Don’t Be So Sure Hillary Clinton Will Crush Donald Trump
What if an ideologically fluid celebrity candidate has changed the rules of the game?
BY ELSPETH REEVE
March 16, 2016
Every presidential election is just like all the other ones until it’s not. The many people who predicted Donald Trump would flame out in the Republican primary aren’t idiots; mostly their predictions were based on past primaries. Many people are now predicting Trump will be destroyed in the general election. This is based on reams of voter surveys and demographic data from past elections. But what if everyone is repeating the same mistake?
In August, Nate Silver predicted Donald Trump was doomed to be a blip, just like Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann in 2012, or perhaps Mike Huckabee in 2008. Almost exactly four years earlier, Republicans were passing around a slideshow noting that no president had been reelected when the consumer confidence index was below 75, and it was at 55.7. (It rose to a mere 72.2 a few days before President Barack Obama was reelected.) Until Obama, no Democrat from outside the South had been elected president since 1960. There arecountless examples of rock-solid election laws that suddenly crumbled.
Since just after the 2012 election, political punditry has been almost Calvinist in its certainty about 2016: The electorate was predestined to have a particular demographic makeup, and each demographic group would turn out and vote a particular way, and the math added up to Republicans being toast. It wouldn’t matter much whether the GOP candidate was Chris Christie or Scott Walker or Jeb Bush, because voters’ views of the parties were set.
But what if the candidacy of Donald Trump is so weird and new and different that it can actually change all that? Last summer, one of the few people who bet big on Trump winning the GOP nomination and the election was a British Scientologist. Of course a Scientologist would understand the power of celebrity in America—the church has long used movie stars to get people to do something even harder than switch parties: switch religions. John Mappin, who bet almost $10,000 on Trump and could win $100,000 come November, explained, “His rise marks a paradigm shift in media, really ... What I could see was that the pundits in America hadn’t woken up to that.” Mappin continued, “People say, ‘Well, this is ridiculous, he’s a reality TV show star.’ But hang on, he’s an icon. He can use his power as an icon to attract attention. We’ve moved into a new media age, which is the age of icon control. And somebody with a Twitter account has effectively more power, perhaps unjustly, than somebody who perhaps has been sincerely working their whole life doing something really, really good.”
What’s the evidence Democratic voters will be more immune to the power of celebrity than Republican voters? Perhaps the strongest such evidence is the phenomenon of negative partisanship—increasingly, people vote against the party they hate instead of for the party they like. Last summer, political scientists at Emory University published a paper showing that while people are more likely to call themselves independent, they are also more likely to vote straight ticket. In a Junepost at Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball, Emory’s Alan I. Abramowitz and Steven Webster explained:“Between 2000 and 2012 the proportion of positive partisans—voters who liked their own party more than they disliked the opposing party—fell from 61 percent to 38 percent while the proportion of negative partisans—voters who disliked the opposing party more than they liked their own party—rose from 20 percent to 42 percent.”
It would only get worse in 2016, Abramowitz and Webster wrote, “given the deep divisions between Democrats and Republicans over issues ranging from immigration and health care to climate change and same-sex marriage.” Further, they added, “We can predict with a high degree of confidence that party loyalty will be very strong in next year’s elections.”
Nine months ago, in other words, hate-voting seemed like a recipe for stability. But what if it’s the opposite? What if a candidate came along and did something crazy, like change some of his party’s positions? There was a curious result in a recent Wall Street Journal poll: Only 8 percent of all voters think Trump “represents the values and positions of the Republican Party.” For Democratic-leaning voters, maybe that’s not more to love, but at least less to hate.
In the weeks before the Massachusetts primary, almost 20,000 Democrats changed their registration to Republican or independent, which a state official called a product of “the Trump effect.” In Pennsylvania, 46,000 Democrats switched to Republicans in 2016. Onlyhalf that number of Republicans have become Democrats (though more independents became Democrats than became Republicans). NBC Miami reports that in early 2016, “Florida saw Republican Party registration increase by 67,065 while Democratic Party registration increased by 34,943 and independent voters decreased 27,721.”
Mark Munroe, chairman of the Republican Party in Mahoning County, Ohio, said last week that he got calls every day from Democrats wanting to vote in the GOP primary. “And nine times out of 10, or 19 out of 20, you get the sense they are doing so because they want to vote for Trump,” Munroe said. Trump, he said, is “getting Democrats to cross over ... but he’s also getting a large number of unaffiliated voters—people who don’t participate in primaries.” (Munroe supports John Kasich.)
According to Pew Research Center, 2016 primary turnout rivals that of 2008. For Republicans, it’s the highest since at least 1980, a projected 17.3 million voters, and more than five million more than projected turnout on the Democratic side. As a column in The Hill recently noted, there’s no historic correlation between high turnout in the primaries and high turnout in the general. But the column also noted that people who pay less attention to the election are likely to sit out the primary and vote in the general. Isn’t it possible those less engaged voters might find Trump’s celebrity appealing? In July 2008, John McCain attacked Obama for being a “celebrity”—then he picked Sarah Palin to be his VP.
Last week, Politico reported that Republican donors expect Trump to lose the general election, and so contributors are “forking over piles of money to contain down-ballot collateral damage from a potential Trump nomination.” On a Politico podcast released Monday,Hillary Clinton pollster Joel Benenson said that if Trump is the Republican nominee, he could potentially expand the swing state map for Democrats, putting places like Arizona in play.
Benenson dismissed the idea that Trump could have a path to the White House through the Rust Belt. “What’s the evidence of it? The evidence of it, they’ve turned out a lot of people,” Benenson said. Romney won Rust Belt primaries too, and then lost them in the general. Trump, he said, “doesn’t have a message that appeals to these folks. It’s not real.”
Primary results thus far suggest that Trump appeals to at least some of the folks Benenson is referring to. His strongest constituency is whites without a college degree. If you look at FiveThirtyEight’s great interactive on what demographic changes would flip states from blue to red, you can see it takes a significant but not unfathomable increase in non-college educated white Republican votes to swing the election.
FiveThirtyEightFor a long time, liberals have been asking what’s the matter with Kansas—why do so many working-class whites vote against their economic self-interest? Obama infamously suggested they were clinging to white identity politics. It now seems crazy it took so long for a guy to come along and combine the two. Donald Trump trashes immigrants but says we shouldn’t let people die in the streets without health care.
A recent Atlantic Media/Pearson Opportunity poll finds that Americans think the biggest obstacles to “achieving your personal goals in life so far” are slow wage growth, few local jobs, and their lack of education. A large majority thinks they could make more money if they had more education, but they can’t afford to invest in it. The “central conundrum” of this poll, The Atlantic’s Ronald Brownstein writes, is that “those who might benefit the most from more education and training often feel least equipped, for cost and other reasons, to obtain it.”
Trump offers them someone to blame for the barriers to their economic success—immigrants, Wall Street, companies that move factories overseas. And even though he’s a billionaire who got his start with the help of his millionaire dad, and who wears different colors of hats to signal his mood to his butler, he talks like them. He makes jokes like them, he’s not polished and prim. He brags about being a winner and makes them feel like winners, too. Trump can give them something to vote for, instead of pointing to the other party as a monster to vote against.
To be sure, Trump has historically high unfavorable ratings for a general election candidate. He could end up turning out high numbers of Democrats who find him disgusting. Clinton has held a lead over Trump in national polling averages for six months. But his “ceiling” of support has slowly inched upward, and he hit 50 percent support among Republicans for the first time in one poll this week. While Clinton admits she’s not a natural politician, Trump delivers his stump speech like a comedian, playing to the mood and rhythm of the crowd. And unlike most Republicans, Trump can attack Clinton for her ties to Wall Street, the source of so much anger across party lines.
Will Donald Trump crush Hillary Clinton in the general election? Probably not. But instead of having the worst chance among all Republicans to beat her, maybe he has the best.
Elspeth Reeve is a senior editor at the New Republic.
@elspethreeve
What if an ideologically fluid celebrity candidate has changed the rules of the game?
BY ELSPETH REEVE
March 16, 2016
Every presidential election is just like all the other ones until it’s not. The many people who predicted Donald Trump would flame out in the Republican primary aren’t idiots; mostly their predictions were based on past primaries. Many people are now predicting Trump will be destroyed in the general election. This is based on reams of voter surveys and demographic data from past elections. But what if everyone is repeating the same mistake?
In August, Nate Silver predicted Donald Trump was doomed to be a blip, just like Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann in 2012, or perhaps Mike Huckabee in 2008. Almost exactly four years earlier, Republicans were passing around a slideshow noting that no president had been reelected when the consumer confidence index was below 75, and it was at 55.7. (It rose to a mere 72.2 a few days before President Barack Obama was reelected.) Until Obama, no Democrat from outside the South had been elected president since 1960. There arecountless examples of rock-solid election laws that suddenly crumbled.
