 | |
| Image from marketing-chine.com |
This is probably the last in my series of articles analyzing the chances that the Republicans will win the presidential election in November, 2016. Since my last revision of this document in January, the Republicans have nominated Donald Trump, which was unbelievable to most Americans in January, even though it was fairly likely to happen. If the party had nominated Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or even Ted Cruz, the following ratings would be significantly different.
I'll list the reasons in the same order and give a rating between "0" and "10" of whether I believe the reason is still valid, where "0" means the reason has been totally discounted and "10" means the reason is perhaps more valid than ever. All reasons began with a weight of "10" one year ago. I'll show the current rating, what the rating was in January, and what it would be if any other Republican candidate was running. Notice the immense discrepancy between the current rating and what it would be if any other Republican had won the nomination. The preposterous candidacy of Donald Trump has tilted the country away from all of the issues that we face. It is only because Hillary Clinton is such an imperfect, disliked candidate that I can even continue with this analysis.
(1) America is not ready for a woman President (now: 1, last time: 5, would be: 5). Because Donald Trump consistently demeans women to such an extent, and because Hillary Clinton has the reputation of toughness and the respect of foreign leaders, this reason has almost disappeared. Although there is a conservative bias against women in government (more than 50% of the country's people are women, but far fewer than 50% are its leaders), Clinton has certainly shown that she has the resume for the job.
It is interesting that, when the Brexit vote signaled Britain's separation from the European Union and David Cameron resigned, two women quickly emerged as the most popular candidates for Prime Minister. Theresa May became the new Prime Minister--a clear signal to the United States that one of our closest allies wouldn't hesitate to have a woman leader again.
If the Republicans had nominated any other candidate for president, they may have chosen someone like Nikki Haley to fill out the ticket, but that was close to impossible once Trump got the nomination. Everyone in the country knew he was going to choose a white male as his running mate. Mike Pence is a controversial choice only because he is so socially conservative, but that's fine with Trump. Donald probably didn't consider choosing a woman for his running mate, and it would have been interesting to see if any woman would have accepted the invitation (except for Sarah Palin). They'd have to be blind to his misogyny.
In a "normal" campaign, the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman (and therefore perhaps weak on negotiating trade deals and upholding national defense) would have emerged as an issue. The Republicans would have done it gracefully, but they would have done it. Although I thought it was a bit risky for the Democrats to continually stress the "glass ceiling" angle during their convention, it was actually a brilliant move. Trump was backed into a corner over women and minority issues; his only move was to leave the "glass ceiling" issue alone. Now, if Trump criticizes Clinton as being unfit for the job because she's a weak woman, his misogyny is more on display than Clinton's gender is.
It is interesting that, when the Brexit vote signaled Britain's separation from the European Union and David Cameron resigned, two women quickly emerged as the most popular candidates for Prime Minister. Theresa May became the new Prime Minister--a clear signal to the United States that one of our closest allies wouldn't hesitate to have a woman leader again.
If the Republicans had nominated any other candidate for president, they may have chosen someone like Nikki Haley to fill out the ticket, but that was close to impossible once Trump got the nomination. Everyone in the country knew he was going to choose a white male as his running mate. Mike Pence is a controversial choice only because he is so socially conservative, but that's fine with Trump. Donald probably didn't consider choosing a woman for his running mate, and it would have been interesting to see if any woman would have accepted the invitation (except for Sarah Palin). They'd have to be blind to his misogyny.
In a "normal" campaign, the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman (and therefore perhaps weak on negotiating trade deals and upholding national defense) would have emerged as an issue. The Republicans would have done it gracefully, but they would have done it. Although I thought it was a bit risky for the Democrats to continually stress the "glass ceiling" angle during their convention, it was actually a brilliant move. Trump was backed into a corner over women and minority issues; his only move was to leave the "glass ceiling" issue alone. Now, if Trump criticizes Clinton as being unfit for the job because she's a weak woman, his misogyny is more on display than Clinton's gender is.
