The primaries yesterday moved the front runners on both side further towards the nomination. Hillary Clinton crushed Sanders in Mississippi and lost a close race in Michigan. She got many more delegates than Bernie. Donald Trump won three of four races but came in second to Cruz in Idaho. Trump gained just less than half of all the delegates awarded last night. To me, however, the most interesting thing about last night was Clinton's loss to Sanders in Michigan. The polls all had her way ahead. Sanders wasn't even planning to hold a victory event, and one had to be cobbled together quickly when it became clear that he might (and did) win in Michigan.
How could Sanders beat Clinton in a large industrial state that is part of the Democrat "blue wall", the states that have voted for the Democrat in the last six elections? The answer is that Clinton lost younger voters in a landslide to Sanders. It's also that a large majority of Democrat voters in Michigan said that the various treaties that promote "free trade" have cost America a great many jobs. That is one of the big issues for Bernie Sanders, but it is also a signature issue for Donald Trump.
Another major indicator in Michigan is that the turnout for the GOP was much higher than for the Democrats. Both parties had actual races, so there was no "boredom" factor, voters who wanted to participate in a meaningful race. There was just more interest in voting in the GOP race than in the Democrat race.
These results should be worrying the Democrats greatly about what will happen in November when Clinton will be leading the ticket against (most likely) Trump. Will those voters who were swayed by the trade arguments vote for Hillary even though she supported all those trade treaties or will they go to Trump who says he will renegotiate all of them? Will the young people who turned out for Bernie have any interest in coming to the polls for the old tired symbol of the 1990s. Will the increased level of interest on the GOP side push turnout among Republicans to much higher levels than in 2012? These factors could put Michigan into the GOP column in another major blow to Clinton from the voters of that state. And if Michigan is in play, will Pennsylvania not also be in play? In that state, we also have Hillary's recent pronouncements attacking fracking, something that has created over 200,000 jobs in the Keystone State. This is not minor stuff. It's pretty safe to say that if the GOP carries Michigan and Pennsylvania, there will be a Republican in the White House for the next four years.
How could Sanders beat Clinton in a large industrial state that is part of the Democrat "blue wall", the states that have voted for the Democrat in the last six elections? The answer is that Clinton lost younger voters in a landslide to Sanders. It's also that a large majority of Democrat voters in Michigan said that the various treaties that promote "free trade" have cost America a great many jobs. That is one of the big issues for Bernie Sanders, but it is also a signature issue for Donald Trump.
Another major indicator in Michigan is that the turnout for the GOP was much higher than for the Democrats. Both parties had actual races, so there was no "boredom" factor, voters who wanted to participate in a meaningful race. There was just more interest in voting in the GOP race than in the Democrat race.
These results should be worrying the Democrats greatly about what will happen in November when Clinton will be leading the ticket against (most likely) Trump. Will those voters who were swayed by the trade arguments vote for Hillary even though she supported all those trade treaties or will they go to Trump who says he will renegotiate all of them? Will the young people who turned out for Bernie have any interest in coming to the polls for the old tired symbol of the 1990s. Will the increased level of interest on the GOP side push turnout among Republicans to much higher levels than in 2012? These factors could put Michigan into the GOP column in another major blow to Clinton from the voters of that state. And if Michigan is in play, will Pennsylvania not also be in play? In that state, we also have Hillary's recent pronouncements attacking fracking, something that has created over 200,000 jobs in the Keystone State. This is not minor stuff. It's pretty safe to say that if the GOP carries Michigan and Pennsylvania, there will be a Republican in the White House for the next four years.
No comments:
Post a Comment