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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.