tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post2239954170181383732..comments2024-03-28T16:15:19.319-04:00Comments on Saideman's Semi-Spew: Surprising Sabbatical Mission: Reassuring Folks About TrumpSteve Saidemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881915512311951902noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post-18474288938512855982016-07-24T09:31:21.472-04:002016-07-24T09:31:21.472-04:00Second para should read "2010 and "2014&...Second para should read "2010 and "2014".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post-82343852087881482052016-07-24T09:28:46.949-04:002016-07-24T09:28:46.949-04:00The point is that there is a level of unhappiness ...The point is that there is a level of unhappiness out there that is inconsistent with the objective indicators. Right track/wrong track is obviously not a perfect measure of that, but its fluctuations are meaningful. And incumbent parties can lose even when objective indicators are obviously improving (see 1976 and 1992; and, yes, I know the stories are more complicated than that).<br /><br />Do I "even know" how the Dems got stuffed in 2010 and 2016? Yes, turnout was low and white voters participated in disproportionately high numbers. Presidential year turnout and midterm turnout differ, so nobody's suggesting that 2016 will be anything like 2014. It doesn't have to be; knock a few points off African American and youth turnout and it's possible that two or three states could flip. That's really all I was saying.<br /><br />And *of course* America "is a very different country than 1968 or 1980" (and 1968 and 1980 were different from each other). It was an analogy. Like 1968 and 1980, this is a volatile election year in which fear and dissatisfaction seem unusually high. I remember people in 1979 reassuring their European friends that there was no way the American people would ever put Ronald Reagan in the White House.<br /><br />Do I think Trump has been running a competent campaign? Up to this point--and only up to this point--the answer is obviously yes. He won the freaking nomination, which is, if I recall Poli Sci 101 correctly, the whole point of all those primaries and caucuses. Will that skill set translate to the general election campaign? I have my doubts, but I've had my doubts about this guy from Day 1 and he's proven me--and almost everyone else--wrong so far. <br /><br />This is not 1972 or 1984. There IS a pathway to victory here. I'd bet against it, probably with a sizable bankroll. But I wouldn't bet my house on it.<br /><br />That's all I was trying to say. Thanks for the condescension, nevertheless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post-49048061821100314402016-07-23T23:26:13.353-04:002016-07-23T23:26:13.353-04:00Funnily enough, your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs underc...Funnily enough, your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs undercut your argument. "Wrong track" polling is a really bad indicator of how Americans perceive the state of the country (due to partisan skews, decline of public confidence with government since Watergate; see http://thebea.st/2a2rS5J). And regards to your take on the psychology of middle-aged and older whites, do you even know how the Democrats lost both midterms? (http://bit.ly/1Gqoqry) The United States, both on a socio-economic level and by the composition of its political coalitions, is a very different country than 1968 or 1980.<br /><br />If you think Trump has been running a competent campaign, and if you think he has the rhetorical ability and instincts to unify the GOP/win 270 electoral votes, it's time to read back on this past year of politics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post-65609303896481857712016-07-23T18:48:51.859-04:002016-07-23T18:48:51.859-04:00Trump's defeat is likely; it's not inevita...Trump's defeat is likely; it's not inevitable. He has spent a year now saying and doing things that we all thought were disqualifying. Nevertheless, he rather easily wrapped up the nomination against a fairly strong Republican field (sure, losers always look like losers in retrospect, but this really was the "A" team). <br /><br />The objective economic indicators are reasonably good, yet people say the country is on the wrong track by a 2-1 margin (though they weren't great in 2012 either, and Obama still won). There is a real sense of hopelessness out there among middle aged and older white voters, the sort that propelled the Democratic routs in 2010 and 2014. Add that to nativism, bigotry, and generalized fear and you end up somewhere between 1968 and 1980. Granted, Trump lacks Reagan's sunny charisma and Nixon's strategic genius, but he is a compelling performer and he has an uncanny instinct for knowing just where to twist the knife. (I thought the convention speech was weak; it was too practiced and lacked the usual Trump humor and "charm".)<br /><br />So how does Donald win? His campaign persuades voters that Hillary is an equally odious choice, a congenital liar and an incompetent, out-of-touch ball of ambition whose entire career is mortgaged to Wall Street. If enough Obama voters stay home (young people, African Americans), if Trump can turn around the last remaining blue collar Democratic strongholds in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, if enough Americans want to enjoy the show, then he's got a shot. He won't get 300 EVs, but 270 isn't out of the question.<br /><br />Nate Silver gives him roughly a 1 in 3 or 4 chance of winning. That makes him a longshot, but 1 in 4 chances come in all the time. To put it another way, if 3 out of every four planes landed safely, nobody would ever fly again.<br /><br />I think he'll lose. But I never thought he'd make it this far to begin with. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com