Posted on 05/22/2015 4:50:11 AM PDT by Kaslin
Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992 by running as a different kind of Democrat from previous nominees. Hillary Clinton, Anne Gearan of The Washington Post reports, is hoping to win the presidency in 2016 by running as the same kind of Democrat as the current incumbent.
There's a certain logic in that. President Obama did win twice, while the five pre-Clinton Democratic nominees lost five of the six previous elections. But maybe it's too logical. There's also magic to presidential elections, something no arithmetic formula can capture. It's not clear that a 69-year-old Hillary Clinton in 2016 can inspire the enthusiasm that the 47-year-old Obama did in 2008.
Camp Clinton's assumption is that their candidate can count on and expand Obama's "coalition of the ascendant" (The Atlantic's Ronald Brownstein's term). In particular, "non-whites" are an inevitably increasing share of the electorate, and Clinton strategists expect that share to grow from 28 percent in 2012 to 31 percent next year.
But "non-whites" are not a cohesive or uniform bloc. Blacks, Hispanics and Asians act, think and vote differently. Let's look at some numbers. Blacks made up 13 percent of voters in 2008 and 2012 -- slightly more than their share of the population -- and voted 95 and 93 percent for Obama.
Their Obama margins within the total electorate were 12 and 11 percent, compared to 8 percent for John Kerry in 2004. It's unlikely that Hillary Clinton will generate the same black turnout or percentage as the first black president. She won't match Obama's black margin.
As for Hispanics, the Clinton folks are apparently expecting Hispanic turnout to rise from 9 and 10 percent of the electorate in 2008 and 2012 to 13 or 14 percent in 2016. Maybe, maybe not. Clinton did carry the Hispanic vote by solid margins in the 2008 primaries, and she has been out-pandering Obama on illegal immigrant amnesty lately. But will Hispanics be enthusiastic about her? And can she improve on Obama's 2012 Hispanic percentage (71 percent) against a Republican who doesn't talk of "self-deportation"? Not clear.
Asians were just 3 percent of voters in 2012, and they are scarce in all target states but Virginia. The questionable 2014 exit poll result showed them evenly split between the parties. They're not going to propel Clinton into the White House.
Brownstein's ascendant groups also include young voters: the millennials. Clinton has been promising them (without saying how it would be paid for) cheap college, a higher minimum wage and paid family leave.
But millennials' support for Democrats has been declining. In 2008, Obama's margin among under-30s amounted to 6 percent of the total electorate -- almost all of his national margin. In 2012, that number was down to 4 percent. In the 2014 House popular vote, the Democratic edge was down to 1.2 percent. Raise that to 2 percent, to account for higher millennial turnout in a presidential year, and you're still seeing Democratic decline.
Will Clinton's belated support of same-sex marriage, which the Supreme Court may well legalize nationally next month, reverse that trend 17 months later in November 2016? There's an impression widespread among political reporters that Obama has produced a surge in turnout among voters. The numbers tell a different story.
Turnout surged sharply during George W. Bush's presidency, but has sagged during Obama's. In retrospect, the 69 million votes Obama won in 2008 represented a peak. Democratic turnout has been downhill ever since.
In 2012, Obama won 66 million votes -- 3.6 million fewer than four years before. In contrast, George W. Bush in 2004 got 12 million more votes than he had in 2000. Even in the 10 target states, where the Obama campaign worked to maximize Democratic turnout, it was down 440,000 in 2012 from 2008.
You see the same pattern in the popular vote for the House of Representatives. Democrats got 42 million votes in 2006, 39 million in 2010 and 36 million in 2014. The Obama presidency has depressed rather than stimulated Democratic turnout.
It's not hard to imagine that many Democratically inclined voters will vote for Clinton despite the deleted emails, the six-figure speech fees and the contributions from foreign governments. The argument that will sway them is that she's better than Republicans on the issues.
It's harder to imagine these voters generating the enthusiasm that drove up Democratic turnout in 2008 and reversing the trend that is apparent to anyone who looks at the numbers.
My only hope is that the Purist Party Members (R), who sat on their hands in 2008 and 2012, have come to their senses by now.
Not if it's Jebbie!
