Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Ignoring how much middle-class white women hate Trump, let's just do a thought experiment based on the real math, and not the famous Karl Rove math.

Whites broke by nearly 20 points to Romney in 2012. That's a lot, more than McCain and Bush, and probably the reason for this is the same reason as now - the economy really sucked back then especially for poor and lower-middle class whites. It still sucks for them. So the Trump movement is not really a new one, he has just harnessed it (probably by accident) better than the other GOPers in the primary clown car.

But Obama still won, 51-47. Why? Because minority voters voted Democratic 80-18 in 2012. Same as in 2008. And before one says this is because of the African-American vote (though true in the sense that this helped), what people tend to overlook here (but the GOP didn't in their famous analysis of the results of 2012 preaching outreach to Latinos) is that not only was the Latino vote growing quickly in terms of contribution to the electorate, but that they broke to Obama by 44 points. In 2004 Bush had great Latino results, losing them by only 9 points.

This is a big deal, without the Latino vote swinging his way and assuming they voted 70-25 Democratic as today, Kerry beats Bush. The GOP Latino outreach got President Bush re-elected, his white vote only improved slightly (against a shrinking base).

Think Trump can repeat the performance? Neither do I. And not only that, but his anti-immigrant rhetoric will drive them to the polls more than ever, and since Latinos are historically among the least likely of the electorate to actually vote, this is a big deal too and probably throws off quite a lot of the polling models out there today.

The demographics issue is huge. With today's demographics, Gore wins by 8 points in 2000. Kerry beats him by 3 points.

What does that mean today? Well, lets take for a given that African Americans are unlikely to turnout much less for the Democrat, whoever it is, than they did for Obama, given that the dogwhistles have turned into trainwhistles. And Latino turnout will more than offset whatever falloff there might be there. What does this mean for Trump? It means he needs to get 64% of the white vote just to break even. 64%. Remember, the white resentment was already a big factor in 2012, helping Romney get in the upper 50's. But only in the 1972 blowout did a presidential candidate achieve that in the modern era. And Nixon wasn't a misogynist, either, the Democratic advantage of the gender gap didn't exist at the time (in fact, President Ford was +3 with women voters, it was Carter's +8 with the men that got him elected).

Another thing about the demographics is in the absolute numbers. 2012 was the first election where the raw number of Wihte voters actually declined . This is another truth underlining the white resentment vote we are hearing : these are aging people, this is probably their last hurrah. All of the demographic (and therefore market ) growth is among non-whites, especially Latinos.

And you can say all you like that everyone hates Hillary, and I definitely have family members who hate her, but anyone who says Trump can actually win this thing needs to explain not only which states he can flip, but how he can get to 64% of the white vote with all the misogyny we keep hearing out of his mouth. Sanders probably would do better, I think so anyway, though he wouldn't lock in the minority vote as well as Clinton, the primaries sort of underline that (maybe he can change that in California with the Latino vote, we'll see). But Trump is just up against a demographic wave that seems insurmountable.

And all of this ignores the fundraising disadvantage Trump has, not just organizationally, but also in terms of corporate support. Which serious brand wants to be associated with someone who is attacking the only part of the domestic market which presents a growth opportunity for them? At best, Trump can hope Corporate America will sit this one out, and personally I think quite a lot of them will rally to Clinton (validating some of Sander's critiques).

For me, it's pretty much impossible. Not totally out of the question, but damn near impossible.

by John Redmond on Thu May 12th, 2016 at 06:56:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series