Since just after the 2012 election, political punditry has been almost Calvinist in its certainty about 2016: The electorate was predestined to have a particular demographic makeup, and each demographic group would turn out and vote a particular way, and the math added up to Republicans being toast. It wouldn’t matter much whether the GOP candidate was Chris Christie or Scott Walker or Jeb Bush, because voters’ views of the parties were set.
But what if the candidacy of Donald Trump is so weird and new and different that it can actually change all that? Last summer, one of the few people who bet big on Trump winning the GOP nomination and the election was a British Scientologist. Of course a Scientologist would understand the power of celebrity in America—the church has long used movie stars to get people to do something even harder than switch parties: switch religions. John Mappin, who bet almost $10,000 on Trump and could win $100,000 come November, explained, “His rise marks a paradigm shift in media, really ... What I could see was that the pundits in America hadn’t woken up to that.” Mappin continued, “People say, ‘Well, this is ridiculous, he’s a reality TV show star.’ But hang on, he’s an icon. He can use his power as an icon to attract attention. We’ve moved into a new media age, which is the age of icon control. And somebody with a Twitter account has effectively more power, perhaps unjustly, than somebody who perhaps has been sincerely working their whole life doing something really, really good.”
What’s the evidence Democratic voters will be more immune to the power of celebrity than Republican voters? Perhaps the strongest such evidence is the phenomenon of negative partisanship—increasingly, people vote against the party they hate instead of for the party they like. Last summer, political scientists at Emory University published a paper showing that while people are more likely to call themselves independent, they are also more likely to vote straight ticket. In a Junepost at Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball, Emory’s Alan I. Abramowitz and Steven Webster explained:“Between 2000 and 2012 the proportion of positive partisans—voters who liked their own party more than they disliked the opposing party—fell from 61 percent to 38 percent while the proportion of negative partisans—voters who disliked the opposing party more than they liked their own party—rose from 20 percent to 42 percent.”
It would only get worse in 2016, Abramowitz and Webster wrote, “given the deep divisions between Democrats and Republicans over issues ranging from immigration and health care to climate change and same-sex marriage.” Further, they added, “We can predict with a high degree of confidence that party loyalty will be very strong in next year’s elections.”
Nine months ago, in other words, hate-voting seemed like a recipe for stability. But what if it’s the opposite? What if a candidate came along and did something crazy, like change some of his party’s positions? There was a curious result in a recent Wall Street Journal poll: Only 8 percent of all voters think Trump “represents the values and positions of the Republican Party.” For Democratic-leaning voters, maybe that’s not more to love, but at least less to hate.
In the weeks before the Massachusetts primary, almost 20,000 Democrats changed their registration to Republican or independent, which a state official called a product of “the Trump effect.” In Pennsylvania, 46,000 Democrats switched to Republicans in 2016. Onlyhalf that number of Republicans have become Democrats (though more independents became Democrats than became Republicans). NBC Miami reports that in early 2016, “Florida saw Republican Party registration increase by 67,065 while Democratic Party registration increased by 34,943 and independent voters decreased 27,721.”
Mark Munroe, chairman of the Republican Party in Mahoning County, Ohio, said last week that he got calls every day from Democrats wanting to vote in the GOP primary. “And nine times out of 10, or 19 out of 20, you get the sense they are doing so because they want to vote for Trump,” Munroe said. Trump, he said, is “getting Democrats to cross over ... but he’s also getting a large number of unaffiliated voters—people who don’t participate in primaries.” (Munroe supports John Kasich.)
According to Pew Research Center, 2016 primary turnout rivals that of 2008. For Republicans, it’s the highest since at least 1980, a projected 17.3 million voters, and more than five million more than projected turnout on the Democratic side. As a column in The Hill recently noted, there’s no historic correlation between high turnout in the primaries and high turnout in the general. But the column also noted that people who pay less attention to the election are likely to sit out the primary and vote in the general. Isn’t it possible those less engaged voters might find Trump’s celebrity appealing? In July 2008, John McCain attacked Obama for being a “celebrity”—then he picked Sarah Palin to be his VP.
Last week, Politico reported that Republican donors expect Trump to lose the general election, and so contributors are “forking over piles of money to contain down-ballot collateral damage from a potential Trump nomination.” On a Politico podcast released Monday,Hillary Clinton pollster Joel Benenson said that if Trump is the Republican nominee, he could potentially expand the swing state map for Democrats, putting places like Arizona in play.
Benenson dismissed the idea that Trump could have a path to the White House through the Rust Belt. “What’s the evidence of it? The evidence of it, they’ve turned out a lot of people,” Benenson said. Romney won Rust Belt primaries too, and then lost them in the general. Trump, he said, “doesn’t have a message that appeals to these folks. It’s not real.”
Primary results thus far suggest that Trump appeals to at least some of the folks Benenson is referring to. His strongest constituency is whites without a college degree. If you look at FiveThirtyEight’s great interactive on what demographic changes would flip states from blue to red, you can see it takes a significant but not unfathomable increase in non-college educated white Republican votes to swing the election.
FiveThirtyEightFor a long time, liberals have been asking what’s the matter with Kansas—why do so many working-class whites vote against their economic self-interest? Obama infamously suggested they were clinging to white identity politics. It now seems crazy it took so long for a guy to come along and combine the two. Donald Trump trashes immigrants but says we shouldn’t let people die in the streets without health care.
A recent Atlantic Media/Pearson Opportunity poll finds that Americans think the biggest obstacles to “achieving your personal goals in life so far” are slow wage growth, few local jobs, and their lack of education. A large majority thinks they could make more money if they had more education, but they can’t afford to invest in it. The “central conundrum” of this poll, The Atlantic’s Ronald Brownstein writes, is that “those who might benefit the most from more education and training often feel least equipped, for cost and other reasons, to obtain it.”
Trump offers them someone to blame for the barriers to their economic success—immigrants, Wall Street, companies that move factories overseas. And even though he’s a billionaire who got his start with the help of his millionaire dad, and who wears different colors of hats to signal his mood to his butler, he talks like them. He makes jokes like them, he’s not polished and prim. He brags about being a winner and makes them feel like winners, too. Trump can give them something to vote for, instead of pointing to the other party as a monster to vote against.
To be sure, Trump has historically high unfavorable ratings for a general election candidate. He could end up turning out high numbers of Democrats who find him disgusting. Clinton has held a lead over Trump in national polling averages for six months. But his “ceiling” of support has slowly inched upward, and he hit 50 percent support among Republicans for the first time in one poll this week. While Clinton admits she’s not a natural politician, Trump delivers his stump speech like a comedian, playing to the mood and rhythm of the crowd. And unlike most Republicans, Trump can attack Clinton for her ties to Wall Street, the source of so much anger across party lines.
Will Donald Trump crush Hillary Clinton in the general election? Probably not. But instead of having the worst chance among all Republicans to beat her, maybe he has the best.
Elspeth Reeve is a senior editor at the New Republic.
@elspethreeve
- APRIL 16, 2016 -
HOW TRUMP CAN LOCK UP GOP NOMINATION BEFORE THE CONVENTION
ABC News
To all the political junkies yearning for a contested Republican convention this summer: not so fast.
It's still possible for Donald Trump to clinch the nomination by the end of the primaries on June 7. His path is narrow and perilous. But it's plausible and starts with a big victory Tuesday in his home state New York primary.
Trump is the only candidate with a realistic chance of reaching the 1,237 delegates needed to clinch the nomination before the July convention in Cleveland. His rivals, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, can only hope to stop him.
If Cruz and Kasich are successful, politicos across the country will have the summer of their dreams — a convention with an uncertain outcome. But Trump can put an end to those dreams, and he can do it without any of the 150 or so delegates who will go to the convention free to support the candidate of their choice.
What comes next isn't a prediction, but rather, a way in which Trump could win the nomination outright on June 7.
To be sure, Trump will have to start doing a lot better than he has so far. He gets that chance starting Tuesday, beginning the day with 744 delegates.
———
NEW YORK
There are 95 delegates at stake in the Empire State, and it's important for Trump to win a big majority of them. It won't be easy.
There are 14 statewide delegates and three delegates in each congressional district.
If a candidate gets more than 50 percent of the statewide vote, he gets all 14 delegates. Otherwise, he has to share them with other candidates.
If a candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote in a congressional district, he gets all three delegates. Otherwise, again, he has to share.
Trump leads statewide in the most recent preference polls, with right around 50 percent. New York is a large and diverse state, so he probably won't win all the congressional districts.
Let's say Trump does make it to 50 percent, but Kasich or Cruz wins five congressional districts; Trump will take 77 delegates on the night.
Trump's running total: 821 delegates.
———
APRIL 26
Five states have primaries on April 26, with 172 delegates at stake: Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland and Rhode Island.
Pennsylvania could be trouble for Trump. The state has a unique system in which 54 delegates — three from each congressional district — are listed by name on the ballot, with no information for voters to know which candidate they support.
That means even if Trump wins Pennsylvania, he's only guaranteed to claim 17 of the state's 71 delegates.
Connecticut awards 13 delegates to the statewide winner and three to the winner of each congressional district, for a total of 28. The New York real estate mogul needs to win his neighboring state. If he does well, he could get 22 delegates.
