hopes of peeling away that audience. Fox News is the media arm of the GOP.
I don’t know how we pull out of this power-dive. Pretending that the 45 percent support for Donald Trump is comprised of anything BUT “low information” voters is a non-starter. It is simply not possible to make an argument that an informed voter who is rational, who understands the issues, and who is able to follow rudimentary analysis of proposal can conclude that Donald Trump should be President.
Christopher says
…that in 2016 such a high percentage of people have to be “persuaded” not to vote for or acquiesce in the election of a dangerous bigot. If the country were where it should be (and before the election of Obama and certain elements coming out of the woodwork I largely thought it was), the safe non-bigot would take 90% of the popular vote by default:(
jconway says
Let’s pair it back a bit and work with where paulsimmons, an actual polling expert who has advised scores of campaigns, is coming from. We see Trump winning WWC males 70-30 in the same states where Romney won them 55-45 just four years ago. That’s a serious problem. We saw the polls on Brexit widely off the mark, and we see a sentiment that there is globalization and its discontents and it bothers me that our movement seems to be on the side of everything is calm like Kevin Bacon in Animal House.
Damon Linker, a centrist Clinton fan like you, had a great post analyzing this same point in his column today. Peter Beinart had a great piece from a few months ago showing why running left is a smart electoral strategy since our country has moved far to the left compared to where it was just 16 years ago on a host of issues, not just social ones.
The Great Recession undermined confidence in banks, and gave even some Republican leaning independents a hunger for regulation and reform. We need to reform the system and rebuild it, not dismantle it entirely like Trump wants or nationalize it like Bernie wants, but merely tinkering with it like Clinton proposes is not enough. I really think you underestimate the anger a lot of Americans feel that this recovery hasn’t helped them or anyone they know, and they aren’t all white males who feel this way. This doesn’t mean they vote for Trump, but we need them to vote for Clinton. And she isn’t doing a good job articulating why. These polls reflect that.
I shit on Silver in the primary because he ignored the vast amount of polling, that David pointed to early on, that showed Trump’s lead was insurmountable. Christopher keeps insisting Hillary is doing a good job, he also believed in spite of all evidence that Jeb! would win the nomination. Median voter theory is going out the window this year, the left/right spectrum is obsolete and is being replaced by something entirely new. Class is the new fault line and globalization is the new culture war. This is our reality, our politics are becoming far more European on either side. A hunger for actual social democracy in our traditionally center-left party, and a hunger for white nationalism on the center-right. So no, there is no center to pander to since it has been squeezed out of existence.
jconway says
Hillary is trying to sell midsize Buick sedans to a market polarized between Hummers and Smart Cars. She is running a late 20th century campaign for a 21t century electorate that is divided far more starkly along class lines than it was at the turn of the century.
jconway says
the 1% and the 99%. There are no cars for the middle class anymore since the middle class doesn’t exist.
jconway says
A
has begun, where class replaces culture.
Hillary was losing whites without a college degree by 20 points and is now losing them by 39 points post convention. She has now increased her lead among minorities to actually surpass Obama’s, and Dems are winning whites with college degrees by 5 points for the first time ever. I think these are troubling trends, and even if they don’t result in President Trump they will severely limit the ability of populist politics within the Democratic party if it’s just socially liberal affluent whites and minorities. That’s not a stable coalition.
Christopher says
…Hillary isn’t Jeb, though I missed the GOP not hunkering down like they have every other cycle. Those Americans who are angry about WS would be with us from the beginning if they were honest about their views. I happened to see again recently the clip of Rick Santelli threatening a Chicago “tea party” an early reference in the modern political dialogue. It occurred to me that he was not at that point saying anything racist or overtly hostile to the President, but expressing frustrations that many DEMOCRATS shared.
lodger says
But ABC is reporting these poll results today.
“Trump earns 48 percent support vs. 45 percent support for Clinton in a head-to-head matchup, within a new CNN poll’s margin of error. Another poll from CBS News out this morning showed the two candidates tied at 42 percent.
Still, the CNN poll shows Clinton’s lead evaporating. Just one week ago, Clinton led by a 49-42 percent margin.”
It all depends where you look.
Christopher says
…the numbers you cite appeared when the page first opened, but as the page loaded (My computer is slow in this regard.) the numbers almost flipped exactly.
Charley on the MTA says
jconway linked to the “Now-Cast” — What would happen if the election were held today. Trump got a convention bounce. Now it’s our turn. Click the radio buttons on the left of the page to get “Polls-plus-forecast” – polls plus econ plus historical data, and “polls-only forecast” — just the polls.
Hillary’s still ahead in all but the “Now-Cast”. And the election’s not being held today. (whew)
Charley on the MTA says
nt
jconway says
This hasn’t been the case at all during this race, and to me the best way to react to bad polls is to assume they are true and work twice as hard to make them false on Election Day. That’s the spirit of my thread starter.
hoyapaul says
allows for another diary hitting the hobbyhorse that Democrats need to pander to old white men in order to win, but perhaps we can take the 538 team’s own advice and wait until the more accurate post-convention polling comes out in another two to three weeks before coming to any conclusions.
farnkoff says
I googled “Hillary Clinton for President” + Massachusetts but no MA phone numbers popped up.
Christopher says
…which I realize aren’t as convenient to all of MA as they are to me, but I don’t know if Clinton-Kaine signs are available yet.
ChiliPepr says
I ride a motorcycle and go for rides in Mass just about every Saturday and Sunday….. To date I have seen many Trump lawn signs, and I saw my first “Hillary for Pres” sign this past Saturday.
ryepower12 says
Those are the stakes this election.
And that’s the argument we need to make.
Christopher says
I think you’re absolutely right. We should ask voters if they want Vladimir Putin first messing with our elections and then dictating our foreign policy. Never has Cold War rhetoric sounded so good!
jconway says
I said this last week and you gave me some hell for it, but glad to see you coming around. I think it’s compelling to swing voters and it’s absolutely dangerous to our security if Trump gets elected President with Russian support. This is not a conspiracy theory, the facts are out there.
Christopher says
…was that we had started hearing the strong vs. dangerous case regarding national security.
Christopher says
…before the recent email dump with evidence that Russia was behind it.
jconway says
He wanted out of NATO, he had a prominent Putin puppets advisor as his campaign manager, and that Russian oligarchs are holding a lot of his debt (reason #1 he won’t release his tax returns). TPM has done a great job documenting these connections. And I think it is fair to say, we don’t want foreign countries interfering in our elections. I am as a pro-Israel as they come, but I was pretty pissed when Bibi endorsed Mitt last time around. And that’s small potatoes compared to an actual rival of the US steering money and using intelligence services to prop up one candidate against the other.
Mark L. Bail says
Cherry-picking your data, even to support an important point, is sleazy! This be afraid, be very afraid helps no one.
I won’t belabor your cherry-picking since others already have. Instead I’ll add Sam Wang, who says Clinton has a 65% chance of winning and a 50-50 split in the senate. Electoral-Vote.com also has her with 312 electoral votes.
jconway says
A candidate once told me to assume that the worst polls are true and to work twice as hard to prove them false. That’s what I am calling on all of us here and the Clinton campaign itself to embrace.