Hillary's demographic bounce may not be very large
It's become an article of faith among Democrats that the demographic trend will give them semi-permanent majority in Washington, and that the day will arrive soon.
This demographic advantage is supposed to show up in November due in part to Donald Trump's offensive statements about Mexicans being rapists. Hillary does indeed have a huge advantage in the Hispanic vote, but Democrats might be surprised that it is only a 65-21 advantage.
Even more important, this advantage is largely due to foreign-born Hispanics. The problem with this fact is that the lion's share of foreign-born Hispanics don't even register to vote.
What's more, even Hispanics that are registered often don't vote.
While the U.S. electorate is growing more diverse, there’s a caveat when it comes to the impact of these changes: the relatively low voter turnout rates among Hispanics and Asians. In the 2012 presidential election, 64% of non-Hispanic white eligible voters cast ballots, as did 67% of black eligible voters. By comparison, the voter turnout rate was 48% among Hispanics and 47% among Asians.
In fact, if primary exit polls are to be believed, Hillary isn't doing any better with Hispanics than Obama did in 2012. Which was strong, but not overwhelming.
So demographic percentages don't appear to be breaking Hillary's way any more than the traditional baseline.
Thus, Democrats need turnout, but like I pointed out last week, that requires enthusiasm, which is lacking.
A review of registration figures shows that in the swing states that sign up voters by party, Republicans are seeing a significantly bigger boost since 2012. In states like Florida and Pennsylvania, the party has added tens of thousands of voters to the rolls at a time when Democrats have seen their base shrink.
“The numbers [in those states] … are a huge shift from what we’ve seen in 2012,” Republican National Committee spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said....
Democrats are taking a huge risk relying on demographics, identity politics, and Scary Trump! It's very possible that the demographic surge won't happen for yet another election cycle.
The bottom line is that Mrs. Clinton is unlikely to benefit from the same jump in black turnout and support that Mr. Obama had. Similarly, she is unlikely to repeat the same jump in support from Hispanic voters. It is possible she won’t see any gains among these groups at all.
Democratic gains from nonwhite voters have greatly slowed, to the marginal gains from demographic shifts alone.
The end result: According to The Upshot’s estimates, Mrs. Clinton’s gains from demographic change could be as small as a single percentage point.
Of course, it doesn't have to be this way. Dems don't have to cross their fingers and hope they can scare the minorities to the polls.
There is a huge demographic that consistently votes, that is very upset with the status quo, and once loyally voted Democratic - the white working class. Getting a few million of them to shift to voting Democratic would finish Trump and win back the Senate, easily.
Of course, Hillary would have to give them a reason to vote Democratic, and that doesn't appear to be something that is even being considered.
Comments
Interesting.
I would have thought that Hillary would have performed better among Latinos born in the US since she's had some foreign policy debacles in Central and South America.
It's possible that the news of Honduras might be spreading
that thing with sending the kids back into the arms of murderers she helped to put in office was ugly.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hillary_clintons_link_to_a_nasty_pie...
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
http://caucus99percent.com
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/reply/7661/174549
Thu, 09/15/2016 - 8:36am — CantStoptheSignal
It's possible that the news of Honduras might be spreading
that thing with sending the kids back into the arms of murderers she helped to put in office was ugly.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hillary_clintons_link_to_a_nasty_pie...
Followed the link given, thanks, although it appears to have been mistitled. Hillary IS a nasty piece of work. And she never did have any respect for democracy or legitimate election results. The message she sent with the rejected children who'd survived the '... dangerous journey in the hands of smugglers. ... was, obviously, that she was a freaking psychopath. Although I expect they already knew that, just not that even 'bad optics' wouldn't prevent her from exercising her sadistic impulses on desperate, terrified children who were supposed to have reached safety - whose democracy, country, families and lives she'd helped wreck - and now had likely condemned to death.
If anyone hasn't read both pages to refresh their outrage - we know what she believes in and supports and it is not democracy, it is fascism. And it shows in such acts and attitudes as these.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hillary_clintons_link_to_a_nasty_pie...
So there was an fraudulent election, of which Hillary naturally approved... how can anyone vote for this? Do they not even realize that she'll do the same to them, as well as the rest of us?
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Democratic Union Members are a problem for Clinton, too
Maybe the Dems will get more minority voters in the future, but currently they are losing lifelong Democratic voters, who are union members. Because of the neoliberal policies of the Dems, some union members see no reason to vote for Clinton. This decreases the vote totals for Clinton and the Dems in the industrial Midwest. Also, if Clinton has problems with minority turnout in Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, and Arizona, these states will go to Trump. IMO, this talk of a big landslide with long coattails is just talk, because I don't see it happening.
