Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

November Ninth

October 19, 2016 By Mark Adler 11 Comments

This presidential election is not a contest between Clinton and Trump (and, to a lessor extent, Johnson and Stein).  Rather, it is a referendum on Trump.

And assuming that Trump is going to lose, the voters will be electing whomever is running against him.  Turns out, that’s Hillary Clinton (remember her?).

Although Clinton’s election Trump’s defeat will be a monumental smackdown with a mandate against all his horrors, HRC will not have a mandate.

Let’s assume my prediction of a 48.3%–45.2% popular vote spread is correct, which many of my friends think is waaaaay too high for the Donald.  This plurality harkens back to her husband’s 43% win back in 24 years ago (count ’em!), but that was with a serious third party contender.  Still, I expect about 20% of her supporters aren’t voting FOR HER they’re voting AGAINST HIM.  It’s not unusual to have some voters only voting against the “lesser of two evils.”  But I can’t imagine it’s ever been this significant.

Add to that her unpopularity; her not being a good campaigner (cf. Coakley, Martha); and all the faux scandals drummed up by Faux News.  And it’s clear to me that few voters in America will be supporting her.

So my point (see! I’m getting around to it!) is more of a two-part question:

  1. How much of a mandate will she have to govern?
  2. Is she a sitting duck in 2020?

Here’s the counter points to my worries:

  • She’s much more popular when she’s actually in government (Senator, SoS) than in campaigns (’92, ’08, ’16).  So maybe my worries will be over when the dust settles on November 9th.
  • W had no mandate in ’00 and he ran with it like he was king of the world.  A mandate is whatever you say it is.  Winning is enough, even if it’s a squeaker, and she’s got four years to do a good job.

Obama sort of had a mandate in ’08, but that was due to McCain’s terrible campaign, Bush’s unpopularity, the financial meltdown, and inevitable pendulum swing between parties.  But the GOP got to work obfuscating him at every turn for eight fun-filled years.

So I worry that we’ll have a wounded president even before she starts and will be hard to re-elect in four years.

Am I wrong? I welcome your comments.

#ChangeMyView

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0
0

Filed Under: User Tagged With: 2016, Change My View, clinton, Donald Trump, hillary-clinton, national, presidential election 2016

Comments

  1. jconway says

    October 19, 2016 at 10:40 pm

    1) Your prediction:

    Though I shared that prediction around Labor Day, I think she’s turned it around and he’s totally imploded. Third party support is finally nosediving.
    People who used to hate her seem to be coming around while his ceiling is inching closer to 40% which is Dukakis territory.

    2) Mandate?

    She’s investing money in formerly deep red territories like Utah, Georgia, Arizona and South Carolina. She’s also investing money down ballot in close races in Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida and Missouri which is surprisingly competitive. My guess is 50+1 with Kaine as the new floor. In cautiously optimistic. The House could open up, probably not a flip, but Ryan will lose seats which combined with his abandonment of Trump will weaken his standing. He will be eager to cut some deals on trade and entitlements, and Garland will get confirmed. Beyond that it’ll require a real effort in 2018.

    3) 2020?

    I think she’s potentially vulnerable, but the GOP base has become untethered from reality and turning against the electable candidates. Kasich could beat her, Rubio could beat her. Bigger reaches like Sandoval or Baker could beat her. It’s unlikely any of them could win the nomination. It’s unlikely new candidates like Haley or Sasse could win it. Tim Cotton could win, Ted Cruz could win, Mike Pence could win. But they would likely have to win by reassembling the Trump coalition which is too narrow to win the general.

    Log in to Reply
    • centralmassdad says

      October 19, 2016 at 11:37 pm

      He was a compromise candidate. If the senate flips, there is no reason to re submit him. He has already been effectively rejected anyway. I rather hope that the new senate majority leader has some more stones than Reid did, and torches the filibuster for court nominees, and then approves a candidate on party lines..