(2) Two steps forward, one step back (now: 3, last time: 9, would be: 7). This issue's rating has declined quite a bit since January, because of what has occurred in both parties. Because of Trump's outrageous support of isolationist actions (the threat to leave NATO, walling off Mexico, blocking Muslim immigration, rejecting the TTP, ignoring Putin's aggressions), taking one step back does not look so attractive to many Republicans. Taking "one step back" now has the aura of retreating, rather than re-imposing conservative values.
The most unbelievable development of this year's political landscape isn't that Trump was nominated; it is that the Republicans have focused so little on the economy, the Affordable Care Act and all of President Obama's other programs. Trump spends almost no time extolling traditional conservative values, probably because he's not a true conservative. He's a reactionary, whether it is a conservative reaction or not.
On the other hand, the Democrats have hitched their wagon to the Obama years. They are stressing the "two steps forward" under Obama, while predicting a third and fourth step forward under Hillary Clinton. This is really surprising to me, because I thought Clinton would have to dissociate herself from Obama's actions and policies, in order to show a positive, new direction under her leadership. She has done the opposite.
For this you can thank Bernie Sanders and his supporters. Hillary Clinton had to move further to the left in order to unify the Democratic Party during the convention. Thus, the most progressive platform in the history of the country was adopted. However, lest she find herself occupying an island of progressiveness apart from middle-left Democrats, she then had to stress her connection and alliance with Obama. So far that is working well for her, because Obama's ratings are quite high right now.
This reason's weighting would be significantly higher (in support of a Republican victory) were it not for the ultra-dark, negative picture that Trump and his allies have painted of traditionally-positive aspects of the Republican agenda--free trade, military service of veterans, standing strong against the Russians, and so forth.
The most unbelievable development of this year's political landscape isn't that Trump was nominated; it is that the Republicans have focused so little on the economy, the Affordable Care Act and all of President Obama's other programs. Trump spends almost no time extolling traditional conservative values, probably because he's not a true conservative. He's a reactionary, whether it is a conservative reaction or not.
On the other hand, the Democrats have hitched their wagon to the Obama years. They are stressing the "two steps forward" under Obama, while predicting a third and fourth step forward under Hillary Clinton. This is really surprising to me, because I thought Clinton would have to dissociate herself from Obama's actions and policies, in order to show a positive, new direction under her leadership. She has done the opposite.
For this you can thank Bernie Sanders and his supporters. Hillary Clinton had to move further to the left in order to unify the Democratic Party during the convention. Thus, the most progressive platform in the history of the country was adopted. However, lest she find herself occupying an island of progressiveness apart from middle-left Democrats, she then had to stress her connection and alliance with Obama. So far that is working well for her, because Obama's ratings are quite high right now.
This reason's weighting would be significantly higher (in support of a Republican victory) were it not for the ultra-dark, negative picture that Trump and his allies have painted of traditionally-positive aspects of the Republican agenda--free trade, military service of veterans, standing strong against the Russians, and so forth.
(3) It's Time For Another War (now: 5, last time: 10, would be: 10). Donald Trump has done another thing that I didn't think possible: he has shifted the focus away from ISIS onto whatever his daily, outrageous rant is. During the Democratic convention weekend, the country was not focused on being anti-ISIS, but on supporting a Muslim Gold Star family, who had been terribly criticized by Trump. A normal candidate (like Mitt Romney in 2012) would have praised them for their sacrifice and diffused the issue immediately. Trump let his personal venom interfere with the country's active hatred of ISIS.
The issue of the Gold Star family has subsided, but I have no doubt that Trump will continually take his eye off the ball, especially once the debates start. Americans are primed to fight another war, but this supposed leader keeps wandering off the battlefield.
I think this rating would be an easy "10" if any other Republican candidate were running. They'd hammer home the evil of ISIS every day and then try to depict Obama (and thus, Hillary) as soft on getting rid of ISIS. Clinton showed a good resolve to end the ISIS threat during her convention speech. She came out as stronger in war (to the dismay of Sanders supporters) than people had previously seen. So, I'm giving it a "5" now, but that could move higher if the Republican candidate focuses more on ISIS or if weekly terrorist incidents continue to occur in Western democracies.
