The General Election

Voters who switched from Obama to Trump were decisive, here's a good analysis: 

There are questions and details still up for debate: whether Democrats can win back these voters, and how to think about and frame the decline in black turnout. But postelection surveys, pre-election surveys, voter file data and the actual results all support the main story: The voters who switched from President Obama to Mr. Trump were decisive.

...

A separate analysis from the voter study group found that many of these voters are Republicans whom the Democrats can’t win back. That question — whether the Democrats can lure these Obama voters back — is the important one.
Click to expand...

 
All that information confirms to me that there were a significant amount of people who voted democrat before (Obama or Sanders) who absolutely couldn't vote for Hillary.  Pretty much confirms that she was just that horrible of a candidate.

 
BigRedBuster said:
All that information confirms to me that there were a significant amount of people who voted democrat before (Obama or Sanders) who absolutely couldn't vote for Hillary.  Pretty much confirms that she was just that horrible of a candidate.
Click to expand...
I think you're right, but I'd also add that disillusionment with the Dem party may have also had an effect. It's anecdotal, but I know a lot of 2008 Obama voters who are really disappointed in how little he accomplished from his campaign promises.

 
True, and that was exacerbated with the Sanders voters when it came out that the party was against him from the beginning.

The Republicans were in a total sh#t show with Trump.  All the Dems needed to do was to put up a candidate that wasn't extremely divisive and came with a ton of baggage.  They crapped the bed and this is what we ended up with.

 
I've noticed something about presidential elections.

Charisma above all. Almost all presidents since I've been alive - and some beforehand - have checked this box. The only one that didn't come off as charismatic IMO was HW. Think about it:

Trump: Hugely polarizing, but clearly more charismatic to the voting public than Clinton. He was greatly aided by an outsider, populist image in a greatly anti-politician/anti-establishment era.

Obama: Oozed charisma. Nuff said.

W: I've heard lots of people describe him as "a guy I'd like to have a beer with." He was aided by Gore coming off as bookish and somewhat elitist during debates and of course, Kerry got swiftboated.

Clinton: First black president. Played his sax on national TV. Young, fresh politician compared to four more years of HW. He got impeached for sexual impropriety, and his approval ratings went up.

HW: Doesn't really check this box. Rode Reagan's coattails into office and the fact he lost to Clinton helps bolster the argument he wasn't necessarily charismatic enough to win.

Reagan: Hugely popular. Still worshiped in some circles as the pinnacle of Conservative America.

Carter: Still a likeable guy and represented a clean, ethical start after the final term of Nixon. Ford was also kind of a bore, which helped.

That's all the further I care to take back this hypothesis. But you see my point. Correct me if any of these points are wrong... I'm operating on secondhand knowledge and my own impressions for a lot of these. In the cases where charisma was questionable, winners were aided by a weak opponent in that regard.

As for Trump... In terms of pure partisans: The GOP base is clinging tightly. Democrats will never go for him in any meaningful numbers.

I just saw a story today saying his approval rating among Independents is steadily declining since January. He started out just above water with them overall, and he's down to -21 with them. He is hovering consistently right around net 0 approval for his handling on the economy, however. They used YouGov polling numbers, which get a solid B on 538's rankings. Here is the article if you're interested.

Other polls I've seen seem to have Indies having about a 1:2 approval-disapproval numbers on a lot of topics. Overall, he seems to be losing ground there.

As it pertains to this discussion, as Red pointed out, Indies or swing voters are key. Base turnout will be there, and candidates will need to juice it. But you win elections on persuadable voters that could go either way. Insofar as Obama-Trump voters, they both voted for a change candidate who made changing Washington a central part of their campaign. Given the right track-wrong track numbers, change messages generally sell very well at the presidential level.

IF Trump's ratings continue to trend the way they are, he'll be pretty dang unpopular in 2020. As far as I'm concerned, if the Dems run a charismatic candidate with a change message (youth could help in this regard), they've got a very good shot at knocking him off. A young candidate could compare favorably with the septuagenarian Trump. In addition, usurping the change message from Trump and turning him into the status quo candidate would be powerful. 

The Democrats problems are more systemic and prevalent at the state/Congressional level, IMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We can look at all of the Obama and Sanders voters switching but the key is, they should have had a sane choice to switch to instead of someone recycled from the loony tune bin. 

Therefore, I hold Repub primary voters ultimately responsible - esp in those early cross over primaries where Trump got the momentum.  If the Repubs had chosen Kasich, Rubio, Paul or even Ted Cruz we would not be in this mess (well maybe wt Cruz but not so deep- I think he'd be pretty divisive but not as much). Hillary probably would have lost to any of the first 3 and possibly against Cruz since she was so unlikeable.    A Kasich/Rubio ticket would have been pretty amazing in my book or Rand Paul as VP. 

 
dudeguyy said:
Charisma above all. Almost all presidents since I've been alive - and some beforehand - have checked this box. The only one that didn't come off as charismatic IMO was HW
Click to expand...
In regards to this, prior to 1960 wt the advent of TV politics one could be boring and win.   JFK got this.  Nixon lost the TV debates not so much on content but on the fact he was seen sweating on TV.  JFK looked calm, cool and yes, he presented a shift - from old politicians (Ike, Truman, FDR before him) to young and energetic. The Dems had run old Stevenson 2x against Ike and lost. They got the message and got that young senator from Mass to run.   Nixon wasn't particularly old in 1960 but older than Kennedy and the sweating on TV, first TV debate ever, reinforced youth and energy of JFK. 

