I’ve seen this before. A complacent campaign, and activists wrongly presuming victory with no heavy lifting.
From HuffPo/Pollster:
I am not equating either Sanders or Clinton with Martha Coakley. I do, however respectfully suggest that it is premature to assume that victory is preordained.
Please share widely!
Nobody is suggesting that victory is pre-ordained.
In my view, the fact that Donald Trump is where he is mostly speaks to:
– The other GOP candidates
– Voters in the GOP primary
Mr. Trump is a reasonably accomplished pitch-man and promoter. He is not a political mastermind, and has no government expertise AT ALL. Mr. Trump’s utter lack of government experience makes Charlie Baker look like a seasoned official — and Mr. Baker ran as an outsider.
Mr. Baker’s business experience is, by most measures, far superior to Mr. Trump’s. I don’t believe that Mr. Baker has been responsible for ANY bankruptcies. I don’t believe that Mr. Baker has ever attempted to operate a pyramid scheme. I don’t believe that Mr. Baker inherited and then squandered a family fortune.
Mr. Baker is a better politician than Mr. Trump, is better at business than Mr. Trump, and was so before the period covered by this chart. It is not surprising that Mr. Baker defeated Ms. Coakley. Scott Brown also defeated Ms. Coakley, and Mr. Trump seems to be recycling Mr. Brown’s failed strategies against Elizabeth Warren.
Not that it matters, but Mr. Baker is still married to his first spouse (like Ms. Clinton). Mr. Trump is, like me, married to wife number three. In many circles, being married three times is a political liability.
If we are as good as we say we are, if we Democrats run a reasonably competent campaign, and if we continuously emphasize our strengths, Mr. Trump’s weaknesses, and the challenges that face us, then we will win.
As you observe, neither Mr. Sanders nor Ms. Clinton is comparable to Ms. Coakley. The above chart is, in my view, largely irrelevant to the current national campaign.
A non-negligible part of Mr. Trump’s current media buzz is that the Trump story itself makes for great media pieces — and sells advertising. That does not, in my view, translate to people voting for Mr. Trump in the general election. I think it’s more likely to result in another round of intense and intensely self-serving media “introspection” about how they got the campaign dynamics so wrong.
The entire Trump campaign has far more in common with the WWF than with anything else. The mainstream media would like us to agonize over it just like they once wanted us to agonize over “Who shot JR” and just like they want people to agonize over who did what in some afternoon soap opera. It’s entertainment, folks.
I’m growing weary of the relentless warnings about how fearsome Mr. Trump is. He is another demagogue. It is important that we defeat him.
I am growing increasingly confident that we will do exactly that.
and only a great Republican candidate who can hold the marginal red states and swing a combination of OH, NV, CO, and NH could prevail. I think VA is no longer a swing state.
Trump probably can’t do that. He needs to pulls a ridiculous amount of white male voters who typically vote Democratic to overcome probably losses of Republican women and many others.
So I agree. Sec Clinton is winning this.
Though of course that’s the conventional wisdom in an unconventional year. Maybe Trump has a shot in PA, WI or MI which would change the math.
As posted on her Facebook Page (emphasis added):
I have yet to see anyone suggest that we not campaign hard. I know I for one cautioned from the beginning not to root for him to be the GOP nominee because in our system either major party nominee has a halfway descent chance of being elected.