Once you go over a minute, it becomes real work.
This definitely looks bad for the President’s re-election. Oops, he’s not running again.
From the previously linked*The Undoing of George Bush*:
I’m pretty sure President Obama hasn’t been sheltered from any of the news. Even on vacation, he can ensure the Feds are doing their part. Hey, he can also walk & chew gum simultaneously; unlike Bush. Then there’s this:
(Has George even visited his “ranch” since leaving Washington? Or was it just part of his image–like Trump’s “compassion.”)
You are correct that I missed that tweet: “Closely monitoring the flooding in Louisiana & Mississippi. The @RedCross is helping displaced families in need: Flood Relief | Disaster Relief | American Red Cross -H”
The point, made more precisely, still however remains: Clinton’s attention to this disaster has been … relatively sparse. From a practical perspective it is of no matter. It does not help flood victims for a candidate to be talking about it and she is not in a position to do anything to help. But from a political POV it was a missed opportunity to message that inclusiveness includes the lower SES rural Whites who right now are overwhelmingly against her.
Her election does not depend on winning them over, but it would be easier if the margin of her loss within the demographic was less dramatic, and making progress in the demographic would help inordinately in fighting for the House.
Yes, according to the Breitbart’s of the world. Meanwhile, in reality:
You seem to equate not giving out Play-Doh for nearly a minute as “relatively sparse” reaction. She was spreading awareness before Trump did, calling the state governor, actually listening to him (unlike Trump) and she continues to spread awareness. Don’t be shocked when she visits at a more appropriate time (which will cue the Right Wing Media to cry about how she’s just there for a photo op and is late to that as well).
I am aware that the people who read Breitbart (or hire their employees to run their campaign) have a different view. But it’s a view of idiots and more to the point, not exactly people who were going to pivot to Hillary Clinton away from Donald Trump in November.
White voters are not a single demographic.
He is doing well among non-college educated White voters … but much more poorly than Romney did among college-educated Whites and consequently overall does worse than Romney with Whites overall and even no better only looking at the White male demographic.
Let’s imagine that those who did not pick one do not vote. That’s 66% of non-college educated Whites voting for Trump and 59% of college educated Whites voting for Clinton. Romney got 62% of the non-college educated White vote and 56% of the college educated White vote. Dial those current numbers with last time’s turnout into the 538 app and it would be a 13 to 14 point Clinton win. I can move the non-college educated White share and turnout a long long ways until it flips the Electoral College (which it does before it flips the popular vote) … I can even lower college educated White turnout to below what I place non-college at and it is still a Trump loss.
This photo-op is an appeal only to the non-college educated White demographic. Going with them alone is not a path to likely victory.
You are discussing the practical reality, which is nice, but it has nothing to do with how something is perceived as political reality to the demographic under discussion.
The non-college educated demographic in 2012 had a turnout of only 57% and 62% of them voted Romney. She’s unlikely to get a better share of them than Obama did but it would be nice if she was able the turnout to not be much higher. Call them idiots all you want but their votes, if they vote, count as much as yours does … reaching out to them in ways that they see and hear (visit and disruption of rescue operations not required) is not enough to win them, but is enough that some are less likely to bother to come out to vote against you.
And you are ignoring the *reality *reality which summed up my post:
So you were wrong on the facts and you’re even more wrong if you think it matters. Nobody in any demographic cares enough about this to change their mind and nobody in any demographic that hasn’t made their mind up will use this as a determining factor.
And you are ignoring the latter portion of my post … it is not about them pivoting to Clinton away from Trump … it is about the intensity of their anti-Clinton animus and keeping it low enough that they once again don’t bother to vote.
Can anyone imagine the howls of indignation that would have occurred if Clinton had gone to Louisiana for a photo-op (against the explicit request of the Governor of the state), and then spent a grand total of 49 seconds “helping” by handing out boxes of Play-doh to her VP candidate?
I mean, just picture what the right wing would have made of that. Picture it. I will wait.
.
.
.
.
.
