Steve M. makes a prediction:
I think Democrats still haven’t unified. I think rank-and-file Democratic voters — not the most politically engaged people, but average voters — focus on politics later in a typical election cycle than rank-and-file Republicans. I checked the 2012 numbers and notice that Mitt Romney led in a lot of polls in May of that year.
So I think Clinton will win this one, but the margin will be more like the ones in 2008 or 2012 than in 1964. I think the Republicans could nominate Charles Manson and still win at least 175 electoral votes, because they think literally anyone who’s not a Democrat is preferable to a Democrat.
Every single post I wrote in 2012 on the election, including the ones in May when Romney was looking strong in the polls, said that Romney did not have a chance in hell of winning. I wasn’t even momentarily worried about the outcome of that election because I wasn’t looking at polls in the springtime. What I was focused on was the potential to go from winning narrowly to winning in a blowout, and I still believe we got to the precipice of that happening before Obama’s poor performance in the first debate stalled his momentum. The signs that led me to believe a blowout was possible in 2012 are similar to the ones I am seeing now, although things have gotten almost unimaginably worse for the Republicans in the intervening four years. Back then, I couldn’t imagine a situation where the Republican Speaker of the House wouldn’t endorse the candidate and volunteered to step down as chairman of the convention. I couldn’t imagine George Will saying that conservatives’ moral obligation was to make Romney lose in all 50 states. I couldn’t imagine that Republican senators wouldn’t even want to take a meeting with their nominee.
Now, Steve says that the floor for Trump is 175 electoral votes, and I don’t think he’s too far off. If Clinton wins all the states that Obama won in 2008 and adds Georgia, Arizona and Missouri, that puts the Electoral College at 392-146. That could be the floor, although it might not be if Trump just can’t hold up to scrutiny over the long campaign.
I don’t like to repeat myself, but it’s my belief that the Republicans operate at a disadvantage because their policies are broadly unpopular. They are still able to succeed because they are extremely good at fighting each news cycle with a coherent and unified message that is carefully crafted to create an us vs. them narrative which basically tribalizes our elections and our political discourse. They simply cannot accomplish this task anymore because most of their thought leaders, from Erick Erickson at Red State, to many of their hate radio broadcasters, to the National Review, to most of their communitariat on television, to their foreign policy elite, to the Bushes, Romneys, and McCains, to the Speaker of the House and many congresspeople and senators, all refuse to sing from Trump’s hymnal. Trump also won’t be able to raise enough money to compete, and he won’t mobilize the leaders in the social conservative movement. He’ll also be fighting the president and his bully pulpit, who will have the advantage of not being a candidate.
It’s not enough to say that the Republicans always win Georgia. You have to look at all the things they do that make winning Georgia easy for them. If they can’t do those things, then suddenly Georgia isn’t easy for them.
I come at politics as an organizer with an organizer’s perspective, which means that I don’t put too much stock in what candidates say, but I look very carefully at what they build. The same is true of parties, which is why I identified Obama as an outlier eight years ago, because he was focused as much on building an organization to win as he was on winning rhetorical arguments with his opponents. The reason I early on concluded that Sanders had no chance at the nomination was as much about how late he got started and how little progress he made uniting elected progressives and progressive organizers as it was about his standing with the black vote. And the reason I am bullish on Trump collapsing is only partly about his staggering flaws as a human being. It’s mainly about his inability to get the GOP up and running the way a major party needs to be run in order to wage a competitive national election.
I see no way that he can do it, and it doesn’t really matter if he can peel off some disaffected Rust Belt union Democrats. The Republicans cannot hold their own people in line without a unified and disciplined and tribalized message that is very well funded and never internally contradicted. The right doesn’t move as a Borg without this, and they cannot maintain their historical strength under these conditions.
One term I’ve used for this over the years is “winning the argument.” You may not like him, but in 1984, Ronald Reagan won the argument, which is why Vermont and Massachusetts and Rhode Island all voted for him. When it comes to an election between Clinton and Trump when the GOP isn’t operating as it was built to operate, winning the argument seems a given, and the only question is whether or not Trump’s narcissism and ignorance and boorishness can take a lost argument to a level we haven’t seen before.
Thanks for this. Very helpful.
Yes, this is fantastic. Martin, you should repost this every two weeks: it’s a perspective that’s virtually invisible in standard campaign coverage. I especially like this: “I come at politics as an organizer with an organizer’s perspective, which means that I don’t put too much stock in what candidates say, but I look very carefully at what they build.”
Absolutely.
And what exactly has Obama built? What does he think Clinton will build?
The Democrats as a whole have gone the wrong direction. For the most part, what they have built has been equally disappointing.
So I’m at a loss as to what BooMan is talking about. Unless he more interesting in “building” something as opposed to getting real results.
Martin’s point (which I think was obvious) is that you need to build an organization to win an election.
