Why Is Hillary Running Left?

[Torie]

Another excellent article by Sean Trende. I am putting it here, because the article is mostly about demographics. Most interesting to me is his "here" link in the article, where he crunches the numbers, and concludes that the difference typically claimed between midterm and presidential election electorates is overblown, and that the majority of the Pub swing in off year elections is due to voters changing their minds, as opposed to who votes (e.g., that mid term election voters are more white, and older).

[AggregateDemand]

Because Democrats must achieve unusually high turnout to win, and as far as the Clinton campaign is concerned, espousing American left-wing tenets is the way Obama made it happen.

At this point, they are just hoping to cling to the White House.

[Beet]

Shouldn't this be posted to the 2016 board?

[Torie]

Shouldn't this be posted to the 2016 board?

Maybe, but it is about demographics. If Muon2 wants to move it, that's OK by me. The thing about the other Board is well, whatever.

[YaBoyNY]

Because Democrats must achieve unusually high turnout to win, and as far as the Clinton campaign is concerned, espousing American left-wing tenets is the way Obama made it happen.

At this point, they are just hoping to cling to the White House.

They must achieve unusually high turnout to win?

Don't think so.

[AggregateDemand]

They must achieve unusually high turnout to win?

Don't think so.

Whatever you do, don't trouble yourself with the data. You might end up as a Republican. That would be awful.

[YaBoyNY]

They must achieve unusually high turnout to win?

Don't think so.

Whatever you do, don't trouble yourself with the data. You might end up as a Republican. That would be awful.

There was nothing unusually high about turnout during the elections of the past 10 years where Democrats have won.

And no, not being abysmally low doesn't quantify as unusually high. It might be surprising, but there are still people out there who will vote for both Democrats and Republicans based on who they feel is the best choice. People felt that way in 2014 and 2010, and if there's a not exceedingly popular Republican elected in 2016, they'll vote opposite how they did in 2014.

[Beet]

Shouldn't this be posted to the 2016 board?

Maybe, but it is about demographics. If Muon2 wants to move it, that's OK by me. The thing about the other Board is well, whatever.

Haha, I knew you would say that.

From a cursory reading of the article, a minor quibble that comes up is I don't think "Appalachian voters" (who are surely gone) are the "Clinton coalition", (at least in the sense that it is not a part of what is meant by an enduring coalition built by Clinton but which lasts beyond elections in which he himself was on the ballot). A better candidate as representative of the coalition might be, for instance, the Philadelphia suburbs. All 3 counties bordering Philly went for Bush in 1988, and have mostly gone Democratic since.

There is no question that leftist dissatisfaction with some aspects of Clinton's politics has rendered those aspects obsolete, but unlike Trende I don't think everything can be reduced down to demographics and Obama. He seems to think like a Marxist substituting race for class. It's not Obama, for instance, who's driving leftist dissatisfaction over trade, criminal justice, and civil liberties issues. It's (a) genuine change in the facts on the ground (b) genuine generational change of attitudes, as well as the results of ongoing national discussion and debate. I think these are ultimately what's driving Clinton more than demographics.

[Torie]

Shouldn't this be posted to the 2016 board?

Maybe, but it is about demographics. If Muon2 wants to move it, that's OK by me. The thing about the other Board is well, whatever.

Haha, I knew you would say that.

From a cursory reading of the article, a minor quibble that comes up is I don't think "Appalachian voters" (who are surely gone) are the "Clinton coalition", (at least in the sense that it is not a part of what is meant by an enduring coalition built by Clinton but which lasts beyond elections in which he himself was on the ballot). A better candidate as representative of the coalition might be, for instance, the Philadelphia suburbs. All 3 counties bordering Philly went for Bush in 1988, and have mostly gone Democratic since.

There is no question that leftist dissatisfaction with some aspects of Clinton's politics has rendered those aspects obsolete, but unlike Trende I don't think everything can be reduced down to demographics and Obama. He seems to think like a Marxist substituting race for class. It's not Obama, for instance, who's driving leftist dissatisfaction over trade, criminal justice, and civil liberties issues. It's (a) genuine change in the facts on the ground (b) genuine generational change of attitudes, as well as the results of ongoing national discussion and debate. I think these are ultimately what's driving Clinton more than demographics.

