Posts Tagged ‘Hillary Clinton’

Newer Entries »

“Democrats for Trump” is not just fantasy

January 10, 2016

The conventional wisdom is that if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, Hillary Clinton will wipe the floor with him. But a few weeks ago I thought that, like the Democrats for Reagan, we might see a similar phenomenon of Democrats for Trump.   I saw immigration in the US and the consequent fears of many white Democrats together with the dynamics between different minority groups as being the possible driver for generating these cross-over voters. I wrote then:

Latinos are incensed at Trump’s comments about immigration, but quite like his hard line about Islamic terrorists. East European immigrants are also attracted to this hard line about both Mexican illegal immigrants and Muslim terrorists. Asian immigrants can be split generally into two groups; Muslims mainly from Islamic countries and non-Muslims. Many of the non-Muslims feel threatened by the Islamisation of their communities and the insidious, creeping encroachment of – and perceived silent surrender to – Sharia Law. A large portion of the Asian communities are not comfortable with the influx of illegal, Latino immigrants. ………. Even the black Muslims feel under threat from all the “new Muslims”, since they come quite low down in the hierarchy of “true Muslims”. Normally the bulk of the immigrant population in the US would be Democratic supporters, but Trump is tapping into some of their greatest fears of other immigrant groups. There is also – I think – a large section of the white, middle-class Democratic support which is inhibited from expressing its fears of immigration and Islamisation and are suddenly quite glad that these fears are being expressed by somebody – even if it is only a Trump.

A new survey suggests that such a scenario is not entirely fantasy and there may well be substance to the existence of a “Democrats for Trump”. The poll indicates that 20% of Democratic voters could cross-over to Trump. If my memory serves many of the Democrats for Reagan were “secret” and never actually admitted that they would vote for Reagan. I suspect that the “secret” Democrats for Trump could be a larger proportion even than for Reagan. And I suspect that Trump is not as unacceptable for well-established minority groups as the media assume.

US News:

So if Donald Trump proved the political universe wrong and won the Republican presidential nomination, he would be creamed by Hillary Clinton, correct? A new survey of likely voters might at least raise momentary dyspepsia for Democrats since it suggests why it wouldn’t be a cakewalk.

The survey by Washington-based Mercury Analytics is a combination online questionnaire and “dial-test” of Trump’s first big campaign ad among 916 self-proclaimed “likely voters” ……. Nearly 20 percent of likely Democratic voters say they’d cross sides and vote for Trump, while a small number, or 14 percent, of Republicans claim they’d vote for Clinton. When those groups were further broken down, a far higher percentage of the crossover Democrats contend they are “100 percent sure” of switching than the Republicans.

Tied in a statistical dead heat: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. REUTERS combo

That Trump is not quite the pariah with Democratic voters as the media seek to portray is also shown by this Reuters/IPSOS poll which has Trump matching Clinton if they were to be pitted against each other

Reuters: In a hypothetical head-to-head race, the real-estate tycoon and TV personality would be supported by 39 percent of likely general election voters, compared with 40 percent for Clinton, according to the latest 5-day average from Friday’s Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll.

The driving issue is likely to be immigration all through 2016. The recent New Years eve rampage of male, “refugee”, Muslim youths in Germany, the politically correct silence by the media about it until forced, and similar behaviour in Finland and the UK and in Scandinavia, only play into Trump’s narrative. Every atrocity committed by ISIS begs the question as to why the male, unaccompanied youths who are seeking refugee status in Europe or North America, are not fighting against ISIS in their own countries?

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics | Comments Off on “Democrats for Trump” is not just fantasy

Time running out to stop Trump

December 23, 2015

The US Presidential election beats the new Star Wars for plot and entertainment.

The latest Reuter’s rolling poll shows Carson and Cruz fading and Trump consolidating his position. Clinton-Trump match-ups are meaningless for the moment since the currently secret Democrats for Trump will start coming out of the woodwork only after he has won the nomination – and that will not be till July 2016. Trump’s support is now three times larger than that of his nearest rival.

Reuters Rolling Poll Republicans 22nd December 2015

Reuters Rolling Poll Republicans 22nd December 2015

The primaries start in February and there is little time left for the Republican establishment to stop Trump. I suspect that they will fall in behind Trump if he maintains this lead till March.

