If you never wrote a comment telling me that Hillary Clinton would be a bad candidate because the youth vote was all going for Bernie Sanders, then this post isn’t addressed to you.
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is consolidating the support of the Millennials who fueled Bernie Sanders’ challenge during the primaries, a new USA TODAY/Rock the Vote Poll finds, as Republican Donald Trump heads toward the worst showing among younger voters in modern American history.
Probably the worst failure of analysis that I see occurs when people focus on the candidates rather than on coalitions of voters. The truth is, aside from some small changes in which subgroups of people decide not to vote at all, the same (types of) people who voted for Obama were always going to vote for Clinton or Sanders or even Lincoln Freakin’ Chafee.
Young people didn’t get behind any of the Republican candidates even though there were eleventy-billion of them because they don’t share the values of movement conservatives and they don’t hear the Republican candidates addressing their concerns. They liked Sanders the best, clearly, and by a mile, but that doesn’t mean they were ever going to vote for a Republican. It’s true that Donald Trump is close to the worst of the lot, but I don’t think Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee or Ted Cruz were going to do substantially better with millennials. Many of them will stay home as people of their age always do, but those who vote will vote overwhelming (historically) for Clinton.
And this should have been predictable.
I also heard some people (including black readers) making the argument that Clinton would struggle to win black support because of leftover hurt feelings from the 2008 campaign against Obama. But that was never going to be true, either. The president supports her and everyone knows that he’s depending on her to win to secure his legacy and his accomplishments. Black turnout will be huge for that reason alone.
This should have been predictable.
I hear people say that Clinton would be losing to any reasonable Republican, but this is complete horseshit. She’d be beating Jeb Bush just as badly, if not worse.
The last two elections were not close at all if you look at it from an Electoral College perspective, and this election will not be close for the simple reason that nothing has changed that would put a bunch of asses in the right column. If anything, there is a huge group of people out there who only voted against President Obama because he had a characteristic that Clinton doesn’t share. Clinton loses nothing by being white even while she gains from it.
The only thing Trump got right is that he understood that you can’t beat Obama’s coalition with McCain or Romney’s or even Dubya’s coalitions. You have to reshape the electorate.
But he’s reshaping it in ways that make things far worse and he’s destroying the cohesiveness of his party in the process.
Yet, that’s a distraction. The GOP would be losing this election no matter who they nominated or who they were running against so long as the Democrats’ coalition holds solid.
And it has been obvious since at least Cantor was ousted in a primary that the GOP is the party that will not hold solid.
Is there a chance the media will treat PA like the Republican fool’s gold that it is given that the polls indicate a double digit win there?
Also I’ve read Democrats are lagging badly in registrations in NC, and that the majority of new registrations are independents. Is this true and how does it compare to previous trends?
Republicans will still focus heavily on PA as long as Toomey is competitive.
Notably, McGinty went from -10 to +3 in Quinnipiac over the last month.
Median of the last three polls is McGinty +3, which seems about right.
“45% voted against Clinton, and so did I, and since I will never vote for Clinton no matter what, that means the whole 45% won’t vote for her either” was one of the more stupid memes around here.
The stupid is burning hard around here.
.
Hey nalbar, you are way off here. You forgot to note that she’s a horrible neocon liar with pro-corporate tendencies that’ll sell us down the river just like all the other neoliberal fascists. Trump would at least be better on trade, which we know because he says he would be (though his many sordid business dealings belie this fact). Read Thomas Frank–he’s got some books to sell.
And Putin! I forgot how Putin is the savior, by standing as a bulwark against the neo con nazis.
KC, shall we now discuss the relevancy of the Carter election, and it’s connections to the electoral totals of Obama, and how that makes Obama’s presidency second rate?
OMG, how I enjoy reading sanctimonious posts by know it alls on how many angels can fit on the head of a needle, if only needles had heads.
.