What Obama has built (besides an organization to win) is also obvious: the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, increased LGBT rights, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, higher taxes on the wealthy, opening of relations with Cuba, an arms treaty with Iran, a recovery to the worst recession since the Great depression, etc., etc. That’s when the Dems has a filibuster proof majority for all of 44 days.
I have no idea why you think the Dems are going backwards.
I fully understood what he meant. I was questioning the value of what had been built (which I thought was obvious).
Obama built an organization to win…what?
ACA: Very mixed. It does just enough to help people so it will be hard to change or get rid of, but has enough loopholes to allow: insurance companies to rake in the profits and leave if they wish to, have states negate the positive aspects of the plan, and hurt many middle class people that make just a bit too much to get subsides but still stick them with large premium/co-pays for less services than they got before.
Dodd-Frank: You mean the act that has failed to address the issues it was designed fix?
Lilly Ledbetter: This I agree is a good act by Obama.
Higher Taxes on the wealthy: Where? I must have missed how this really addresses the issue or closed massive loopholes that the rich can still exploit to hide their money.
Cuba: I also agree this is a good thing.
Arms Treaty with Iran: Also good.
Economic recovery: Bullshit. Most people are still hurting and the income disparity between rich and poor is worse than it was before the crash.
So essentially, with the exception of 1.5 important items, nothing.
Should I now list how much has been passed that is far worse that what was in place under Bush II?
If this is the best you can come up with, you really shouldn’t be surprised why so many people don’t feel anything of value has been built. Or why we should believe Clinton will do any better.
There’s a lot here I want to address:
some of this is wrong, medical loss ratio insures that 80-85% of all premiums collected go to delivering care which severely limits what can go to CEOs & profits outside of just having more customers. The reasons states can negate any of it is because of SCOTUS not because of the ACA and people who fall into the Medicaid portion and their state doesn’t participate aren’t subject to the penalty at least not doubling down on their state’s stupidness.
Not sure what you mean by this but I know Wall Street hates this law and are actively trying to get it repealed which leads me to believe that it has a lot of teeth in it. Plus we got the CFPB which is a major win.
Tax rates for those making over $400k went back to pre-Bush levels
True some parts are worse because of economic inequality and the President acknowledges it and says there’s more to do but to wave off all the economic progress we’ve made over the last 7+ years is dismissing a large part of reality. Some people are still hurting but a big group of people are better off. We need to continue to make progress in this area.
Very briefly:
ACA: Best to check out the loopholes that exist which allow the insurance companies to get around this. There is a reason the insurance firms dislike of the ACA was all kabuki. With regards to the supreme court matter: it is the equivalent of the craftsman blaming his tools for poor workmanship; we were told to trust the administration and Obama on the ACA. We were told they knew what they were doing. If they did, then why did we get such a mess of a bill that had so many problems that the GOP leaning supreme court could do what they did? The fact they could pull such a stunt is proof that it was a badly made and poorly thought out piece of legislation.
Dodd-Frank: The financial sociopaths are fighting this because it doesn’t let them keep all of the money they think they earned, not because it hurts them to any degree. Read up on the various reports that the very things which led to the crash in 2008 are happening again. Wasn’t this the whole point of this law? If so, then it has failed. And the CFPB? Not convinced it is actually doing as much good as you think. Since it’s inception it has been mired in controversy and political manipulation. If it could operate as intended I would agree with you, but it doesn’t.
Taxes on the wealthy: And the loopholes increased, so in reality the rate was the same or went down.
Economic Recovery: Sorry, this is incorrect. To ignore the fact the majority of wage earners in this nation have been stuck at 2007 wage levels is to dismiss a large part of reality. Many of the rosier economic numbers used to show how the economy has recovered are based on data that lumps all economic groups together or ignores certain groups of people entirely. Also, there is growing evidence many of the gains which have been achieved are bubble based. This is not sustainable or healthy growth.
I read many financial articles about the impending student debt bubble and a new housing bubble.
http://fortune.com/2016/01/11/real-estate-bubble/
Does anyone else here read economists? Besides MSM favorites like Krugman/deLong/Matty Y? I see really egregious comments quite commonly.
Yes, I read this website every day;
http://www.theautomaticearth.com/
Very good amalgamation of many economic issues both national and international.
Just like I read the Archdruid every week;
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/
Both websites outside the mainstream of either party , however the first gives much even the WSJ doesn’t touch, and the second is full of good ideas to ponder.
For the environment I read these forums here;
http://peakoil.com/forums/environment-f45.html (registration [free] required) lots of discussion on the environment much centred around AGW
This one for the canary in the coal mine on AGW, the Arctic;
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/
Much factual discussion from people all over the planet, internationally recognised. probably the best blog for the non-scientist on the Arctic problems we are currently encountering.
Heck, even more conventional economists like Dean Baker and Steiglitz and Galbraith think we are making very bad choices.
I’ve seen their criticisms.
Thanks.
