Why Trump has a Shot, Especially in the Midwest

If Clinton is indeed the Democratic nominee, and that is still a big if, the picture does not look rosy for her.  Democratic pundit and Obama supporter Van Jones had a video that outlines why Trump would win if Democrats continue to act in the way they are towards a Trump GOP nomination:

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fvanjones%2Fvideos%2Fvb.30042869909%2F10154143952024910%2F%3Ftype%3D3&show_text=0&width=560

I have to say I totally agree with his assessment of the situation.  In fact, shortly before he posted this video, I went into a local bookie and placed a bet that agrees with Jones.  The odds were still good: 10/3.

And Jones is not the only Democratic supporter who warns of this danger.  Dave ‘Mudcat’ Saunders, who worked with former Sen Jim Webb (D-VA), also went as far to say that Democrats in his state will vote for Trump and that Trump will beat Clinton like a ‘baby seal’.

If it is Democrats who are already sounding this alarm bell, the rest of the party needs to take Trump seriously.  Six months is a very long time in politics.  Don’t be fooled by Trump’s numbers against Clinton.  I have a philosophy of not believing the polls unless they say you’re behind.  And I think that what the Trump campaign is doing.

The striking part between Jones and Saunders is that they touch on economic issues fuelling Trump’s rise.  The Trump campaign, for all its controversial rhetoric deserves credit for making people think about their personal economic situation.  The rust belt is the place to watch for these issues to crystallise.

The latest polls show unfavourable ratings for Trump among Latinos already.  The problem is they are mostly found in areas that may likely vote Democratic anyway: Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado.  Altogether they make up 20 electoral votes, that’s exactly the number of electoral votes Pennsylvania has.  So while these three states may have an growing Latino population, the electoral map won’t be updated in their favour until after the 2020 general election.  The other rustbelt states of Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin have 44 electoral votes which means 64 electoral votes are in play.  If all of them and Pennsylvania goes in Trump’s direction, it is enough to deny Clinton a White House win.

The rust belt is where Trump’s message resonates a lot and where outrage Latinos have are not likely to dent the results here.  Manufacturing jobs have been lost.  In fact one of the warning signs that came out of that state is that Clinton did worse than the polls predicted and Trump’s win against Kasich in Michigan was not even close.  And it is all because of trade issues.  Not what trade did but how the candidates were able to play with the issue in front of Michigan voters.  On top of this, turnout on the GOP side was higher.  Trump, who scored 35%+ had almost as many votes as either Sanders or Clinton in Michigan.

Even if polls now suggest that Trump doesn’t have much of a prayer against Clinton, I don’t listen to that if I were a senior member of the Clinton campaign.  Instead, I would listen to the fact that the economy, especially trade, is an extremely sensitive issue for voters in this area.  The Trump campaign is good at simplifying their message to give their voters something to turn out for.  The Clintons are going to be on defence even if trade turned out to help them.  Blue collar workers don’t care if a candidate makes a gaffe on international relations principles or on whether it is permissible to discriminate against Mexicans or Muslims.  They only care if they can be assured of a paycheque the next day.  This is what the Clinton and the larger stop-Trump Democrats need to get.

And focusing on to the rustbelt to win all assumes Clinton manages to hold Florida and Virginia, which are in themselves, big IFs.  Once again, the key to Trump’s victory is the rust belt, where latinos are too few to stop his momentum.

Sanders and Corbyn: Who has an advantage?

These past few years have seen populist politicians take centre stage.  This is particularly the case in developed nations.  You have Front National in France, the Danish People’s Party in Denmark, Sweden Democrats in Sweden, UK Independence Party in the UK, Syriza and Golden Dawn in Greece and Podemos in Spain among others.  The other side of the pond has also seen the rise of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, as well as Donald Trump.  We know what they all stand for.

But let me draw your attention to two politicians.  Both of them represent resentment over the centre-right and even the moderate left wing factions of their respective country’s parties.  You have Jeremy Corbyn of the UK’s Labour Party, and Bernie Sanders from the US’ Democrats.

Corbyn has promised new politics for his party as well as for Britain.  He is however having trouble with his party, let alone the country to get them on board.  On the other hand, you have Sanders who calls himself a socialist.  The word socialist connotes a negative stigma in american politics.  And it will be even more challenging when you are on the verge of having the first Cuban American Republican nominee for US President (whether it be Rubio or Cruz, but that’s a different story altogether).

While I don’t see a smooth road ahead for either candidate, I feel Sanders is at a much greater advantage over Corbyn.  I think of four mostly related reasons are why I think Sanders may have even a slightly easier time securing his country’s vote of confidence:

1. Democrats don’t have the label of the party that crashed the economy.  Whether they actually played a part is a topic for debate but to most voters, what matters is that the 2007/8 financial crisis happened under a Republican President.  While Obama has been given mixed reviews over his economic management, the US economy is improving, even just a little bit.  Labour on the other hand faces this problem.  It was the party-in-government when the financial crisis took an ugly turn.  It provides the Conservative Party more ammunition to tie their ideological pillar of fiscal conservatism to the economic mess they inherited.  The Republicans will have a little bit of a harder time winning on the economy compared to their Conservative Party counterparts across the pond.  Bottom line: a label of economic incompetence and being perceived as radical means something more toxic for Corbyn and Labour.
2. Democrats are still a bit inclined to support the candidate they did not vote for.  Compared to the UK at least.  The problem for Labour is that while 60% of the party members voted for Corbyn, he is not well-received by centrist Labour stalwarts.  While Sanders supporters who would support Clinton and vice versa are far from assured, most Democratic voters think that any Democrat is better and more sensible than a Republican.  Democrats feared the same thing in 2008 but a lot came out for Obama.
3. Republicans have been tied to big money.  More importantly however, more and more Americans think big money in politics is a major issue that needs sorting out fast.  I am not too sure if Brits feel that the role big money in politics is as an urgent issue to sort, even if it may be happening.
4. The media is much friendlier to progressive candidates in the US.  If anything, this is one of the few major industries, which to others, apparently favours Democrats.  We know the usual exceptions: Fox News, talk radio.  Republicans have castigated the likes of CNN, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post as the ‘liberal media’ (or left-leaning media).  You can hardly say the same thing in the UK.  As a matter of fact, some argue that just as much as there is a ‘liberal media’ in the US, there is a ‘right wing’ media in the UK.  The number of outlets favourable to the right vastly outnumber the centre-left friendly outlets in Britain.  It doesn’t help that Murdoch controls a good number of UK newspapers.

Anyway these are my two cents on what structures favour Sanders.  I just wanted to sound them off but I expect to firm this up with more details.  Nonetheless, even if it is easier for one candidate to win his country’s leadership race, it is not the same thing as easy.