Delaware's 16 delegates are winner-take-all, increasing the importance of this small state. If Trump loses Delaware, he has to make it up elsewhere.
Maryland awards 14 delegates to the statewide winner and three to the winner of each congressional district, for a total of 38. Recent polls show Trump with a significant lead. If he does well, he could get 32 delegates.
Trump can afford to lose Rhode Island, which awards its 19 delegates proportionally.
In all, it's a day on which we'll say Trump claims 93 delegates.
Trump's running total: 914.
———
MAY
Five states hold contests in May, with a total of 199 delegates at stake: Indiana, Nebraska, West Virginia, Oregon and Washington State.
Indiana's May 3 primary is important for Trump. The state awards 30 delegates to the statewide winner and three delegates to the winner of each congressional district, for a total of 57. If Trump can win the state and a majority of the congressional districts, he could collect 45 delegates.
West Virginia is another unique state in which voters elect 31 delegates in the May 10 primary. In West Virginia, however, the delegates will be listed on the ballot along with the presidential candidate they support. If Trump does well here, he could pick up 20 or more delegates.
Nebraska's 36 delegates are winner-take-all. But if Nebraska is like its neighbors Kansas and Iowa, two states Cruz won earlier in the race, Trump can't count on these delegates.
Oregon and Washington state award delegates proportionally, so even the losers get some.
We'll give Trump 70 delegates for the month.
Trump's running total: 984.
———
JUNE 7
This could be Trump's D-Day. Or his Waterloo.
Five states vote on June 7, with 303 delegates up for grabs. The biggest prize is California, along with New Jersey, South Dakota, Montana and New Mexico.
The only state Trump can afford to lose is New Mexico, which awards 24 delegates proportionally.
New Jersey, South Dakota and Montana are winner-take-all, with a total of 107 delegates.
California is more complicated, with 172 delegates at stake. The statewide winner gets only 13. The other 159 are awarded according to the results in individual congressional districts.
Each of the state's 53 congressional districts has three delegates. You win the district, you get all three.
For Trump to clinch the nomination on June 7 — the last day of the primary season — he has to win a big majority of California's congressional districts. If he wins 39 districts, he gets 130 delegates.
On the last voting day of the primary campaign, we'll say Trump wins 242 delegates.
Trump's running total: 1,226 — or 11 delegates short of the magic number.
———
OH, WAIT!
Missouri has certified the results of its March 15 primary, with Trump beating Cruz by 1,965 votes. If the results survive a potential recount, Trump wins Missouri and another 12 delegates.
Trump's total: 1,238.
Cue the balloons.
HOW TRUMP CAN LOCK UP GOP NOMINATION BEFORE THE CONVENTION
ABC News
To all the political junkies yearning for a contested Republican convention this summer: not so fast.
It's still possible for Donald Trump to clinch the nomination by the end of the primaries on June 7. His path is narrow and perilous. But it's plausible and starts with a big victory Tuesday in his home state New York primary.
Trump is the only candidate with a realistic chance of reaching the 1,237 delegates needed to clinch the nomination before the July convention in Cleveland. His rivals, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, can only hope to stop him.
If Cruz and Kasich are successful, politicos across the country will have the summer of their dreams — a convention with an uncertain outcome. But Trump can put an end to those dreams, and he can do it without any of the 150 or so delegates who will go to the convention free to support the candidate of their choice.
What comes next isn't a prediction, but rather, a way in which Trump could win the nomination outright on June 7.
To be sure, Trump will have to start doing a lot better than he has so far. He gets that chance starting Tuesday, beginning the day with 744 delegates.
———
NEW YORK
There are 95 delegates at stake in the Empire State, and it's important for Trump to win a big majority of them. It won't be easy.
There are 14 statewide delegates and three delegates in each congressional district.
If a candidate gets more than 50 percent of the statewide vote, he gets all 14 delegates. Otherwise, he has to share them with other candidates.
If a candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote in a congressional district, he gets all three delegates. Otherwise, again, he has to share.
Trump leads statewide in the most recent preference polls, with right around 50 percent. New York is a large and diverse state, so he probably won't win all the congressional districts.
Let's say Trump does make it to 50 percent, but Kasich or Cruz wins five congressional districts; Trump will take 77 delegates on the night.
Trump's running total: 821 delegates.
———
APRIL 26
Five states have primaries on April 26, with 172 delegates at stake: Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland and Rhode Island.
Pennsylvania could be trouble for Trump. The state has a unique system in which 54 delegates — three from each congressional district — are listed by name on the ballot, with no information for voters to know which candidate they support.
That means even if Trump wins Pennsylvania, he's only guaranteed to claim 17 of the state's 71 delegates.
Connecticut awards 13 delegates to the statewide winner and three to the winner of each congressional district, for a total of 28. The New York real estate mogul needs to win his neighboring state. If he does well, he could get 22 delegates.
Delaware's 16 delegates are winner-take-all, increasing the importance of this small state. If Trump loses Delaware, he has to make it up elsewhere.
Maryland awards 14 delegates to the statewide winner and three to the winner of each congressional district, for a total of 38. Recent polls show Trump with a significant lead. If he does well, he could get 32 delegates.
Trump can afford to lose Rhode Island, which awards its 19 delegates proportionally.
In all, it's a day on which we'll say Trump claims 93 delegates.
Trump's running total: 914.
———
MAY
Five states hold contests in May, with a total of 199 delegates at stake: Indiana, Nebraska, West Virginia, Oregon and Washington State.
Indiana's May 3 primary is important for Trump. The state awards 30 delegates to the statewide winner and three delegates to the winner of each congressional district, for a total of 57. If Trump can win the state and a majority of the congressional districts, he could collect 45 delegates.
West Virginia is another unique state in which voters elect 31 delegates in the May 10 primary. In West Virginia, however, the delegates will be listed on the ballot along with the presidential candidate they support. If Trump does well here, he could pick up 20 or more delegates.
Nebraska's 36 delegates are winner-take-all. But if Nebraska is like its neighbors Kansas and Iowa, two states Cruz won earlier in the race, Trump can't count on these delegates.
Oregon and Washington state award delegates proportionally, so even the losers get some.
We'll give Trump 70 delegates for the month.
Trump's running total: 984.
———
JUNE 7
This could be Trump's D-Day. Or his Waterloo.
Five states vote on June 7, with 303 delegates up for grabs. The biggest prize is California, along with New Jersey, South Dakota, Montana and New Mexico.
The only state Trump can afford to lose is New Mexico, which awards 24 delegates proportionally.
New Jersey, South Dakota and Montana are winner-take-all, with a total of 107 delegates.
California is more complicated, with 172 delegates at stake. The statewide winner gets only 13. The other 159 are awarded according to the results in individual congressional districts.
Each of the state's 53 congressional districts has three delegates. You win the district, you get all three.
For Trump to clinch the nomination on June 7 — the last day of the primary season — he has to win a big majority of California's congressional districts. If he wins 39 districts, he gets 130 delegates.
On the last voting day of the primary campaign, we'll say Trump wins 242 delegates.
Trump's running total: 1,226 — or 11 delegates short of the magic number.
———
OH, WAIT!
Missouri has certified the results of its March 15 primary, with Trump beating Cruz by 1,965 votes. If the results survive a potential recount, Trump wins Missouri and another 12 delegates.
Trump's total: 1,238.
Cue the balloons.
[FONT=arial, sans-serif] It's going to be Trump vs. Clinton. Period.
[/FONT][h=1]Yes, Donald Could Beat Hillary[/h][h=2]Conventional wisdom says he has no chance. But what if he blows up all the old rules?[/h][FONT=arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]By WILLIAM MCGURN.
Leave it to Al Sharpton to come up with the most compelling analogy for Mr. Trump: another New York promoter.
“The best way I can describe Donald Trump to friends is to say if Don King had been born white he’d be Donald Trump,” Mr. Sharpton told Politico earlier this year.
Mr. King, of course, was the wild-haired boxing promoter who put on epic fights that included the 1975 “Thrilla in Manila”—the third and final time Joe Frazier andMuhammad Ali met in the ring. Like Mr. Trump, Mr. King was accused of links to organized crime, invoking the Fifth Amendment in a deposition to Senate investigators when asked. Like Mr. Trump too, Mr. King has been sued by a number of his former associates, including Mr. Ali.
Before Barack Obama, Mr. King even supported George W. Bush.
For years Mr. King dominated his industry by combining an outsize personality with a willingness to blow up the rules. It is a similar brashness and defiance of convention that make Mr. Trump such a wild card today, which also suggests why it’s probably premature to write him off for November—assuming he will be the Republican squaring off againstHillary Clinton.
Let’s run through the arguments:
• Mr. Trump has high negatives. Notwithstanding the manifest enthusiasm of Trump voters for their man, they often fail to appreciate that he may turn off more voters than he turns on. Real Clear Politics puts the average of his negatives at 63.2% That would help explain his failure thus far to break 50% in any Republican primary, and it justifies worries about how he’d fare among, say, Latinos and women come November.