Once one learns “the language”, economics is interesting. After all, an economic system is a requirement for a society, even if it’s just wampum. That’s why I like Baseline Scenario blog. These guys are good instructors. Any suggestions besides Fortune, Forbes, The Economist, & Mother Jones? If they get in the weeds, I get lost.
IF Gensler was an honest broker, he overlooked an enormous loophole in regulating derivatives. And the new guy, Massad, has just about completed the neutering.
“After the crisis, Congress and regulators sought to rein in this risk, and the banks fought back. From 2010 to 2013, when the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission ) was drafting new rules, representatives of the five largest U.S. banks met with the regulator more than 300 times, according to CFTC records. Goldman Sachs attended at least 160 of those meetings.
[…]
Many of the CFTC employees who were lobbied in these meetings went on to work for banks. Between 2010 and 2013, there were 50 CFTC staffers who met with the top five U.S. banks 10 or more times. Of those 50 staffers, at least 25 now work for the big five or other top swaps-dealing banks, or for law firms and lobbyists representing these banks.
The lobbying blitz helped win a ruling from the CFTC that left U.S. banks’ overseas operations largely outside the jurisdiction of U.S. regulators. After that rule passed, U.S. banks simply shipped more trades overseas. By December of 2014, certain U.S. swaps markets had seen 95 percent of their trading volume disappear in less than two years.”
(While the books are abroad, the risk is at home.)
U.S. banks moved billions of dollars in trades beyond Washington’s reach (http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-swaps/)
Backgrounder on the agency’s history….https:/theintercept.com/2016/01/07/the-problem-with-hillary-clinton-using-gary-gensler-t
o-attack-bernie-sanders
If you think the ACA is very mixed. there’s no point in discussing this any further. 17 million people got coverage, outcomes improved dramatically, and the cost curve has bent dramatically.
But the key is in your last sentence. Will Hillary do any better? No — but neither will Bernie. That’s because laws are passed by Congress, not the President — which is something that too many Bernie supporters fail to grasp.
I voted for Bernie in the NY primary, largely to push Hillary to the left, but I’m appalled by the sheer political ignorance of so many Bernie supporters. Your comments are a perfect example of that: you blame Obama for not enacting your dream policies when he had Congress for a total of 44 days. There was no fucking chance — zero, nada, zilch — of passing anything like single payer, of closing the gap between rich and everyone else.
Bernie’s support would drop by 30% if his supporters watched Schoolhouse Rock.
The 111th U.S. Congress consisted of a Democratic majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This was during the first 2 years of Obama’s first term. Congress for 44 days? I think not. There wasn’t the will by the Democrats to do what they should have done in regard to Healthcare. I know several people today whose deductibles and co-pays are so high that they can’t afford treatment and they are ill. It’s a fact.
karl, with the Senate Republican Caucus denying the President and Democrats a single vote for anything ever and filibustering and/or denying cloture to everything, the 111th Congress had a brief moment to pass its biggest laws in between the seating of Senator Franken more than a half-year after Election Day and the incapacitating illness and death of Senator Kennedy.
As we see right now with the Senate Republicans holding a fairly thin majority, they can’t ram thru a pure wingnut agenda and dump it on the President’s desk. They have to make deals with Reid and the Democrats because the minority Senate caucus has real power to wield unless they lack the votes to deny cloture.
If there’s a will, there’s a way. Old saying because it’s true.
One does wonder when seeing articles claiming that most USians would have trouble coming up with $400 unexpected expenses…
Uninsured has been replaced by underinsured, due to skin-in-the-game barriers. From Kaiser: http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2015/09/survey-many-people-cant-afford-to-use-the-health-insurance-
they-have/
A Gallup poll released last December found that one in three Americans have put off treatment for themselves or a family member because of cost–the highest rate in the history of the poll. There may be good reason: A separate report released also released in December by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that about half of all debt that goes to collections agencies represents medical bills.
I cannot find even infant mortality reductions that could be attributed to Obamacare, since the small dip was mainly attributed to the South, where O has not been widely implemented. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db120.pdf) (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/us-infant-mortality-rate-still-one-highest-developed-world
-n404871)
If you have links for “drastically improved outcomes”, I would love to see them.
Looking at one metric honestly and distorting the other would make it appear to be an unqualified success. Sadly, that is not the reality. Bankruptcies due to medical costs have not really changed, and the cost curve is still outpacing inflation. Those are both failures in my book. Also, please stop confusing health insurance with health care, they are not synonymous.
The difference is Sanders will try, Clinton won’t. And if current trends are anything to go by, Clinton will track to the right. Sanders won’t.
I doubt it. I think you need to go back and watch Schoolhouse Rock yourself, you seem to have missed some episodes.
Thanks for this.
I hold fast to certain bedrocks.
Trump’s Latino Disapproval Numbers
That the only part of the media not kissing Trump’s ass and telling the truth about him IS the Spanish-language Latino -Focused media.