      Log in to Reply
  2. stomv says

    October 20, 2016 at 6:50 am

    1. I think the spread will be a bit bigger.
    2. I think the EV spread will be really big.
    3. This idea that fewer than 60% of the HRC votes are for Hillary Clinton is nonsense. Look, people are allowed to think about more than one thing at a time. It’s possible to be in favor of something and opposed to something else. It’s also possible to prefer bits of two different candidates and dislike other bits of the same two candidates, but pick one.
    4. When HRC wins, she’s not going to talk about Trump at all. Why would she? It will be about her governing, and she’ll get the same 100 day bump Obama got (and he did get one).
    5. Right now the most probable outcome is D52. The next most probable is D51, then D53, and thenD50+1. An HRC POTUS plus 51+ D Senators is the most likely outcome right now.
    6. The Dems will also gain in the House. Majority? Probably not.

    Sorry, I’m not seeing how winning POTUS, picking up 5-7 Senate seats, picking up 10-25 House seats, and gaining ground in state houses and corner offices around the country can be viewed as anything but momentum or even, dare I say, a mandate.

    Log in to Reply
  3. petr says

    October 20, 2016 at 8:02 am

    Add to that her unpopularity; her not being a good campaigner (cf. Coakley, Martha); and all the faux scandals drummed up by Faux News. And it’s clear to me that few voters in America will be supporting her.

    …Purported ‘unpopularity’ and faux scandals are not separate things and are of a piece with similarly jaundiced opinions of her campaign skills. She’s might be unpopular because she’s bad at campaigning, or she may be viewed as bad at campaigning because she’s purportedly unpopular… As argued elsewhere on this blog, Hillary Clintons negatives are largely artificial and have more to do with media and social media groupthink: people are not allowed to like her; Donald Trump is so completely hideous that the naked stupidity of the media hoopleheads is on stark display… these are the people who have to ‘balance’ Trumps comprehensive absurdity with something damning about Clinton to seem objective. This race is between a horse and an actual jackass… and the media ‘judges’ that it’s ok to trip the horse up to make the actual jackass seem competitive. Everybody else, including yourself, treats this as ok and bemoans the horses lack of clear lead as though all other things were equal, when they are clearly not. Objectivity that takes a backseat to context is not, in fact, objectivity at all.

    I think there is also something else going on, and it has to do with your bizarre reference to Martha Coakley. Hillary Clinton is (and similar to Martha Coakley’s gubernatorial run) not making an express appeal to messianic hopes… and is, in fact, running against the the guy who explicitly say’s he is “the only one who can fix it.” Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders and, frankly, Barack Obama (and Don Berwick here in the CommonWealth) all rode that train. The electorate may have too reverent a view of the type of person necessary for the job of POTUS, and so far it’s the women candidates who are steadfastly refusing to play that game. With Barack Obama (and his Nobel Prize) receding into the background, Hillary Clinton both has her sleeves rolled up and has a clear-eyed perspective on what the job entails and it doesn’t involve giving you a warm fuzzy feeling. Does that make her a ‘bad campaigner’? I don’t think so. I think it’s a sign she treats the electorate as a collection of grownups. I think the media, by and large, doesn’t want the electorate, or thinks the electorate doesn’t deserve, to be treated as grownups: the media wants a Santa Claus who’ll bring the good electorate a present and the bad electorate some coal in the night. Your opinion might vary…

    Log in to Reply
  4. johntmay says

    October 21, 2016 at 9:21 am

    She will win by a larger margin than you suggest and Democrats will regain control of the Senate.

    After that, if she governs as a neoliberal, continues the policies of her husband, if she is able to gain support from Democrats like Chuck Schumer and deliver “a giant wet kiss for the tax dodgers who have already parked $2.1 trillion overseas” to quote Senator Elizabeth Warren, she runs one term and loses in a landslide equal to the one that put her in office.

    If, however, she listens to people like Senator Warren, Senator Sanders, and yours truly, she wins re-election with the bonus of the Democrats taking the house and senate.

    Log in to Reply
    • jconway says

      October 21, 2016 at 11:45 am

      I think she has to govern as a bold progressive on economics in order to shore up her base for the midterms and 2020. Passing a public option is actually the only way to save Obamacare as a viable policy, so it will force that issue. Immigration reform may find Republican allies this time eager to distance themselves from this years horror show. And filling the Scalia seat with a progressive will make a big difference.

      Now I disagree about a sudden landslide for the Republicans. No one is convinced they are enemies of Wall Street, and I don’t see them moving to her left on economics. Even if she governs as a mushy centrist, she will likely get re-elected since their base is incapable of nominating an electable conservative. What she won’t have is a Congress or a wider mandate to do the things she wants to do.

