Most are, there are a couple of very minor exceptions. nitpick!
Overall, good post!
I sure hope that Clinton will not ignore Arizona, democrats do need to get more support than in past contests to develop better democratic organizations, and thanks to Trump we may had a big chance in November to turn the state blue!
A few months back a poll showed Trump and Clinton tied, last month an A rated (at 538) pollster showed Clinton ahead of Trump by 7 points!
From the Behavior Research Center link:
It seems that in the case of Arizona we dodged a bullet then when the Republicans decided to go for Trump.
Except that in 2012 Texas was more for Romney by a 20 point margin than the U.S. as a whole. And Illinois 11 points more for Obama than the U.S. was overall. “Close to 50%” is a bit of an overstatement. There was an over 30 point difference is how likely a voter chosen at random would be voting that year.
It cannot be overemphasized however that this general election season is ahistoric.
Trump’s path depends on maintaining traditional party voters while also eating into White industrial blue collar workers and even union member support, and doing less poorly with Black voters than previous GOP contenders have done. Hence he would keep the states Romney won and pick up OH, PA, VA, maybe even IA, NH, MI, and WI.
The expectation is that he won’t be able to do any of that. Some traditionally reliable or usually won GOP voters are expected to sit it out or even flip over, including many center right and moderate women. A fair amount of the increase turnout will be in states that are already very Red. He is unlikely to do better with Black voters and he is going to be the best Democratic Hispanic GOTV tool that this country has ever seen.
Some traditionally safe GOP states will be in play. Yup Arizona is flippable. So’s NC, GA, and even UT (which in 2008, no Romney at the head, went GOP by 28 points, 35 points more than the U.S. mean).
Team Clinton will play all those cards. Wooing traditionally GOP voters who are … uncomfortable … with the idea of Trump as president, fighting for blue collar support, hanging onto the Black voter margin Obama had, trying to keep White Millennial voters engaged and voting, even if they would have preferred Sanders, optimizing Hispanic turnout, even trying to undermine some of his margin with White rural voters.
Of course they will do both inspirational and negative ads, in stages.
Hillary needs to execute a three-pronged attack against Trump each aimed at different parts of the electorate.
The first and perhaps the most difficult is to attack his reputation as a businessman which lies at the heart of his narrative. Highlight his numerous failures like Trump U and the damage they have caused to regular people. This line of attack works best for low information, non-traditional voters who may be tempted by the idea of Trump as a go-getting outsider who can fix Washington.
The second line of attack which is easy and obvious is to highlight Trump’s numerous insults towards Hispanics, women, blacks etc ; this will mobilize the different parts of the traditional Democratic coalition.
The third is to portray Trump as being completely unready and unfit to be commander-in-chief. This one will work best at attracting moderate Republicans or at least persuading them not to vote for Trump.
Three other points:
- The attacks need to start early and be sustained through the campaign. One of the mistakes Trump’s opponents made was to wait far too long to attack him and then do it only in fits and starts.
2)Don’t be afraid to use lines of attacks which were used in the primaries in the belief that they failed. Rubio’s “con-man” attack was actually a good one but as mentioned it came too late. Also the general election electorate is much less Trump-friendly and more receptive to attacks on him. - Be honest and use only the best stuff. There is so much good material on Trump there is no need whatsoever to distort or exaggerate.
Obviously Hillary also needs to talk about her positive agenda but I think making Trump toxic will mostly be enough to beat him.
In case you thought I was joshing about Georgia, which went to Romney by 8, more than 10 over the U.S. mean in 2012 … not. Essentially tied at this point. Trump +1 with 16% of voters undecided, MOE +/-4%.
Well heck, the last time Georgia went into the D column a Clinton was running too. 1992, Bill’s first run. In '96 they went for Dole. Before that, well they did vote for their native son Jimmy Carter.
As for the timing … my impression is that positive and negative predominant come in stages. Stage one is the aspirational wave. Counterpunch to be sure but stay in full presidential mode. Get as many people as possible convinced that you are who they want to vote for. Later segue into why those who do not per se affirmatively choose you should come out to vote against the other candidate and get the marginal voters for that other person doubting enough that maybe they stay home. Close with a final aspirational volley.
Again though … this cycle is pretty ahistoric. Not so sure that Team Clinton needs to make Trump toxic so much as give him the space to do it himself.
This makes a lot of sense.
On your first point (reputation as a businessman): an effective ad might begin with Trump stating that he is all about Bringing Jobs Back and opposing those bad Establishment types who have Sent Our Jobs Overseas—and then showing Trump-brand product after Trump-brand product (his clothing lines, etc) with the Made in China labels prominently displayed.