(4) America's Gun Addiction (now: 7, last time: 10, would be: 7). The executions of police officers in Dallas and elsewhere have turned the tide of this reason somewhat. Middle America is so pro-gun that killings of children and minorities have not changed their minds on reasonable gun controls, but killing police officers is perhaps different.
This is one issue that is really not affected by whom the Republicans have chosen as their candidate. I predict it will become more of an issue during the debates, and Clinton will be forced to emphasize her position on gun controls. I thought it helped her to say that Democrats don't want to change the Second Amendment or take away people's guns, but only to put in place reasonable gun laws. Most gun owners won't listen to her words, so she should propose new gun legislation that addresses both concerns--protecting the Second Amendment rights and strengthening background checks, for instance.
Expect more Americans to be killed by terrorists in the next couple of months and for Trump to jump on the gun bandwagon once again.
(5) The Myth of Reducing Big Government (now: 6, last time: 10, would be: 10). Remarkably, Trump has not yet stressed the cuts he would bring to "big government," but I expect that will begin during the debates. Any other Republican candidate would include promises to reduce the size of government in every speech. Time after time, Trump finds himself painted into a corner, where a Republican like Rubio or Ryan would have ready answers and alternatives. Trump says he would immediately pull the plug on Obamacare, for example, but he offers no alternative plan. That makes debating the point rather easy for Clinton.
But Hillary Clinton is also between a rock and a hard place with this issue. The progressive platform would certainly increase the size of government in some ways, but she must stay committed to those goals to keep the Bernie supporters interested. Bernie was long on ideas but short on ways to pay for them, except for taxing the very rich. Clinton must support many of those ideas, such as free college tuition, from a more moderate approach--not simply by raising taxes.
To lessen the effects of the "big government" myth, Clinton should stress the other side of the coin--lowering the budget deficit and national debt. Huge tax cuts for the rich and corporations will increase the deficit and national debt. I would estimate that most people are not against big government when it helps them--increased social security, tighter homeland security, lower health care costs--as much as they are against budget deficits and the ever-climbing national debt. Clinton needs to stress the benefits of big government and how she would attack the burden of deficits and debt.
This is still an issue for Hillary Clinton's rise to the presidency, and its weight would be a "10" if any other Republican nominee were running, but it's down to a "6" with Trump running.
(6) Non-Stop Political Campaigns Hurt Democrats (now: 2, last time: 7, would be: 10). With any normal Republican candidate, not only would the "fear ads" have begun to proliferate about Clinton after the Democratic convention, but at least half of the news coverage would be focused on her as well. However, the Republican candidate is much scarier to imagine as leader of the free world than Hillary Clinton is. Both parties are expert at spinning events to favor their positions, but the Democrats are handed free material every day from Trump tweets and actions by his campaign staff.
Democrats need only remind voters of actual things that Trump says, while Republicans must try to reinforce their case that Hillary Clinton is not trustworthy. It strikes me that those are two very different types of negative campaigns. The volume of material that can be used against Trump is so overwhelming (and self-perpetuating) that it is almost comical--like handing ready-made skits to the Saturday Night Live cast each week, without need for creative writers.
To convince America that Hillary Clinton is not trustworthy, the Republicans have used two issues for over a year--Benghazi and her private email server. Benghazi is a non-starter, because nine Congressional committees could find nothing she did wrong, and they looked silly in the process. The email server issue gained traction until the FBI Director said that Clinton was "careless" but not culpable, and then the State Department criticized the FBI for even going that far. Recently Trump's campaign has begun to focus on the Clinton Foundation, which seems like a desperate tactic. An Associated Press expose about Clinton meeting with Clinton Foundation donors while she was Secretary of State has been deeply criticized by other news agencies as inaccurate and biased.
