The Boston Globe editorial board has been on a year-long crusade to beg Republicans to stop being Republicans. During the primaries, they repeatedly asked Republicans to vote for Democrats’ preferred Republicans. Surprise! Today’s Fox-loving, fact-denying, far-right Republican base picked the craziest candidate available.
Once again during the general election, the Globe is pleading with “sane Republicans” to oppose Trump. But the “Republicans for Clinton” endorsers it points to has literally no one I’ve ever heard of. Just two of 301 congressional Republicans have endorsed candidates besides Trump.
Most damning is the polling. Below are the crosstabs from Morning Consult’s latest poll that has Hillary up 4% vs. Trump head-to-head and up 2% in a four-way race. Despite the Clinton campaign pouring millions into ads urging Republicans to oppose Trump, Trump actually has slightly stronger support from Republicans than Clinton does from Democrats, and Trump has a slight lead with independents:
Clinton still maintains a lead in the polls overall because there are far more self-identified Democrats than self-identified Republicans (“independents” now lean conservative because so many former Republicans now shun the party label).
Clinton will win not because a handful of “sane Republicans” voted for her, but because she convinced the Obama coalition – young voters, minorities, and college-educated whites – that she’s worthy of their enthusiasm. Despite waves of articles written by oldsters about how it’s all Millennials’ fault that Clinton isn’t doing better, it’s Baby Boomers who are fueling Trump.
Imagine if Clinton had spent all those millions on ads targeting likely supporters instead of targeting Republicans? How would the polls look?
According to former MD LG Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, President George H. W. Bush plans to vote for Clinton.
I have to admit I was among those who strongly hoped there would be more of them.
. .which is just what your data suggests she should.
Pandering to people like me who are to the left of her won’t help her very much.
A decent number of Republicans disgusted by Trump have already bolted the party, and a decent number of white working class Democrats appalled by Clinton have bolted to the Republicans as well, the post-culture war class based realignment I keep harping about is already happening with voter registrations across the country.
It’s why Republicans thinking this Trump thing is a flash in the pan are fooling themselves, and why progressives hoping the Democratic party isn’t permanently reorienting itself exclusively towards the professional class have a lot of heartache to endure and a lot of work to prepare for.
Better than they do today? All of her outreach has been to college educated whites and minorities, and it has left her with a double digit deficit in working class whites against Trump (Obama was within 10 points in most swing states against Romney in 12′), and facing lower than projected black and latino turnout.
The reality is she will have to reach out to the 12% of voters choosing Johnson and Stein, and many of them are independents, millennial, and either center right or center left in their orientation.
So bringing out Bernie and Warren for the millennials and moderate Republicans for the Johnson voters is critical, as are the Obamas basically living in black hamlets between now and election day.
That surge of Latino registration that were gonna turn Texas blue? They didn’t happen. And while blacks backed her in double digit margins in the primary, there is a noticeable enthusiasm gap between 2012 and 2016 in that community. Especially now that everyone thinks Trump is neutralized.
She has spent the summer convincing America not to vote for Trump while he imploded, but she did nothing to raise her own favorables up, and now they will have to scramble for every minority vote, millennial, and moderate independent voting for Johnson or Bernie voter for Stein they can find. And stat. This shouldn’t be nearly as close as it is.
That’s who she sees herself as…
She is courting Republicans instead of progressive Democrats. Is that who she is? Are those the people she feels more comfortable with?
If your answer is NO! She’s perfect! She’s the finest, the best, an example of a pure Democrat…..
Please tell me why she is seeking the votes of Republicans and not the votes (and energy) of the progressive wing of the party, as this article suggests?
For each voter who usually votes “R” and who chooses Ms. Clinton instead, she gets a two-fer — one more vote for her and one less vote for Mr. Trump.
The “progressive wing of the party” is very unlikely to be voting for Mr. Trump. That group is already either already voting for Ms. Clinton, voting for one of the third-party candidates, or not voting for President at all. So the best she can do from this group is get one more vote for her.
A baseball team that is a few games behind wants to win EVERY game against the leader, because each victory gives them a whole, rather than half, game in the race.
The campaign has limited resources and wants to win. The demands made by the more strident of the “progressive wing of the party” will drive away those voters who usually vote R and are profoundly uncomfortable with Mr. Trump.
The math, and logic, is compelling.
The old “appeal to the center” thing (where “center” apparently means “right wing”) is obvious and predictable (and predicted).
But the flaw is that activating these voters probably helps GOP House and Senate candidates. Better they should stay at home and stew in the juices of their own petards, to mangle a metaphor. They aren’t voting for McTrumpface anyway.
Instead, at least 2 more years of a sessile Congress that aims only to tear down President Clinton by saying “no” to everything. Then come the mid terms, so probably another 2 years at least. No predictions after that, but you know, reap the whirlwind.
I do not think the risks of an “activate the base” strategy are very great, meanwhile the rewards of such a strategy are potentially enormous for the post-election political landscape.
I don’t think she loses either way—these comparisons to Coakley are silly. But the implications for what she’ll be able to do with her win are great.