The Dems would be smart to dump the idea of Warren and go wt someone younger like Booker  or Kamala Harris.   Republicans with a vision (and a brain) should push Rubio, Paul or Evan McMullin or anyone younger than Trump to oppose Trump in the primaries. It would be easy to do - Trump has given the repubs amble reason to challenge him in the primaries.  My wish is that 2020 just be a do over wt no Clinton, no Bush, No Trump.  Trump, If not ousted or resigned by then, chooses not to run (although his campaign is already going for 2020) or is pressured by repubs not to run.  

OK I'll boldly step out now and predict:   2020 will be a youth movement with younger candidates on both sides as the party nominees. :o

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TGHusker said:
We can look at all of the Obama and Sanders voters switching but the key is, they should have had a sane choice to switch to instead of someone recycled from the loony tune bin. 

Therefore, I hold Repub primary voters ultimately responsible - esp in those early cross over primaries where Trump got the momentum.  If the Repubs had chosen Kasich, Rubio, Paul or even Ted Cruz we would not be in this mess (well maybe wt Cruz but not so deep- I think he'd be pretty divisive but not as much). Hillary probably would have lost to any of the first 3 and possibly against Cruz since she was so unlikeable.    A Kasich/Rubio ticket would have been pretty amazing in my book or Rand Paul as VP. 
Click to expand...
That's who I blame the most.

 
I'm saddened that the # isn't below 50%.  See underlined and bold

http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/playbook/2017/08/24/scoop-andy-hemming-out-at-wh-trumps-heated-calls-with-senators-the-juice-perry-bringing-family-and-friends-on-trip-abroad-risa-heller-drops-kushner-cos-as-a-client-jay-solomons-new-job-222038

Happy Thursday. AN INTERESTING DATAPOINT -- TONY FABRIZIO, whom the Trump campaign paid $1.29 million last year, released polling on Twitter yesterday about the president’s standing against other Republicans. 54% of definite GOP primary voters would vote for Trump, 13% would vote for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and 10% would vote for John Kasich. JUST 49% say they’d definitely vote for Trump. 20% of definite GOP voters are undecided. FEWER THAN 60% OF REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS want Trump to be the nominee again in 2020, and it’s August 2017. This poll is measuring against a field -- it’s not head to head. The poll http://politi.co/2vYRTuH

 
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
Bill Clinton was black?
Click to expand...


http://www.npr.org/2016/03/01/468185698/understanding-the-clintons-popularity-with-black-voters

Why Black Voters Loved Bill

In fact, history has misunderstood that "first black president" idea, as Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote last year. Author Toni Morrison later said she was trying to talk not about Clinton's popularity with black voters but his treatment in the public arena, especially following the Monica Lewisnky scandal ("I said he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp").

But history has decided that the quote is a compliment — a way to talk about Clinton's popularity with black voters. And that popularity, at least, is undisputed. In 1992, the New York Times editorial board, reflecting on the fact that Clinton won 75 percent of the black vote on Super Tuesday, gushed about America's advances against racism:


"Governor Clinton may or may not go on to win the Democratic nomination, and he may or may not give President Bush a hard run in the fall. But either way, that one figure gives healthy evidence, probably for the first time since Robert Kennedy's Indiana primary campaign in 1968, that it is politically possible to bring poor blacks and blue-collar white voters together. It is finally possible for Americans to transcend racial division and look instead to mutual interest."
Click to expand...



 
If we can't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. So many people in so many stages contributed to this by making the wrong choice. Some of them know better by now. Others would do it again if we had to re-do it.

Don't blame others; look inward. It's not up to some other party to serve up the best, or even a good candidate (though that would be nice). Faced with this kind of choice, there is always one right answer. If we fail to realize this, we'll continue find throwaway excuses such as "politics sucks", "politicians suck", "____ is the worst candidate ever", etc -- and continue to be vulnerable to electing people like Donald Trump.

 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/sunday/donald-was-a-creep-too-bad-hillary-couldnt-say-it.html?mcubz=0

It’s comforting, in the way a little smug superiority can feel comforting when it tamps down any nagging inclination to consider our own accountability, to conclude that if only this one woman had behaved a little differently, we would have respected her more, or at least hated her less. ...

While the news media was obsessing over emails and deplorables and scandals amounting to little more than innuendo, and while voters were shrugging that Mrs. Clinton just didn’t seem honest or relatable, a shameless misogynist was unabashedly and loudly firing up deep sexual and racial biases to catapult himself into the White House. He stalked a woman onstage while we all watched, and then he won the election. Now we expect her to be very sorry.

Perhaps it’s not just Hillary Clinton who should be thinking about what she could have done differently.
 
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hillary just needs to fade into the background. She was and is a terrible politician and stuff like this is just going to make her even more disliked. Last polling I saw had Hillary as even less popular than Trump.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top