If the Republican presidential campaign is to make any further progress, it is going to have to find something negative to say about Clinton's policies. A majority of people clearly don't like Clinton, but it's not because of her email server! I maintain that it is primarily because of her personality and the fact that she's been in the national spotlight for almost 25 years. She's not a good speaker (although her convention speech was the best she's ever made in front of a national audience), and she can get awfully contentious and whiny when she's uncomfortable or misunderstood.
The problem for the Republicans is that Trump does all of that in spades. Trump is not the great communicator that Ronald Reagan was--or even the communicator that Romney or Rubio is. He's a terrible speaker. And Trump gets contentious and whiny at any provocation. You never get the feeling that Clinton is going to throw a tantrum, but that's the pervasive feeling you get from Trump. People don't like their candidates to throw tantrums.
I would reduce the weight of this reason to "0" if the political campaign season weren't so unbearably long. Clinton did not say anything controversial in all of her debates with Bernie Sanders, but there is bound to be something she says in her debates with Trump that will result in negative ads against her. This may be the only election year in memory where, the longer the campaign lasts, the more it hurts Republicans.
(7) The Democratic VP Candidate Is An Unknown (now: 0, last time: 8, would be: 6). As I wrote last time, Fortune Magazine predicted (in 2015) that Tim Kaine would be the VP candidate for the Democrats, but they sure didn't predict that Mike Pence would be the Republican VP candidate. This point has absolutely no weight now, because of that choice.
First, Pence is not as well-known as Kaine. Both are senators, but Kaine was governor of a larger state and also is an ex-chairman of the DNC, while Pence was a representative from a smaller state. Second, the choice of Mike Pence was unwise if only because Indiana is already a heavily Republican state, while Virginia (Kaine's home) is a swing-state--currently leaning toward the Democrats. Tim Kaine is very popular in his own state.
Both men are described as nice guys and excellent representatives of their parties. Neither one was in the presidential primary races, so the country has been introduced to both of them as new faces. When I brought up the idea that the Democratic VP candidate would be a relative unknown, I was assuming that the Republican VP candidate would be one of the other sixteen Republican primary candidates. In fact, I'm sure that a Jeb Bush presidential nomination, for instance, would have seen someone like John Kasich as his running mate, thus choosing candidates from two swing states (Florida and Ohio) who were nationally known.
But even if that were true, I'd still only weight its importance as a "6", because Tim Kaine is the "safe" candidate--a white, middle-aged male. Undoubtedly the Democrats felt that one minority person on the ballot was enough this time around. So, although people such as Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Tom Perez were certainly vetted for the VP slot, selecting Tim Kaine minimized the fact that he is relatively unknown.
(8) The Inconsistency of Liberal Voters (now: 8, last time: 10, would be: 10). Even though the far-left Bernie legions emerged during the Democratic convention--people who said they'd never vote for Hillary Clinton--the existence of a Donald Trump candidacy scares many of the people I categorized as "inconsistent liberal voters" in previous blogs. If any other Republican candidate were running, I'd leave this reason with a weight of "10", but I am lowering it to "8".
From what I saw of the staunch Bernie legions at the convention, they looked more like 1960's radicals than Democrats to me. They are the equivalent of the Republican Tea Party in their radicalism, shouting down others' right to speak and sticking with their unrealistic ideals. It's my feeling that they did more to unify the Democrats than they did to drive them to disinterest or Trump.
To me, the key to the Democratic success is still the millennials (21-35 year-olds). Will they vote? Will they understand the serious impact of electing a president, that it is not simply choosing someone to lead the country for four years, but choosing someone who will appoint Supreme Court justices who will be on the bench for the next twenty-five years?
Black, Latino and LGBT voters are predicted to show up in numbers even greater than what was seen in 2012, but that could certainly change if Clinton is seen as a sure bet in the election. Even though 71% of Latino voters chose Barack Obama in 2012, a large portion of the 29% voting for Romney were older voters. The young, voting-age Latino population has greatly increased in the last four years, so Clinton could see a larger Latino turnout than Obama did. In addition, only 10% of the total electorate was Latino in 2012, certain to rise in 2016. If Hillary Clinton continues to popularize an immigration plan that provides a path to citizenship for immigrants, that faction of liberal voters will certainly show up.