Yes, I agree with all of that. I didn't have much use for how all of these numbers are actually influencing what Hillary says. That is not what I found of interest in the article. Moreover, unless Hillary has a real primary threat, she need not say "leftist" stuff now to hold the so called Obama coalition together in the General Election, which is about 18 months hence. If Saunders or O'Malley gain real traction, that is a different matter, but I don't see that. Moreover, if they do, it will be more about Hillary's personal problems than policy positions.

[bedstuy]

That's a sloppy article by a Republican who wants the 2014 electorate in 2016. 

He clearly did not crunch the numbers.  He cherry picked for the numbers he liked.  It's funny that he doesn't mention age at all.  These two graphs are instructive.

[Torie]

He did mention age actually in some detail, and took it into account. Check his link. Part of it is that there is a double counting factor, since younger voters tend to be less white. Young whites do not vote all that differently from their parents.

[Beet]

Oh, yes. I read his article on the makeup of the 2014 electorate vs. 2012, and I agree with him on that point completely. Ironically in that one, he's arguing that demographics aren't the driver, so I suppose I pegged him too early.

[bedstuy]

He did mention age actually in some detail, and took it into account. Check his link. Part of it is that there is a double counting factor, since younger voters tend to be less white. Young whites do not vote all that differently from their parents.

We must be talking about different articles.  I was referring to the RCP article.  The author is clearly a Republican who engages in wishful thinking, right?  There are so many statistics floating around about the election that it's very easy to lie with statistics.

[Torie]

He did mention age actually in some detail, and took it into account. Check his link. Part of it is that there is a double counting factor, since younger voters tend to be less white. Young whites do not vote all that differently from their parents.

We must be talking about different articles.  I was referring to the RCP article.  The author is clearly a Republican who engages in wishful thinking, right?  There are so many statistics floating around about the election that it's very easy to lie with statistics.

It's his article that he links in the RCP article. I have no idea what Trende's political affiliation is, but even if a Pub, just because you are a Pub doesn't mean ipso facto that you engage in wishful thinking as a habit does it?  I mean, just look as to how "fair and balanced" I am, for example. Right?

[bedstuy]

He did mention age actually in some detail, and took it into account. Check his link. Part of it is that there is a double counting factor, since younger voters tend to be less white. Young whites do not vote all that differently from their parents.

We must be talking about different articles.  I was referring to the RCP article.  The author is clearly a Republican who engages in wishful thinking, right?  There are so many statistics floating around about the election that it's very easy to lie with statistics.

It's his article that he links in the RCP article. I have no idea what Trende's political affiliation is, but even if a Pub, just because you are a Pub doesn't mean ipso facto that you engage in wishful thinking as a habit does it?  I mean, just look as to how "fair and balanced" I am, for example. Right?

RCP has pretty mediocre analysis from what I can remember and it's clearly a Republican website. 

It certainly seems that there is a perceptible advantage for Democrats based on the higher turnout in a Presidential election, especially in the swing states.  Maybe the argument is, it's not as much as an advantage as you think.  But, it's still clearly there and it matters, right?

[Ebsy]

I always wondered if it was a Republican website. I guess the fact that 5/6 of the editorials on the front page are either critical of Obama or Clinton, going so far as to post a deluded piece about Reaganomics from the Gateway Pundit, should have clued me in.

[Torie]

He did mention age actually in some detail, and took it into account. Check his link. Part of it is that there is a double counting factor, since younger voters tend to be less white. Young whites do not vote all that differently from their parents.

We must be talking about different articles.  I was referring to the RCP article.  The author is clearly a Republican who engages in wishful thinking, right?  There are so many statistics floating around about the election that it's very easy to lie with statistics.

It's his article that he links in the RCP article. I have no idea what Trende's political affiliation is, but even if a Pub, just because you are a Pub doesn't mean ipso facto that you engage in wishful thinking as a habit does it?  I mean, just look as to how "fair and balanced" I am, for example. Right?

RCP has pretty mediocre analysis from what I can remember and it's clearly a Republican website. 

It certainly seems that there is a perceptible advantage for Democrats based on the higher turnout in a Presidential election, especially in the swing states.  Maybe the argument is, it's not as much as an advantage as you think.  But, it's still clearly there and it matters, right?

Correct. It accounts about a third of the swing back and forth, more or less.

[Reginald]

It's his article that he links in the RCP article.

