Some time ago, we wrote about Donald Trump being no threat to the Democratic Party and its nominee in the general election, Hillary Clinton. We argued that the man is too much of a political abomination to attract any significant kind of support.
Then, earlier this week, we found out that Clinton has started to slip in the polls and that Trump jumped into the lead. Still, we were quite confident that this was just a temporary aberration and that once Bernie decides to pull out, Clinton will get the same boost Trump has been getting since he started uniting the GOP.
Today, however, we could not fail to be entranced by a stellar article by David S. Bernstein for Politico, about a few very possible and even imaginable ways in which Clinton could lose the election.
While he still acknowledges the fact that this election is for Clinton to lose due to the nature of her opponent, his writing still put fear in our bones.
He, for instance, pointed out that the Hispanic vote might not be as safe or as impactful as Camp Clinton hopes it will be. Trump has definitely done everything in his power to alienate Latino voters and Clinton’s team has all but stopped “working on” the latino vote thinking that it is a sure thing.
Bernstein, however, argues Clinton’s lead over Trump when it comes to Hispanic voters is actually less significant than the one Obama had overMitt Romney back in 2012. And he is right. Obama had 5 points more on Romney than Clinton has over Trump. Moreover, while Obama has traditionally had great support from Hispanic voters independently from his opponent, Clinton does not. On top of all that, a relatively large number of Latino voters are young, meaning pro-Bernie.
All of this might actually lead to a less-impactful pro-Democratic vote.
Bernstein also writes about the fact that Clinton has not been exactly too popular with the young voters, to say the least. The problem for her is that a number of swing states like North Carolina, Virginia and Iowa have traditionally provided the Democratic Party with plenty of young votes, which may not happen this time. For example, Bernstein writes, Obama lost 30,000 in Iowa between 2008 and 2012 simply because fewer young people came out to vote.
If the young people decide not to support Clinton, it might push these states towards the Republicans.
The article also speaks of the possibility of a moderate-right candidate running independently. This would, according to Bernstein, make it much more difficult for Clinton to appeal to at least some of the Republican voters who do not wish to support Trump. Sure, this is something that is going to hurt Trump too, but it might actually make things even more complicated for Clinton.
Finally, there is the whole “unclear position on trade deals” that could hurt Clinton according to Bernstein and he does make a great point by pointing out that she could not even beat Sanders on these issues, let alone Trump who has been playing the “bring back jobs” card very regularly.
Bernstein makes quite a few very strong arguments and we have to say that we have been biting our nails while reading through. Still, in our opinion, this would all be a much more serious problem if Trump was a more serious candidate.
If the other side of this story was someone more electable and predictable, we would have been really, really scared. Namely, for Bernstein’s scenarios to work out for Trump, he would have to make all the right moves and take advantage of every slip up that Clinton makes.
The good news is that this is impossible. Trump will not magically turn into this moderate candidate who is capable of only attracting new voters. He is a sideshow whose vulnerabilities and incessant flip-flopping are going to continue to grow.
All political analyses fall short when Trump is in question. He is, quite simply put, unelectable and that is a good thing.