(9) Image Is Everything (now: 4, last time: 4, would be: 8). The last time I revised this blog, most of the Republican contenders were still in the race, and so it was still possible to envision a Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush nomination. Hillary Clinton had recently triumphed in the Benghazi committee proceedings, and the email server debacle had not surfaced to such an extent.
The question of image is the only great challenge that currently exists for Hillary Clinton, because Donald Trump's stance on policy, especially foreign policy, is (excuse the pun) all over the map. More than ever, the question of image as a threat to her election is everything. And, yet, Trump's image is even worse than Clinton's. If he can become non-controversial in the last three months of the campaign, this will remain a problem for Clinton up to the day of the election. But that's a big "IF".
Clinton's campaign team is slowly pushing a more positive image of her, starting at the convention, where she was shown in her promotional clip sitting at a kitchen table in a simple blue and white-striped blouse, which gave her a much softer look. (Why haven't we seen even one photo of Trump in a casual polo shirt addressing people on the campaign trail? He is the least-imaginative dresser I've ever seen.) Clinton's team is stressing that she is family-oriented, and that can only help her image.
The presidential debates will allow America to see Trump and Clinton next to each other on the same stage. Clinton doesn't lose her focus or get rattled at questions or comments from her opponent. She has stood up to many world dictators, so there is no reason to think she won't stand up to Trump during the debates. That is when the country will be able to evaluate which candidate looks more presidential. I will keep this reason's weight at "4" now, but it could come down during the debates. Certainly it would be "8" or higher if she were running against any other candidate, one who didn't have such an image problem of his own.
The issue of the Gold Star family has subsided, but I have no doubt that Trump will continually take his eye off the ball, especially once the debates start. Americans are primed to fight another war, but this supposed leader keeps wandering off the battlefield.
I think this rating would be an easy "10" if any other Republican candidate were running. They'd hammer home the evil of ISIS every day and then try to depict Obama (and thus, Hillary) as soft on getting rid of ISIS. Clinton showed a good resolve to end the ISIS threat during her convention speech. She came out as stronger in war (to the dismay of Sanders supporters) than people had previously seen. So, I'm giving it a "5" now, but that could move higher if the Republican candidate focuses more on ISIS or if weekly terrorist incidents continue to occur in Western democracies.
(4) America's Gun Addiction (now: 7, last time: 10, would be: 7). The executions of police officers in Dallas and elsewhere have turned the tide of this reason somewhat. Middle America is so pro-gun that killings of children and minorities have not changed their minds on reasonable gun controls, but killing police officers is perhaps different.
This is one issue that is really not affected by whom the Republicans have chosen as their candidate. I predict it will become more of an issue during the debates, and Clinton will be forced to emphasize her position on gun controls. I thought it helped her to say that Democrats don't want to change the Second Amendment or take away people's guns, but only to put in place reasonable gun laws. Most gun owners won't listen to her words, so she should propose new gun legislation that addresses both concerns--protecting the Second Amendment rights and strengthening background checks, for instance.
Expect more Americans to be killed by terrorists in the next couple of months and for Trump to jump on the gun bandwagon once again.
(5) The Myth of Reducing Big Government (now: 6, last time: 10, would be: 10). Remarkably, Trump has not yet stressed the cuts he would bring to "big government," but I expect that will begin during the debates. Any other Republican candidate would include promises to reduce the size of government in every speech. Time after time, Trump finds himself painted into a corner, where a Republican like Rubio or Ryan would have ready answers and alternatives. Trump says he would immediately pull the plug on Obamacare, for example, but he offers no alternative plan. That makes debating the point rather easy for Clinton.
But Hillary Clinton is also between a rock and a hard place with this issue. The progressive platform would certainly increase the size of government in some ways, but she must stay committed to those goals to keep the Bernie supporters interested. Bernie was long on ideas but short on ways to pay for them, except for taxing the very rich. Clinton must support many of those ideas, such as free college tuition, from a more moderate approach--not simply by raising taxes.