Republican primary schedule

Republican primary schedule

I have a theory – which is a little far-fetched – that if it becomes a Trump – Clinton battle, the Democrats for Trump could include large chunks of traditional white, middle-class, liberals who are running a little scared of the demographic changes taking place. It might be thought that the immigrant communities would all be strongly Democratic, but Trump will play successfully to the entrepreneurial instincts that are so strong among many of them. In this scenario, a large section of these “immigrants” would prefer a lively Trump to a jaded Clinton. So, in my theory, Donald Trump could well split the white, liberal vote and even the “immigrant” vote while the Democrats will retain the bulk of the black vote and of the less enterprising immigrant community.

It’s just a theory, of course, but I expect an eventual Trump-Clinton fight to be much more favourable to Trump than the conventional wisdom allows. In any event, it could be a vastly entertaining election.

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on Time running out to stop Trump

Clinton, Trump, Sanders & Carson – not really spoilt for choice

October 22, 2015

So Biden is not running.

This leaves the US electorate now with the less than enviable prospect of having to vote in one of the motley group of Trump, Clinton, Carson or Sanders as their next President. Not the most inspiring group of names. If leadership is the criterion then Donald Trump is the only one who qualifies. If “politicking” and manipulating the political establishment is what is required then Hillary Clinton is best suited. Ben Carson will come into his own when lobotomising sections of the government or in excising unwanted parts of the bureaucracy. Bernie Sanders could count as the “intellectual” in this group but he is best at opposing and blocking others rather than taking his own initiatives.

The choice is one of firsts. Either the first non-politician, or the first woman, or the first (real) black, or the first socialist as President. It could be the dullest election ever. The only glint of some entertainment in the process is provided by Trump. Of course the criteria for winning the election are different to the qualities needed for being President for 4 years. Of the four I don’t see that Carson or Sanders have what it takes to be even a reasonably successful President.

So I would expect Carson to lose handily to Clinton and Sanders to Trump. But a Carson versus Sanders election could be a bizarre battle to see who was worse. It could be difficult to forecast the contest to lose. Paradoxically it is the bizarreness of such a contest which could inject some interest. The prospect of having an incompetent incumbent in the White House will bring some despair to friendly countries.

That leaves a Clinton versus Trump contest which could actually be a close and fascinating fight. It would pit stability versus volatility and political manipulation against a leader charging in where angels fear to tread. It would be Big government set against Small. Both would be extremely pragmatic though Clinton may be swayed by ideology a little more. Trump will protect the bottom line while Clinton will tend to protect the spending level. Trump’s foreign policy will be openly focused on short-term advantages to the US whereas Clinton’s will be all about long-term geopolitical machinations.

The more I consider a Trump versus Clinton battle, the more difficult I find it to predict how the American voters may decide. But Trump has a real chance of winning even if he does start as the underdog.

That Trump could be the GOP candidate was unthinkable just 3 months ago. It seems the most likely outcome now. That Trump could win the election still seems a little far-fetched, but it has now to be considered more than just a theoretical possibility.

If a not very good actor could become a State Governor and one of the more successful US Presidents, I suppose there is no reason why a real estate mogul could not also make it. 2016 could be the year of the clowns. And the US and the world may just need a clown in the flagging global play.

But with just these 4 names in the hat, the US electorate is not really spoilt for choice.

Tags:,
Posted in Politics, US | Comments Off on Clinton, Trump, Sanders & Carson – not really spoilt for choice

Clinton has just 20% chance of winning against any Republican says incumbency model

October 14, 2015

According to a model based on how an incumbent fares in an election from 450 elections in 35 democratic countries, any Democrat has only a 20% chance of beating any Republican for the US Presidential election.

Clinton's chances

Clinton’s chances

The model shows that Barack Obama’s current approval ratings are not high enough to allow a successor to get elected, though he would, as an incumbent, have an 80% chance of being reelected himself. With his current approval rating of 45-47%, any successor would only have a 20% probability of winning. Even if Hillary Clinton is an exceptional candidate, it will not be enough to overcome the inexorable hand of this incumbency effect.

Clifford Young and Julia Clark in Reuters:

Elections are not mysterious events subject to the whimsy of unpredictable candidates and voters. They’re actually highly predictable, with a set of variables that influence outcomes in familiar ways. Because of that, we can say, with reasonable confidence, that a Republican will be moving into the White House in 2017.

That conclusion is based on the results of a data model we created, and is primarily the result of two factors, both related to the challenges faced by “successor” candidates — candidates from the same party as the incumbent. First, a Republican will win because voters typically shy away from the party currently in power when an incumbent isn’t running. In fact, a successor candidate is three times less likely to win. Second, President Barack Obama’s approval ratings are too low to suggest a successor candidate will take the White House.

At this point in the election cycle, poll data asking the “horserace” question (“Who will you vote for in November 2016?”) can be very misleading. This far from Election Day, published poll data is off by an average of 8 percentage points compared with the true election outcome. That’s an enormous number when we’re used to elections where candidates win by two to three points.