"The split between labor leaders and union members lies at the center of Trump’s potential path to the White House, which includes winning over a swath of Rust Belt states from Pennsylvania to Ohio, thanks to his cross-party appeal among traditionally Democratic union workers."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/26/why-these-union-members...
I have a feeling that NAFTA
comes back to haunt her and the democrats here in the Midwest.
If this election is about the "economy" she loses.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
At this point, the election is about corruption
which is even worse for her.
They keep trying to make it about racism, so she can win.
At least someone could make an argument that Hillary is better on racism than Trump is. (Depends on whether you're more upset by words or deeds, I guess. Apparently the CBC is more worried about words.)
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yep, racism is about the only way she can win
but then the "deplorable" comment didn't help her there and the CBC is a body that has lost its soul, yep money is evil, and I gotta believe MLK is doin circles in his grave at how this is playing out.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Yep, 1%er Democrats really don't want to go there
Then they'd have to address all those class and economic inequality issues that they've tried so hard to avoid for many years now. Much safer to stick with identity politics and fear, even if they end up losing.
Billary will need the gotp to sweep
them back into the white house. It's been said, fool us once ... you can't go home again.
~annominous
Most interesting.
I don't think there will anytime soon (if ever) be such a 'thing' as a 'Permanent R/D Majority" (cf. Newt Gingrich, ca. 1994, R; Judis, 2015, D).
The electoral pendulum should, nay must oscillate back and forth qua Rota Fortunae
Otherwise we are at risk of descending into a Police State
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
Certainly
My statement was mostly sarcasm.
After all, we've been hearing about this demographic tidal wave for decades and it never seems to arrive.
It'd better oscillate into a
It'd better oscillate into a better place NOW - both Dems and Repubs are corporate (fascist) parties and a militarized police state ready to crack down on protest, in case you haven't noticed, is already in place.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
T.D., we have already descended into a police state--it's
just that most of us haven't been tased, truncheoned or pepper-sprayed enough. Please wait in line for the next cattle car.
duplicatum erat
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
I read that article in the NYT and thought oh oh
for the Dems who have been relying on the brute strength of demographics to push them over the finish line.
On the plus side, they do have a lot of high profile Republican endorsements coming through, if that can be considered a plus. IMO a Hillary victory is dependent on a crossover "sane" Republican vote BUT they will vote Republican down-ticket and give her an entirely Republican House and Senate who will amuse themselves for the next for years in hamstringing and impeaching her. In other words, a completely Pyrrhic victory. Ironically, she will install a Cabinet that Mitt Romney would have been proud of and will be standing by, ready willing and able, to be as supportive of the 1% and the corporations as she has always been. She may try to unify the country and Congress by finding a nice foreign misadventure that will unite us in ultra nationalism and patriotism.
The Libertarian guy Johnson is rising in the polls - a lot of people don't seem to care that he doesn't know where Aleppo is since they don't either and are pro-isolationism anyway. They probably see it as a plus and not as "disqualifying" as do the political elites and the pundit class. I read or heard the other day that he is pulling from both Clinton and Trump as the most viable "neither" candidate, unfortunately for Jill Stein.
I think there are a number of factors that portend a Trump election:
1. My husband says so. He is invariably right on his calls, much to my dismay. His prognostications are based on gut instinct and he doesn't care what polls say or pundits say. (He is not a Trump supporter and thinks Trump is a dangerous narcissistic buffoon but that we have entered the Age of Idiocracy.)
2. There is a nihilism present in the electorate which is an undercurrent of "blow the whole damn thing up". These people are not deplorable, they see Trump as a protest vote outside the political ecosystem and a nose thumb to the status quo.
3. The Bradley effect. People who would never admit to being a Trump supporter in the open will vote for him in private.
4. Hillary enthusiasm gap. Too many people don't like and don't trust her and they are sick of Bill as well.
5. Guns. The gun people ALWAYS turn out and they loathe Hillary and the Democrats.
6. Dispirited and/or disgusted Democrats who have had the scales drop from their eyes in regard to Dem corruption re Bernie Sanders treatment and Clinton transgressions and who now feel party-less.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Good analysis, Phoebe.
People don't know what to expect this election cycle, but they are in agreement that there has been nothing like it. I don't talk to many who don't loathe both candidates. Here in NM, Johnson is popular (where IS Aleppo?) and could actually win the state, depending on how things begin to flesh out these last few weeks. I'm seeing more and more signs and bumper stickers for him, on which I base my unscientific analysis. Change is coming!
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
excellent comment
Some have argued convincingly that the 'Bradley effect' never existed, but putting aside what we call the effect, I suspect that Trump is several points stronger than polls suggest, due to the number of angry people who will never admit to voting for him. Call them saboteurs or whatever, but I do believe they could be the slim margin that puts Trump in office.