Putin is also a stalwart against the Anglo-Zionists. We mustn’t forget the wily Anglo-Zionists. And pro-peace. Must never forget that. Oh, and the war HRC has already declared on Russia.
I’m just disagreeing with you because I have all the facts, and you have none. It’s not contentious at all, it’s not my fault that facts are what I have, like the fact blacks only do what their ministers say. If you call that contentious, it’s because you don’t understand facts.
No worries, I’ll come back in the middle of the night, and state my facts everywhere.
.
A number of our community members appear to have divvied up the ghostwriting of today’s Maureen Dowd column:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/08/maureen-dowd-is-a-national-embarrassment
Lemieux has his way with what I will admit is a pathetically easy target, but it’s enjoyable nonetheless.
I was going to start a reply but then it turned into its own diary based on loosely connected anecdotes, internet memes, and insults until everyone wakes up from their leftiness slumbers.
That happens to me sometimes.
.
Don’t forget the graphic media! Post a sketch of a rooster and a particularly unflattering photo of Hillary and you’re good to go. Hell, slap a photo of a drone in there if you’re feeling frisky.
And double check to be sure the pictures are big enough to blow up the whole thread.
Then take wagers.
.
Make sure to personally insult and dismiss members of the community. That’ll persuade for sure!
Particularly what they do for a living, that always shows them!
Scientist? Pfffft! Your just part of a deceptive, corrupt community sucking real Americans dry!
Community worker? Just part of the system perpetuating endemic poverty!
Lawyer? Your just systematically supporting incarcerating millions.
Rock Musician? Your music SUCKS!
.
Right! Demand some randomly selected community member give you a full biography sufficient to track them down in real life, and state upfront that if it doesn’t fit your preconceived notions of who they are, then they’re lying.
LOL Don.
who’s the russian nutbag blogger who goes on about the Anglo-Zionists? I think AG used to link to his stuff. That’s the only place I’ve ever seen that phrase.
It was that Saker dude. Yeah. That sh*t is off the chain insane. Nothing progressive or left about it.
thanks. bugged me that i couldn’t remember. not that I want to go read him again.
The belief this was claimed existed in fevered brains of Hill-Shills only.
The exact opposite, actually, by the Bernie or Buster zealots.
this subthread was made into right out of the gate, including the embarrassing circle-jerk of mutual uprates by the participants.
I’ve said it before.
Sadly, no reason to hope there won’t be need to say it again (though not promising to bother): The place for all that snark, ridicule, etc., is in reply directly to the offending comment that earns (in your view) the treatment, not trolling the whole board with it to endlessly stir the shit (making sure in the process that any scabs that might have started forming get ripped off, and thereby pointlessly prolonging discord and nastiness).
Trump is basically accelerating the trends Obama set in motion. The “yoots” and suburbanites and Latino folks are shifting our way, while the rural white paint-eaters are finishing their descent into racism and moving to the GOP that began in the ’60s.
Good trade. Lofty trade.
I read that Thomas Frank article earlier today and he seems super salty that the party isn’t committed to reaching out to poor/rural working-class whites.
The thing about that is that many of those voters are culturally opposed to the Obama coalition. It would be great to win that demographic but there’s a reason that they like Trump and its not because he spouts some bs about trade and jobs.
Now, if Hillary wins these folks will continue to oppose her even as they benefit from whatever gets done over the next 4-8 years. Oh well.
As a sad WV Dem who is preparing to see white males in his state vote 85% for Trump, I agree that poor/rural working-class whites are not an available demographic for Dems anymore. They have been nearly totally captured by hate radio, Fox, and Uncle Pete’s crazy email threads. I see no way in the short term to get them back.
85%? Is that for real? I didn’t see any polls but I didn’t make an exhaustive search either.
I hear this every day in WV. “If that woman doesn’t get in, the streams will flow with whiskey and Trump will put everyone to work.” yeah and unicorns will pull the carts in the mines as well. I try to inform that its economics. Natural gas prices were the biggest thing. However, since they killed the Union, mines are hiring in the southern part of the state, but at 1/2 normal wages. That was the plan all along and people who want to work will take it; but they are letting those $60,000 pickups go back to the finance co.