To lessen the effects of the "big government" myth, Clinton should stress the other side of the coin--lowering the budget deficit and national debt. Huge tax cuts for the rich and corporations will increase the deficit and national debt. I would estimate that most people are not against big government when it helps them--increased social security, tighter homeland security, lower health care costs--as much as they are against budget deficits and the ever-climbing national debt. Clinton needs to stress the benefits of big government and how she would attack the burden of deficits and debt.
This is still an issue for Hillary Clinton's rise to the presidency, and its weight would be a "10" if any other Republican nominee were running, but it's down to a "6" with Trump running.
(6) Non-Stop Political Campaigns Hurt Democrats (now: 2, last time: 7, would be: 10). With any normal Republican candidate, not only would the "fear ads" have begun to proliferate about Clinton after the Democratic convention, but at least half of the news coverage would be focused on her as well. However, the Republican candidate is much scarier to imagine as leader of the free world than Hillary Clinton is. Both parties are expert at spinning events to favor their positions, but the Democrats are handed free material every day from Trump tweets and actions by his campaign staff.
Democrats need only remind voters of actual things that Trump says, while Republicans must try to reinforce their case that Hillary Clinton is not trustworthy. It strikes me that those are two very different types of negative campaigns. The volume of material that can be used against Trump is so overwhelming (and self-perpetuating) that it is almost comical--like handing ready-made skits to the Saturday Night Live cast each week, without need for creative writers.
To convince America that Hillary Clinton is not trustworthy, the Republicans have used two issues for over a year--Benghazi and her private email server. Benghazi is a non-starter, because nine Congressional committees could find nothing she did wrong, and they looked silly in the process. The email server issue gained traction until the FBI Director said that Clinton was "careless" but not culpable, and then the State Department criticized the FBI for even going that far. Recently Trump's campaign has begun to focus on the Clinton Foundation, which seems like a desperate tactic. An Associated Press expose about Clinton meeting with Clinton Foundation donors while she was Secretary of State has been deeply criticized by other news agencies as inaccurate and biased.
If the Republican presidential campaign is to make any further progress, it is going to have to find something negative to say about Clinton's policies. A majority of people clearly don't like Clinton, but it's not because of her email server! I maintain that it is primarily because of her personality and the fact that she's been in the national spotlight for almost 25 years. She's not a good speaker (although her convention speech was the best she's ever made in front of a national audience), and she can get awfully contentious and whiny when she's uncomfortable or misunderstood.
The problem for the Republicans is that Trump does all of that in spades. Trump is not the great communicator that Ronald Reagan was--or even the communicator that Romney or Rubio is. He's a terrible speaker. And Trump gets contentious and whiny at any provocation. You never get the feeling that Clinton is going to throw a tantrum, but that's the pervasive feeling you get from Trump. People don't like their candidates to throw tantrums.
I would reduce the weight of this reason to "0" if the political campaign season weren't so unbearably long. Clinton did not say anything controversial in all of her debates with Bernie Sanders, but there is bound to be something she says in her debates with Trump that will result in negative ads against her. This may be the only election year in memory where, the longer the campaign lasts, the more it hurts Republicans.
(7) The Democratic VP Candidate Is An Unknown (now: 0, last time: 8, would be: 6). As I wrote last time, Fortune Magazine predicted (in 2015) that Tim Kaine would be the VP candidate for the Democrats, but they sure didn't predict that Mike Pence would be the Republican VP candidate. This point has absolutely no weight now, because of that choice.
First, Pence is not as well-known as Kaine. Both are senators, but Kaine was governor of a larger state and also is an ex-chairman of the DNC, while Pence was a representative from a smaller state. Second, the choice of Mike Pence was unwise if only because Indiana is already a heavily Republican state, while Virginia (Kaine's home) is a swing-state--currently leaning toward the Democrats. Tim Kaine is very popular in his own state.