But when Trump does it… Well, it’s just Trump being Trump, right? At this point, he’s in such low esteem that this act of his seems entirely normal.
The playing field is not equal. All Trump has to do to maintain his base is not actually shit his pants in public.
It’s true that Obama’s not running again, but in a lot of ways, Hillary is being viewed as Obama’s third term. Unlike Al Gore, who distanced himself from the Clinton legacy, Clinton is using Obama’s moderate popularity to whatever advantage she can, and she’s kept the distance between them closer. She’s using her experience in Obama’s administration as a selling point. There are advantages with that approach, but there can be disadvantages.
This is especially true given that Trump has made this campaign about promoting a form of white christian nationalism. Sure, Trump is going to win Louisiana anyway, but this is not just about Louisiana. “TrumpBart” wants to use the images from Louisiana to make Obama look a little, well, ‘darker’ in the eyes of impressionable whites in other states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
I agree that the flood by itself won’t matter, but there are potentially other examples he can exploit. Trump can exploit examples of black on white crime, attacks on police, and civil unrest among other things, and I believe that whereas Manafort wanted to back away from some of the more extreme attacks in favor of a more conventional strategy, Trump may in fact be convinced that he should go further down this path of race-baiting.
Meh.
He could actually shit in his pants in public and maintain his base. His base would eat that shit up.
The questions remain though whether or not he can expand beyond his base and whether or not his base actually turns out.
Shitting in his pants as a metaphorical stand-in for all of the crap he has done actually does prevent him from expanding beyond his base. Again, Romney won college educated Whites by 14 points and Trump is losing them by over 8. And he sure aint winning over any non-White groups.
Actual base turnout though will more driven by how much the base wants to vote against Clinton.
Yeah, I’m sure this is a big issue for them… :rolleyes:
Not understanding the sarcasm here.
Do you believe that turnout within the non-college educated voter population is a written in stone number?
Do you not think that voter enthusiasm both to vote for a candidate and to vote against one drives turnout within a demographic that is traditionally not a likely of voters as some others?
Do you think Clinton animus is a static entity?
It is my belief that enthusiasm for Trump among non-college educated White eligible voters is overestimated and that so long as Clinton does not give them major reason to come to vote against her (and in the process other Democratic candidates downticket) the 57% turnout for the group in 2012 is the best they’ll do.
Just to put rural non-college educated voter dislike of Clinton into perspective here is a January 2016 pre-season view of her positioning in the demographic compared to Obama’s. Now mind you this was before the season started, back when she was more favorable than not, but then she notably had, relative to Obama, strength in that demographic.
It is rare that any single item has a major impact on a campaign and again Clinton can cede the demographic completely to Trump and win just fine. I do though think that working on winning back some favorability in that subgroup would serve her, the Democratic party, and the country well, especially looking beyond this election alone.
wonder what non political ** moms ** across entire USA thought about Trump handing out play doh / etc to flood victims ?
think they might have empathy for all the Louisiana moms ( and her little kids ) that have had their homes flooded , lost everything , and are now in shelters, etc. ?
play doh that little kids can now concentrate on , instead of the horrible flood where they lost their house and all their toys.
always 2 sides to an event.
what did i see from HRC folks today ?
schedule of back-n-forth from coast to coast hi $$ fund raising next few days.
from Obama ?
more golf.
Trump ?
another good speech.
The governor of Louisiana asked Obama to wait. He’s visiting next week, when his security arrangements won’t take away resources from rescue and relief efforts. Trump staged a photo op.
No. None of the mothers I know think any better of Trump because he took advantage of a tragedy for a photo-op.
Of course, I know wealthy and/or educated mothers.
HRC: Taking care of the details of business, like she always does
Obama: Doing his job and respecting the legal authority of the Governor of Louisiana
Trump: Interrupts relief efforts to stage a photo-op when he’s supposed to be richer than King Midas and should merely be able to write a check during a photo-op.
And then after making the check, we will find months later that he “forgot” to send it.
always 2 sides.