I don't believe it, because
I don't think it will be allowed.
They didn't allow the electorate to choose Bernie; why do we think they'll allow us to choose Trump?
Democrats in the White House, Republican Congress--that's what the oligarchs like.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
They didn't want Brexit either
Nor Jeremy Corbyn.
Granted that isn't the United States, but it's the same oligarchy.
CStS, oligarchs don't give a rip about party labels
They are non-partisan corruptors who only want to see their programs get passed.
Where did you read/hear that about Stein?
I tend to be very suspicious of what the mainstream media tells me about her.
I don't think she has a chance of winning, but neither does Johnson. I dunno, maybe people think he can win (conservatives always have more faith than liberals, which is one reason we often lose to them) but my best guess? More people know who Gary Johnson is than know who Jill Stein is.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
too bad
It's unfortunate, but the Green Party is getting very little traction. You'd think that with the climate change and environmental issues all on the forefront there would be enough substance to to get them a significant constituency, but people just seem too apathetic. Neither of the duopoly parties takes a strong enough stand on these issues of course, so there is a clear opening.
Maybe it's the leadership, I don't know. I like that Jill is up in North Dakota with the protesters! Hope she'll get some coverage at least.
“The first duty of a man is to think for himself”
Florida
If the Republicans are gaining in registration in Florida, that is a very bad sign. Although Democrats have held an edge in registrations, many Democrats cross party lines and vote Republican in Florida. The Democratic party in Florida is extremely weak too.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Here, Hillary is at 3-and-10.
3 yard signs, 10 bumper stickers.
Total seen since March.
And I've been driving around in the surrounding counties a lot too.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
4-and-10! Woo-hoo!
The Hillmeister is *lighting up* Alachua County! She is *on fire*!!!
To clarify, if one car has 4 Hillary bumper stickers on it, that still counts as one; you don't get to paper your car with 14 Hillary stickers and say you stand for 14 people.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
depends on the DNC
The demographic surge that could have taken place with the election of Sanders is now kicked down the road at least four years, and possibly as long as twelve.
If Trump gets the nod, then it should be in four years, for obvious reasons.
If $$Hill gets the nod, it should be in four years, but if the DNC decides to play dirty to protect the crime family, it could be put off for another four to eight years, as 8 years of $$Hillary would almost certainly (imo) result in the election of a 'moderate' bullshit-spewing repig.
After the disgusting display this election, I suspect that the only way the demographic surge takes over D.C. is by near-revolution. Let's hope that $$Hill and her completely corrupt cronies don't leave our government in a state that makes a 'changing of the guard' a futile democratic gesture.
Her Heinous' illness must get tossed in
as a negative bounce for some undecideds. If only there was more in MSM about Johnson AND Stein. Too many still trust what they see and read but the doubt factor looms larger every day plus confidence loss in the press.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
The demographic "surge" is not a Democratic Party surge...
There is a lot of wishful thinking among Democratic party elites that POC without a current party affiliation and Millenials will finally see the light and register Democratic not NPP or for another party. There is no proof of this phenomenon actually occurring, mind you, but there is plenty of projection... People don't vote in the main, typical turnout nationally in presidential election years trends around 35% to 45% of eligible voters, which is typically about 55% to 60% of registered voters, and in off year elections it is even less than that... Political parties and the concomitant governing institutions that they populate are considered failed and corrupt by the vast majority of Americans. Poll after poll demonstrates that Americans believe their governing institutions do not respond to them or address their needs and concerns, until that is remedied, the change that is needed will not occur.
I agreed with everything but the last sentence--
She can't give them a reason to vote for her. That ship has sailed.
Somewhere between 55% and 60% of the population deems Hillary an untrustworthy liar who would do anything to get what she wants. There's also a sense, less often articulated, that she's looking down on all of us. When Americans get an entrenched view of someone's character, it's hard to shift, which is why people in the campaign world care about favorability ratings in addition to caring about which policy positions are popular, and how to frame unpopular positions to make them more popular, etc. The issue of character is also important. If you think someone's constantly lying to you, you're not going to care much what they say.
Give you an example: I'm an environmental voter. That's my most cherished set of issues.
Hillary could tell me she's going to get us off all civilian uses of fossil fuels in the next ten years, and it wouldn't affect the way I polled a bit. Why? Because I don't believe a word she says. She could tell me the sun was coming up tomorrow, and I'd get up at 6 to check.
That view--that Hillary is a bad, untrustworthy person--may have been set in concrete before the primary started, which (if they've got data to suggest that that's true) would explain why the constant emphasis on TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP! If you're running a candidate who has a character issue like that, your only recourse is to find a greater evil and harp on about it.
