[helene_t]

http://www.salon.com...osing_campaign/

Salon, usually a liberal website, claims that Hillary will lose because she is building an imago as an elitist. What do the Americans here think?

[mike777]

I would expect the number of people who vote against Hillary because she is elite is closer to zero.

40% will vote for her no matter what.
40% will vote against her no matter what.

the remaining 20% will choose for many reasons or no reasons.
------------

Also think of the race in terms of states and electoral votes.

The Democrats are locked into wins in many states. Depending on who you talk to they need another 30-50 electoral votes, Big states have more votes than small states.

The race comes down to a few states, such as OHIO, FLorida, Penn, Michigan, depending on who you talk to.

Last election the Dems won all but perhaps one of these toss up states. They only need a couple of them to win.

Now think that in these toss up states it is close for sake of discussion. You only need to get the votes of 1-3% to shift to win.

[Bbradley62]

It will be interesting to see whether the nominees of both major parties try more to rally their base or to win the political center. Salon will be unhappy if Hillary does the latter, but it's probably a good idea for her to do so anyway.

[Vampyr]

The Republicans will be better placed to win the political centre, because there is no risk of their losing the loony fringe.

[mike777]

Don't think of it as the political center.

think in terms of states, then think in terms of states where the outcome will be close.

You need to sway something like 1-3% of those undecided to vote for you.


Keep in mind you start with 40% no matter what Hillary does. You lose 40% no matter what Hillary does.

the remaining 20% are often low information voters, they don't read the forums.

[kenberg]

My first thought about states was that Maryland, where I live, always votes Democratic. but wait, we just elected a Republican governor. And I voted for him. I would advise Democratic strategists to not get over-confident. If they can arrange to run against someone who likes to compare himself to Galileo that will boost their chances.

Specifically about Hillary: I have been told many times that she is very smart. Possibly it is even true. I have an open mind on that.

Actually, I think the country is in deep stuff.

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-12, 17:32, said:

The Republicans will be better placed to win the political centre, because there is no risk of their losing the loony fringe.

First of all, the "loony fringe" appears at both ends of the political spectrum, and neither party is at any risk of losing its own fringe. Secondly, the ability to win the political center depends almost entirely on who gets the nomination of each party. Several of the Republican possibilities (Cruz, Jindal, Huckabee, Carson, Perry, Santorum, to name a few) have no hope at all of winning the political center. Any of those would certainly concentrate on motivating and turning out the base.

[Bbradley62]

kenberg, on 2015-April-12, 19:00, said:

My first thought about states was that Maryland, where I live, always votes Democratic. but wait, we just elected a Republican governor. And I voted for him. I would advise Democratic strategists to not get over-confident. If they can arrange to run against someone who likes to compare himself to Galileo that will boost their chances.

I admit that I don't know anything about your Republican governor, but there is frequently a disconnect between electing governors and voting for president. Republicans have won 5 of the last 7 gubernatorial races in Massachusetts, but we don't see anyone thinking of them as a red state. Conversely, Montana Democrats have won their last 3 gubernatorial races. Republicans didn't come close to winning New York in any of the 3 presidential elections when Republican George Pataki was governor.

[mike777]

Maryland goes for Hillary.

If she cannot carry Maryland she loses huge, huge.

[awm]

I think this talk of "winning the center" shows a misunderstanding of modern american politics. There are very few persuadable voters -- sure there are many "independents" but most of them are strongly partisan, and the rest are apolitical and don't vote.

Instead, elections are mostly about turnout, especially on the democratic side (democrats and "democratic leaning independents" outnumber the other side, but are generally much less likely to vote). In this sort of situation, the key is convincing your own side that you will actually do things for them, rather than being "just another politician" who pays lip service to their positions. Taking some "extreme" positions may be a better strategy than trying to win the (mostly non existent or at least non-voting) center.

This was not always true, in the sense that Goldwater (republican) and McGovern (democrat) lost in landslides. But that was a long time ago, back when there were conservative democrats and liberal republicans (both dying breeds) and "ticket splitting" (voting for some people of each party) was much more common.

[y66]

I don't see how the Republicans can win a national election in 2016 or who other than Hillary can win the Democratic Party's nomination. I didn't think George Bush would beat Al Gore in 2000 either.

[MrAce]

mike777, on 2015-April-12, 17:55, said:

the remaining 20% are often low information voters, they don't read the forums.

Interesting that you see the people who has not committed their life time votes to a specific party and not be one of their blind followers or soldiers, as low informed voters. Ironically you also said that those 40+40 % will vote with loyalty, regardless of what one of the candidate has to say or do. I guess this must be due to their "highly informed" mindsets. Just because we do not participate in this "us and them" type of piss contest does not mean we do not read them, see them or listen to them.

Oh and trust me, besides reading the forums, watching news, reading books, just like other %80, additionally we also vote for what is best for the people at the time election is made and try to do our best to predict the future and make sure we vote in that direction, as oppose to giving our votes for life in the possession of a party or idea and disregard everything else. Yes we make mistakes. But at least we have the ability and freedom and wisdom to see that mistake and change our votes in the future.

I am taking your words on percentages an it saddens me if what you say is true and %80 of voters have created such a wall between themselves and reality in a fanatic team supporter fashion and won't change their mind regardless of what others have to say, what people need, what country needs in a very fast changing environment, relations and necessities.

Anyway, I totally disagree with your view that sees this minority as "low informed" and/or ignorant people. Sorry Mike.