My inability to see where Trump makes up for the Latino votes lost.
Trump has hurt his chances is some identifiable states, some of which have huge Latino populations and others have big Asian populations. Still others don’t have huge populations, but are so closely contested that they matter a lot.
So, if it was ever possible, New Mexico and Nevada are totally lost to him, and Arizona is now in real doubt. Colorado is probably gone, too.
Virginia and Pennsylvania slip out of his grasp, most likely.
North Carolina could literally tip on the Latino vote.
Florida is probably gone, especially because the Cuban vote is splitting almost 50-50 right now.
Only in a few states could this actually change the result. I think in most cases it just makes it harder for Trump to flip states he has to have.
But it could definitely flip some congressional seats. I’d have to look at them on a case by case basis to see the potential here, but I imagine there could be more than a handful of California districts where getting monumentally blown out in both the Latino and the Asian vote might move a red seat into the blue column.
Here in the Philly suburbs, these demographic challenges won’t help, but Trump’s real problem will be with women. I have yet to meet a woman here with anything positive to say about Trump, and there are a lot of Republicans where I live. My polling station is modestly and moderately Republican, and I did see Trump voters there when I voted, but they were animatedly debating Trump’s viability.
He is going to get slaughtered here and it could cause my congressman his seat even though he’s popular and uncontroversial.
https:/www.balloon-juice.com/2016/05/10/tuesday-morning-open-thread-43
It’s not just Latino, but 91% of African Americans won’t vote for him.
When you lose Latinos and African Americans by such large margins, AND can’t get a majority of women, your dead. Florida is like California, almost majority minority. I don’t see how he carries it.
.
Me either.
Even the sizable Jewish population in Florida is likely to vote for Clinton in significantly higher numbers than they voted for Obama.
Your comment brings up two interesting dynamics;
Does Trump rhetoric make the Jewish community nervous? Historically they have been the recipient of the anger such politicians generate. They must look at Trump’s KKK type followers with trepidation.
How many people did not vote for Obama because he is black? I have always believed the number to be….not small. No data, just anecdotal.
Both these come into play in Florida. IMO he has no, zero, chance there.
.
The Jewish population in Florida, which includes several members of my family, is 3.3% of the state’s population.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/usjewpop.html
It might have a disproportionate influence in political fundraising circles. But it’s not an impressive voting bloc in terms of raw votes.
But to answer your question: Yes, I think Trump makes them very nervous. We understand well how the nationalistic demonization of minorities tends to work out.
I notice that Trump reminds people that his daughter and grandchildren are Jewish. He has other Jewish ties, as well. Trump talks about it.
Hasn’t Adelson jumped onboard? How influential is he in Jewish politics?
Adelson endorsed Trump and likes to get involved in all kinds of politics. He recently bought Nevada’s biggest newspaper.
http://www.biography.com/people/sheldon-adelson-20956059
They’re a small bloc of voters, and they’re not up for grabs, Trump or no Trump. He might make some of them nervous, but I doubt it’s changing anything.
It’s why I laughed at people who thought Obama had a “Jewish problem” in 2008 and 2012, which would supposedly hurt him in Florida. Then, to the surprise of precisely no one who actually lives in Florida, Obama won 70-75% of them.
There seems to be a pervasive view in the press and among a lot of people who have no experience with American Jews that they’re a bunch of Netanyahu clones. They’re not. Quite the opposite.
I don’t need to bring up the 2000 election and the margins there, do I?
The number of people who did not vote for Obama because he was black will probably be offset this go-round who won’t vote for Clinton because she’s a woman.
You’re also leaving out people who won’t vote for Clinton because she’s worse than Trump.
#Trump/Arpaio 2016
Huge chunk of Hispanics in Texas and California are basically neutralized in the presidential race. If they were ~7% of the entire vote in 2012, how much weight do they exert in minority states? Under 5? Less?
Voter ID laws too.
Trump’s argument is “Washington is corrupt and can’t solve America’s problems.”
I don’t think that’s an argument that he’s going to lose.
Yeah. The approval ratings for Congress illustrate most USians agree with that… Historic lows.
Never been as many indies, I think.
As long as he does not extend his claim that he can fix it, he is good. lol
You’re a big believer in rhetoric and I’m a big believer in organization and character. Of the two, organization is the more important, but character (especially the transparent lack of it) is also way more important than rhetoric.
What was Trump beating Cruz if not the triumph of rhetoric over organization?
As for character, among independent voters, Clinton is considered more untrustworthy than Trump – 74 to 65.
https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2324
I’m not saying she can’t ride her “10% less despised” advantage back to the White House. I’m just wary of overconfidence.
You miss the point; Martin is talking about the general election, right?
Trump’s performance in Republican primaries shows that the hardcore Republicans who actually vote in primaries and caucuses are much bigger hypocrites, and much more amoral, than even most of us jaded liberals could have imagined.