But Mrs. Clinton has very high negatives too. Her own RCP average is 53.9%.
Whom would the voters regard as the lesser of two evils? A candidate who is dishonest and untrustworthy at a political moment when distrust of government is ascendant? Or a candidate who is crude and inexperienced at a time when the terrorists we face are organized and sophisticated.
David Plouffe, who managed Barack Obama’s successful 2008 campaign, has been warning Democrats not to take a Clinton victory for granted in the event Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee.
He has also consistently reminded Democrats that the coalition that sent Mr. Obama to the White House—including women, minorities and young voters—is not one Mrs. Clinton can take for granted. She needs to earn their support, he says. Right now theBernie Sanders wins are highlighting some of her soft spots, including with young women.
• Mrs. Clinton will use her knowledge and experience to make Mr. Trump look like an ignorant yahoo. Maybe. But again there are two caveats.
First, presidential matchups do not score like Oxford Union debates, and Mr. Trump plays his own game. For example, when Mrs. Clinton was readying the sexist meme against him, Mr. Trump took it away from her by bringing up the Bill Cosby-style allegations of rape and sexual misconduct against hubby Bill Clinton.
Who’s to say he won’t do the same in the debates? (“Did Goldman Sachs pay you to say that, Hillary?”) No one can know how Mr. Trump would debate Mrs. Clinton—or how voters would react.
Equally to the point, though pundits give great weight to candidate debates, plainly voters do not. In 2004 John Kerry demolished George W. Bush in the first debate, and the next two were generally given to him on points. But he still lost the election.
• Mrs. Clinton is a formidable candidate. The truth is, we don’t know how Mrs. Clinton would fare in a no-holds-barred debate with a tough challenger—because she’s not faced one in this primary. From the way the Democratic superdelegates have been awarded, to the number and timing of debates, the entire primary season has been orchestrated to serve Mrs. Clinton’s interests by a party that is mostly in her pocket.
This is why the last man standing is an angry, white-haired socialist. And yet the former first lady still can’t put him away. What does it say about large dissatisfactions within the Democratic Party that this cranky old guy continues to pull out victories?
In the long stretch between now and Election Day, many events could affect the outcome. More terror attacks à la Brussels or San Bernardino. More setbacks in Iraq or Syria. More belligerence from Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. And of course maybe even a Hillary indictment. Does anyone think any of this will help Mrs. Clinton?
Sure, it’s possible the GOP front-runner will implode, just as it’s possible all those polls showing Mrs. Clinton with a double-digit lead over Mr. Trump will indeed come to pass. But some of us who never thought he would get this far are a little more reluctant to be so categorical about an election that is still seven months away.
[/FONT][h=1]Yes, Donald Could Beat Hillary[/h][h=2]Conventional wisdom says he has no chance. But what if he blows up all the old rules?[/h][FONT=arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]By WILLIAM MCGURN.
Leave it to Al Sharpton to come up with the most compelling analogy for Mr. Trump: another New York promoter.
“The best way I can describe Donald Trump to friends is to say if Don King had been born white he’d be Donald Trump,” Mr. Sharpton told Politico earlier this year.
Mr. King, of course, was the wild-haired boxing promoter who put on epic fights that included the 1975 “Thrilla in Manila”—the third and final time Joe Frazier andMuhammad Ali met in the ring. Like Mr. Trump, Mr. King was accused of links to organized crime, invoking the Fifth Amendment in a deposition to Senate investigators when asked. Like Mr. Trump too, Mr. King has been sued by a number of his former associates, including Mr. Ali.
Before Barack Obama, Mr. King even supported George W. Bush.
For years Mr. King dominated his industry by combining an outsize personality with a willingness to blow up the rules. It is a similar brashness and defiance of convention that make Mr. Trump such a wild card today, which also suggests why it’s probably premature to write him off for November—assuming he will be the Republican squaring off againstHillary Clinton.
Let’s run through the arguments:
• Mr. Trump has high negatives. Notwithstanding the manifest enthusiasm of Trump voters for their man, they often fail to appreciate that he may turn off more voters than he turns on. Real Clear Politics puts the average of his negatives at 63.2% That would help explain his failure thus far to break 50% in any Republican primary, and it justifies worries about how he’d fare among, say, Latinos and women come November.
But Mrs. Clinton has very high negatives too. Her own RCP average is 53.9%.
Whom would the voters regard as the lesser of two evils? A candidate who is dishonest and untrustworthy at a political moment when distrust of government is ascendant? Or a candidate who is crude and inexperienced at a time when the terrorists we face are organized and sophisticated.
David Plouffe, who managed Barack Obama’s successful 2008 campaign, has been warning Democrats not to take a Clinton victory for granted in the event Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee.
He has also consistently reminded Democrats that the coalition that sent Mr. Obama to the White House—including women, minorities and young voters—is not one Mrs. Clinton can take for granted. She needs to earn their support, he says. Right now theBernie Sanders wins are highlighting some of her soft spots, including with young women.
• Mrs. Clinton will use her knowledge and experience to make Mr. Trump look like an ignorant yahoo. Maybe. But again there are two caveats.
First, presidential matchups do not score like Oxford Union debates, and Mr. Trump plays his own game. For example, when Mrs. Clinton was readying the sexist meme against him, Mr. Trump took it away from her by bringing up the Bill Cosby-style allegations of rape and sexual misconduct against hubby Bill Clinton.
Who’s to say he won’t do the same in the debates? (“Did Goldman Sachs pay you to say that, Hillary?”) No one can know how Mr. Trump would debate Mrs. Clinton—or how voters would react.
Equally to the point, though pundits give great weight to candidate debates, plainly voters do not. In 2004 John Kerry demolished George W. Bush in the first debate, and the next two were generally given to him on points. But he still lost the election.
• Mrs. Clinton is a formidable candidate. The truth is, we don’t know how Mrs. Clinton would fare in a no-holds-barred debate with a tough challenger—because she’s not faced one in this primary. From the way the Democratic superdelegates have been awarded, to the number and timing of debates, the entire primary season has been orchestrated to serve Mrs. Clinton’s interests by a party that is mostly in her pocket.
This is why the last man standing is an angry, white-haired socialist. And yet the former first lady still can’t put him away. What does it say about large dissatisfactions within the Democratic Party that this cranky old guy continues to pull out victories?
In the long stretch between now and Election Day, many events could affect the outcome. More terror attacks à la Brussels or San Bernardino. More setbacks in Iraq or Syria. More belligerence from Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. And of course maybe even a Hillary indictment. Does anyone think any of this will help Mrs. Clinton?
Sure, it’s possible the GOP front-runner will implode, just as it’s possible all those polls showing Mrs. Clinton with a double-digit lead over Mr. Trump will indeed come to pass. But some of us who never thought he would get this far are a little more reluctant to be so categorical about an election that is still seven months away.
[h=1]Why Trump can beat Clinton[/h]GERALD CAPLAN
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Mar. 23, 2016 3:04PM EDT
Last updated Wednesday, Mar. 23, 2016 3:04PM EDT
Gerald Caplan is an Africa scholar, a former New Democratic Party national director and a regular panelist on CBC’s Power & Politics.
Hillary Clinton is perhaps the best-qualified candidate for the American presidency since Thomas Jefferson and she will lose to Donald Trump in November. Few candidates have had her experience, knowledge and competence to be president, which is also one of the Achilles heels that will bring her down.
Ms. Clinton has for years been among the bright stars in that political establishment that so many Americans blame for their poor fortunes. It’s these millions of disillusioned Americans who gave us Donald Trump and who almost gave Ms. Clinton Bernie Sanders. Can Ms. Clinton present herself as the person who understands their grievances and who can credibly promise to address them?
In fact, the opposite argument is far more credible. Given her background and her network, it’s far more plausible to expect Ms. Clinton to administer a government dedicated to and run by the same Wall Street barons who ran her husband’s administration and who have since been so lavishly generous to the Clinton family foundation and to Ms. Clinton personally. It will be easy, if rather ironic, for Mr. Trump to argue that Ms. Clinton will be the president of the 1 per cent while he would be the president of the aggrieved workers.
Besides any such line of attack, Mr. Trump in general is Ms. Clinton’s nemesis. Anyone who has watched her in those endless TV debates with Mr. Sanders has seen a brilliant debater, almost impossible to trap on any policy issue, but someone who is programmed right to her teeth. She is always ready for anything – except the unpredictable. Which is Mr. Trump’s middle name.
No one ever knows what grotesque insult he will next pull out of his bag of wonders, which is precisely what will most rattle Ms. Clinton. She can’t prepare for him like she can prepare for a question about Bill Clinton’s philandering or the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and this will make her vulnerable to Mr. Trump every time they face each other. She will be permanently flustered and prone to making costly gaffes.
And if they’re not directly debating, you can be sure that reporters, many of whom openly dislike her, will happily repeat every new accusation from Mr. Trump.
But for most of Mr. Trump’s craziness there is no reply at all. This will badly shake Ms. Clinton’s confidence and leave her vulnerable to the phenomenon of feral Trumpism, which he will instantly grasp and exploit.