Time Before Election

Average error of polls (compared to final results)
One week

1.7%
One month

2.7%
Two months

3.8%
Three months

4.8%
Six months

5.8%
Nine months

6.9%
Twelve months

7.9%

Source: Ipsos analysis of 300 polls across 40 markets from 1980 through current

So we created a much larger database of elections by looking beyond the United States to hundreds of presidential and parliamentary elections in democratic countries around the world. This exercise gave us far more data to work with: a sample size of more than 450 elections from 35 countries.

The most important finding from our model is the power of incumbency: if you already hold the office you seek, you are far more likely than not to retain it. Our model showed that incumbents have a threefold greater chance of beating their opponent. When no incumbent is running, successor candidates (in this case, Democrats) are three times less likely to win.

From our database of global elections we also learned about the importance of knowing where the public stands on the direction their country and leadership are going. Are they generally happy or unhappy with the government? There are a few ways to measure this, but the most universal (and therefore the one we use) is approval ratings of the sitting leader or president.

Our model proves the power of presidential approval ratings. It determines that in order for a successor candidate to have better than even chances of winning, the sitting president must have an approval rating of above 55 percent. Because Barack Obama’s average approval rating is now at 45 percent, a successor candidate (i.e. Democrat) is unlikely to win. …….

…… In the coming months, Obama’s approval ratings may tick up. But they would have to pass the 55 point mark to give the Democrats even odds of keeping the White House. This is extremely unlikely, given the fact that presidential approval typically declines over time, and Obama’s ratings are no exception.

Some will argue that Hillary Clinton is special; that her chances are significantly better because, given her popularity and status as a “legacy” candidate, she seems more like an incumbent. But if we go along with that hypothesis and run it through our model, at Obama’s current approval ratings, Clinton’s chances of winning the general election are still less than half.

The Democrats have quite a mountain to summit to retain power past 2016.

The best strategy for Hillary would now be to stop throwing any money down the election drain until Obama improves his approval rating to at least 55%. That would at least give her a 50% chance of being elected.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | 1 Comment »

Bill Clinton probably forgot to wash the server before Hillary wiped it

September 13, 2015

It is probably a good idea to wash before you wipe.

The Washington Post is now reporting that Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server may not have been “wiped” after all and that all her e-mails may well be recoverable. Hillary is probably not very amused. A month ago Clinton was being rather sarcastic about her “wiping” servers with a cloth. The FBI had reported that attempts had been made to wipe her server and Clinton responded at a press conference

When asked specifically if she wiped the server, she ‘ummed’ and ‘ahhed’ then jokingly said “what with a cloth or something?“

washing up

But perhaps her dishcloth reference was based on reality. Perhaps she really did think that that was how servers were “wiped” clean.

Clinton probably just forgot that you must wash your server first before wiping it. Or was it that Bill, who she shared the server with, was supposed to do the washing while Hillary wiped?

WaPo:

The company that managed Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail server said it has “no knowledge of the server being wiped,” the strongest indication to date that tens of thousands of e-mails that Clinton has said were deleted could be recovered.

Clinton and her advisers have said for months that she deleted her personal correspondence from her time as secretary of state, creating the impression that 31,000 e-mails were gone forever. ……… To make the information go away permanently, a server must be wiped — a process that includes overwriting the underlying data with gibberish, possibly several times.

That process, according to Platte River Networks, the ­Denver-based firm that has managed the system since 2013, apparently did not happen. “Platte River has no knowledge of the server being wiped,” company spokesman Andy Boian told The Washington Post. “All the information we have is that the server wasn’t wiped.”

The server that Clinton used as secretary of state was stored at her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., and was shared with her husband, former president Bill Clinton, and his staff. The device was managed during that time by a State Department staffer who was paid personally by the Clintons for his work on their private system. ……….

All the e-mails from Clinton’s tenure at the State Department were on the server when the device was taken over in June 2013 by Platte River Networks, four months after Clinton left office. ………

A company attorney has said that all of Clinton’s e-mails were then migrated to a new server. The e-mails were removed from the second server in 2014, with Clinton’s attorneys storing those they deemed work-related on a thumb drive and discarding those that they determined were entirely personal. Copies of 30,000 work e-mails were turned over to the State Department in December and are being released to the public in batches under the terms of a court order.