R
‘Paint eaters’.
I like that, and I’m stealing it.
.
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/12/a-massive-new-study-debunks-a-widespread-theo
ry-for-donald-trumps-success
Wonkblog
A massive new study debunks a widespread theory for Donald Trump’s success
By Max Ehrenfreund and Jeff Guo August 12
Economic distress and anxiety across working-class white America have become a widely discussed explanation for the success of Donald Trump. It seems to make sense. Trump’s most fervent supporters tend to be white men without college degrees. This same group has suffered economically in our increasingly globalized world, as machines have replaced workers in factories and labor has shifted overseas. Trump has promised to curtail trade and other perceived threats to American workers, including immigrants.
Yet a major new analysis from Gallup, based on 87,000 interviews the polling company conducted over the past year, suggests this narrative is not complete. While there does seem to be a relationship between economic anxiety and Trump’s appeal, the straightforward connection that many observers have assumed does not appear in the data.
According to this new analysis, those who view Trump favorably have not been disproportionately affected by foreign trade or immigration, compared with people with unfavorable views of the Republican presidential nominee. The results suggest that his supporters, on average, do not have lower incomes than other Americans, nor are they more likely to be unemployed.
Yet while Trump’s supporters might be comparatively well off themselves, they come from places where their neighbors endure other forms of hardship. In their communities, white residents are dying younger, and it is harder for young people who grow up poor to get ahead.
…
Although Trump voters tend to be the most skeptical about immigration, they are also the least likely to actually encounter an immigrant in their neighborhood.
(Jonathan Rothwell, the economist at Gallup who conducted the analysis), finds that people who live in places with many Hispanic residents or places close to the Mexican border, tend not to favor Trump — relative to otherwise similar Americans and to otherwise similar white Republicans.
Among those who are similar in terms of income, education and other factors, those who view Trump favorably are more likely to be found in white enclaves — racially isolated Zip codes where the amount of diversity is lower than in surrounding areas.
These places have not been effected much by immigration, and Rothwell believes that is no coincidence. He argues that when people have more personal experience of people from other countries, they develop friendlier attitudes toward immigrants.
Research from Pew suggests that there is a relationship between the character of people’s neighborhoods and their views on immigrants. A study from 2006 found that native-born Americans living in Zip codes with lots of immigrants tended to hold immigrants in higher esteem. For instance, they were about twice as likely to say that immigrants “strengthen the US with their hard work and talents.”
This was true, apparently, even after taking into account people’s backgrounds and their political leanings. “Analysis of the survey indicates that their more favorable views do not merely reflect their demographics or political composition, but suggests that exposure to and experience with immigrants results in a better impression of them,” Pew noted.
I have it on the best of authority that Rand Paul’s laser-like focus on dope, drones, and domestic surveillance will deliver him the youth vote en bloc, and the White House with it.
And if those fail I’m sure his desire to bring back the gold standard will surely bring in the youth vote!
.
http://www.vulture.com/2016/08/rupaul-emmy-nomination-trump-clinton.html
RuPaul on His First Emmy Nomination, Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton
By E. Alex Jung Follow @e_alexjung
…What do you think about what’s going on with Donald Trump and the Republican Party?
When you break it down, this is about mankind moving forward and the people who are resisting that forward movement. When a butterfly makes a metamorphosis from being a caterpillar, there’s a violent exchange between caterpillar and butterfly. And what we’re witnessing is this violent exchange and a rejection of the movement forward. It’s so uncanny, and it’s so clear that that’s what’s happening, even as it relates to what’s happening around the world, with these horrible tragedies. There are people who are rejecting the forward motion of mankind. And they don’t want to be present for what’s happening because they don’t want to change, because change would mean they’d actually have to look at themselves and go, “Who am I? What am I? And how do I relate to this world?”