Clearly, very, very few on the left or right saw that clearly before. Certainly Calgary Cruz didn’t see it; he thought most of the rubes were sincere in their beliefs. They’re not.
But you cannot (yet, at least) win the general with only those voters.
Very true. Not nearly as closed to alternative policy as Dems had been claiming…must have been the messengers we were sending–Dems.
Well, Trump-Clinton pits two candidates completely lacking in moral character.
Character is more important after the election imo.
Rhetoric and organization are tied together. Without at least some rhetoric you can build all sorts of organizational infrastructure but you are not going to get people to volunteer to crew it.
Even when my wife and I, both seniors, vigorously disagreed with your support for Obama in 2008,
I considered you one of the finest political analysts writing on the Internet.
We so much hope that you are right in your view this time too. From your computer to God’s ear. Thanks for the analysis.
While I’m not as bullish as you on the matter, I do think it very likely Clinton will win (if she gets the nomination). There are a few “October Surprises” that could manifest, but that depends on the GOP giving up and embracing Drumpf.
My bigger concern is that Clinton will, more than likely, have a worse time of it than Obama did. I don’t see her having any coattails.
The GOP obstructionism has been epically bad with Obama as POTUS, but I think Clinton as president will raise this to a whole new level.
Slightly off-topic: A whistleblower is suing the mayor of Flint for being fired for the discovering the mayor steering money from a fund to help the residents into her own campaign funds.
Does anyone know if this is the same fund that Penny Pritzker set up in exchange for Hillary’s endorsement?
I’m not saying it is, I don’t really know, but this is the kind of thing that you can expect in the general with Clinton and Schultz, money moves that are, er, questionable.
No. Safe Water/Safe Homes would seem to be the fund involved. It is purposed to replace lead piping.
https://www.cfgf.org/cfgf/Portals/5/docs/2016/march%202016%20quarterly%20update.pdf
The Pritzker fund was to distribute clean water. The Flint Water Works Fund.
Yes, I’ve been poking around the internet. Safe Water/Safe Homes as opposed to the Flint Waterworks Project, which was the Pritzker money. The problem is that all of this happened around the time of the Michigan primary. The city manager was fired within a week of the announcement of the Pritzker money. Somewhere in the next week Mayor Weaver endorsed Clinton. It may be only a coincidence that money came out of SW/SH right about the time that the Pritzker money came into town. I’ll admit that I’m a sucker for conspiracies, but this one needs someone to follow all the money.
My prediction is that the current predictive models are under construction. It’s anybody’s guess.
Precisely.
AG
Some quibbles on Trump’s floor: Hillary was well back in an Indiana poll so it’s unlikely she’ll get that state back. However, I think Montana could flip: McCain only won it by 2% in 2008. Romney won resoundingly in 2012, but he was relatively popular in the mountain states, and Trump is relatively unpopular. I think 2008 is probably a better comparison for Montana than 2012. Indiana has 11 votes and Montana 3, so that makes a floor of 152.
If you want to look at seemingly far-out possibilities, Clinton was ahead by 9% in North Carolina in the latest poll, and Obama’s performance in South Carolina was only 8.5% behind his performance in North Carolina. So it’s not even out of the question for Clinton to flip South Carolina. I’m still leaving it in Trump’s floor for now, though.
Interesting, people who identify as “Christian” support Trump, but “Christians who go to church regularly” loathe Trump. I think if there us an issue with South Carolina (doubt it) that’s a source.
Well you can bet the media is going to try to make this a horse race even though one of the horses is ready for the glue factory. So the slightest slip by Clinton will be MAGNIFIED into an OH SHIT moment, and you can bet she’ll make a few. Trump will basically be able to take a dump on the podium at the debates with no repercussions, but Clinton’s choice of eyeliner will be a 24 hour derision-fest (remember Gore’s brown suit?). This will have an effect to tilt the field toward trump. My worry (maybe I worry too much?) is that we have slipped so far into reality TV – land that the entertainment value of Trump will “trump” everything else about him.
He’ll definitely destroy the republican party as it now exists, but with the help of the media he could still come close to winning.
Not to the point of tipping the general to Trump, I think.
But I expect everything you describe to happen. Probably because I, too, vividly remember the Corporate Media Malpractice that was a major factor in keeping dubya within election-stealing range. Which they have never either significantly owned up to, nor have they ever significantly revised how they operate.
The corporate media wanted Gore punished for Bill’s sins.
That’s not the case with Hillary.
They want a planet that’s inhabitable, and that means no Trump.
they had a good reason, I guess all is forgiven.
I don’t doubt that was part of it. Think there was more, though, behind all the endless serial-liar, Naomi-Wolf(?)-Alpha-male-earth-tones, who’d-ya-rather-have-a-beer-with, Eddie-Haskell-annoying-smartest-kid-in-the-class, MoDo-invented-Gore-conversations-with-bald-spot-in-mirror(, etc., etc., etc.) bullshit they crucified Gore with throughout the 2000 campaign.