Quoting from the linked article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bolding the most problematic section for me. Why are we assuming these are the same voters here? Those statistics for both the white and the Hispanic electorate are more Republican than in 2012, especially for the latter. Trende seems to assume that difference is mostly driven by individual vacillation, but it could just as easily be driven by a differential effect on turnout rates with regard to ideology/affiliation, i.e. perhaps the left-leaners within each ethnic group did indeed sit out 2014 moreso than those on the right. You can't really get at this by comparing relative shares of the electorate. Some of the comments on Enten's 538 article discuss this.

Trende does try his hand at messing with ideology:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Just" three points. So their margin would change from 5.7 points to 2.7 points in the House. And that's at the pretty useless national scale, so who knows what that would look like at the state or CD level. (Not to mention the problems with self-identification of ideology...)

Now obviously demographics don't tell the whole story re: the Democrats' "midterm penalty." I think the difference in Obama's approval ratings certainly holds a lot weight here. But this just seems like quite a declarative conclusion given the flaws in the analysis.

[muon2]

Reginald, you seem to be looking for far more detail than one should expect from a pundit of any political stripe. Recombining everything at the level of the CD will probably turn up in a graduate student's thesis before too long. Look at the work and time Griffin is putting into his county-level analysis of white Dem support in 2012. A professional political analyst writing for a website isn't paid to take that amount of time, so until there is a research paper one is limited to nationwide analyses. That said, I have to add that Trende does a much better job of using real data to model across elections than most pundits.

[IceSpear]

I disagree with the premise. Hillary has always been a liberal. The myth of the "far right neoliberal" Hillary Clinton is just that: a myth.

[muon2]

I disagree with the premise. Hillary has always been a liberal. The myth of the "far right neoliberal" Hillary Clinton is just that: a myth.

She always sounded more liberal than Bill during his terms as Pres, so I tend to agree IceSpear. It's the continued existence or lack thereof of an Obama coalition in the article that has merit in discussion. It's that part I'm happy to entertain on this board.

[IceSpear]

It's his article that he links in the RCP article.

Quoting from the linked article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bolding the most problematic section for me. Why are we assuming these are the same voters here? Those statistics for both the white and the Hispanic electorate are more Republican than in 2012, especially for the latter. Trende seems to assume that difference is mostly driven by individual vacillation, but it could just as easily be driven by a differential effect on turnout rates with regard to ideology/affiliation, i.e. perhaps the left-leaners within each ethnic group did indeed sit out 2014 moreso than those on the right. You can't really get at this by comparing relative shares of the electorate. Some of the comments on Enten's 538 article discuss this.

Trende does try his hand at messing with ideology:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Just" three points. So their margin would change from 5.7 points to 2.7 points in the House. And that's at the pretty useless national scale, so who knows what that would look like at the state or CD level. (Not to mention the problems with self-identification of ideology...)

Now obviously demographics don't tell the whole story re: the Democrats' "midterm penalty." I think the difference in Obama's approval ratings certainly holds a lot weight here. But this just seems like quite a declarative conclusion given the flaws in the analysis.

Yeah, I thought that as well. He doesn't seem to consider the fact that the types of Hispanics who are more likely to vote in presidentials rather than midterms are also more likely to be Democratic/left leaning. I remember there being a thread about the "massive swing" to Republicans among the Asian vote from 2012 to 2014 which could also be explained by this theory.

[AggregateDemand]

I disagree with the premise. Hillary has always been a liberal. The myth of the "far right neoliberal" Hillary Clinton is just that: a myth.

Far right neoliberal is Reagan. The myth was that Hillary was a centrist.

[IceSpear]

I disagree with the premise. Hillary has always been a liberal. The myth of the "far right neoliberal" Hillary Clinton is just that: a myth.

Far right neoliberal is Reagan. The myth was that Hillary was a centrist.

Really depends what you're talking about. Within the Democratic Party, she's a centrist. Worldwide, she's a centrist. But in contemporary nationwide American politics, she's clearly a liberal.

[AggregateDemand]

Really depends what you're talking about. Within the Democratic Party, she's a centrist. Worldwide, she's a centrist. But in contemporary nationwide American politics, she's clearly a liberal.

Has the Democratic Party really steered that hard to the left? She was a liberal kook during the Hillarycare days.