But Mr. Trump will not be alone in trying to undermine Ms. Clinton.
First comes the Republican Party, and, broken as it by its own crackpot ideas and internal stresses, it remains a power in the land. We must never forget that the mediocrities who lost to Barack Obama still won more than 46 per cent of all the votes cast: Mitt Romney, John McCain-Sarah Palin! Despite everything, Mr. Trump is likely to get those same Republican votes, and won’t need many more to win.
Second comes the real power in American political-economic life, a vast extremist right-wing conspiracy pervading every corner of the republic, as described by investigative journalist Jane Mayer in her powerful and deeply chilling new book, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. Featuring the reactionary oil barons Charles and David Koch and their fellow ultraconservative billionaires like Sheldon Adelson, this is a tale of how money hijacks democracy in the United States.
Once the final act of the 2016 presidential campaign begins, their sole target will be Ms. Clinton. Despite her closeness to the 1 per cent, they hate her beyond explanation. Almost a billion dollars in advertising, social media, ground organizing and dirty tricks of every possible kind will be launched at her. She won’t know what hit her.
And here’s the thing about Ms. Clinton: She is deeply vulnerable to such attacks. She has always attracted visceral and often irrational hostility. She is seen as too ambitious (which really means a woman with any ambition), inauthentic, programmed, opportunistic, dedicated only to her own success, forever politicking (which really means she’s a smart politician). Averaging the last 379 polls by 40 pollsters, 53.8 per cent of Americans give her an unfavourable rating, and only 41.5 per cent a favourable verdict. This is deeply humiliating for Ms. Clinton and potentially fatal for her chances.
Indeed, from first to last over her 25 years in politics, with and without Bill, she has offered hostages to fortune, beginning perhaps with her joining Wal-Mart’s board while Bill was governor of Arkansas, where the company is based. Ever since, it has often seemed that Ms. Clinton, sometimes deliberately, has walked a fine line, as if she was looking for trouble, which she always has found. They trail nosily behind her like the tin cans on a wedding vehicle.
The situation was summed up in a recent Politico magazine: “Those younger voters who doubt her trustworthiness likely have no memory, or even casual acquaintance with, a 25-year history that includes cattle-futures trading, law firm billing records, muddled sniper fire recollections and the countless other charges of widely varying credibility aimed at her.”
“Countless other charges” is the key phrase here. These charges have never stopped from the moment she became a public figure, and if young Americans don’t recall them, you can be sure the Koch campaign will hammer them home until Hillary Clinton can stand no more, literally or figuratively.
Of course, this all means that Donald Trump will be president. And if you can’t face that, just remember this: I’m not always right.
The Election Paradox: Trump’s to Lose
.
by JOHN MCLAUGHLIN & JIM MCLAUGHLIN March 28, 2016 3:07 PM Regarding the presidential race, although there are many national polls showing pretty much the same numerical results, it’s the analysis that counts. Our analysis of our just-completed national survey shows that there’s only one person who can beat Donald Trump: That’s Donald Trump, and he might be able to do it. This poll of 1,002 likely voters was just completed on March 23, and compared with our February 17 poll, it shows that when looking ahead to November, his poll numbers are actually getting worse. This is in spite of Trump’s decisive primary wins on March 15 and the fact that he should do better among the remaining voters. So the Trump paradox is that while he has become more likely to win the nomination, he is becoming more likely to lose the November election. Unless things change, he might even do worse than Mitt Romney did against an opponent who today is less popular than President Obama was back then. The majority of all voters still remain unfavorable to Hillary Clinton, only 39 percent favorable to 57 percent unfavorable, compared with 59 percent unfavorable last month. Nevertheless, Donald Trump has become even more unpopular, only 33 percent favorable, 65 percent unfavorable.
.
On the ballot last month, Clinton and Trump were in a dead heat: Clinton at 46 percent and Trump at 44 percent. Clinton now leads Trump 48 percent to 41 percent.
.
Clinton’s base is now stronger as she wins among Democrats 85 percent to 10 percent, while Trump wins among Republicans 76 percent to 11 percent, and he holds a slim lead among independents 42 percent to 39 percent. African Americans go strongly for Clinton, 88 percent to 6 percent. Hispanics prefer Clinton 57 percent to 35 percent. Clinton holds a slim lead among men, at 47 percent to 44 percent, and a wider lead among women, at 49 percent to 38 percent. Compared with his remaining rivals, Donald Trump is sagging toward November when he could be getting stronger. Ted Cruz — who is a long shot for a first-ballot nomination but the only candidate other than Trump who can win the nomination on the first ballot — is a net negative, at 35 percent favorable to 50 percent unfavorable. However, Cruz is still in a dead heat with Hillary: Clinton has 45 percent to Cruz’s 44 percent.
.
John Kasich, who mathematically can’t win the nomination on the first ballot, is 35 percent favorable to only 33 percent unfavorable. He leads for president: Kasich 46 percent to Clinton’s 41 percent. Bernie Sanders is much more popular nationally than Hillary Clinton, with 50 percent favorable to 41 percent unfavorable. Unfortunately, the fix is in with the Democratic super delegates already committed to Hillary, and Sanders can’t win the nomination without them. So we didn’t bother asking about any general-election ballots with him in it. Among all voters, a whopping 30 percent remain unfavorable to both Clinton and Trump. And the 12 percent who remain undecided clearly don’t like either likely nominee. Their opinion of Clinton is favorable 8 percent to unfavorable 77 percent. Their opinion of Trump is favorable 6 percent to unfavorable 84 percent.
.
As we forecast in February, this race will be the ugliest presidential race in history. In years past, we polled for Senator Jesse Helms. He placed ahead in the polls only one day every six years: Election Day. Helms always had a 40 percent or higher unfavorable rating, and he would take the lead only when his opponent’s negatives rose over 50 percent. We made sure that happened by Election Day. In order to win, it appears that Clinton will need to drive Donald Trump’s negatives above 70 percent, which she and her team are clearly working to do. However, the paradox is that Trump remains on track to win the GOP nomination on a first ballot if he can win 54 percent of the remaining delegates. An explanation for this paradox is that in spite of the fact that Donald Trump has never run for public office before, he has seemed the most qualified candidate to win a primary campaign that resembles a season of Celebrity Apprentice for President more than a political campaign for president. We live in an age of reality television, and for years Trump hosted TV’s top-rated reality show. Just as the telegenic JFK outshone Richard Nixon in their TV debates, as actor Ronald Reagan outperformed Jimmy Carter, as action star Arnold Schwarzenegger exploded in the California recall, Donald Trump has so far mastered every episode during the primary season — until now. On many reality series, the final winner is often someone who is not popular with the fans but gets results. Donald Trump will now have to increase his popularity to get the results that he wants. People want reality, but now it seems that they want content, too. We can see this in the response voters had to a line added to our poll by the nonpartisan, independent group SecureAmericaNow: “Donald Trump recently said his primary foreign policy advisor is ‘myself.’” Knowing this, 58 percent of all voters were less likely to vote for him, including 29 percent of Trump voters. Only 20 percent were more likely. It’s time for Donald Trump to show content.
.
For the remaining states, only about a third of the Republicans have yet to vote. So in our poll of 1,002 voters, only 144 voters are in the upcoming states and likely to vote in the Republican primaries. At first glance, these states appear to geographically favor Trump, then Kasich. They include Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Indiana, Montana, West Virginia, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, South Dakota, New Jersey, and California. Among these voters, Trump leads with 46 percent, but Kasich is in second, at 22 percent, Cruz is third at 18 percent, and 14 percent are undecided. However, at second glance, among the final three, Ted Cruz is the leading second choice, at 40 percent; Kasich is at 21 percent; and Trump is at only 12 percent. Trump must hold what he has and win. He has very little upside unless he starts moving his favorable ratings higher. Among Trump voters, the second choice is Cruz, at 42 percent, and Kasich, at 26 percent. If Trump loses votes, they go almost five to three for Cruz. Among Cruz voters, the second choice is Trump, at 33 percent, and Kasich, at 32 percent. If Cruz loses votes, they split evenly between Trump and Kasich. However, among Kasich voters, the second choice is overwhelmingly Cruz, at 60 percent, to Trump, at 15 percent. If Kasich loses votes, they go four to one for Cruz over Trump. Among the 14 percent who are undecided, again there is not much upside for Trump. The undecideds’ opinion of Trump is only 16 percent favorable to 80 percent unfavorable. A third of the undecided voters like Cruz: favorable 34 percent, unfavorable 24 percent. Kasich is weaker than Cruz among the undecided voters: favorable 22 percent, unfavorable 21 percent. In spite of the Trump paradox, ironically all the other major political trends in our monthly poll favor the Republicans over the Democrats: President Obama remains a polarizing negative overall. On his job rating, 48 percent approve and 50 percent disapprove. In a plus-6 Democratic sample, Republicans lead on the generic ballot for Congress, at 45 percent to 42 percent. Obamacare is decidedly unpopular: Only 42 percent approve, and 54 percent disapprove. Fifty-five percent of voters prefer a smaller federal government with fewer services; only 29 percent want a larger government with many services. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton should take note. Actually, their Republican opponents should really take note and drive the contrast.