      Log in to Reply
      • johntmay says

        October 21, 2016 at 12:44 pm

        ….and one reason progressives may want to hear more from Trump once he’s no longer running for the presidency.

        Your standard Paul Ryan/Marco Rubio variety of Republican would be happy if Hillary went along with her husband’s agenda of deregulation and “free” markets and I doubt that sort would be able to run against her if she did so. However, according to the latest polls, the Trump variety of Republican is still very loud and proud to be against Wall Street and if they have Trump to keep them “entertained” for the next few years (which is only possible if Hillary does not go after Wall Street), this will get very interesting.

        Log in to Reply
  5. scott12mass says

    October 21, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    I think Gary Johnson (even with Alleppo gaff) will get around 15%. Rep Scott Rigell (R-Virginia) came out and endorsed him. Hillary’s wikileaks would have sunk her (she doesn’t deny their veracity, just complains about hacking) if she weren’t running against such a horrible clown.
    The sentiment that Washington is so corrupt and incompetent is what fueled the rise of Trump and the surprising strength of the Sanders campaign. This episode of survivor has left us poor choices and the media has shown they’re unable to run an informative debate.

    Log in to Reply
    • stomv says

      October 21, 2016 at 3:55 pm

      Johnson is getting 6% now, and on a slow decline. If he climbs, he takes directly from Trump… people who were going to support Johnson over Clinton would have already made that choice.

      I’d be shocked if Johnson’s total grows from 6.

      As for the debates, you’re blaming the media? Really?

      Log in to Reply
    • SomervilleTom says

      October 21, 2016 at 4:10 pm

      The reason she talks about the hacking is that it’s the only relevant factor. There is very little that needs a denial (the alleged debate question leak is the only one I wonder about). Most require context, not denial.

      The media similarly mishandled the recent information released by the government. A now-retired FBI agent speculates about a possible State Department quid pro quo — a quid pro quo that does NOT happen — and the media (except Rachel Maddow) are off to the races. The whole thing is trumped-up nonsense.

      I’m reminded of the similarly hacked “climategate” non-scandal — a bunch of emails were stolen, and the denier echo-chamber went crazy with utterly stupid distortions and misunderstandings. For anybody who actually understands the situation, there was just no story at all — no “there” there — because there’s nothing wrong with the emails that were stolen and then published.

      The fact that the Russian government is so flagrantly interfering in this election is the story here. The Russian government has chosen Mr. Trump as its desired candidate. Mr. Trump welcomes the resulting support.

      That is the only Wikileaks story worth pursuing.

      Log in to Reply
  6. sabutai says

    October 21, 2016 at 10:53 pm

    She will have a mandate to govern. She looks to be heading toward a strong Electoral College victory, which people remember better than the popular vote spread. Four years later, nobody will care much by how much she won.

    Her biggest intrinsic vulnerability in four years will be her age. In 2020, she will be unusually old for a president, and if there are any health issues in the next four years, it will leave her vulnerable to a challenge from Rubio, who will look much younger by comparison.

    As for third parties…that deserves its own post. In recent elections in Australia, Portugal, Spain, Germany, France, Ireland, Italy and the UK — off the top of my head — the “old” parties that have been consistently in power or opposition since WWII have lost vote share to up-and-comers on the left, right, and middle (Ciudanos in Spain). No surprise this is happening here. Within the global context, Stein, McMullin, and Johnson are doing worse than their counterparts around the world.

    Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Recommended Posts

  • There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This Timing (3)
  • Progressive Mass Shouldn’t Back Stupid Primaries (2)
  • Promises made, promises kept (2)
  • IRA passes 51- 50! (1)
  • Real “Center” is Economically Nationalist/Culturally Moderate (1)

Recent User Posts

Progressive Mass Shouldn’t Back Stupid Primaries

August 12, 2022 By jconway 1 Comment

There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This Timing

August 10, 2022 By terrymcginty 8 Comments

Site issue: Unable to reply to comments

August 10, 2022 By SomervilleTom 2 Comments

Why do PUKES oppose $35 insulin for diabetics with private insurance?