And regardless of motive, it was all very serious (and seriously consequential — just ask a million [+/- half-million or so] prematurely dead Iraqis) journalistic malpractice.
Would it be too conspiratorial to suggest that the people who own the corporations that own the corporate media wanted Dubya?
Yes, they wanted Dubya, but not without reservations.
What they actually wanted was Poppy. More specifically, they wanted decorum, and a family who knows how to act like the White House wasn’t just some trailer park on Interstate 40.
They got what they deserved, but so did the rest of us.
Worth occasionally reviewing Sally Quinn’s expose of what digby usefully christened “The Village”:
You just described Erick Erickson as a “thought leader”.
I think this requires a different definition of “thought” than I would normally use.
fair enough.
Women were 53% of total voters in 2012 andObama won that demographic by 11%, Clinton will do at least as well and will likely increase that percentage to … 15%? … as well as increasing the total number of women voters.
The core of GOP support, i.e, White people, will drop to ~69% from 71% in 2012. Assuming Trump does as well as Romney with whites that only gets him to ~41% nationally.
With these numbers Clinton should win the presidency and the Dems should re-take the Senate. The House is another matter but with the statistics swinging away from the GOP the heavily gerrymandered seats are in doubt.
I think your floor should be 396 rather than 392: this map (http://www.270towin.com/maps/MGxkB) plus that Nebraska district that Obama snagged.
ot:
Uh huh
Uh huh
Here’s what Donald Trump thinks about voting
05/10/16 01:21 PM
By Zachary Roth
Donald Trump has said he wants “maximum voter participation,” and that he’s running a campaign “based on empowering voters, not sidelining them.” But when it comes to the voting laws that threaten to disenfranchise voters in states across the country this year, he sings a very different tune.
Trump made clear Sunday he supports voter ID laws and other restrictive rules. And, going further even than most other Republicans, he has falsely claimed there’s an epidemic of illegal voting, including by the undocumented immigrants he wants to deport en masse.
Pressed by Chuck Todd on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, Trump discussed his views on voting rules in more detail than he has yet. Those comments, along with other remarks he made earlier this year, give us a pretty clear idea of what the presumptive GOP nominee thinks about access to the ballot.
Trump and Todd had the following revealing exchange:
Todd: Do you want to see the voting laws changed to make it easier to vote?
Trump: I want to see voting laws so that people that are citizens can vote. Not so people that can walk off the street and can vote, or so that illegal immigrants can vote-
Todd: So you’re not for same-day voter registration?
Trump: No, no. I want to make the voting laws so that people that- it doesn’t make any difference how they do it. But I don’t think people should sneak in through the cracks. You have to have – And whether that’s an ID or any way you want to do it. But you have to be a citizen to vote.
Todd: Well, of course. That is the law as it stands already. Let me ask-
Trump: No, it’s not. I mean, you have places where people just walk in and vote.
Would it be too much to expect for at least ONE of these damn pundits to ask, “Please give me some specific examples which demonstrate that this is actually happening anywhere in the country”? And MAKE the man answer the question.
Is that so fucking difficult? This should be asked every damn time someone brings this up.
If true, this would be HUGE.
Clinton To Lay Out Agenda For Making Child Care Better — And More Affordable
Her proposals could set up a stark contrast with Donald Trump’s.
Hillary Clinton on Tuesday will sketch out an agenda for helping families with young children, including an ambitious promise to put high-quality child care within financial reach of all working parents.
………………………………………………………..
The most concrete part of the agenda, the campaign aides say, will be the two narrow but potentially important proposals. One would bolster a highly regarded “home visiting” program designed to help low-income children at risk of emotional, intellectual, and physical harm. If Clinton has her way, the program, known as the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Initiative, would reach twice as many children as it does today.
………………………………………………….
But by far the most intriguing part of Tuesday’s speech may be a promise that Clinton intends to make. According to the campaign aides, Clinton will say that the federal government should commit to making sure that no family ever pays more than 10 percent of its income on child-care expenses
Pass this, and women will guarantee that Clinton is re-elected. And maybe Sainted.
Booman Tribune ~ Comments ~ Why I am a Bull on This Election
In Sweden we call this “maxtaxa”. Though it is not 10 percent as such, but a slightly more complicated system with both a percentage a hard cap. Looking at Stockholm it is (for 30hours or more), 3% for first child, 2% for second, 1% for third and free for more. So 6% at max if you have three or more kids in child-care at the same time. And then there is a hard cap too, and lower fees for part-time (less then 30hours). And children of the unemployed also can attend a certain number of hour, because parents need time to look for work and children needs stimulation from playing pedagogic games with kids their own age.
So please do, socialist child care is great. But don’t tell anyone that Clinton is copying Scandinavia, I hear that is something that should be avided.
