07-15-2016, 03:25 PM
I think it's getting to be fairly clear that even though everything Trump does is a muddle, he seems to be basically settling into a strategy of driving as much of the white working class vote - especially male white working class - as he can to get to the polls while he allows his family to keep him from getting so carried away that he turns off more persuadable voters than he gains in white guys that haven't felt strongly enough to vote in the past.
He's relying almost entirely on visceral appeals to rally around him to take the country back for the white tribe. What's important in his campaign is his ability to whip up those passions. Since he is so ignorant of so many things a president really should know, that sort of campaign makes sense. Promise the moon as long as it's made of what the white tribe wants; it doesn't matter if he really has a viable plan to accomplish it. His strongest ploy is to play to their fears and prejudices.
I think Trump will be successful at increasing the share of white (disproportionately male) working class people who don't usually vote to come out and vote for him this year. In spite of him picking fights with the establishment for no good reason, they are willing and have been able to gather up enough of the traditional coalition that he has a spitting distance shot at winning the election.
I think that the pool of liberal voters that Clinton could expand that could "counteract" Trump's increase in white working class voters is to get a much higher turnout amongst younger voters. She can make a good argument that they have the most to lose, but I think she needs to do much more than that. She needs to show them that she feels their passions. She needs to show them that her policy proposals are not just sellouts to established interests who seem to be only interested in their own interests; that what her policies will do is lead to the kind of future that a large majority of young people want to bring into being.
Clinton is strongest when she is leading people who she knows shares her vision, but drawing new people into sharing her vision isn't something she is particularly good at on a wholesale level. I think she should do "town halls" with young people and listen to their concerns and show them she cares for what they care for and how her policy proposals would address those concerns.
Yes, she should also play on fear - young people's fears of what Trump might bring to their futures, but she also needs to find a way to inspire them to believe she can directly address things they care deeply about - not just scare them into voting against Trump.
I hope that enough people realize that for whatever faults Clinton has, that a Trump presidency is just way, way, way too risky so that it won't matter if Trump drives a record number of regularly non-voting white working class people to vote for him and Clinton doesn't inspire a stronger than usual young voter turnout. But, unfortunately, I'm not sure that enough people realize just how bad a risk Trump is (like multiple times worse than George W. Bush type risk), so I'd feel better if Clinton found a way to come across as less technocratic and more inspiring - especially for younger voters. I'm sure surrogates like Sanders and Warren can help, but hopefully she'll find a way to inspire more of them to vote than usual. They do have more to lose than the rest of us.
He's relying almost entirely on visceral appeals to rally around him to take the country back for the white tribe. What's important in his campaign is his ability to whip up those passions. Since he is so ignorant of so many things a president really should know, that sort of campaign makes sense. Promise the moon as long as it's made of what the white tribe wants; it doesn't matter if he really has a viable plan to accomplish it. His strongest ploy is to play to their fears and prejudices.
I think Trump will be successful at increasing the share of white (disproportionately male) working class people who don't usually vote to come out and vote for him this year. In spite of him picking fights with the establishment for no good reason, they are willing and have been able to gather up enough of the traditional coalition that he has a spitting distance shot at winning the election.
I think that the pool of liberal voters that Clinton could expand that could "counteract" Trump's increase in white working class voters is to get a much higher turnout amongst younger voters. She can make a good argument that they have the most to lose, but I think she needs to do much more than that. She needs to show them that she feels their passions. She needs to show them that her policy proposals are not just sellouts to established interests who seem to be only interested in their own interests; that what her policies will do is lead to the kind of future that a large majority of young people want to bring into being.
Clinton is strongest when she is leading people who she knows shares her vision, but drawing new people into sharing her vision isn't something she is particularly good at on a wholesale level. I think she should do "town halls" with young people and listen to their concerns and show them she cares for what they care for and how her policy proposals would address those concerns.
Yes, she should also play on fear - young people's fears of what Trump might bring to their futures, but she also needs to find a way to inspire them to believe she can directly address things they care deeply about - not just scare them into voting against Trump.
I hope that enough people realize that for whatever faults Clinton has, that a Trump presidency is just way, way, way too risky so that it won't matter if Trump drives a record number of regularly non-voting white working class people to vote for him and Clinton doesn't inspire a stronger than usual young voter turnout. But, unfortunately, I'm not sure that enough people realize just how bad a risk Trump is (like multiple times worse than George W. Bush type risk), so I'd feel better if Clinton found a way to come across as less technocratic and more inspiring - especially for younger voters. I'm sure surrogates like Sanders and Warren can help, but hopefully she'll find a way to inspire more of them to vote than usual. They do have more to lose than the rest of us.