We win with a principled conservatives. That's why 2014 was such a beyond-expectation victory. The 'pubs govern as sell out fools, and as a result they've lost all respect.
What could be clearer? A lot of us demand a Constitutional Conservate nominee. Otherwise, we'll stay home or vote third party.
If it's Jeb or Christie (or an equally disgusting choice) I'd be angry enough to vote for the dem!
Is that what you mean be "coming to our senses"?
I agree on that point; no love lost there - but I’ll still vote for him. No way in HELL will I participate in a win for The Beast!
The method of not voting doesn’t work for our side. Look at it this way:; hold your nose and vote, because due to voter fraud every other vote is cancelled out, anyway. Your vote will be the one cancelled, so you really haven’t voted for Jeb, anyway. ;)
Don’t be part of the problem.
See post #5.
Teri Schiavo disqualifies him.
The Democrat solution is to legalize and register to vote millions of illegal aliens by 2016 with the support of the Boehner, McConnell and really much of the GOPe.
Cruz or lose
BC garnered only 43% to win with siphon R Perot sucking GHW Bush support away.
FEAR! Strike fear in the hearts of the freeloaders who live off the backs of the American taxpayers.
The news about insurance companies providing BarryCare raising rates by 31-50% released today should help drive a stake in her heart.
From Rush from yesterday: “The Democrats have lost 900 seats in state legislatures alone, just in state legislatures. They’ve lost 900 seats since Obama was immacculated, since Obama’s been president, and the number is almost twice that when you go deeper like to mayor and city council, dogcatcher — and I’m not making fun of dogcatchers.”
The author is wrong that Presidential elections aren’t about arithmatic. They are, and becoming more so.
There was an article on PJMedia or Breitbart a year or so back about the Dem’s “Catalist” turnout software (presumed to be the big, all inclusive database that Maxine Waters and others bragged about) and how the Dems determined how to win elections by maximize their base turnout. Which is MUCH more cost effective, as it turns out, than trying to pull in centrist/moderate/independent voters.
It had a great chart showing where, on the political spectrum, the Dems and Republicans targeted their efforts, and the costs involved in doing so. It’s frightengly obvious that Hillary is now pursuing this same model.
The “gibsmedat” voters will carry Hillary’s fat @zz into the WH in 2017.
As for the minority who both work & uphold civic values, Hillary has a message:
“Eat it, people!”
Valid point. The sit at home types may/may not change but the average joe/jane needs to get out there!
Several things have changed in the last election. First of all voter fraud has come down considerably in Florida. Photo ID is now law and cleared by the SC. Plus, as in the last election Rs turn out was normal, but the RATS had a good turn out according to the press reports. BUT Gov. Scott won...which means a lot of Democrats turned their votes.
She can’t.
A promise to forgive all the student loans sure as hell can though.
Electoral politics is a waste of time and resources. If we as conservatives (however defined) spent 10% of the time we spend discussing politics on doing something useful like, oh, growing a garden, starvation would be a memory. If we spent 10% of our politics time running a sideline business, prosperity would skyrocket. If we spent 10% of our politics time evangelizing or worshiping God, the moral rot would start disappearing.
But no, we continue to discuss how voting for this candidate or that will provide better or more efficient control. Or how this tweak or that rewording of the Constitution will provide more enlightened control. Yet we don’t come to the logical conclusion that all we’re really talking about is, well, the details of control and who we think will most capably wield the whip.
I think the whole damnable thing is a waste of time and resources and incredibly discouraging. Not to mention soul sucking, cynical, and evil. So am I a member of the purity party because I insist that any candidate I choose to waste my time with be at least a staunch conservative who shares some of my views?
I think if you just look at southern states....like Alabama, and compare against the numbers in 1980.....you’d be shocked over how many state senators/state legislature members are now Republican. Same way with some county commissioner positions over the state. It might still be Democrats in charge of major urban areas....but the rest flipped over in the past six years.
Hillary Clinton (nor O’Malley) isn’t the one who will change this Democratic slide around.
Not yet, but if she shoots a video of her personally performing an abortion, another where she burns the US flag, and then "leaks" love letters between herself and another dyke, she'll do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.