Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign Discussion

[Corry_El]

@RickJay

538 asserts today that a VP pick only helps by about two percentage points.

That means the likelihood of Kaine helping the ticket is small

Clinton, according to 538’s best estimate, is winning Virginia by two to three points. She would, roughly speaking, have to drop nationwide by 3-5 points to be losing Virginia by a margin Kaine could make up for. But if THAT happens, then she has lost Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and possibly Pennsylvania… she’d be toast.

I agree it’s seldom a big difference when looking at all possibilities 3+ months away from the election that you’d pick up 2% in one state. But few other people she’s considered even do a little to get a particular state (Sherrod Brown of OH was one, but Kasich would name a Republican to replace him, McAuliffe a Democrat to replace Kaine, assuming the ticket wins). And let’s say VA is Clinton +2 points, then a 4-ish point national drop by Clinton is needed for Kaine to just make up the difference, but he starts delivering the state at the margin with a 2 point drop, she just barely loses without him, wins by 2 with him, hypothetically. We don’t even have high confidence polls reflect reality to within 2.

I also agree VA is not as likely to be the last piece of the puzzle for either side as some others, but it would be key in some plausible scenario’s. If Clinton only loses the Obama states of FL and OH, NC was a Romney state, she still wins. She loses if Trump adds PA, not won by GOP since Bush I, but his most likely critical path to victory IMO, assuming again he holds all Romney states. If he can’t do that, then he needs to add NH, IA, and VA as most likely candidates (CO couldn’t be excluded). So boosting in VA is worth a bit to block the second most likely critical path for Trump.

Partly relevant point on 538’s interesting graphs and %'s, among those I find less plausible are very small % likelihood EC result is exactly the same as 2012, seems to me an artifact of volatility/correlation assumption using past results in different situations. IIRC the latest output put it like 1% chance, I would think it much greater than that, at least 10%. Likewise in general I’m skeptical of other 538 results relying on volatility/correlation assumptions. And there’s no way to gather enough real world results with a known stationary distribution of outcomes to ever conclusively say eg. the chance of X particular was really Y%, he was right!

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Elendil_s_Heir

“…of course a great Vice President”? He’s been a frequent gaffe generator and more often than not an embarrassment to the White House. Kaine, at least, will be neither.

As the saying goes, his Secret Service codename will be “Tim Kaine”.

[Corry_El]

To clarify last post, Trump would need all Romney states, FL, OH, VA and either NH or IA or CO to win if he can’t win all Romney states plus FL OH and PA. If you really believe Trump has a 40-ish% chance of winning as per 538, I think it’s likely the critical path is one of those two combinations. There are plenty of other theoretically plausible ones, but they tend to mean inability to win states Obama barely won (like FL) while winning ones Obama won by 7-9 (like MI or WI) which seems to me a big skew even if Trump’s appeal is somewhat different from Romney’s.

[DerekMichaels00]

gotta say, Democrats dropped the ball the last 8 years thinking they had some kind of firewall of non-white voters (and many still think they do). Didn’t they plan for post-Obama, or why didn’t they act with the post-Obama era in mind?

I started out a Dem (since I registered back in 2006), and until a few days ago was one until I switched to independent because I realized I deviate on too many issues (cultural and with the left on FP/worldview), tho I still skew left on environment, economics, and LGB rights.

As I mentioned in another post, the spectre of Russia and Putin and Trump’s “I and I alone” bit is why I’m voting against him. And I do trust the Clinton record of being moderate, moreso than Obama, well Bill def was.

One of the reasons I was critical about Obama’s approach to race is that I knew it might play a role in alienating enough white voters to make Trump viable. That being said, I wonder how much white vote Trump expects to get. I hope Hillary has a plan to blunt Trump with white voters, or at least best Obama there, given that black turnout he got will be hard to replicate.

[DSeid]

[QUOTE=DerekMichaels00]
… about Obama’s approach to race …
[/QUOTE]

Being a bit of a provocateur?

The only thing about Obama’s approach to race that alienated White voters was his being a highly intelligent competent Black man leading this country.

[DerekMichaels00]

[QUOTE=DSeid]
Being a bit of a provocateur?

The only thing about Obama’s approach to race that alienated White voters was his being a highly intelligent competent Black man leading this country.
[/QUOTE]

Do I think some voters were turned off by that? Yea, but those were probably people who didn’t vote Democrat before 2008. I was referring to voters in WV, KY, AR, MO, TN, and LA who voted for Bill Clinton twice, and in WV voted Dukakis and Carter twice, who might have been swayed by the down home southern faux-hick George Dubya, but when Dubya’s approvals went to shit, and when the GOP didn’t have such a folksky guy on the ticket, still didn’t go Obama. Or the voters who went Obama in 2008 but went Romney in 2012? How did John Kerry and Gore outperform Obama in terms of 2-party vote in a lot of those states, or even all-party vote?

I think incidents like “nation of cowards,” “if I had a son,” etc. in between 2009 inaugural and election '12 had a role in this, as well as things like “typical white person” and “clinging to guns/religion” in 2008. And now Hillary may very well have to live with the long term consequences of these things.

I also think a lot of those voters that the Dem party ultimately lost might have liked a slower pace on culture wars, like with transgenders, or at the very least, not to see lawsuits over wedding cakes, or being called bigots for questioning transgenderism.

Obama should’ve taken a much more DLC/New Dem approach to governing if he wanted to avoid what has happened in the electorate.

Given Trump’s disregard for small-d democracy, like “opening up libel laws” against the press, the fact he actually wants to use taxpayer dollars to try Hillary after Obama leaves if elected, “I and I alone,” his recent plan to enact new purging laws of government, and his love of Putin, this is a shame.