…she has a better shot at doing so effectively if she can show she has support across the political spectrum. Much of Reagan’s political success came from being able to show that Democrats were with him too.
Too many anti-Trump voters are still with Stein and Johnson and blacks and Latinos aren’t turning out in 2012 numbers, let alone the turnout initially predicted. The dreams of blue GA, AZ, and TX are receding with the reality that OH, FL, and NC are 3-5 points in the red column and have been all September. These debates are critical, but make no mistake, she has to match Obama’s totals with WWC voters in FL, OH and PA to ensure a win.
I don’t think any early voting has started quite yet so nobody is turning out. That’s a set of stats we won’t know until the polls close on 11/8. Of course, Trump should be falling behind Johnson and Stein too:(
There is a reason Hillary is deliberately recalibrating her approach from one simply denouncing Trump to one making a more affirmative case for her particular agenda and experience. Black and Latino turnout is projected to be substantially lower than 2012, not the record breaking force earlier predictions anticipated.
Similarly, swing voters and millennials flirtations with third parties hasn’t dropped. They are still getting double digit support, where normally they dip precipitously after Labor Day. So it’s looking like she will have to match the Obama share of white working class voters after all, who would’ve thought that would happen?
…especially when you consider that polling projections on something like this usually base their assumptions on previous elections. The race tightening is actually likely to wake up anyone who might have gotten complacent so that they realize they actually don’t have the luxury of throwing away their vote. I haven’t seen double-digit support for any third-party candidates. Highest I’ve seen for Johnson is 9% with Stein much less than that. There’s also the matter of the large number of Hispanics scrambling to get their citizenship status in order precisely so they can vote, but who almost certainly do not show up in any polls.
12% total for either Stein or Johnson consistently, that’s fairly high considering when both ran last time they combined for less than 2% on Election Day. Johnson is in double digits by himself in some swing states, including Colorado and Ohio. Stein approached 4-5% in some blue states, but Johnson looks to be the Nader of this race. So I am heartened she’s retooling her campaign to appeal to these voters, as well as minority voters who are still underrepresented in polling projections.
That’s a new use of that phrase, to refer to something that we could be doing but haven’t been.
I do agree what whatever it is that has been tried, it doesn’t seem to have moved the needle much.
I’m not panicking, I still expect her to win and have for more than a year.
That’s why i keep coming back to the political situation she will face in January after the inauguration.
It would be nice to compete for Congress instead of only the White House. Mobilizing those Republicans is just not that helpful on that score.
…I too would want to run up the score and show the world that even those who would normally vote GOP are so appalled by his candidacy they are flocking to me instead.
Win or lose, most every campaign season, Democrats panic.
in August of 2004, John Kerry was in a statistical tie with Dubya. Democrats panicked. Accusations of incompetence! Should gone with Dean! Chaos! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria.
In September of 2008, polls put Barack Obama and John McCain in a statistical dead heat. Democrats panicked. PUMA! Shoulda gone with Hillary!!
In September of 2012, polls were all over the map for Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown. Did Democrats panic then. No they did not. just kidding, of course they did!
I’m beginning to think that the adrenalin of a red-hot September panic is more than half the fun for the Democrats…
The polls are tied at this time of year because close races yield higher advertising revenue. Companies spend money on advertising, especially television advertising, because it works. Media consultants are able to measure the effectiveness of individual placements in individual markets with astonishing precision. The effect of removing the fairness doctrine and the Citizens United decision is to maximize the ability of corporate America to manipulate our feelings.
If advertising (including “news” pieces) can make one brand of kitchen appliance more valuable than another, when both are identical products made on the same line in the same factory by the same workers, then surely advertising and “news” pieces can turn a runaway into a neck-and-neck horse race.
I’m not saying that the race isn’t close. I am saying that it is a mistake to ignore the media’s role in making it that way. I suggest that Jesus Christ himself, were he the Democratic nominee, would be approximately tied with Donald Trump in polls today.
As a society, we do not do things necessary to manage this phenomenon. For at least thirty years we have been dumbing down our population. Fewer and fewer of us possess even modest analytic skills. Fewer and fewer of us have the attention span needed to comprehend even simple issues. Fewer and fewer of us have the intellectual discipline needed to understand a result that is different from our “common sense”. A disappointing number of American voters today really DO believe that heavy objects fall faster than light ones.
Spend a day watching daytime cable television (no web access allowed) and pay attention to how you feel at the end of the day. You are likely to feel numb, bored, impatient, and sleepy. The media WANT you that way, because that state makes you most vulnerable to the message of advertisers.
And lose she did, twice.
Hillary Clinton is simultaneously the most qualified candidate to run for President and one of the most inept at running for President. I think my other post shows why I’m eager to get this election over with and see her win, but I won’t shy away from criticizing a losing startegy. Against any competent mainstream Republican she’d be significantly down. Fortunately their party doesn’t nominate competent candidates.
… win or lose, democrats panic.
The fact of a loss does not justify your panic nor your self-regard.
as not being true to their progressive roots and trying to appeal to Republicans…..am I right?
… perhaps what you’re reading is contained within the total loss of perspective and abject capitulation to fear and doubt that is panic, but in relation to the whole, it’s a minor part…