[gordontd]

y66, on 2015-April-12, 22:00, said:

I didn't think George Bush would beat Al Gore in 2000 either.

Did he?

[chasetb]

I disagree with Mike in that the 20% of voters that aren't for one particular party are low-informed voters. I will agree with the fact that 80+% (closer to 85, really) will only vote for one party no matter what. Heck, most people don't realize that when you go to vote, you DO NOT HAVE TO VOTE ON EVERY OFFICE OR ISSUE! I have worked at the polls on Election Day, which most people don't realize falls on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November (so between the 2nd and the 8th).

Now this part gets a little controversial - I wish I was able right now to find the places I got my info. The people who really decide many elections (such as President) is the white male (at least historically, in the near future the Latino population will be ). African-Americans overwhelmingly vote Democrat - for President, if it's under 85%, it's pretty shocking. A 2006 article (I thought it was Five Thirty-Eight, but can't find it) had that breakdown. Women also tend to be Democrat voters, and don't fluctuate too much. Because of numbers, it comes down to the white guy, and just 3 percentage points is usually enough to swing one way. With the rapidly increasing Latino vote, they do lean towards the Democratic party, but I think it's very much up for grabs.

I am technically a registered Republican, but only because they needed more Republican judges at the polls, and I made an extra $25 per election by being the 'presiding judge' for a precinct. I fall somewhere as a conservative libertarian, who doesn't identify with any one party. I greatly dislike Feinstein, Hilary, Obama, Biden, and Reid, as well as Perry, both younger Bushes, and Boehner (who is from my state). I don't care much for Santorum or Huckabee, and I admit to being pretty uninformed about the others you mentioned, particularly Carson. I do think that Hilary is an elitist that's pretty far left, and though I wouldn't mind a female president, except for very few cases I would NEVER vote for her! I think I would rather President Obama get a third term than to see that happen...

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2015-April-13, 02:06, said:

Did he?

The "appeal to the National Authority" was, probably wrongly, rejected. "The Court's contentious decision in Bush v. Gore, announced on December 12, 2000, ended the recounts, effectively awarding Florida's votes to Bush and granting him the victory" is more accurate than "Bush beat Gore".

[wanoff]

gordontd, on 2015-April-13, 02:06, said:

Did he?

No he didn't. Not if you believe the exit polls for Florida.
Still it wasn't all bad - the 'special relationship' strengthened under Bush/Blair.

[cherdano]

MrAce, on 2015-April-13, 01:52, said:

Interesting that you see the people who has not committed their life time votes to a specific party and not be one of their blind followers or soldiers, as low informed voters.

(...)

Anyway, I totally disagree with your view that sees this minority as "low informed" and/or ignorant people. Sorry Mike.

Actually there is a lot of data backing up Mike's statements. (Obviously these are statements about the majority of undecided voters, not about all of them, and that probably excludes anyone posting in BBF politics threads.)

[NickRW]

wanoff, on 2015-April-13, 02:51, said:

No he didn't. Not if you believe the exit polls for Florida.
Still it wasn't all bad - the 'special relationship' strengthened under Bush/Blair.

Ugh. Speaking as an Englishman I have nothing at all against the so called 'special relationship' - indeed quite the reverse. However, the thought of it being operated on our behalves by Bush and Blair actually makes my stomach feel queasy.

[kenberg]

I count myself as among those (the 20% or whatever the number might be) who have not decided which way to vote. I also regard myself as uninformed, the difference between me and others is that I think almost everyone, and I include myself, is uninformed. Really, how could it be otherwise?

The first election I voted in was Kennedy-Nixon in 1960. I was 21, just graduated from college, I had gotten married in June, I had moved to Maryland for the summer to work for NASA-Goddard, it was the first job that I had where my education was relevant and I took it very seriously, I was regarded as good at my job and asked to put in a lot of overtime (I needed the money so I was glad to accept), I went back to graduate school in the fall and, being a less than devoted student as an undergraduate I had a lot of gaps to make up. So I watched the debates and tried to understand. Lots of stuff about missile gaps but, as near as I can recall, the wisdom of invading Cuba did not arise. So I voted (for Kennedy).

When I hear someone go on at length about exactly who we should vote for and why, I wonder if he has a job. Or a family. Or a life. Of course I am uninformed.

Perhaps the most damning sentence in the Salon article is "Convinced by their consultants that politics is all about metaphors and emotion, they treat issues as landmines and do everything possible to avoid stepping on one". Of course politics has always involved ducking and weaving but it seems to now involve little else. Except money. Lots of money.

[billw55]

I think the Rs have a good chance of winning if they nominate someone reasonable. Recent history shows a trend toward alternating parties in the white house. I think that voters (at least, the small percentage who are swinging the elections) just get tired of the incumbent party and want to try something new. Consider GW Bush. He was not a particularly compelling candidate, and the country was coming off a Clinton presidency that was successful in some ways, particularly economically. And yet, there was still a very close election that Bush probably won.

Comparing now, has the Obama presidency been as successful as Clinton's? Can the Rs produce a better candidate than GWB? I think the answers are no and probably. So it would seem that the Rs have a very good chance.

Against this is the tea party and religious fringes of the R party, that are becoming quite scary. A candidate with much association to these fringes will just collect their 40-45% lock votes, and lose routinely.

So really much is in the hands of the R primary voters. Do they have enough sense to understand the situation and act on it? We'll see.