[DSeid]

Indeed states like West Virginia had once upon a time been Democratic leaning … but the realignment of Southern states becoming securely Republican and many Western ones becoming securely Democratic traces back to '76. Just looking in detail at WV and only going back to '88 you can see a gradual erosion from the state margin compared to national margin from D+13 pretty linearly to near parity in 2004. Yes, it jumped with a Black man running but no shit.

From that Wang cite:

This map shows a perhaps equally great second shift, starting in 1976 and indicated by the red path. Each step was small, but over time it added up. Comparison of the 1976 and 2012 electoral maps (see below) shows that during this time, two things happened: (a) the South became securely Republican (think of Gore losing Tennessee in 2000), and (b) Democrats captured Western states starting with Washington, Oregon, and California, and eventually including Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. These changes may be partly racial, partly economic/cultural. … the shift of 1984-2012 corresponds to (b) above, the loss of Western states by Republicans. Washington/Oregon/California/Nevada currently add up to 80 electoral votes, marking a substantial shift toward Democrats. Racial diversity is an obvious driving factor here, with some additional role for new-economy jobs growth.

Perhaps a broader lesson from this diagram is that much of the last 50 years has involved continual change in the configuration of the electoral map.

Easier perhaps to look at along the rural-urban dimension with cities becoming increasingly Democratic and rural areas increasingly Republican, with state results a reflection of that more than anything else. This also is a fairly long term trend. The Western states that have gone Blue can be seen in the map in that article to include what it calls “emerging megaregions.”

This divide between blue city and red countryside has been growing for some time. Since 1984, more and more of America’s major cities have voted blue each year, culminating in 2012, when 27 out of the nation’s 30 most populous cities voted Democratic …

A case can be made that Obama was correlated with the process speeding up less because of his Blackness than because he is so very urban.

And I will repeat a point I’ve made before, yes, Clinton is well served by reaching out to rural America, both messaging that inclusion includes them too, and following through very visibly when in office. (Obama’s team has done work but has been fairly quiet in their approach.)

[Johnny_Ace]

@DerekMichaels00

I started out a Dem (since I registered back in 2006), and until a few days ago was one until I switched to independent because I realized I deviate on too many issues (cultural and with the left on FP/worldview), tho I still skew left on environment, economics, and LGB rights.

For someone who leans left, you sure spout a helluva lot of standard tropes of the right.

[DerekMichaels00]

@DSeid

A case can be made that Obama was correlated with the process speeding up less because of his Blackness than because he is so very urban.

What do you mean “urban?”

[DSeid]

Well you can start with the academic treatise of “The Town Mouse and the Country Mouse.”

[JohnT]

Congratulations Hillary, now let’s get to work.

Hillary Clinton breaks the glass ceiling

[purplehearingaid]

Someone said on TV that people are moved no matter what party they’re on .

I can’t say this CRAP ! I am not moved that Hillary is in just b/c she is a woman! Women are crying, give me a break ! This woman is pissed off !

[Lobohan]

@purplehearingaid

Someone said on TV that people are moved no matter what party they’re on .

I can’t say this CRAP ! I am not moved that Hillary is in just b/c she is a woman! Women are crying, give me a break ! This woman is pissed off !

She’s in because she’s almost certainly the most qualified person on Earth for the job. And most of the Dems in the primaries voted for her.

[Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew]

@purplehearingaid

Hillary is in just b/c she is a woman!

Oddly enough, there are 3,500,000,000 women who did *not *get tapped for the nomination. There must be *something *else in play.

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@purplehearingaid

Someone said on TV that people are moved no matter what party they’re on .

I can’t say this CRAP ! I am not moved that Hillary is in just b/c she is a woman! Women are crying, give me a break ! This woman is pissed off !

Why are you pissed off? Because the party that you very obviously have no affiliation to just nominated a woman? What the hell do you care who the Democrats nominated?

There was a lot of anger in the convention hall last week in Cleveland. I’m starting to think conservatives are just perpetually pissed off. This is why I could never be a Republican. Life’s too short to be that pissed off all the time.

[DerekMichaels00]

I gotta say, so far tonight, they’re doin pretty good, but it does seem that the Democrats think they can almost ride demographic changes alone.

[iiandyiiii]

@DerekMichaels00

I gotta say, so far tonight, they’re doin pretty good, but it does seem that the Democrats think they can almost ride demographic changes alone.

Why does it seem that way to you?

[DerekMichaels00]

@iiandyiiii

Why does it seem that way to you?

for reasons Van Jones and Anderson Cooper talked about. And yea, there are very few white men on stage (far fewer than in 1992, 1996, or even 2000 and 2004); I get the Dems wanna hammer their advantage on their base, but they should probably try to expand to beat Trump. Especially as more Hispanics are seeing themselves as white as years go by.

[iiandyiiii]

@DerekMichaels00

for reasons Van Jones and Anderson Cooper talked about. And yea, there are very few white men on stage (far fewer than in 1992, 1996, or even 2000 and 2004); I get the Dems wanna hammer their advantage on their base, but they should probably try to expand to beat Trump. Especially as more Hispanics are seeing themselves as white as years go by.

In the last hour there have been three white male speakers.

[DerekMichaels00]

@iiandyiiii

In the last hour there have been three white male speakers.

that is true, it could be a timing issue (have the base constituencies early as Bernie gets patched up, have more white men later on). I have been watching the entire convention thru yesterday and today so far. I also watched the GOP convention too.