Trump has 48% of voters sewn up – Clinton better hurry up and name Warren as VP
538 confirms what I’ve been saying. Because of polarization, Trump has a firm floor of 48% of the vote. This was never going to be the blow out election Democrats dreamed of when they saw Trump rising in the polls. It was always going to be nip and tuck. Long story, short: I am vindicated.
Polarization notwithstanding, it’s at least a little amazing how quickly and easily Trump — who has bucked party orthodoxy on a range of issues — consolidated the GOP vote. The fact that Republican voters are treating him as any other nominee may give him a floor on his support, ensuring he doesn’t get blown out by Clinton. Even if Clinton wins most voters in the center of the political spectrum, it’ll be difficult for her to run up the score if Trump is pulling a similar percentage of Republicans as past nominees did. The last time either party’s nominee won the general election by double digits (1984), he pulled a quarter of the opposing party’s voters.
Of course, securing your base is a necessary but not sufficient condition to win elections. President Obama led pretty much wire-to-wire in the 2012 presidential race and ended up beating Romney by 4 percentage points, despite Romney, at this point in that campaign, taking in more of the Republican vote than any nominee since 1980. Obama was able to win four years ago by holding onto 92 percent of Democratic voters. That is, polarization works both ways, keeping Democrats voting for the Democratic nominee and Republicans voting for the Republican nominee.
In national polls right now, Trump is benefiting from Clinton’s inability to hold her own base. Clinton is struggling tremendously with Democratic-leaning independents, who tend to be Bernie Sanders supporters. That has allowed Trump to close the gap with Clinton in the polls, though he still trails in most surveys.
So now it falls to Clinton to hurry up and win the votes of Democratic voters and create a similar rock solid base of support. How can she do it? I’d suggest naming Elizabeth Warren as her presumptive pick for the VP spot. That should ally the lingering fears of Democratic base voters that Clinton is just another bought and paid for instrument of the corporate oligarchy.
If its Warren, then Republican Governor of Mass names Republican to fill her seat.
And Bernie better hurry up and endorse Clinton, as is his responsibility. If he does not, he will be tossed from the Senate in 2018.
Not likely. He is even more popular in Vermont than he is in the country at large.
@chris – Clinton needs actions, not words to create a unity ticket. Other than Sanders or Warren, I don’t see a Dem with with enough street cred to move Democratic base voters interested in economic justice.
Right, because if Clinton names a VP while the primary is still going on that will go over well. Seriously, how can she run as the Dem nominee (even tho she is) without alienating Sanders’ supporters? I’m serious, tell me how she goes into full general election mode during the primary?
FWIW, I expect these poll numbers to change once the Dem primary ends and Bernie throws his support behind Clinton.
Because of polarization, Trump has a firm floor of 48% of the vote.
This didn’t come from 538, so I wouldn’t get too comfy in that “vindication”.
I was extrapolating based on 538. 47.2% if you want to be picky.
Your extrapolation isn’t even sensible. It’s like having to watch CNN up in here.
“Seriously, how can she run as the Dem nominee without alienating Sanders’ supporters?”
By co-opting his message and while she may not be the best vehicle for that, Warren could be. I’ve said all long that she could have taken Sanders out of it from the jump by delivering some red meat to the Democratic base voters. Why does she thinks she gets those voters without going after them?
@Cassandra – based on the article I’m giving him Romney’s vote total. You think it is overly aggressive, fine. Be less aggressive. Simply by virtue of being the GOP nominee Trump gets to at least 45% of the popular vote.
No blow out. My vindication stands.
It is now too late for Hillary to find her populist voice on the stump; she’s going to need help from Warren or at least somebody to mitigate her centrism.
I agree. When I said that Clinton “may not be the best vehicle for (red meat for the dem base)” I was being diplomatic.
I actually think Hillary would be an excellent vehicle for some red-meat Dem proposals without alienating her current base. For example, Bernie handed her an opportunity to support a $15 Federal minimum wage, but I watched her tap dance around it on national TV. Whose vote was she afraid of losing?
Yum brands?
Is this a wording thing? Clinton and Sanders agree on almost everything, and when she did start using his wording Bernie called her out.
When she moves left she gets called out for it. If she named a VP she’d be accused of being presumptuous.
I was fine with the primary continuing. Now I can’t wait until it ends. There isn’t a move she can make at this time that would be viewed fairly. Let’s stop pretending that her adopting more of Bernie’s message would make Bernie’s supporters happy. It won’t – they’d accuse her of co-opting his message for votes – that she’s lying. Let’s stop pretending her naming a VP would be viewed as a good thing, when Bernie supporters would say she was over-stepping because there’s a primary going on! She’s stuck in limbo until the primary ends.
Changing up your rhetoric doesn’t amount to moving left. She needed to come out full-throated in her standard stump speech for $15 and with plans against harmful trade agreements, for starters. She had lots of opportunity to do exactly that, but failed the vetting. Now she needs help from Warren to get her to where she should have been all along.
There’s no way Trump has a floor of 48%. I don’t think he has a ceiling of 48%.
