I’ve declared
many times I’m a junky of the endless American electoral process, not because I
see it as a paragon of democratic virtue, highlighting the benefits of having a
strong civil society profoundly engaged in the process of choosing their
representatives and giving each option a thoughtful consideration, but because
they always manage to put up an entertaining show. This presidential election
cycle has already been full of drama and surprises, and not the lesser of them
is that the Democratic party has had much bigger difficulties choosing its
nominee than their adversaries, the Republicans, when a year ago it seemed
clear that the former Secretary of State, Senator and First Lady Hillary
Clinton would coast to her party’s nomination, whilst the Repubs were mired in
a very public fight to select between seventeen potential candidates with very
heterogeneous levels of recognition, seriousness, gravitas and apparent
viability in a presidential election.
Now that the
primaries are mostly over and the final contenders have been decided, most
opinion makers seem to think that the Republicans have made a terrible mistake,
as their standard bearer is transparently unfit for the highest office in the
land, and although he may have played well an apoplectic and ill-informed party
base, whose better judgments were clouded by anti-establishment rage, he will
be unable to attract the sizeable number of moderates that end up deciding
every Presidential election since time immemorial. The verdict tends to be more
mixed regarding the Democratic nominee, because although she is widely disliked
(especially by those politically leaning towards the right, no shit Sherlock!)
she is seen as more capable of “pivoting to the center” while keeping most of
the support among the party base. What I will argue in this post is that such
valuations of each nominee prospects are deeply flawed, and originate more in
the prejudices of the commentators than in a dispassionate appraisal of the
voters’ mood, and that Hillary’s position in particular is considerably more
precarious than what pundits think.
First let’s
review Trump’s position. Although soon after securing the nomination some polls
that can not be discounted as hopelessly biased (ABC News/ Washington Post no
less) were announcing a tie between him and Hillary (with Trump slightly ahead),
most analysts have discounted them as a result of the different moment in the
primary cycle, with Trump being already the nominee and thus benefitting from
the republican voters uniting behind him while Mrs. Clinton was still battling
an unexpectedly serious contender in the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders which
was costing her an increasing amount of goodwill within her own party (more on
that later on). Those same analysts keep on telling us that a) we shouldn’t
read too much from polls so early on, b) once Hillary clinches the nomination
(even more so if Mr. Sanders finally recognizes the futility of him continuing
in a race he can’t win, and finally endorses her) she will consolidate the
Democrats’ vote and c) the campaign will highlight Mr. Trump many weaknesses
(Trump University, his questionable management style that allowed him to stay
rich while the casinos owned by him went under, his racism, misogyny and
overall lack of knowledge of any issue outside of real state development…) and
make the “reasonable majority” of the electorate sour on him.
I’m not yet
ready to throw overboard such arguments, as each one of them seem prima facie quite
plausible, but I can not avoid pointing the similarity with the scenario most
pundits painted early in the primaries, when polls where showing unequivocally
that Trump was the most widely preferred of all the republican candidates. Back
then pundits of every stripe, from the right and from the left, made
essentially the same argument we are hearing now. “we are in position A, where
Trump leads. As it is unimaginable that Trump becomes the nominee, in June 2016
we will be in position B, where Trump has sunk in the polls and any other
candidate (pick your choice) will be the nominee”, however, what happened to
transform position A into position B was never clearly stated. What we hear now
is “we are in position A where Trump and Clinton are technically tied (more or
less). As it is unimaginable that roughly half of the electorate can seriously
consider voting for such a con artist, come the first Sunday of November we
will be in position B, where Hillary will lead by 20 points or more”. But
again, what happens to move from A to B is anybody’s guess, as neither a) nor
b) nor c) are likely to cause such a shift in the polls.
But not only
is there no clear or convincing rationale for why Trump’s support may collapse
in the next five months, but what I will argue is that Hillary has
vulnerabilities of her own that may cause her
support to waver and, if not outright crumble, at least have serious
difficulties equaling that of the casino and real state mogul. Let’s turn from
Trump’s unlikely position (undisputed standard bearer of the republican party,
with conservative voters coalescing around him as they have done around any
candidate in previous electoral cycles, much to the chagrin and despair of the
specifically republican commentariat) to Hillary’s. I already noted that she is
entering the campaign as one of the most disliked public figures in recent
memory, only surpassed by David Duke and Trump himself. But I believe that
there is a subtle difference between who dislikes Trump and who dislikes
Hillary that has the potential to have a tremendous impact in the election. To
put it shortly, Trump is mostly and most ardently disliked by people from his
outgroup: blacks, latinos, progressive women, and the urban white educated upper-middle
class in the two coasts. People who weren’t (and aren’t) going to vote for him
no matter what but, and here’s the catch, constitute roughly 40% of the
electorate, and are just a fraction of the whole democratic base. On the other
hand side, who most viscerally dislikes Hillary? Old white males (specially
those between them exposed to more than two minutes a day of Fox News), their
wives, blue collar workers in the industrial belt and in rural areas and, here
is the big thing, the young university students that in normal conditions
should be mostly part of the democrat’s roster, but this time seem to be positively
repelled by her, in good measure because of the fervor with which they bought
the idea propagated by Bernie Sanders’ camp that she is a puppet of Wall Street
and a foreign policy hawk and her election would mean more of the same (more
militaristic aggression of unsuspecting foreign lands, more inequality and more
boondoggles for the well-lobbied and well-connected). What this means is that
Trump abysmal approval ratings may not cost him much. Rather the opposite, they
allow him to take for granted a whole section of the electorate, and openly
demonize and antagonize them, which in turn helps him gain points with another,
bigger part. That’s the essence of the populist’s game, and what make them so
dangerous for any republic, instead of respecting checks and balances and
ensuring a modicum of well-being and representation for everybody thy pit one
group against another, and promise the bigger one the spoils from the total
annihilation of the smaller.