.
Two-thirds of all voters, 66 percent, say that the country is on the wrong track. Only 26 percent say that it is headed in the right direction. The majority of voters (57 percent) want the next president and Congress to move away from the policies of President Obama. Only 33 percent want them to continue. The Trump paradox is clear. Hillary Clinton wants to run against Donald Trump, because she thinks that, as unpopular as she is, in spite of the trends that favor a Republican, she can still beat Trump. However, if Donald Trump can strengthen his hand and show that he can beat Hillary Clinton, the nomination should be his on a first ballot. November is playing out now. — John McLaughlin and Jim McLaughlin are Republican strategists and partners in the national polling firm McLaughlin & Associates. They are not aligned with any presidential candidate or super PAC.
.
This race will be the ugliest presidential race in history. Clinton will need to drive Trump’s negatives above 70 percent.
.
.
by JOHN MCLAUGHLIN & JIM MCLAUGHLIN March 28, 2016 3:07 PM Regarding the presidential race, although there are many national polls showing pretty much the same numerical results, it’s the analysis that counts. Our analysis of our just-completed national survey shows that there’s only one person who can beat Donald Trump: That’s Donald Trump, and he might be able to do it. This poll of 1,002 likely voters was just completed on March 23, and compared with our February 17 poll, it shows that when looking ahead to November, his poll numbers are actually getting worse. This is in spite of Trump’s decisive primary wins on March 15 and the fact that he should do better among the remaining voters. So the Trump paradox is that while he has become more likely to win the nomination, he is becoming more likely to lose the November election. Unless things change, he might even do worse than Mitt Romney did against an opponent who today is less popular than President Obama was back then. The majority of all voters still remain unfavorable to Hillary Clinton, only 39 percent favorable to 57 percent unfavorable, compared with 59 percent unfavorable last month. Nevertheless, Donald Trump has become even more unpopular, only 33 percent favorable, 65 percent unfavorable.
.
On the ballot last month, Clinton and Trump were in a dead heat: Clinton at 46 percent and Trump at 44 percent. Clinton now leads Trump 48 percent to 41 percent.
.
Clinton’s base is now stronger as she wins among Democrats 85 percent to 10 percent, while Trump wins among Republicans 76 percent to 11 percent, and he holds a slim lead among independents 42 percent to 39 percent. African Americans go strongly for Clinton, 88 percent to 6 percent. Hispanics prefer Clinton 57 percent to 35 percent. Clinton holds a slim lead among men, at 47 percent to 44 percent, and a wider lead among women, at 49 percent to 38 percent. Compared with his remaining rivals, Donald Trump is sagging toward November when he could be getting stronger. Ted Cruz — who is a long shot for a first-ballot nomination but the only candidate other than Trump who can win the nomination on the first ballot — is a net negative, at 35 percent favorable to 50 percent unfavorable. However, Cruz is still in a dead heat with Hillary: Clinton has 45 percent to Cruz’s 44 percent.
.
John Kasich, who mathematically can’t win the nomination on the first ballot, is 35 percent favorable to only 33 percent unfavorable. He leads for president: Kasich 46 percent to Clinton’s 41 percent. Bernie Sanders is much more popular nationally than Hillary Clinton, with 50 percent favorable to 41 percent unfavorable. Unfortunately, the fix is in with the Democratic super delegates already committed to Hillary, and Sanders can’t win the nomination without them. So we didn’t bother asking about any general-election ballots with him in it. Among all voters, a whopping 30 percent remain unfavorable to both Clinton and Trump. And the 12 percent who remain undecided clearly don’t like either likely nominee. Their opinion of Clinton is favorable 8 percent to unfavorable 77 percent. Their opinion of Trump is favorable 6 percent to unfavorable 84 percent.
.
As we forecast in February, this race will be the ugliest presidential race in history. In years past, we polled for Senator Jesse Helms. He placed ahead in the polls only one day every six years: Election Day. Helms always had a 40 percent or higher unfavorable rating, and he would take the lead only when his opponent’s negatives rose over 50 percent. We made sure that happened by Election Day. In order to win, it appears that Clinton will need to drive Donald Trump’s negatives above 70 percent, which she and her team are clearly working to do. However, the paradox is that Trump remains on track to win the GOP nomination on a first ballot if he can win 54 percent of the remaining delegates. An explanation for this paradox is that in spite of the fact that Donald Trump has never run for public office before, he has seemed the most qualified candidate to win a primary campaign that resembles a season of Celebrity Apprentice for President more than a political campaign for president. We live in an age of reality television, and for years Trump hosted TV’s top-rated reality show. Just as the telegenic JFK outshone Richard Nixon in their TV debates, as actor Ronald Reagan outperformed Jimmy Carter, as action star Arnold Schwarzenegger exploded in the California recall, Donald Trump has so far mastered every episode during the primary season — until now. On many reality series, the final winner is often someone who is not popular with the fans but gets results. Donald Trump will now have to increase his popularity to get the results that he wants. People want reality, but now it seems that they want content, too. We can see this in the response voters had to a line added to our poll by the nonpartisan, independent group SecureAmericaNow: “Donald Trump recently said his primary foreign policy advisor is ‘myself.’” Knowing this, 58 percent of all voters were less likely to vote for him, including 29 percent of Trump voters. Only 20 percent were more likely. It’s time for Donald Trump to show content.
.
For the remaining states, only about a third of the Republicans have yet to vote. So in our poll of 1,002 voters, only 144 voters are in the upcoming states and likely to vote in the Republican primaries. At first glance, these states appear to geographically favor Trump, then Kasich. They include Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Indiana, Montana, West Virginia, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, South Dakota, New Jersey, and California. Among these voters, Trump leads with 46 percent, but Kasich is in second, at 22 percent, Cruz is third at 18 percent, and 14 percent are undecided. However, at second glance, among the final three, Ted Cruz is the leading second choice, at 40 percent; Kasich is at 21 percent; and Trump is at only 12 percent. Trump must hold what he has and win. He has very little upside unless he starts moving his favorable ratings higher. Among Trump voters, the second choice is Cruz, at 42 percent, and Kasich, at 26 percent. If Trump loses votes, they go almost five to three for Cruz. Among Cruz voters, the second choice is Trump, at 33 percent, and Kasich, at 32 percent. If Cruz loses votes, they split evenly between Trump and Kasich. However, among Kasich voters, the second choice is overwhelmingly Cruz, at 60 percent, to Trump, at 15 percent. If Kasich loses votes, they go four to one for Cruz over Trump. Among the 14 percent who are undecided, again there is not much upside for Trump. The undecideds’ opinion of Trump is only 16 percent favorable to 80 percent unfavorable. A third of the undecided voters like Cruz: favorable 34 percent, unfavorable 24 percent. Kasich is weaker than Cruz among the undecided voters: favorable 22 percent, unfavorable 21 percent. In spite of the Trump paradox, ironically all the other major political trends in our monthly poll favor the Republicans over the Democrats: President Obama remains a polarizing negative overall. On his job rating, 48 percent approve and 50 percent disapprove. In a plus-6 Democratic sample, Republicans lead on the generic ballot for Congress, at 45 percent to 42 percent. Obamacare is decidedly unpopular: Only 42 percent approve, and 54 percent disapprove. Fifty-five percent of voters prefer a smaller federal government with fewer services; only 29 percent want a larger government with many services. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton should take note. Actually, their Republican opponents should really take note and drive the contrast.
.
Two-thirds of all voters, 66 percent, say that the country is on the wrong track. Only 26 percent say that it is headed in the right direction. The majority of voters (57 percent) want the next president and Congress to move away from the policies of President Obama. Only 33 percent want them to continue. The Trump paradox is clear. Hillary Clinton wants to run against Donald Trump, because she thinks that, as unpopular as she is, in spite of the trends that favor a Republican, she can still beat Trump. However, if Donald Trump can strengthen his hand and show that he can beat Hillary Clinton, the nomination should be his on a first ballot. November is playing out now. — John McLaughlin and Jim McLaughlin are Republican strategists and partners in the national polling firm McLaughlin & Associates. They are not aligned with any presidential candidate or super PAC.
.
This race will be the ugliest presidential race in history. Clinton will need to drive Trump’s negatives above 70 percent.
.
OPINION | ERIC FEHRNSTROM
[h=1]Turnout, terror, and tactics favor Trump against Clinton[/h]
By Eric Fehrnstrom MARCH 24, 2016
After adding to his delegate lead in Tuesday’s GOP contests, Donald Trump remains on track to be the Republican nominee for president. The question is, can he beat Hillary Clinton? The answer is, yes. Clinton is threatened by factors that are unexpected, unusual, and unique.
