Maine Writer

Its about people and issues I care about.

My Photo

I enjoy writing!

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Democrats are clearly gaining on Donald Trump's incoherence campaign

This optimistic report from The Daily Beast overlooks one compelling piece of information called "political overconfidence". 

Hopefully, Democarts will continue to fight for evey vote in the November election, regardless of how Republicans appear to be circling the drain with candidate Donald Trump's incoherent leadership.

Republicans are creating a toxic kettle of political fish

Repblicans created the pot they're now frantically stirring and their political kettle is simmering, while the party's brand is turning toxic.

Meanwhile, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is seizing the political brass ring, to "clean Donald Trump's clock" reports The Daily Beast.

The very early scorecard looks awfully good for Team Blue—Clinton 358, Trump 180.

Pundits try to be careful about predictions, because the future comes, eventually, and they might be wrong. Predictions are always careful to add the conditions—if this, assuming that.

So let’s not call this a prediction, but an observation:  it is entirely possible that this election could—could—be a blowout. 

A humiliation. A decapitation. A world-historical debacle for one party. And I bet you can guess which one.

This observation is occasioned by the appearance this week of the first full-blown general-election Electoral College forecast, from

The folks at FHQ looked at polls and recent electoral history and voting trends to take a stab at what the Electoral College might look like on the night of Nov. 8 if things don’t change much from today. So, if you’re a fan of the candidate who’s a person of color—orange—it isn’t pretty.

They have it at Clinton 358, Trump 180. And if anything, they’re being a little conservative.
How could the spread be that big, when, in most polls, Secretary Clinton may still be just a few points ahead? 

But, now a recent Bloomberg poll dropped Tuesday evening has Clinton up 12 points, 49-37. A staggering 63 percent of women say that they could never vote for him. And whatever the popular margin ends up at, the college is remorseless, my friend. You just have to win a state. You win Ohio by 1 point or 20, you get the 18 electoral votes. And Clinton is projected to win nearly every big state.

Let’s go back in time first for some context about how thorough a thumping this would be. In the 1980s, of course, Republicans thrashed Democrats, who were at sea. 

Ronald Reagan’s first election, for example, was 489-49. But then came the culture wars of the 1990s. We started dividing up into camps, and wins of that size weren’t possible anymore. But even so, Bill Clinton ran up huge Electoral College numbers, much bigger than his vote margins: In 1996, for example, he beat Bob Dole by eight points but clobbered him in the electoral vote by 379-159.

Then came the era of the red-blue divide. 

George W. Bush 271-with-an-asterisk, Al Gore 267. Bush 286, John Kerry 251. That’s how it looked things were going to stay for a while, but then the financial collapse happened, John McCain picked Sarah Palin to run with him, lots of people were feeling hopey-changey, and Barack Obama won big in 2008, 365-173. He retreated in 2012, but 332-206 was still a big win, and Mitt Romney showed the limits of the present-day Republican Party. He won only one of the seven main swing states (North Carolina) and flamed out in the states Republicans always talk big about, just like they do now (Pennsylvania and Michigan).

So here we sit. In my experience, it’s been thought by insiders that Obama’s 2008 numbers aren’t replicable, that the Democratic advantage probably rests naturally around the 70 to 100 vote range.

But this could be epic.

FHQ gives Clinton all of Obama’s 2012 states plus North Carolina (which he won in 2008) and… drum roll… Arizona. Now, Arizona last went Democratic in 1996, and that was the first time it had done so since 1948. But don’t laugh. Clinton leads, by a point, in RCP average. That’s just two polls, so who knows. But Latino turnout will presumably be through the roof.

Let’s have more fun. Here’s where I think it’s possible the FHQ might be selling Clinton a little short. Think Georgia sounds crazy? Yeah, it kinda does. But Trump is up there by only four. I spoke Tuesday with a Democratic operative in the state who was spinning me to some extent, sure, but who sounded pretty bullish as he described the state GOP’s internal divisions and the fact that about 40 percent of the electorate is going to be non-white. That 40 percent is mostly African American, and Clinton’s going to win 85 or 90 percent of that 40 percent, so do the math—she’d need less than 30 percent of the white vote to win the state. Still sound crazy?

Let’s climb farther out the limb. How about Utah? One earlier poll from Utah actually showed Clinton slightly ahead; another came out yesterday showing a tied race.

And if that’s not crazy enough for you, contemplate Kansas. I said Kansas. Kansas hasn’t gone Democratic since I think 1236 (okay, 1936). A poll last week showed Clinton ahead there. Not by one. By seven. And if these states fall, it will mean Trump has had a total meltdown, and who knows what else is falling.

Now, don’t expect Clinton to win Utah or Kansas. But the mere existence of these polls are joyous things. And, unless either Trump or “events” (i.e., the FBI) really change the direction of this thing, they’re going to keep coming. Tied in Missouri! Trump up only five in South Carolina! Gary Johnson pulls ahead of Trump in New Mexico, Colorado!

Okay, it’s all great fun, but what does it matter? Lord knows, as Dubya showed us, you’re as much the president with his 271 electoral votes as you are with Reagan’s 489. But still, it does matter. Two points.

One: It’s psychologically devastating for a party to lose a state it’s supposed to win. If, say, Clinton actually carried Georgia, it would wound the GOP badly and lead to loads of stories about how even the solid South is now slipping out of the ossified party’s geriatric hands. It wouldn’t be the same as, for example, Obama’s winning Indiana in 2008, which everyone knew was a fluke. Clinton winning Georgia wouldn’t be a fluke.

Two: It’s what the man himself deserves. There’s one word Trump hates more than any other in the English language, and it’s not “Mexican” or “Muslim.” It’s “loser.” How sweet it would be for him to have to live out his remaining years as a history-making loser.

To a “girl,” no less! FHQ, from your spreadsheets to God’s ears.

If the election 2016 is predicted to be "epic" for Democrats, the hope is that the collateral impact will be to remove all Republicans from the US Congress, while Trump drains the Grand Old Party.

Labels: ,


Post a Comment

<< Home