But Hillary’s
not-so-bad unfavorability is a much bigger problem for her, as it partially
overlaps with members of the coalition she needs to mobilize in November to
win. At this point, all you have to do to get a taste of the size of such
problem is read the comment section of any political article or opinion piece
in the NYT. Between 30 and 40% of said comments are by super-angry Bernie
supporters that loudly proclaim that they will never vote for Hillary, that the
election has been stolen from them by a corrupt establishment, and that they
will rather vote for Trump and see the whole falsely representative and rotten
edifice come crashing down than renounce the purity of their ideals. Most
commentators think that is just a manifestation of the passionate nature of
youth (although many a Bernie bro and sis is well over 50), and that once the
fairness of the process through which Hillary won sinks in they will accept the
result, make peace with the candidate and end up falling in line and duly
voting against Trump. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t, and subsequent polls
may help us calibrate to what extent such movement and acceptance may be taking
place, but I wouldn’t bet much on it happening. The level of bile and disaffection
shown by the senator from Vermont’s followers seems not just quantitatively,
but also qualitatively different from anything that I’ve seen in previous
cycles (from Dean followers when Kerry was chosen candidate to, yes, Hillary
followers when Obama was chosen instead).
Does that
mean that Hillary is doomed, and that the unthinkable scenario of a Trump
presidency may really come to pass? Not necessarily, as Brian Beutler in the New Republic recently remembered,
Hillary doesn’t need all that many of Bernie’s followers to win come November (How many Bernie supporters does Clinton need?).
Unfortunately for her, those followers are not the only part of her coalition
that may desert her until then. I’ve already mentioned blue collar workers in
the industrial areas that have been decimated by decades of globalization that,
in the popular imagination at least, she and her husband championed. Add to
them the white collar workers in the lower educational rings whose income hasn’t
improved in those same decades, and that are subject to increasing anxiety as
the last economic recovery (like the two before that one) is definitely not
lifting their boats and you start seeing how an intelligent Trump campaign (something
that may seem far-fetched now, but has to be considered for completeness sake)
could turn competitive many of the purple states that now almost guarantee a Democratic
victory.
It could be
counter argued that the migration of disaffected voters can go both ways, and
that there are surely many traditional Republican constituencies that must be
similarly appalled by the mercurial and unreliable character of the man that
has been chosen to represent them, and thus will probably switch sides. We know
that such people exist because we hear from them almost daily in the MSM. The
#NeverTrump movement started by right wing intellectuals. The daily
denunciations from the Weekly Standard, National
Review, the conservative stable at the WaPo (Charlie Krauthammer, Michael
Gerson, George F. Will, Jennifer Rubin, geez, there are really a lot of them
there!), at the NYT (Davey Brooks and Ross Douthat, you may add of late Peter
Wehner)… must have some effect. They must be peeling some
conservatives away from Trump into the arms of some unknown candidate (not
David French, sure, but may be at last Gary Johnson) or even, to really and most
effectively preclude what they consider the most dreadful outcome, in those of
Hillary Clinton. Well, let’s wake up, folks, If the Trump phenomenon has shown
something is how utterly ineffectual the conservative luminaries are, and how
little they are able to influence their side. Honestly, if I were one of them I
would renounce my profession and enter a monastery for life (or at least for
the next eight years while the country is administered by whoever ends up
winning in November). Surely I wouldn’t count on any of them to be of much help
to any non-Trump candidate. They may have a little fun toying with their
principled stance, and patting themselves in the back for how righteous and
dignified they sounded (except those of them that will in the end ally
themselves with the devil and more or less openly endorse Trump as the lesser
of two evils, which I still expect some of them to do) but their purported coreligionists
have forsaken them and we can ignore their pleas for the remainder of the
campaign.
All of this
shouldn’t be taken as me believing that Trump has it done, and that he is more
likely than not to win in November. It just means that when you see any
political analyst (or casual commentator) self assuredly declaring that no
matter what the polls say, it’s going to be a “shellacking”, a “landslide” or a
“trouncing”, that Hillary will win between 40 and 50 states and more than 370
electoral votes, and that Dems will likely recover the Senate and may be the
House you should take it with a bit of salt, as many of them will just be
projecting their desires on a more fluid, more uncertain electoral reality, and
confusing their wishes with what the data show. That said, if I had to make a
forecast I would still say that Hillary wins the White House by a moderate
margin (around +5% of the popular vote, which may translate in an enormous
difference in electoral votes if she plays her cards right, which she will
undoubtedly do, it is Trump’s campaigning prowess and acumen which is a
wildcard here). Regarding the Senate, it is too soon to tell, but I don’t see
the Repubs losing it yet. As for the House, it stays Republican led in any
conceivable scenario. How likely is that? Much less than the sure thing
liberals are currently dreaming of. I’d say Hil has a 55% chance against Trump’s
45%. Close enough to flip if a) Trump puts together a half competent
organization (something he didn’t need to do in the primaries) b) Hillary is
indicted (very, very unlikely, but you never can tell for sure) or c) a “black
swan” event (from a sudden severe recession to a major terror attack –I don’t
think Orlando qualifies as serious enough) upends the campaign.
Wait and see,
as I always say towards the end of these kind of posts, it’s gonna be a hell of
a show to watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment