HARPER: THE FAT LADY HAS NOT YET BEGUN TO SING

August was a very bad month for Hillary Clinton, although she is still the odds-on favorite to win the Presidential elections in November, but by a shrinking margin.  If September proves to be as full of bad news and blunders as August, the elections can very well go into the final countdown month as "too close to call."   People close to Hillary Clinton are worried, and their fears are multiple.  Hillary Clinton has dodged the media, relying almost exclusively on the MSM (Mainstream Media) hatred of Donald Trump to make her the clear-cut lesser evil.  

But in the last week, even the MSM has been forced to back off on the running diatribes against The Donald.  The release of more incriminating Hillary Clinton emails that were somehow either lost or considered to be "too personal" to release to the public and to the dogged lawyers from Judicial Watch was too big to bury, even for the slavish Clinton media loyalists.  The release of the FBI's working documents "explaining" their recommendation to the Justice Department not to prosecute the former Secretary of State did not help in the least.

I heard a National Public Radio interview on Friday with Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass, and he defied the MSM mandate by refusing to trash the GOP nominee.  Instead, he offered a balanced assessment of the major foreign policy differences between Trump and Clinton, and he had to admit, on balance, that Trump was more likely to negotiate with Russia and China, and less likely to look abroad for "dragons to slay."  In other words, Hillary is more in line with neoconservative and liberal R2P interventionist ideologies than Trump.

It is still clearly an uphill battle for the Republican nominee to win in November, but the momentum is building for just that.  Anyone forecasting a replay of 1964, when Lyndon Johnson swept the Electoral College nationwide in his race against Senator Barry Goldwater, is in for a big let down.

There are way too many unknowns at this moment to be making any kind of precise forecasts.  In the primary contests, the Republicans saw a boost in the number of voters who turned out to give the nomination to Trump.  The Democrats saw a significant downturn in primary turnout, despite the fact that Bernie Sanders did vastly better than he himself anticipated.  A clear majority of primary voters from both parties cast their ballots for either Sanders or Trump--two candidates with different ideologies, but similar anti-Establishment messages.  Four years ago, 53 percent of the eligible voters turned out.  Will that number decline significantly this time around?  Will the angry independent voters turn out in higher numbers, offsetting a stay-home protest by many traditional Democratic Party voters who detest Hillary?  Will voters who traditionally vote Democrat hold their noses and vote for Hillary on a lesser-evil basis? 

And what of the third party effect?  There are actually four candidates who are going to be on the ballots in all or most states:  The GOP, the Democrats, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party.  The Libertarian Party is running two former Republican governors--Gary Johnson and William Weld--as their Presidential and VP candidates. The Green Party is running Jill Stein, who is more popular than Hillary Clinton with many of the millennial voters who turned out in force for Bernie Sanders, only to see him betray their cause at the Democratic Convention by endorsing Hillary Clinton for President with very little to show in return.

In contrast to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump has shown some political savvy in recent weeks.  He jumped at the invitation by Mexican President Pena Nieto to visit him--an invitation that Hillary Clinton turned down without explanation.  

The most difficult thing to read, going into November, is the mood of the American people.  They are clearly in an anti-Establishment mood, and for good reason.  Under the last eight years of Obama, the middle class has been declining, the so-called recovery has further widened the wealth gap between the upper one-percent and the rest.  As of the August data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 93.5 million working age Americans are not considered to be part of the labor force--because they are either chronically unemployed or they have never found a job in the first place.  A growing number of workers are managing on part-time jobs.  The picture is not pretty, and this has fueled a climate of dissent.  

The first of the scheduled presidential debates will not take place until later in September.  It is yet unclear whether that will be a two way or a three way debate, with Gary Johnson polling near the edge of the 15 percent level required by the Borg to get prime time status.

The bottom line:  Nobody in the Hillary Clinton camp should be lighting victory cigars at this time.  It is Hillary Clinton's election to lose, and so far, she is doing a pretty impressive job of doing just that.  

 

Comments

[LeaNder]

I have to drop this, even before reading. ;)

But I am glad "the fat lady" made it into a headline.

[Sam Peralta]

Harper

Yes indeed the Fat Lady will only sing on November 8th. Many things can happen between now and then. I am no electoral analyst who understands demographics and the turnout math.

The conventional wisdom is that Trump has an insurmountable hill to climb to win as he has to win over reasonable minorities of Black, Hispanic, Asian, White women, White urban men and Millenial voters. And he has to win big among suburban and rural white men.

The media and the Clinton campaign are working overtime to paint Trump as a racist, misogynist, fascist buffoon who will be the next Hitler. This is going to fit the confirmation bias of those predisposed to dislike him. We can see that here on SST. There's very, very few who genuinely believe that Hillary is the best candidate and are voting FOR her. What I see is most saying she is the lesser evil in comparison to Trump. So, those voting for her are voting AGAINST Trump.

In my opinion, the 3rd party candidates are not going to have much impact as they will not make the debates. They will only get their traditional 1-2%.

It seems to me that the debates could have a negative effect if either Trump or Hillary commit some significant faux pas, but I doubt they'll change the electoral math substantially as both candidates will be true to form and play to their gallery. The performance of the stock market could actually play a bigger role than the debates.

In my opinion this election is going to be very close and will hinge on turnout. I believe Trump has more motivated voters and by November 8th the anti-establishment vote will consolidate in his favor with the mindset that he's not that scary and what the heck things are anyway going to hell in a handbasket and its worth the chance to try something different.

[Norbert M Salamon]

Thanks for the overview. Only thing missing is a mention of Mr. Assage's forthcoming delivery of some more evidence of incompetence and or outright criminal like behavior by the Borg Queen, her Hubby and various underlings, conspirators etc. in the State Department of yore.

[gowithit]

The Trump and Clinton campaigns are approaching the November vote in very different tactics. Trump largely via his public utterances that gain TV coverage. Clinton with large ad buys. But here is a very interesting aspect: In Fla Clinton has 50 field offices to Trumps ONE! Romney had 44 in '12 there. Similar in other swing states. This has potential of gaining 2-5 pt rise in the vote as the field offices organize voter registrations, assist in obtaining absentee ballots (and help fill them out!), bus GROUPS of voters to polling sites, etc. Such activity does not show in polls.

[Swampy]

The only Hillary sign I've seen in town was taken down by the owner this week. In contrast, the Bernie signs are still in many yards.

[gowithit]

I was just in Portland, Or, and area for a few days. NO SIGNS AT ALL of Prez candidates. Tho, many "Bernie" stickers still on cars. Several lawn signs for local races. A Sanders/Kasich race would'a been interesting!

[herb]

Anybody who thought Trump was going to get less than 38% of the vote was kidding themselves. Anybody who thinks Trump will get more than 45% of the vote is kidding themselves.

If you look at the polls, the race is getting closer because her numbers are going down, not because his are going up. Johnson and Stein could tip this toward Trump, but it will take a lot for that to happen.

[Edward Amame]

Clinton's numbers are down because news orgs like the AP and the NY Times continue to trumpet every ginned-up Judicial Watch Scandal and write s@#% like "...nevertheless fuels the perception that the Clintons or their associates may have...”

The NY Times is especially egregious. As if they've completely forgotten getting led around by the nose by Judicial Watch, the American Spectator, etc and their own truly shameful role in pushing the Whitewater faux-Scandals on the American public.

When's the NY Times' big story on Colin Powell's America’s Promise Foundation, headed by his wife and raking in donations from corporate America while he was was SoS coming out? Gee, wonder if AT&T, at the time one of the biggest donors to America’s Promise, got any favors from their son Michael while he was chair of the FCC, which regulated AT&T? Enquiring minds wanna know!

No effing wonder she hates the press and won't do press conferences. They don't care about policy, it's all about walls that'll never get built and politainment now.

Yes it'll be close because there are about equal numbers of Dems and Repubs in the US. It's all about how the low-info indys get swayed between now and Nov. I think the debates will be pretty important for them.

[turcopolier]

EA

It is cruel for you to turn against your long term MSM allies. But, IMO it is not a matter of how many registered or sympathizing allies there are. No, it is a question that I asked four years ago as to how many silent, neglected Americans will vote if they sw any hope for their chance of making the inhabitants of the big cities into an isolated minority. pl

[Jack]

Sam

You make an important observation. Those who support Trump are enthusiastically FOR him. In contrast many who support the Borg Queen are AGAINST Trump. He is setting the agenda both good and bad. He is the focus of the media, mostly as a campaign arm of the Borg Queen.

IMO, if he continues to capitalize on opportunities like the meeting with the Mexican president, he will gain some of the fence sitters as they can start to visualize him as president. IMO, the debates are over-rated. All Trump has to accomplish is not to fit the media meme of being the crazy guy.

[Edward Amame]

Col Lang

As I've said before, I changed my news-gathering habits after news orgs (esp the NY Times) disgraced themselves during the late 90s re: Bill Clinton and esp in their hideous roles in the pushing the Iraq war on us.

Sorry you feel that way about American cities. You know we're not all of us that "elite" here. Most of us are just working stiffs like the rest of the country except that we come in more colors and varieties so life can be a little more complicated/interesting here. We're gonna vote too since we're also feeling a tad pissed off since the GOP declared war on us. Plus, most of us here in the tri-state area already know exactly what Trump is, and it's not a man of the people. I'm sure big parts of the country will buy him like a tonic on the HSC though.

[turcopolier]

EA

your contempt for people outside the "tri-state area" is palpabe. pl

[Lars]

Trump volunteers opened an office here in Cocoa Beach at their own expense, and had quite a bit of traffic during the week they were open. Last Wednesday, a young woman showed up and informed them that she was "in charge". Then she managed to alienate everybody and Thursday morning, the volunteers closed the office and removed everything.

As mentioned, that ground game is important and it appears that Donald Trump has discounted it, at least here in Florida. Early voting starts in a few weeks in some states and I wonder if the Trump campaign is ready for it.

[BabelFish]

I completely agree with this. We have 30 days, more or less, before that shoe drops. If it is big enough, it would be quite a show to witness. I have to believe that the HRC folks must be building spin positions ahead of time, trying to figure which bomb will drop from WikiLeaks.

[Kgw]

Mr. Lang, as yours of the urban folk. Ad hominem does not suit you.

[Tyler]

The posts of some of you are wonderful in a "your tears are delicious" sort of way.

Reuters rejiggered poll shows Trump ahead, the man cannot be stumped and some of you are trying to convince yourself Borg Grandma is ready to leave her safe space.

Please tell me more how the MSM, which is in full throated 100% 3 minute hate against Trump is also in the bag for him. I'll wait.

[Kgw]

Mr. Lang, as is yours for the urban folk...somewhat unexpected of you, I might add.

[VietnamVet]

This is the strangest of modern elections. Broadcast owners are seeing red because they are losing millions of dollars of shakedown money from the Trump campaign. The only enthusiastic voters are Trump’s. Trump is a media maven and humorous. Hillary Clinton is not amusing. Her asset is her gender. Everything rides on the debates. It is only him, her and the corporate moderators on stage. If he sells himself as funny, honest and not too much of a heel; he will win.

Not mentioned in the media, this is really a campaign between Nationalists (Trump) and Globalists (Clinton). If voters recognize that they’ve been screwed by globalization, the endless wars, plus acknowledge the ongoing propaganda campaign directed at them; the more likely that the democratic ticket loses.

[Edward Amame]

Col Lang

I'm sorry, but open contempt is exactly the impression I get from you regarding us city folks and I responded in kind. Again, we are not all "elite" here, and certainly not so in my case.

[Karl Kolchack]

I was chatting with physician the other day who agreed that both candidates are awful, but for him it comes down to deciding factor: Hillary has broken the law and compromised national security, and refuses to own up to her actions. He didn't explicitly say he was voting for Trump, but I got that sense. More interestingly, he himself is an immigrant from South Asia.