Both men are described as nice guys and excellent representatives of their parties. Neither one was in the presidential primary races, so the country has been introduced to both of them as new faces. When I brought up the idea that the Democratic VP candidate would be a relative unknown, I was assuming that the Republican VP candidate would be one of the other sixteen Republican primary candidates. In fact, I'm sure that a Jeb Bush presidential nomination, for instance, would have seen someone like John Kasich as his running mate, thus choosing candidates from two swing states (Florida and Ohio) who were nationally known.
But even if that were true, I'd still only weight its importance as a "6", because Tim Kaine is the "safe" candidate--a white, middle-aged male. Undoubtedly the Democrats felt that one minority person on the ballot was enough this time around. So, although people such as Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Tom Perez were certainly vetted for the VP slot, selecting Tim Kaine minimized the fact that he is relatively unknown.
(8) The Inconsistency of Liberal Voters (now: 8, last time: 10, would be: 10). Even though the far-left Bernie legions emerged during the Democratic convention--people who said they'd never vote for Hillary Clinton--the existence of a Donald Trump candidacy scares many of the people I categorized as "inconsistent liberal voters" in previous blogs. If any other Republican candidate were running, I'd leave this reason with a weight of "10", but I am lowering it to "8".
From what I saw of the staunch Bernie legions at the convention, they looked more like 1960's radicals than Democrats to me. They are the equivalent of the Republican Tea Party in their radicalism, shouting down others' right to speak and sticking with their unrealistic ideals. It's my feeling that they did more to unify the Democrats than they did to drive them to disinterest or Trump.
To me, the key to the Democratic success is still the millennials (21-35 year-olds). Will they vote? Will they understand the serious impact of electing a president, that it is not simply choosing someone to lead the country for four years, but choosing someone who will appoint Supreme Court justices who will be on the bench for the next twenty-five years?
Black, Latino and LGBT voters are predicted to show up in numbers even greater than what was seen in 2012, but that could certainly change if Clinton is seen as a sure bet in the election. Even though 71% of Latino voters chose Barack Obama in 2012, a large portion of the 29% voting for Romney were older voters. The young, voting-age Latino population has greatly increased in the last four years, so Clinton could see a larger Latino turnout than Obama did. In addition, only 10% of the total electorate was Latino in 2012, certain to rise in 2016. If Hillary Clinton continues to popularize an immigration plan that provides a path to citizenship for immigrants, that faction of liberal voters will certainly show up.
(9) Image Is Everything (now: 4, last time: 4, would be: 8). The last time I revised this blog, most of the Republican contenders were still in the race, and so it was still possible to envision a Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush nomination. Hillary Clinton had recently triumphed in the Benghazi committee proceedings, and the email server debacle had not surfaced to such an extent.
The question of image is the only great challenge that currently exists for Hillary Clinton, because Donald Trump's stance on policy, especially foreign policy, is (excuse the pun) all over the map. More than ever, the question of image as a threat to her election is everything. And, yet, Trump's image is even worse than Clinton's. If he can become non-controversial in the last three months of the campaign, this will remain a problem for Clinton up to the day of the election. But that's a big "IF".
Clinton's campaign team is slowly pushing a more positive image of her, starting at the convention, where she was shown in her promotional clip sitting at a kitchen table in a simple blue and white-striped blouse, which gave her a much softer look. (Why haven't we seen even one photo of Trump in a casual polo shirt addressing people on the campaign trail? He is the least-imaginative dresser I've ever seen.) Clinton's team is stressing that she is family-oriented, and that can only help her image.
The presidential debates will allow America to see Trump and Clinton next to each other on the same stage. Clinton doesn't lose her focus or get rattled at questions or comments from her opponent. She has stood up to many world dictators, so there is no reason to think she won't stand up to Trump during the debates. That is when the country will be able to evaluate which candidate looks more presidential. I will keep this reason's weight at "4" now, but it could come down during the debates. Certainly it would be "8" or higher if she were running against any other candidate, one who didn't have such an image problem of his own.
(10) What Draws People To Hillary (now: 5, last time: 8, would be: 10)? One thing Hillary Clinton has done since January is emerge as her own candidate, embracing the accomplishments of Barack Obama, but focusing on what she would do next as president. It doesn't matter whether the issues will pass Congress or how they would be paid for, just as it doesn't matter how a wall between Mexico and America would be paid for. All campaigns are filled with promises, rather than true solutions to problems.