Another tack to pursue is to publicize the information that’s starting to come out about Trump’s actual net worth, which apparently is far less than what he’s claimed. The fact that he hasn’t met the standard that’s become established in recent decades–of releasing several years of tax returns–should be part of the barrage, too.
On the third point (Trump unfit for the office): there is plenty of footage of GOP establishment figures saying that he’s unfit, and some of it is already being used in a Clinton ad. However, that can backfire with many Trump-leaning voters, who don’t see following the recommendations of Establishment figures as a positive.
Better, perhaps, is to use Trump’s wilder statements (such as the one about how great it would be if more nations had the nuclear bomb) on their own. The concept of Nukes For All really doesn’t mesh well with the nationalistic feelings of many Trump fans, and that should be highlighted.
While I mostly agree with the above posters comments, there is one other thing the Hillary campaign will need to work on; to be frank, *a lot *of people simply don’t like and/or trust her.
Admittedly, a lot of that dislike/ditrust is based on hoohaa and cow-chips, but if Hillary is going to shoot for a epic-level victory (think Reagan-Mondale, Nixon-McGovern), she’s going to have to find a way to inspire people to be for her, not just #anybodybutTrump.
And I don’t know how she does that in a convincing way. That she is capable and intelligent is a given; but how to translate that into someone a lot of people can say “yeah, she’ll be a good president” instead of “at least she’s not Trump”.
One way probably brings victory anyway; the other could bring a sea-change in the political landscape.
But again; I don’t know how she does it in a way that doesn’t seem pandering or too 'set-up". It is a puzzlement.
We shall see, eventually. IMHO as always. YMMV.
I’ve heard it suggested that it was an intentional coinage – i.e. someone who knows a topic forwards and backwards. This actually sounds like a reasonable origin, although the etymology wonks probably won’t like it.
I agree. Debating him would be a mistake. She should just turn down any requests to do so. If she feels she must, then limit them to only one or two. Definitely don’t have an interminable number like the Republicans did during the primary season.
Good reminder from the Clinton campaign (via Digby) about how Trump “united” the Republicans.
In the words of the Republicans that did go against Trump. Just before most of them will very likely end up going for bullshit politics and support Trump in the general election.
I think his point may have been "Are all of the voters in the US just so locked into the partisan concept of party that they would vote for whatever lunatic clown you dressed up in the Republican Suit?’
I can accept a few people like this… But pretty much EVERY PERSON who voted for Romney in the last election will vote for Trump? Just because he is a Republican? Seriously?
That ad is GOLD Jerry! GOLD!
Refusing to debate him is tantamount to admitting she’s afraid of him. That would be a terrible mistake. All we’d hear is how “Crooked Hillary doesn’t have the guts to face me.”
True. She should debate him and behave like an adult. Don’t descend to his level.
Then let her surrogates and third parties unleash the hounds of hell on him. Attack him on every level. Replay every stupid comment he makes on every television and web-ad in existence.
Oh, don’t worry, she will, she will. Every single bit of that including the debates.
Maybe so, but then she should put severe limits on the debates. Only one if she can get away with it, certainly no more than two. And also require some ground rules like “no personal insults”.
Personally, I don’t see any need for debates in this election. There’s very few people who haven’t made up their mind already. It’s not like these two are unknowns. Most people will probably vote for the one they dislike the least.
Not sure which of them would want or not want debates.
The only reason for her to limit the debates is that she will likely be leading solidly most of the way and debates are generally seen as a means of shaking up a race.
He’d want to limit or avoid them because she’d demolish him in them.
Does anyone think that his attempting to bully her and insult her on a debate stage would serve him well in a one-on one debate format for the general election?
If anything what he’d need to use a debate stage for would to prove that he can indeed be presidential. But then he’s competing into her strengths.
The standard for debates, for as long as I can remember, has been 2 or 3 Presidential and 1 VP debate. For the last few elections it’s been 3 Presidential debates. I expect Hillary to push hard for 3 debates (or even more), since that seems to be one of her strengths – and I expect she and her team will have a series of strategies on how to handle any personal attacks during the debates.
Pushing for fewer, I believe, will be seen as weak and cowardly.
The dates and places for three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate are already scheduled.
I doubt she would have to push much for less. I doubt Trump wants many. I personally think that while he could shine when there were a tonne of people on stage and he could just be the loudest voice, he had no stomach for the last debate where he would have just been the loudmouth between the reasonable guy and mr I-love-debates guy.
I’m concerned about a couple of things:
- Complacency, especially among Dems in FL, PA, OH, NY, CA. Her organization needs to be focused on those states with a GOTV program second to none.
- Her ability to get media traction when Donald Trump sets the news cycle by his nightly tweets and early-AM daily call-ins to the network morning shows.