Every day, he further limits his appeal to the angry white male electorate. Anyone hear him go after that ‘Mexican’ judge yesterday who was born in Indiana? As someone pointed out yesterday, it’s one thing to be a sore loser, but Trump is a sore winner.
Plus, FINALLY, the dripdripdrip of his dirty dealings is being covered by the press.
BTW, I have a GENIUS, sheer genius, choice for VP. But I’ll hold out until the inevitable thread.
No blow out. My vindication stands.
Uh, no, Wolf. Obama’s blowout was in the Electoral College. Where it counts.
And where it will count for Clinton too. Anything else is CNN quality analysis.
@Cassandra, Your sticks and stones bounce off me. Also, BTW, your gripe is with 538, not me:
“The fact that Republican voters are treating him as any other nominee may give him a floor on his support, ensuring he doesn’t get blown out by Clinton.”
El Somnambulo, don’t hide your light under a bushel basket.
@ES “BTW, I have a GENIUS, sheer genius choice for VP.”
Who?
Michelle Obama?
The GOP would blow a gasket.
Their slogan could be: We can do it better
Merrick Garland?
The GOP would blow a gasket.
And that’s how she’d get her own USSC pick without insulting anyone.
Their slogan: The hearings are now
This is fun…
@ES “Trump has a firm floor of 48% of the vote.”
The PEC has an entirely different take.
http://election.princeton.edu
“State-poll snapshot: Clinton 336, Trump 202 EV; Meta-Margin +4.2%”
Hillary is in a commanding position, and it’s her race to lose.
^^^The Electoral College! Thank you. I don’t even think that 538 has done their assessment yet.
BTW, your gripe is with 538, not me:
Nope. 538 is specifically discussing how the GOP has fallen in line. They have made no predictions on winning (blowout or no) or on EC votes based on that analysis. You did that, which is why I am here pushing back. The GOP may have largely fallen in line, but even if Trump get’s Romney’s % of the vote, he still has to win in the EC.
And it was in the EC that Obama’s 52% of the vote provided the blowout.
@J “BTW, your gripe is with 538, not me:”
I don’t think it says what you think it says…
Even if Trump gets 100% of the GOP vote (which he won’t), that still no where near 48%. Only 23% of American voters identify as Republican.
“If he does not, he will be tossed from the Senate in 2018.”
By whom? The same hit squad who killed Vince Foster? He might be done anyway. He’ll be what, 106 years old by then?
“The PEC has an entirely different take… Meta-Margin +4.2%”
Um…given that margin percentage, it sounds like exactly the same take — Clinton wins the popular vote 52-48.
Absolutely incredible to me to hear so many supposed intelligent Republicans I know saying they hate Trump but they can’t have Clinton as president. Let’s stop pretending that these people care about the country. They care only about themselves. They consider the country damaged any time they lose — and only if they lose.
Today’s vindication will soon be vindicated, so I’m not sweating it. This election is going to be uncomfortably close.
“And Bernie better hurry up and endorse Clinton, as is his responsibility. If he does not, he will be tossed from the Senate in 2018.”
Because the people in the USA’s most populous state, California, and the other remaining states don’t deserve an ongoing primary contest that isn’t unquestionably concluded already.
@DG “California, and the other remaining states don’t deserve an ongoing primary contest that isn’t unquestionably concluded already.”
If they wanted to be relevant, they should have had their primary in March or April or something.
Sorry, but this has been totally over since NY voted.
Most head to head polls show neither Trump or Clinton exceeding 45%. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson will skim enough votes from Trump to hand the election to Clinton.
Both of the candidates are odious to the majority of the electorate.
Considering the criticism that Sander’s has levied against Clinton, an endorsement by Sander’s would ring hollow, at least with me. Sander’s supporters seem very angry to me. Sometimes the anger fades and reason takes over. Sometimes it doesn’t fade. Sanders could be seen as traitor to the “cause” by his most fervent supporters if he endorses Clinton. I will wait an see what the outcome is, if he endorses Clinton. And yeah, I said “if” because I don’t think it’s certain that he will, at least in a form that is any way enthusiastic. After all, he does seem to like tilting at windmills and this really is his last hurrah. Why not milk the moment and the movement?
An overwhelming majority of Sanders voters will vote for Clinton if she is the nominee. The real number of wild-eyed zealots on the left is astonishingly small.
@LE: “If they wanted to be relevant, they should have had their primary in March or April or something.”
It’s amazing how some people just don’t get that democratic processes are about citizens and their rights and self expression and not about the machinations of political party establishments.
@DG “It’s amazing how some people just don’t get that democratic processes are about citizens and their rights and self expression…”
Rights??? Self expression??
So why are these people looking to a political party to find their democratic rights??? and to express themselves???
Because the undemocratic Democratic party was there to be used… and now they’re complaining that it was difficult to use (or abuse, if you prefer).
And I’m the one who doesn’t get it???
A lot of the confusion is semantic. They should be called “clubs” not parties.
@LE: “So why are these people looking to a political party to find their democratic rights??? and to express themselves???”
That confirms it. The word “elite” is a perfectly appropriate part of your screen name.