So if it was all Bill’s fault maybe Hillary can turn this around.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Ethics, Politics, US | Comments Off on Bill Clinton probably forgot to wash the server before Hillary wiped it

Another Clinton, another Bush

March 15, 2013

From across the Atlantic, Hillary Clinton versus Jeb Bush is not only plausible, it now seems to me to be becoming inevitable. It is not so very far away to 2016 in calendar time – though it could be an eternity in political time.

But all those who harbour any pretensions to standing for President of the US in 2016 must already be planning their campaigns – at least in the confines of their own minds. But the crucial need for financing means that they have probably confided their ambitions to a very small and select group who are already sounding out potential donors for a potential campaign.

The energised campaign of 2008 was exciting (to an observer) but it has proven to be extremely divisive for the country. Perhaps campaign energy – if it is at too high a level – actually leads to divisions. But a lack of energy does not correlate with unity or a removal of divisions. This energy of 2008 was certainly missing in 2012 but the parties remain just as far apart and divisions among the electorate are not being bridged. Perhaps there is some optimum level of energy which is desirable for a campaign. It remains to be seen how the legacy of Obama’s Presidency will be seen but I think there is a large risk that the divisiveness during his two terms will mean that he is remembered primarily as the first “black” President. Any other achievements will seem quite mundane. He has proven to very risk-averse and so it is unlikely he will be remembered for any catastrophic blunders either. A Hillary Clinton – Jeb Bush race may actually get the balance right; an energised campaign which captures the imagination of the bulk of the electorate but does not drive them to the extreme positions of the fanatics.

I cannot see Jeb Bush bringing an Obama-style energy into either the Primaries or the Presidential Campaigns but he will not be devoid of energy. From the splinters of the Tea Party and the depths to which the Republicans have sunk, having another Bush scion to call on may seem to provide a “safe”, low-energy, compromise choice for the GOP. But Jeb Bush may actually be the brightest of all the Bushes.

NPR: The former two-term governor of Florida has not run for office since 2002, and has up to now refused to get caught up in public presidential speculation. Widely acknowledged as a power behind the scenes, he is seen as politically savvy and astute. It’s long been thought that had he won his 1994 gubernatorial campaign against Lawton Chiles in Florida, it would have been Jeb — not brother George W. — whom the GOP turned to in 2000. What he says carries great weight, and when he criticized his party last year for its approach to overhauling the nation’s immigration laws, people sat up and paid attention. You’re not going to win over the hearts of Latino voters, Bush said over and over, by talking about self-deportation and blocking paths to citizenship for those who are here illegally.

But in his new book, Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution (co-authored with Clint Bolick), Bush is no longer focusing on a path to citizenship. Let’s talk instead about residency rights. “A grant of citizenship,” Bush now says, “is an undeserving reward for conduct we cannot afford to encourage.” Pay a fee, he says of those 11 million people here illegally. Pay back taxes. Do community service. Learn English. But the end would be residency, not citizenship. For many, however, the headline was about 2016.

Hillary Clinton is the heir apparent.  She is uniquely qualified of course. If  her health is up to it and she runs, it is unlikely that any other Democratic candidate will challenge her seriously except to get some exposure and her attention. She cannot any longer be held responsible for any blunders the administration now makes. As potentially the first woman President she will arouse much of the same energy that Obama did in 2008 but perhaps without the same divisiveness and with a reach that – unlike Obama’s – could cut across party lines.

Politico: The ranks of Democratic governors are filled with ambitious politicians boasting records that would probably play well with primary voters in 2016.

But even as they eye a move from the statehouse to the White House, there’s broad recognition among the chief executives that the next generation of Democrats may have to wait longer than four more years to take their place as President Barack Obama’s heir.

Nowhere is The Hillary Factor felt more acutely, and painfully, than in the same elite club of policy innovators and budget balancers that vaulted her husband onto the national political scene in the 1980s. ….

“It’s just a very unique situation in which an extremely qualified candidate with a long history of public service who has been fully vetted is considering running for the presidency,” noted Nixon, who easily won reelection last year to his second term in conservative-leaning Missouri. “She’s entitled to her time of analysis. It does, I think, in many ways freeze the field until she more clearly states what she wants to do with the rest of her life”. ….

So Clinton-Bush in 2016 may not be such a bad thing. Bush may actually be able to bring the Republican Party together again and repair the self-inflicted damage wrought by the loony right. Clinton would energise – for or against – every woman in the US and that energy will spread to others. The winner would have a much less divided country to contend with. I think Hillary Clinton would win such a race but with Jeb Bush as her opponent it will not be a walk-over. She will provide the US – at long-last – with a female head of state. And the Democrats will have been in power for 16 years in 2024 when she leaves office after her second term.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on Another Clinton, another Bush

Newer Entries »