I think of Trump as a camp character.
Right, but unfortunately most people don’t get irony. We would laugh at it, but most people would probably take it seriously.
Well, I think they are right now.
They are.
What do you think about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats?
[Laughs.] I fucking love them. I have always loved them. And let me just say this: If you’re a politician — not just in Washington but in business and industry, you have to be a politician — there are a lot of things that you have to do that you’re not proud of. There are a lot of compromises you have to make because it means that you can get this other thing over here. And if you think that you can go to fucking Washington and be rainbows and butterflies the whole time, you’re living in a fucking fantasy world. So now, having said that, think about what a female has to do with that: All of those compromises, all of that shit, double it by ten. And you get to understand who this woman is and how powerful, persuasive, brilliant, and resilient she is. Any female executive, anybody who has been put to the side — women, blacks, gays — for them to succeed in a white-male-dominated culture is an act of brilliance. Of resilience, of grit, of everything you can imagine. So, what do I think of Hillary? I think she’s fucking awesome. Is she in bed with Wall Street? Goddammit, I should hope so! You’ve got to dance with the devil. So which of the horrible people do you want? That’s more of the question. Do you want a pompous braggart who doesn’t know anything about diplomacy? Or do you want a badass bitch who knows how to get shit done? That’s really the question.
How would you describe your political ideology?
I’m a realist. Drag says, “This is all bullshit.” Drag says, “You’re playing a role, and I’m here to remind you: Don’t get it twisted. I’m not buying it. I understand what’s really real, and what’s really hood, and I’m living my life that way.” I see politics the same way. Everybody’s playing a role. And don’t try to make me believe that you are what you say you are. I can see behind that mask…
It is bullshit for the simple reason that all too often getting that thing over there fucks us over worse than we were before. Show us that that thing over there isnt a poison to sicken us and we can talk.
I’ve often wondered what would have happened if the GOP ran an Arnold Vinick type of candidate (I’m not fond of West Wing references, but this one made sense to me) — for those of you who didn’t watch it, basically a less angry, more moderate John McCain, one who could actually appeal to moderates, to a diverse American electorate, etc. And more than that, a candidate who isn’t been scandal prone, gaffe prone, outburst prone, or corrupt.
Even Jeb, despite noises about him being moderate, is nowhere near this moderate.
The closest I can think of is Jon Huntsman, but he was a) pretty boring and b) could never get through the GOP primaries (which is I think the main reason they don’t run such a candidate).
The challenge for the GOP moving forward is that they are attracting immoderate voters and repelling moderate ones. It’s hard to imagine that they will be done with this problem by 2020. I just don’t see a Vinick type on the horizon who would have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning their Party nomination.
But Obama in one of his most shrewd political moves made sure that didn’t happen by asking him to serve as ambassador to China.
Which made Huntsman’s reasonableness a vulnerability.
The same as any governor who accepts the Medicaid buy in. They’re done as far as the base is concerned.
It’s kind of a twist on Rove’s strategy of taking the opponents strengths and turning it into weakness. Obama took Huntsman’s strength with the general electorate (patriotism, reasonableness, competence) and turned it into a weakness with the republican base.
But what Rove used as a bludgeon, Obama turned into a scalpel.
.
maybe it’s time to stop pointing our weapons at each other and point them only at the GOP
What’s the point of being snarky to each other, we’re (mostly) the party of civility and competence maybe we should act like it.
The GOP isn’t going away, it may be weakened now or maybe even for awhile. We need to take advantage of that weakness to take the real progress the President has made over the last 8 years and take the next step.
When the counter attack happens from the GOP once they’ve recovered, we’re going to have to make sure we’re further along so that any back sliding doesn’t millions of people.
Seconded
Funnily, I clearly remember John Lewis being interviewed on one of cable news channels, probably MSNBC, in late 2007/early 2008 and he was not yet committed to Barack Obama;he was committed to and spoke highly of HRC and WJC. I always had the feeling that the Clintons’ support among African Americans was genuinely deep and that they had worked hard to cultivate their ties to the AA community.
great read!