What people hear now from Clinton are progressive ideas--a $15 minimum wage, free college tuition, paid family leave, increased taxes on the very rich. If Trump were to focus on true conservative values, rather than pandering to people's fears, the weighting on this reason would still be at least "8". Clinton is speaking to people's hopes, while Trump is speaking to their fears. Some people are drawn to fear, but most are hopeful by nature, regardless who is president. A more traditional Republican candidate, such as Paul Ryan, would focus almost entirely on hope for the future.
Another unexpected boost for Clinton has been Trump's reckless comments related to national security--placing nuclear weapons in more countries, cozying up to Putin, backing away from NATO. Clinton has stressed more treaties with countries, standing pat against Putin and getting closer to our NATO allies. Clinton was a tough Secretary of State, and her toughness has shone through on foreign policy issues, disregarding the fact that Trump has paved the way for her. People are drawn to a strong leader, not a reckless one.
The trick for Hillary Clinton's campaign is to keep her away from the temptation of engaging Trump on a lower level. I have no doubt that she could go toe to toe with Trump, but that won't draw people to her. I'm still going to weight this reason as a "5", although I could defend lowering it further.
(11) (Bonus Reason) Rising Interest Rates - Economy Woes (now: 2, last time: 9, would be: 5). The United States economy is probably the best economy in the world right now. Job numbers were very good for July, following a spectacular June. The Fed has been overly cautious about raising interest rates, but I believe they will be raised one more time this year--too late for that event to impact the election.
But what has really impacted the weighting of this reason is how little Trump understands and talks about the economy. He wants to redo the tax code and lower taxes for everyone, but he speaks mostly about corporate tax codes and estate taxes, rather than focusing on how lower taxes would help individuals. Changing the estate tax would help 2 people out of every 1000--not exactly a boon for the middle class. Clinton hasn't had to even mention how Trump's plans would damage the economy and families. Any other Republican candidate would focus more on the economy (and thus garner a higher rating).
Trump has also short-circuited his promise that he'd bring jobs home to America, because he has his own trademark products made in other countries. Trump Ties are made in China, for instance. The Democrats started broadcasting that fact, and suddenly Trump talked much less about bringing jobs home to America.
If job growth remains moderate and the unemployment rate stays around 5%, the economy will not be a daunting issue for Clinton in this campaign.
Summary. Of a possible 110 points, the cumulative weighting in January was down to 90, and with Trump as the candidate, the cumulative weighting now is down much further to 43. If any other candidate were the nominee for the Republicans, the weighting would be 88.
The two party conventions were starkly different. Each nominee will always enjoy a bump in the polls after his or her own party's convention, but Trump's bump in the polls was half as much and briefer than Clinton's bump. Much of the Republican convention stressed the policies of exclusion--building a wall, tougher trade policies, reducing our Nato committments--while much of the Democratic convention stressed policies of inclusion--higher minimum wage, free college tuition, immigration reform, LGBT rights. The contention between Clinton and Sanders supporters was healthy for the party and worked to their mutual benefit. Those factions came together in compromise over a party platform I never thought I'd see.
When I look at Donald Trump's candidacy, it is difficult to rationalize a cumulative weighting as high as 43, but there are still issues that threaten Hillary Clinton's run for the Presidency. She is not well-liked when she is highlighted alone in the press, but her appearance beside Donald Trump in the debates should provide a more stark comparison. America's addiction to guns, fear of ISIS, the inconsistency of liberal voters, and Hillary's continued shaky image will be her four main challenges, I believe.
This is the last in a series of articles on ten reasons why I thought the Republicans would win in 2016. In any normal presidential year, I believe it would be a shoo-in for the Republicans. There have not been three consecutive terms of office for Democrats since the 1940's. People are scared of ISIS, love their guns and still prefer men over women for important jobs. But this is no normal year in our country's history.
No comments:
Post a Comment