Of course, the real answer to that problem, back in the days when we didn't inhabit Insan-o-World, is not to run someone who has that kind of persistent unpopularity. In the (heh) good old days (which weren't, really but were better than this), that kind of baggage would eliminate a candidate from the running.
Because it's fucking stupid to run a candidate people hate.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Regarding sailing ships
The moment Hillary said basket of deplorables, the ship left the dock.
Of course, the decision to ignore the white working class was made more than a year earlier (and maybe decades before that).
OTOH, Bernie could have brought back a significant hunk of the white working class, which shows how fast it can turn around with the right candidate.
IMO, had happened sooner--
but I don't have the data to back it up. I wonder if data on that question exists--when did the American people's opinion of HRC get set in stone?
This campaign didn't help that at all, to the extent that I sometimes think it's an on-purpose "Up yours!" to most of the American people. With a side of pandering to Latinos and Blacks which is already decaying and definitely won't survive the inauguration.
You're totally right about the basket of deplorables, though--no going back from that.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Hill just needs enough voters
Hill just needs enough voters to make a cheat look good - they can manufacture their own votes, as has already been shown.
Looks like the Federal government, FBI, etc. and Justice department are all in for Hillary;
the Supreme Court (half being corrupt appointments from both Bushes) has has a corporate-friendly Republican put forward from the corporate-coup-promoting Dem President for the deciding Supreme Court votes on such things as to whether anyone has the right to offshore their country's domestic law to hostile self-interests and shred democracy along with the Constitution they've already misinterpreted to suit corporate interests and billionaires only and which that President swore to defend;
the cheating on the Dem nomination was blatant beyond even that typical of the Republicans, having no concern about even 'optics', this passing under the excuse that a 'private' political party has the right to rig US Presidential choices for members and other citizens to suit hostile self-interests who've drained enough money out of such as those members and other citizens to buy whole political parties.
So who's going to investigate whether the general election which Hillary will win, as the top corporate pick, (barring something like Bush 3 or some other previously favoured Republican corporate candidate being parachuted in to replace Trump, or a corporate Dem not having been in the Dem nomination process for even any pretense of respecting voter choice replacing cheated-in Hillary at the last minute, as was already threatened) involved massive cheating?
A way to get around this would involve a landslide win for the only viable non-corporate Presidential candidate currently running (barring a Bernie miracle) with the obvious cheating to make Hillary 'win' proven and finding the international (UN?) mechanism which apparently exists to ensure that no other country recognizes as 'the leader' a false one rejected by the people. That and massive peaceful protests. Otherwise, there may be no more option for a peaceful political solution toward democracy.
In any event, Jill will not kill like Hill, and - to those considering voting within the two-party corporate/billionaire trade-off box the oligarchs seek to continue to trap you inside - why not vote for life and democracy, rather than evil and the end of life on the planet, whether rapidly, with the corporate-coup-desired 'limited' nuclear attacks on multiple countries or more slowly, over several decades, of unlimited industrial pollution, unsafe everything, 'globally competitive' slave wages/work-for-some-unsafe-food economy for most of us and the die-off of the oxygen/food/clean water-producing life support system as well as of the 'disposable societies' consisting of non-billionaires like us? 'They' say not to vote for her, because nobody will vote for her; you know who 'they' are.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
well said!
Maybe that is why this election cycle has turned us all into web journalists--we are all working overtime to verify what is truth and lies!
What a way to live--takes up so much vital energy. But our very future depends on it!
Relying on demographics
I agree with most things stated here, but there are even bigger problems with relying on demographics. Relying on people voting for you because the other party hates how they look means that you dont actually have to stand for anything or do anything. A party that relies solely on demographics is not a progressive party.
Given the uneven split of demographics across the country, it also means that the [structurally rural] Senate is lost except when the other side really really screws up and nominates people who argue about legitimate rapes and witches. Of course, this just means you can blame the lack of progressive action that your contributors never really wanted on congress.
IMO, we are witnessing a realignment, no matter who wins.
Establishment Republicans, like Kristol and Poppy Bush, are either backing Hillary or saying they can't back Trump. Even those currently looking for the Republican vote, like McCain and Ryan, say only that they support the nominee of the Party. If Hillary wins, establishment Republicans have won. If she loses, Trump disasters will kill off what remains of the Republican Party, but for the fringe right. Meanwhile, neoliberals have fragmented the Democratic left and, sadly, Sanders has now helped divide the Democratic left further. Somehow, the left has to become more unified and organized than the Libertarians, who have been at it for decades, partly because they didn't buy into lesser of two evils voting as did the Democratic left.
Trade is a class issue
link
The enthusiasm gap
The enthusiasm gap may be the decisive factor in this election. Although I would never vote for Hillary myself, for a couple of weeks I thought she was headed for a landslide victory. Then her lead completely evaporated. One more strange occurrence in a strange election.
"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."