She won’t. It will be the Americanized public/private recipe we are so addicted to.
Trump Can’t Pivot
The pundits who say he’s going moderate are missing something.
By Jamelle Bouie
Thus far, in the narrative of the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump is the “unpredictable” one who will scramble the fall election. What this means in practice is that everything Trump says feeds the narrative, even if, after the most cursory examination, it doesn’t fit. And so Monday, for example, we’re told the wily Trump has shifted positions on taxes and the minimum wage, craftily moving toward Hillary Clinton’s left ahead of the general.
…………………….
The real test of Trump’s ability to shift to a general election is whether he can make his core principles palatable to a broad audience, or at least obscure them enough to escape scrutiny. And yes, Trump has core principles.
If there’s one constant in Trump’s rhetoric, from his role in the “birther” movement five years ago to his present campaign, it’s his nativism, his anti-Muslim attitudes, his assorted flavors of bigotry. His opening campaign gambit was mass deportation coupled with a wall along the Mexican border–a position he still holds. Later that fall, he bolstered his intra-Republican Party popularity with a call to ban Muslims from the United States. He boosts racists on social media, is friendly (or at least not hostile) to real-life white supremacists, and has refused to disavow anti-Semitic attacks from his online supporters. Even now, after winning the GOP nomination, he indulges misogyny and misogynistic attacks.
In the 10 months since he launched his campaign for president, Trump has showed the extent to which bigotry sits at the center of his persona. And if he’s going to shapeshift for a general audience, he needs to obscure it. Thus far, there’s no evidence he can. On Thursday, the Republican presidential nominee appeared on Fox News with Bill O’Reilly, where he delivered a message to Vicente Fox, the former Mexican president. “Yeah,” he said, “get your money ready, ’cause you’re going to pay for the wall.” When your campaign is all affect and attitude, what is there to pivot away from but yourself?
I couldn’t case less about Drumpf pivoting, but I wish there was a way to stop Clinton from doing so.
She hasn’t even won the nomination yet and already she is making overtures to some GOP voters.
Just what this nation needs, another career politician with no moral compass.
Why in the everloving fuck would you not want Clinton making overtures to Republican voters?
What’s wrong with you?
Because she hasn’t even fucking locked up Democratic voters yet. Do you not understand that people don’t like being taken for granted?
And you wonder why some people would rather not vote than vote for Clinton.
Are you that clueless?
Barring an absolute miracle, she’s locked up the Democratic vote. She absolutely should be making overtures to Republican voters.
You do understand that getting the Democratic nomination and locking up the Democratic vote are not at all the same thing, right?
Her numbers are horrible with young voters, and equally bad with independent voters who skew progress/liberal.
So yes, by all means, go ahead and pivot right to pick up tiny numbers of GOP voters at the risk of alienating a much larger pool of voters who are more inclined to vote for you.
This attitude is exactly why people are pissed.
If there isn’t a Bernie miracle I feel no obligation to vote for Clinton. I’d rather vote Green.
Go ahead and do that, because really this election is about meaningless gestures that help you to retain a narcissistic sense of purity.
Pay no attention to those threats until after Labor Day.
It’s a Booman rule for zen sanity.
No, Clinton and Schultz are destroying the Democratic Party. They’ve sold it out, they keep running DINOs who either lose to Republicans or vote like Republicans.
That purity crap doesn’t work with me. Nobody’s pure. However, some candidates are in lockstep with PNAC for controlling energy in the world. Some people destroyed welfare for the poor. Some people vote the way their wealthy friends vote.
I understand the feeling. I voted for Nader in 2000 (biggest political mistake of my life) because I was disgusted with Gore’s lackluster campaign against W. And I temporarily registered Green when I got pissed off at Obama for letting Congressional wingnuts get the better of him. This time, none of that stuff.
You really are living in a different universe from me.
In my universe, the general election is in full swing.
In my universe, you will have a choice between Clinton and Trump in November (or October if you can vote early) and none of your butthurt will be of the slightest interest to anyone except maybe some 22nd Century geek working on her PoliSci doctorate.
Right now there are a lot of people on this site living in their own universe.
It’s pretty damn sad.
.
Well, as I’ve said before you seem to be a beltway insider, so I’m not surprised you are in a different universe and feel that your universe is the only one that counts.
If the election goes as you want, then there won’t be any PolSci geek from the 22nd century having time to study ancient history.
Your ability to not give a damn outside your own sheltered bubble is amazing.
You seem like a nice guy/girl, urd. And a fairly smart guy/girl. And a passionate guy/girl, which is never to be trampled on, even if I’m a cynical asshole.
I say this to differentiate you, at least as far as I’ve seen of you. Because Gilroy is obviously insane (and has been for years), Voice in the Wilderness is spouting straight-up white supremacist shit at this point, and I don’t know what the hell happened to Marie3 (whom I used to really like and got on well with) as she’s apparently decided to present herself as a poli sci guru with rationalizations that’d make Rush Limbaugh blush.