The Brussels terror attack is a reminder of the uniquely terrifying age in which we live. Clinton’s response promising to stand with our allies without proposing any specific answers was unsatisfying. Trump’s call to seal the borders and bring back waterboarding was clear-cut and definitive. It may not appeal to our better angels, but they tend to take flight in times of national peril.
.
Before the latest wave of terror attacks, The Washington Post quoted a senior Clinton adviser saying she plans to counter Trump with “high-road substance, policy, and issues.” That sounds like Jeb Bush, who was felled by Trump despite having an overwhelming advantage in money, political pedigree, and organization.
Most observers think current polling showing Clinton beating Trump in the fall is conclusive. What no one expects is how a Trump candidacy potentially changes the general election map with an economic message aimed at blue-collar white voters.
Democratic states with high concentrations of white voters situated in the aging rust belt — states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ohio — will become new battlegrounds, as they hearken to Trump’s message that unfair trade and cheap immigrant labor is hurting American jobs.
Most observers think current polling showing Clinton beating Trump in the fall is conclusive. What no one expects is how a Trump candidacy potentially changes the general election map with an economic message aimed at blue-collar white voters.
Democratic states with high concentrations of white voters situated in the aging rust belt — states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ohio — will become new battlegrounds, as they hearken to Trump’s message that unfair trade and cheap immigrant labor is hurting American jobs
What about the minority vote? Trump can’t do much worse than Governor Mitt Romney did in 2012, getting only 6 percent of African-American voters. Hispanics turned off by Trump’s talk of a border wall may vote in greater numbers against him, but their biggest effect will be in states already in the Democratic column: New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and California.
What is unusual about this year’s election is that, without President Obama on the ballot, the historic coalition that swept him into office in 2008 and kept him there in 2012 seems to have lost its enthusiasm for politics.
Through the first half of the 2016 presidential cycle, Republicans have seen record turnout, while Democrats have experienced a startling drop-off. Here in Massachusetts, GOP turnout was up 50 percent over 2012, while Democratic turnout declined 14 percent from 2008, the last time they had a contested primary. The story of a shrinking Democratic vote is the same everywhere: Virginia, down 20 percent; South Carolina, 30 percent; Nevada, 28 percent; New Hampshire, 12 percent; and Iowa, 27 percent.
Overall, Democratic primary turnout is down by roughly one-third, while Republican numbers have increased by more than two-thirds.
An analysis by the FiveThirtyEight blog says there is no correlation between primary and general election turnout, but it is premature to say it won’t make a difference in November. There was only one other time since 1976, in years when both parties had competitive primaries, that GOP turnout exceeded the Democrats, and that was in 2000, when George W. Bush won. It’s also unusual for turnout to exceed previous years by as much as it does this year for Republicans. The only recent precedent for that is 2008 when Democratic primary turnout vastly exceeded the previous competitive race.
Anti-Trump forces are still counting on various convention scenarios to deny Trump the nomination, but they remain divided over the presence in the race of two alternatives: Governor John Kasich of Ohio, and Senator Ted Cruz. In 2012, Romney didn’t win a majority of delegates until the end of May. Trump will take as long, maybe right up to the last primary day in June, but the odds favor him.
Pundits who say Trump cannot win against Clinton are ignoring the factors that make this an unconventional political year.
Eric Fehrnstrom is a Republican political analyst and media strategist, and was a senior adviser to Governor Mitt Romney.
[h=1]Turnout, terror, and tactics favor Trump against Clinton[/h]
By Eric Fehrnstrom MARCH 24, 2016
After adding to his delegate lead in Tuesday’s GOP contests, Donald Trump remains on track to be the Republican nominee for president. The question is, can he beat Hillary Clinton? The answer is, yes. Clinton is threatened by factors that are unexpected, unusual, and unique.
The Brussels terror attack is a reminder of the uniquely terrifying age in which we live. Clinton’s response promising to stand with our allies without proposing any specific answers was unsatisfying. Trump’s call to seal the borders and bring back waterboarding was clear-cut and definitive. It may not appeal to our better angels, but they tend to take flight in times of national peril.
.
Before the latest wave of terror attacks, The Washington Post quoted a senior Clinton adviser saying she plans to counter Trump with “high-road substance, policy, and issues.” That sounds like Jeb Bush, who was felled by Trump despite having an overwhelming advantage in money, political pedigree, and organization.
Most observers think current polling showing Clinton beating Trump in the fall is conclusive. What no one expects is how a Trump candidacy potentially changes the general election map with an economic message aimed at blue-collar white voters.
Democratic states with high concentrations of white voters situated in the aging rust belt — states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ohio — will become new battlegrounds, as they hearken to Trump’s message that unfair trade and cheap immigrant labor is hurting American jobs.
Most observers think current polling showing Clinton beating Trump in the fall is conclusive. What no one expects is how a Trump candidacy potentially changes the general election map with an economic message aimed at blue-collar white voters.
Democratic states with high concentrations of white voters situated in the aging rust belt — states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ohio — will become new battlegrounds, as they hearken to Trump’s message that unfair trade and cheap immigrant labor is hurting American jobs
What about the minority vote? Trump can’t do much worse than Governor Mitt Romney did in 2012, getting only 6 percent of African-American voters. Hispanics turned off by Trump’s talk of a border wall may vote in greater numbers against him, but their biggest effect will be in states already in the Democratic column: New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and California.
What is unusual about this year’s election is that, without President Obama on the ballot, the historic coalition that swept him into office in 2008 and kept him there in 2012 seems to have lost its enthusiasm for politics.
Through the first half of the 2016 presidential cycle, Republicans have seen record turnout, while Democrats have experienced a startling drop-off. Here in Massachusetts, GOP turnout was up 50 percent over 2012, while Democratic turnout declined 14 percent from 2008, the last time they had a contested primary. The story of a shrinking Democratic vote is the same everywhere: Virginia, down 20 percent; South Carolina, 30 percent; Nevada, 28 percent; New Hampshire, 12 percent; and Iowa, 27 percent.
Overall, Democratic primary turnout is down by roughly one-third, while Republican numbers have increased by more than two-thirds.
An analysis by the FiveThirtyEight blog says there is no correlation between primary and general election turnout, but it is premature to say it won’t make a difference in November. There was only one other time since 1976, in years when both parties had competitive primaries, that GOP turnout exceeded the Democrats, and that was in 2000, when George W. Bush won. It’s also unusual for turnout to exceed previous years by as much as it does this year for Republicans. The only recent precedent for that is 2008 when Democratic primary turnout vastly exceeded the previous competitive race.
Anti-Trump forces are still counting on various convention scenarios to deny Trump the nomination, but they remain divided over the presence in the race of two alternatives: Governor John Kasich of Ohio, and Senator Ted Cruz. In 2012, Romney didn’t win a majority of delegates until the end of May. Trump will take as long, maybe right up to the last primary day in June, but the odds favor him.
Pundits who say Trump cannot win against Clinton are ignoring the factors that make this an unconventional political year.
Eric Fehrnstrom is a Republican political analyst and media strategist, and was a senior adviser to Governor Mitt Romney.
[h=2]Newt Gingrich: Donald Trump is 'the presumptive nominee'[/h]In an editorial penned for the conservative Washington Times, former House speaker and onetime presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said that “the scale of Donald Trump’s victory in New York turned him from frontrunner into presumptive Republican nominee.”
“The champion of the stop Trump movement just won ZERO delegates,” Gingrich wrote of Ted Cruz’s crushing defeat in the Empire State. “Every analysis of the next few weeks indicates Trump’s margin will widen and he will move steadily closer to 1,237 [delegates]. Already, he is only 392 short before any undecided delegates, Rubio delegates, and the like are counted.”
“These are the numbers of a presumptive nominee, not a front runner. If this were any candidate but Donald Trump, the media would be saying his rivals’ efforts were hopeless and the establishment would be pressuring them to exit the race.”
“It is time for the GOP establishment to work with this new reality rather than wage war against it,” Gingrich concluded.
“The champion of the stop Trump movement just won ZERO delegates,” Gingrich wrote of Ted Cruz’s crushing defeat in the Empire State. “Every analysis of the next few weeks indicates Trump’s margin will widen and he will move steadily closer to 1,237 [delegates]. Already, he is only 392 short before any undecided delegates, Rubio delegates, and the like are counted.”
“These are the numbers of a presumptive nominee, not a front runner. If this were any candidate but Donald Trump, the media would be saying his rivals’ efforts were hopeless and the establishment would be pressuring them to exit the race.”
“It is time for the GOP establishment to work with this new reality rather than wage war against it,” Gingrich concluded.
Don’t Be So Sure Hillary Clinton Will Crush Donald Trump
What if an ideologically fluid celebrity candidate has changed the rules of the game?
BY ELSPETH REEVE
March 16, 2016
Every presidential election is just like all the other ones until it’s not. The many people who predicted Donald Trump would flame out in the Republican primary aren’t idiots; mostly their predictions were based on past primaries. Many people are now predicting Trump will be destroyed in the general election. This is based on reams of voter surveys and demographic data from past elections. But what if everyone is repeating the same mistake?
