mieastwick
Rookie
Posts: 214
|
 |
« on: April 16, 2017, 06:20:31 PM » |
|
|
« edited: April 16, 2017, 06:29:05 PM by mieastwick »
|
In my humble opinion, Clinton is more analogous to Hoover than to Smith. Trump, like Smith, made massive gains among northern Catholics, including in Rhode Island, Luzerne County (PA), most of New York City, Dubuque, northern New York State, and North Dakota. Clinton, like Hoover, made massive gains among the southern elite in Tulsa, Atlanta, Orlando, Nashville, NoVa, Richmond, Birmingham, Charlotte, Bentonville/Fayetteville, and Dallas, as well as had extraordinary performances in SoCal. Likewise, Clinton came from the party in power, like Hoover, and abandoned a traditional party plank to fit in (for Clinton, taking on billionaires, for Hoover, enforcing civil rights). Hoover's boost based on anti-Catholic bigotry is also reminiscent of Clinton running on opposition to Trump's personality. Also, Trump, like Smith, got a lot of LaFolette (Bernie) voters to his side.
|