I say all that to say I have no real beef with you. And I appreciate that you don’t want to be told it’s over and find statements that it is condescending. We’ve all been there.
But she locked it up on Super Tuesday. They’ve settled into some pretty understandable demographics, and the demographics are what they are at this point. The pitches have been made. The outreach has been done. Even supposing what would undoubtedly be a marginal-to-modest improvement on that front for Bernie, she’s won.
I take no pleasure in this, as I despise the Clintons. I hated them eight years ago. I hate them today. I think ol’ Billy largely gets credit as a president for two things — one out of his control, the other a bad thing (the tech boom on the former, the budget surplus on the latter). And I mostly want them to simply go away, along with Gingrich and all these other ’90s assclowns, and hope we move on from them and the incessant need Baby Boomers have to inject drama and unearned praise into everything and have all the world’s political debates devolve into some seeming pathological need to re-fight Vietnam.
I voted for Bernie, although I’ll readily admit I’m not wild about him — and largely not wild due to his folks promotion of that laughably stupid study by Gerry Friedman on the economic consequences of his policies (which Friedman first claimed was based on “standard methods,” then admitted was probably optimistic (meaning “Yeah, I deliberately fucked the parameters to get a good result”) after Christie and David Romer pointed out that he couldn’t do math, and then claimed he was right all along because he was using a “heterodox” method).
He lost me on that. At that point, it became, “Okay, these people both have shit for brains.”
I’m somewhere in between the two — I’m an Obama guy. I don’t think either of them are terrible people. And I’d damned sure take either one over the Nazi piece of shit the other side has chosen any day of the week.
Bernie’s run a damned fine campaign, and his folks should be damned proud of what they’ve been able to do. Certainly it shocked me. I never figured the guy would muster more than about 30%.
But barring dead-girl/live-boy/indictment-over-the-email-thing, the delegate math is pretty straightforward and has been for some time now.
Boo’s quite clearly a Bernie guy if forced to choose. Bernie people apparently don’t want to hear that and have convinced themselves that his takes on what is indicate what he thinks should be.
And he’s not alone on that. Many of us have been in the same position.
It gets old. It’s not “corruption”. It’s not “establishmentarianism”. It’s math.
I’m a Boomer (age 62).
Please do link even a single example of me displaying this alleged “need”:
This sort of condescending, afactual stereotyping does not help your argument.
This blog is not a poor quality supermarket tabloid. Your incendiary descriptions of 3 of our worthy long-time posters are totally unacceptable and inappropriate. These comments are deserving only of deletion by the administrator of this blog.
As you can see from the mixed community response to your comment, calling out other members by name detracted from what was an otherwise excellent set of observations.
I wouldn’t have downrated this comment, but I also wouldn’t have written it this way. And the community does a great job of regulating this place, and I trust them.
So, I hope you got the message. Even if a lot of people agree with you, a lot of people don’t like to see this form of argumentation.
Something to think about.
That’s fair, although I think that attaches a lot of importance to decorum which, as far as I’ve seen, appears to be an appreciation that largely has been a one-way street.
I think the issue is this, Booman: If Hillary were explicitly saying to Republicans something like, “come check out our actual program instead of what Fox News tells you it is, and stay if you like it”, I don’t see how anyone could object. The thing is, many readers here interpret “make overtures to Republicans” as “distort the Democratic program to be more like the GOP one”.
Indeed. Obama won a lot of Republican voters. He didn’t try to win them over with a flag burning amendment…
Or rather, a “flag protection act”.
Er, Hillary might. She has a history on that issue. lol
That’s really splitting hairs to complain about that bill. She proposed criminalizing flag desecration in the process of committing other crimes, namely incitement to violence or theft of Federal policy. She voted against a “real” flagburning bill the very next year.
You’ve read what they post here, right?
They are republicans, trolls, and con men (women) who twist numbers, post bullshit, and have seriously discussed how Clinton will recruit a republican as VP.
They do not discuss in good faith, but simply throw personal insults, even about what people do for a living. Their specialty is ‘You are a —–‘. And let’s not forget the not so hidden dog whistles.
.
But what Hillary actually does is propose providing affordable childcare for everybody in the US. She’s not selling out in her overtures.
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2016/05/whom-gods-would-destroy.html
OT:
This is the kind of shyt that just pisses you off.
This is the kind of stuff that White Parents just don’t have to deal with.
Every parent of a Black child knows that the day will come, when their child is disrespected because of their mere existence. The thing is, they don’t know WHEN it is coming. They just know that it WILL come.
THESE ARE FIVE YEAR OLDS…..YOU RACIST BIGOTS.
…………………………………
And if you agree to hold the game at their field, their cops will pull you over for nothing and give you a ticket just so they can keep the other team’s parent’s taxes low.