August 8, 2022 By fredrichlariccia 3 Comments

Promises made, promises kept

August 8, 2022 By fredrichlariccia Leave a Comment

Schedule F

August 7, 2022 By johntmay 4 Comments

Recent Comments

  • SomervilleTom on Progressive Mass Shouldn’t Back Stupid PrimariesI appreciate you writing this diary. This primary seems…
  • fredrichlariccia on There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This TimingKLEPTOCRAT GRIFTERINO is not the VICTIM; he's the PERPET…
  • Christopher on There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This TimingRepublicans: How dare Merrick Garland politicize the DOJ…
  • fredrichlariccia on There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This TimingThe Court has just given Trump until 3 pm tomorrow to ap…
  • fredrichlariccia on There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This TimingAG Garland just announced the search warrant has been un…
  • johntmay on There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This TimingI would not be surprised at all to learn that Trump deli…
  • fredrichlariccia on There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This TimingCould it also mean that KARM-A-LAGO might want to divert…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

#mapoli

headlineoptics Headline Optics @headlineoptics ·
41m

Man sentenced to prison for role in Massachusetts drug trafficking organization run in public … https://www.masspolicyreport.com/2022/08/14/man-sentenced-to-prison-for-role-in-massachusetts-drug-trafficking-organization-run-in-public/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter @masspolicy #MApoli #Massachusetts

Reply on Twitter 1558690386695966721 Retweet on Twitter 1558690386695966721 Like on Twitter 1558690386695966721 Twitter 1558690386695966721
headlineoptics Headline Optics @headlineoptics ·
2h

State Senator talks about new gambling law in Mass. | Sports | http://eagletribune.com https://www.masspolicyreport.com/2022/08/14/state-senator-talks-about-new-gambling-law-in-mass-sports-eagletribune-com/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter @masspolicy #MApoli #Massachusetts

Reply on Twitter 1558677805608579074 Retweet on Twitter 1558677805608579074 Like on Twitter 1558677805608579074 Twitter 1558677805608579074
headlineoptics Headline Optics @headlineoptics ·
2h

The Column: Signs of the times? – Lowell Sun https://www.masspolicyreport.com/2022/08/14/the-column-signs-of-the-times-lowell-sun/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter @masspolicy #MApoli #Massachusetts

Reply on Twitter 1558673528496332803 Retweet on Twitter 1558673528496332803 Like on Twitter 1558673528496332803 Twitter 1558673528496332803
rwwatchma Trump's election fraud hoax undermines democracy @rwwatchma ·
2h

Arizona Speaker of the House Republican Rusty Bowers on Trumpism:

"The rule by thuggery and intimidation. They found a niche, they found a way, and it's fear. People can use fear, demagogues like to use fear as a weapon. And they weaponize everything."

#mapoli #nhpolitics

Aaron Rupar @atrupar

Rusty Bowers on Trumpism: "The rule by thuggery and intimidation. They found a niche, they found a way, and it's fear. People can use fear, demagogues like to use fear as a weapon. And they weaponize everything."

Reply on Twitter 1558672251893022720 Retweet on Twitter 1558672251893022720 Like on Twitter 1558672251893022720 1 Twitter 1558672251893022720
stevenl57 Steve Leibowitz @stevenl57 ·
2h

So there was a tweet from Senator Warren that the #MBTA mess is on the Governor. She's not wrong, but it is incomplete. You can debate the pie slice, but you cannot exclude the Legislature on this, where the culture of kicking cans down the road, prevails. #mapoli

Reply on Twitter 1558670098029846530 Retweet on Twitter 1558670098029846530 Like on Twitter 1558670098029846530 Twitter 1558670098029846530
lowellcouncilor Darius Mitchell_ Massachusetts Governor 2022 🇺🇸 @lowellcouncilor ·
3h

JOE BIDEN, KAMALA HARRIS, THE CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS HAS SHOWN ZERO PASSION OR EMOTIONAL CONNECTION FOR BLACK AMERICA 🇺🇸! IT’S OLD! THEY ARE OLD!!

THE PARTY OF SLAVERY! THAT’S WHAT WE ARE WITNESSING!

#MAPOLI #BOSPOLI #NHPOLITICS

Reply on Twitter 1558662516443680769 Retweet on Twitter 1558662516443680769 1 Like on Twitter 1558662516443680769 2 Twitter 1558662516443680769
Load More

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2022 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.