Another factor the media is discounting is that the vast majority of "undecideds" are "low information voters" who probably aren't even paying attention yet. These are the kinds of voters who place little distinction between presidential elections and voting on American Idol. They could well be dazzled to see a "reality TV" star on the ballot and vote accordingly.

[different clue]

herb,

If the MSM sells the Clinton Inevitability line successfully enough, lots of Bitter Berners will feel free to vote "someway else" because they will feel that no matter how many of them vote for "not Clinton", it won't cause her to lose. If so many Bitter Berners feel "since she can't lose, I'll vote the way I want" that her numbers fall below the victory margin; then the MSM will have lost her the election through trying to inspire hopelessness among her opponents through pushing the Clinton Inevitability line.

If that happens, even I will see the irony in it; even given my severe irony defficiency.

[Eliot]

EA,

"Plus, most of us here in the tri-state area already know exactly what Trump is, and it's not a man of the people."

He clearly feels more comfortable among "the people."

- Eliot

[Fred]

Lars,

"... showed up and informed them that she was "in charge"." I've seen that in action in different political campaigns too. The fact that people are motivated to take the initiative to spend their own time, effort and money on opening an office is very important. The "ground game" is only important in turning out marginal voters. This election cycle I don't think it will be as important as it would be in an off year gubernatorial race.

[Fred]

Edward,

The GOP declared war on you? I thought Bloomberg was a Republican, as was Giuliani?

"a man of the people" Hilary doesn't fit that description either.

[readerOfTeaLeaves]

I'm pessimistic about the accuracy of the polls this year.
If it is true that land lines have fallen up to 28% since 2000, that screws up polling in the sense that pollsters are not supposed to phone mobiles. If this statistic is accurate, only 66% of potential voters are being polled.

If it is also true that more mobiles are owned/used by younger voters, then phone-based polls are probably skewed toward older voters, who are more likely to have land lines.

If only 2/3 of the voters can be reached by land lines, then the people answering polls on land lines are likely to be the same group of people who watch Fox and network news; this is a declining segment of the population. Meanwhile, younger voters tend to get news from John Oliver, Seth Meyers, Trevor Noah, and Samantha Bee.

Hannity and O'Reilly are a distinctly different culture from John Oliver and Samantha Bee.
The Hannity and O'Reilly voters are more likely to have land lines and answer polls.
But it's quite possible that a majority of the 'Samantha Bee viewers' are being missed in the polls.

IMVHO, fewer land lines is part of the explanation for the pundits missing the Bernie Sanders phenomenon -- the commentariat are still paying attention to polls, although the validity of polls is declining (in large part due to fewer land lines).

The fat lady has not yet begun her final aria, and the polling data is probably a rich vein of disinformation.

It seems quite likely that Trump is the apotheosis of Fox News, and no matter the outcome of this election, some very large organizations (RNC, DNC, Fox News) are either going to limp along on inertia, or else they'll implode. At this point, IMVHO, all three of those organizations, for a multitude of reasons, have shown themselves to be more interested in 'ratings', no matter how that degrades the public sphere, than in public service.

My gut sense is that a lot of people will vote: I went to Bernie caucuses in Washington state, and the smarts, energy, and professional backgrounds were breathtaking. I met several people who either lost houses, or barely held onto them, in the 'downturn': those folks will absolutely vote, but the DNC lost them forever by bailing out the banks. Ditto the RNC. They will not automatically gravitate to Hillary.

Meanwhile, the MSM thrives on conflict -- contrived, or otherwise -- and will do its utmost to turn this election into a 'tight race'. However, given the number of people that pollsters are probably missing, I have no clear sense what will happen.

https://www.ustelecom.org/blog/consumers-continue-shift-away-landline-–-regulations-are-behind
http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/rnc-2016-ratings-fox-news-flat-big-jump-for-cnn-msnbc-1201819792/