lolgaxe wrote:
Certainly a better strategy, no argument there.
That's true. They were at least prepared for a long run, if need be. But honestly, I think a large portion of her primary strategy seems to have been some kind of deal worked out with the DNC and other major potential candidates to effectively clear the field for her this time around, so she *wouldn't* have to worry about that and could focus more effort on the general earlier in the process. I still hold to the theory that Sanders (or anyone really) was never thought to have any chance of doing anything, and that the fact that "someone" came out of the field of also-rans and actually challenged her enough to force her to dip into her long term reserves was quite a shock to her campaign, and is an indication of just an inherent weakness in Hillary Clinton as a candidate.
Quote:
Just that there's a large enough demographic on either side that's always going to cause tension for people barely paying attention.
Well, and that's the problem I'm talking about. There always is in any general election, but Trump seems to be pulling out people who don't normally vote. So that pool is likely to be much larger this time around than it normally is. That very well may dwarf any other demographic data we look at. There just isn't a whole lot of polling data in terms of how people who don't normally vote might vote if they did. But given that these people are showing up because of Trump, it's a good bet that the lion's share of them will fall his direction.
On the flip side, I'm sure the Clinton strategy will be to push for various identity groups to show up in greater numbers to "stop Trump!", but that's a well they dip into every election. In a weird way, the Dems success at demonizing the Republican brand among those groups might just bite them in the rear this time around. Women and Latinos and Blacks are told every single election cycle that dire things will happen if they don't show up and vote for the Dem candidate. The Republican candidate is always made out to look like the devil come to take their children or something. Every. Single. Time. Doesn't matter how moderate the GOP candidate is, this is the stock rhetoric the Dems trot out every cycle. How much "more dire" does anyone really think this cycle will appear to a set of groups already inundated with those warnings? There's a point of diminishing returns on that.
I think that it's going to be a matter of whether the traditional demographic assumptions hold true (and perhaps even moreso for Trump), and whether that amounts to enough extra votes for the Dems to offset whatever new voters are going to show up for Trump (and I suppose we have to add in disaffected Republicans in there too). Basically, the Dems have to count on Trump doing so much more poorly among groups the GOP already normally does poorly with to make up that difference. And yeah, if we look just at polling data today, that looks to be the case. But some of us are looking at the exits from New York and (once again) scratching our heads about the very high numbers he got with Latinos and Blacks. They can't *all* have been showing up to vote for him out of some desire to sabotage the GOP (which is the only alternative explanation for the numbers). This suggests that when these demographics are polled they stick to the stock expected answer based on their identity demographic (and there's a host of reasons why this may be the case), but when in the privacy of the ballot booth, they do something totally different.
Heck. This factor has already been raised a few times during the primary to explain other head-scratching outcomes among various demographics. An evangelical, when called at his home and asked what he thinks of Trump may say one thing, but then vote differently when election day arrives. I know that I sound like a broken record on this (or maybe a broken clock!), but I'd be really wary of polling data in the case of Trump, especially when it's tied to specific demographics like that. Broader polling is probably going to be more accurate (although admittedly less useful in terms of electoral math), but in that area, we've seen movement just in the last few weeks going Trumps direction. A month ago, Clinton had a 10 point lead in the RCP average? Today, it's about 6 and a half. That's still a lead for Clinton, but that lead is her's to lose, and I'm not sure that Trumps negatives are going to get much higher than they are right now. I'd love to be wrong about that, but I have a feeling that I'm not.