In August, Nate Silver predicted Donald Trump was doomed to be a blip, just like Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann in 2012, or perhaps Mike Huckabee in 2008. Almost exactly four years earlier, Republicans were passing around a slideshow noting that no president had been reelected when the consumer confidence index was below 75, and it was at 55.7. (It rose to a mere 72.2 a few days before President Barack Obama was reelected.) Until Obama, no Democrat from outside the South had been elected president since 1960. There arecountless examples of rock-solid election laws that suddenly crumbled.
Since just after the 2012 election, political punditry has been almost Calvinist in its certainty about 2016: The electorate was predestined to have a particular demographic makeup, and each demographic group would turn out and vote a particular way, and the math added up to Republicans being toast. It wouldn’t matter much whether the GOP candidate was Chris Christie or Scott Walker or Jeb Bush, because voters’ views of the parties were set.
But what if the candidacy of Donald Trump is so weird and new and different that it can actually change all that? Last summer, one of the few people who bet big on Trump winning the GOP nomination and the election was a British Scientologist. Of course a Scientologist would understand the power of celebrity in America—the church has long used movie stars to get people to do something even harder than switch parties: switch religions. John Mappin, who bet almost $10,000 on Trump and could win $100,000 come November, explained, “His rise marks a paradigm shift in media, really ... What I could see was that the pundits in America hadn’t woken up to that.” Mappin continued, “People say, ‘Well, this is ridiculous, he’s a reality TV show star.’ But hang on, he’s an icon. He can use his power as an icon to attract attention. We’ve moved into a new media age, which is the age of icon control. And somebody with a Twitter account has effectively more power, perhaps unjustly, than somebody who perhaps has been sincerely working their whole life doing something really, really good.”
What’s the evidence Democratic voters will be more immune to the power of celebrity than Republican voters? Perhaps the strongest such evidence is the phenomenon of negative partisanship—increasingly, people vote against the party they hate instead of for the party they like. Last summer, political scientists at Emory University published a paper showing that while people are more likely to call themselves independent, they are also more likely to vote straight ticket. In a Junepost at Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball, Emory’s Alan I. Abramowitz and Steven Webster explained:“Between 2000 and 2012 the proportion of positive partisans—voters who liked their own party more than they disliked the opposing party—fell from 61 percent to 38 percent while the proportion of negative partisans—voters who disliked the opposing party more than they liked their own party—rose from 20 percent to 42 percent.”
It would only get worse in 2016, Abramowitz and Webster wrote, “given the deep divisions between Democrats and Republicans over issues ranging from immigration and health care to climate change and same-sex marriage.” Further, they added, “We can predict with a high degree of confidence that party loyalty will be very strong in next year’s elections.”
Nine months ago, in other words, hate-voting seemed like a recipe for stability. But what if it’s the opposite? What if a candidate came along and did something crazy, like change some of his party’s positions? There was a curious result in a recent Wall Street Journal poll: Only 8 percent of all voters think Trump “represents the values and positions of the Republican Party.” For Democratic-leaning voters, maybe that’s not more to love, but at least less to hate.
In the weeks before the Massachusetts primary, almost 20,000 Democrats changed their registration to Republican or independent, which a state official called a product of “the Trump effect.” In Pennsylvania, 46,000 Democrats switched to Republicans in 2016. Onlyhalf that number of Republicans have become Democrats (though more independents became Democrats than became Republicans). NBC Miami reports that in early 2016, “Florida saw Republican Party registration increase by 67,065 while Democratic Party registration increased by 34,943 and independent voters decreased 27,721.”
Mark Munroe, chairman of the Republican Party in Mahoning County, Ohio, said last week that he got calls every day from Democrats wanting to vote in the GOP primary. “And nine times out of 10, or 19 out of 20, you get the sense they are doing so because they want to vote for Trump,” Munroe said. Trump, he said, is “getting Democrats to cross over ... but he’s also getting a large number of unaffiliated voters—people who don’t participate in primaries.” (Munroe supports John Kasich.)
According to Pew Research Center, 2016 primary turnout rivals that of 2008. For Republicans, it’s the highest since at least 1980, a projected 17.3 million voters, and more than five million more than projected turnout on the Democratic side. As a column in The Hill recently noted, there’s no historic correlation between high turnout in the primaries and high turnout in the general. But the column also noted that people who pay less attention to the election are likely to sit out the primary and vote in the general. Isn’t it possible those less engaged voters might find Trump’s celebrity appealing? In July 2008, John McCain attacked Obama for being a “celebrity”—then he picked Sarah Palin to be his VP.
Last week, Politico reported that Republican donors expect Trump to lose the general election, and so contributors are “forking over piles of money to contain down-ballot collateral damage from a potential Trump nomination.” On a Politico podcast released Monday,Hillary Clinton pollster Joel Benenson said that if Trump is the Republican nominee, he could potentially expand the swing state map for Democrats, putting places like Arizona in play.
Benenson dismissed the idea that Trump could have a path to the White House through the Rust Belt. “What’s the evidence of it? The evidence of it, they’ve turned out a lot of people,” Benenson said. Romney won Rust Belt primaries too, and then lost them in the general. Trump, he said, “doesn’t have a message that appeals to these folks. It’s not real.”
Primary results thus far suggest that Trump appeals to at least some of the folks Benenson is referring to. His strongest constituency is whites without a college degree. If you look at FiveThirtyEight’s great interactive on what demographic changes would flip states from blue to red, you can see it takes a significant but not unfathomable increase in non-college educated white Republican votes to swing the election.
FiveThirtyEightFor a long time, liberals have been asking what’s the matter with Kansas—why do so many working-class whites vote against their economic self-interest? Obama infamously suggested they were clinging to white identity politics. It now seems crazy it took so long for a guy to come along and combine the two. Donald Trump trashes immigrants but says we shouldn’t let people die in the streets without health care.
A recent Atlantic Media/Pearson Opportunity poll finds that Americans think the biggest obstacles to “achieving your personal goals in life so far” are slow wage growth, few local jobs, and their lack of education. A large majority thinks they could make more money if they had more education, but they can’t afford to invest in it. The “central conundrum” of this poll, The Atlantic’s Ronald Brownstein writes, is that “those who might benefit the most from more education and training often feel least equipped, for cost and other reasons, to obtain it.”
Trump offers them someone to blame for the barriers to their economic success—immigrants, Wall Street, companies that move factories overseas. And even though he’s a billionaire who got his start with the help of his millionaire dad, and who wears different colors of hats to signal his mood to his butler, he talks like them. He makes jokes like them, he’s not polished and prim. He brags about being a winner and makes them feel like winners, too. Trump can give them something to vote for, instead of pointing to the other party as a monster to vote against.
To be sure, Trump has historically high unfavorable ratings for a general election candidate. He could end up turning out high numbers of Democrats who find him disgusting. Clinton has held a lead over Trump in national polling averages for six months. But his “ceiling” of support has slowly inched upward, and he hit 50 percent support among Republicans for the first time in one poll this week. While Clinton admits she’s not a natural politician, Trump delivers his stump speech like a comedian, playing to the mood and rhythm of the crowd. And unlike most Republicans, Trump can attack Clinton for her ties to Wall Street, the source of so much anger across party lines.
Will Donald Trump crush Hillary Clinton in the general election? Probably not. But instead of having the worst chance among all Republicans to beat her, maybe he has the best.
Elspeth Reeve is a senior editor at the New Republic.
@elspethreeve
What, are you adding senility to your numerous other negatives? You've already posted this article and the one that follows before, sheesh, wake up.
I should mention that in one of your other Slobbering-over-Trump posts, I actually agree with him for a change: Kasich looks better than he really is because nobody has bothered to attach him yet-and there is plenty to attack him on.
John Kasich wishes more Republicans liked Democrats’ ideas
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/22/john-kasich-wishes-more-republicans-liked-democrats-ideas/
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/22/john-kasich-wishes-more-republicans-liked-democrats-ideas/
What's even more "amazing the level of dumb" is that you're going to proudly pull the lever for Hillary Clinton, as if that
is a good thing for this country.
You're so blinded, bowing down at the alter of the DNC that you fail to see what utter cluster-fucks are running on
the DNC side.
Yeah, the DNC will probably win, but that's a tragic day for America. How embarrassing for us, we've got an inept crook,
that is being investigated by the FBI getting elected. Shame on every single person that pulls that lever for her.
Youre a republican hack .....so you will always say that. There isn't a democrat that you don't think is lying and corrupt. Obama, Hillary, Sanders......you have a problem with all of them.
She's a better choice than trump or Cruz.....even repub donors like the Koch brothers are saying she would prob make a better president than any repub candidate.
See what happens when Crooked Clit is the nominee.
See what happens when Sanders voters don't support Crooked Clit.
See what happens when Trump is nominee and goes after Crooked Clit.
See what happens when Trump increases his Women and Black voters.
See what happens if Trump offers Kasich VP. See what a Trump/Kasich ticket brings to the table, with Kasich bringing Ohio with him.
Shows the crystal ball is not that clear after all.