There is much to say about this. I have been predicting for a while that the young will come home, and its why I think Clinton will win by more than 10.
But there is another side to the story. If you don’t cherry pick the data – and I haven’t taken this author seriously about anything having to do with data since he based an article on an absurd Iowa poll to suggest Grassley was in trouble in Iowa – there is another side to this story.
I like yougov polls, because they give good cross tabs. In a 4 way race they show her leading 41-22, with Johnson at 18 and Stein at 7. Her two way numbers in yougov are close to this polls: 59-27.
Clinton’s favorable ratings are are upside down: 43-55 among the young. 39 percent strongly disprove of her
If you take data seriously, it tells us that there is something very unique and worth listening to about the young. They are not happy with Clinton, they are holding their nose to vote for her. They are more open to third party appeals than prior generations.
Perhaps equally importantly, this will not be a group Clinton can rely on when times get tough. Obama never lost the young. But Clinton in a way has never had them.
This means her floor on her approval ratings is going to be lower – arguably much lower – than Obama’s.
I’ll ignore the asinine argument about 2012 being a blowout.
And they did not experience the attacks on the Clintons in the 90s. They are coming to her fresh. And they can readily see what she is.
Conversely, people could just be responding to a public perception that already existed. Which would not be the product of any unique insight.
I hate favoribility polls because they’re volatile and can be pushed pretty easily. When candidates are considered, favorability is just a proxy for candidate preference. Clinton’s favorability is a pretty great example of this.
The reason some might prefer favorability polls is because you can project your own reasons for them. That is why they get repeated over and over, and actual voting preference ignored.
Republicans and Trump are trying to delegitimize her presidency. Citing favorability is the other side of the same coin.
.
I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of young people who strongly disapprove of Hillary have absolutely no idea “what she is.” She’s a far from perfect candidate, but I certainly saw no end of false and stupid critiques leveled at her.
Some other crosstabs from that poll.
Favorability by gender:
Male: 37% favorable, 60% unfavorable
Female: 45% favorable, 53% unfavorable
Favorability by race:
White: 31% favorable, 67% unfavorable
Black: 71% favorable, 27% unfavorable
Hispanic: 65% favorable, 30% unfavorable
Favorability by ideology:
Liberal: 74% favorable, 25% unfavorable
Moderate: 42% favorable, 54% unfavorable
Conservative: 19% favorable, 81% unfavorable
I agree with you, and would just add that HRC’s lack of popularity with young voters may be because she did not really speak to issues that are important to the younger voter (until forced by Bernie’s strong campaign).
I think she has a shot at bringing the young into the tent, but she will have to do something dramatic in her first year as POTUS. But I just don’t have the confidence that anything will happen in the next four years due to more-of-the-same-obstructionism from the Republicans. If anything, the Republicans may double-down on their efforts to destroy our government from within. For starters, if the Republicans maintain control of the Senate, we will probably have an 8-member SC for the next four years.
Which will leave us with a growing block of young, alienated voters. Which may actually be part of the Republican plan.
“It’s true that Donald Trump is close to the worst of the lot, but I don’t think Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee or Ted Cruz were going to do substantially better with millennials. Many of them will stay home as people of their age always do….“
Their staying at home in midterm elections is a major factor in the way Democrats have had their asses handed to them on a plate. What I read here is something along the lines of “but the Democrats gave millenials no reason to turn out to vote.” And what I always think of, in response to that sort of statement, is “haven’t they ever heard of people like Scott Walker and the Wisconsin legislature, who just made millenials’ problems worse?”. I’m fairly sure that Wisconsin Democrats have opposed Walker’s moves to bust unions and trash Wisconsin’s public universities, say. Maybe the “no reason to turn out to vote” argument is an after-the-fact rationalization for disengagement from politics.