J
Jeanne_S
Guest
If trump can stay n message as he has the past ten days or so,I think we will begin to see a shift in his favor,especially as all of HC scandals overwhelm her campaign.
- Status
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Why Trump Is Failing With College Grads (Wall Street Journal)
His dark message of decline doesn’t resonate among voters with college degrees.
The support of white voters with a college education is the key battle of the 2016 presidential contest, and Donald Trump is losing it. In 2012 Mitt Romney beat Barack Obama by 14 points among college-educated whites, according to exit polls. The average of top national surveys shows Mr. Trump trailing Hillary Clinton among these voters by nine points, and the latest Pew Research Center survey gives Mrs. Clinton a 14-point edge.
Unfortunately for Mr. Trump, these voters are more important than ever. As recently as 1988, whites without a college degree formed 54% of the electorate, compared with only 31% for whites with a four-year degree or more and 15% for nonwhite voters. A Center for American Progress analysis shows that by 2012, the noncollege white share of the electorate had fallen by 18 points to 36%, while college-educated white voters had risen five points to 36% and minority voters nearly doubled to 28%.
Given underlying demographic trends, absent a massive mobilization of whites without college degrees, college-educated whites may constitute an outright majority of white voters in 2016 for the first time. Even with such a mobilization, Brookings demographer William Frey has shown, Mr. Trump would lose to Mrs. Clinton by roughly the same number of voters that separated Mr. Romney from President Obama.
Pennsylvania, which Mr. Trump seems determined to carry against the odds, illustrates this dynamic. In 2012, according to a recent Wall Street Journal analysis, Mr. Romney did almost equally well among whites with and without college degrees, winning these groups by 16 and 14 points, respectively. Although Mr. Trump is doing a bit better than Mr. Romney did among noncollege whites, he is losing white college graduates to Mrs. Clinton by a stunning 21 points, 53% to 32%. In tandem with almost invisible support of 1% among African-Americans (six points worse than Mr. Romney’s meager showing), the Republican nominee’s collapse among educated whites has given Mrs. Clinton a lead of twice President Obama’s margin in the Keystone State.
The most successful presidential candidates have always practiced the politics of addition, adding new groups to a party’s existing base. Mr. Trump’s politics of division is doing more to drive away traditional Republicans than to attract new supporters. Unless he can turn this around, he cannot prevail.
It won’t be easy, because education has emerged as a core dividing line in the electorate. All else equal, areas with large shares of highly educated voters are more likely to deliver Democratic majorities, and vice versa. A recent NPR analysis of Census Bureau statistics found that the 10 states with the highest share of college-educated voters are all Democratic while the 10 with the lowest share are Republican.
Education casts a revealing light on the dynamics of the 2016 election. Mr. Trump tends to do better in states with low shares of both college-educated whites and minorities. Ohio and Iowa meet both tests; despite below-average shares of college-educated voters, Pennsylvania, Florida and Nevada do not. Conversely, Georgia, Arizona and Utah have above-average shares of college-educated voters, which helps explain why Mrs. Clinton is surprisingly competitive in these traditionally red states. If Mr. Trump were even modestly appealing to college-educated Republicans, she wouldn’t have a chance in these states.
Underlying these aggregates are deep differences of outlook and experience. College-educated voters are far more likely to believe that life for people like them is better than it was 50 years ago and that increased diversity has made the country better. Unlike less-educated voters, they believe that trade has benefited their family’s finances. So Mr. Trump’s signature issues—passionate opposition to trade agreements and current immigration policies—are bound to repel upscale Republicans even as they mobilize working-class voters.
The problem goes even deeper. Mr. Trump’s dark message of decline and fear resonates with less-educated white voters who have experienced downward mobility and cultural marginalization, but it does not speak to more educated center-right voters who have done well in recent decades. These voters respond negatively to utterances that smack of nativism, racism and religious prejudice, themes with which Mr. Trump has flirted.
Gender poses a distinctive challenge for the Republican nominee. His Rat Pack sensibility plays especially poorly among college-educated white women. And the more they see it, the less they like it. Before the two party conventions, Mr. Frey’s analysis shows, Mrs. Clinton’s margin among these women was 45% to 42%. But after the conventions, her edge widened dramatically to 57% to 38%. By contrast, the conventions had no measurable impact on either candidate’s support among white women without college degrees.
As Dale Carnegie famously remarked, you never get a second chance to make a first impression. Mr. Trump’s latest campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, who reportedly channels the sentiments of educated Republican women, has her work cut out for her.
His dark message of decline doesn’t resonate among voters with college degrees.
The support of white voters with a college education is the key battle of the 2016 presidential contest, and Donald Trump is losing it. In 2012 Mitt Romney beat Barack Obama by 14 points among college-educated whites, according to exit polls. The average of top national surveys shows Mr. Trump trailing Hillary Clinton among these voters by nine points, and the latest Pew Research Center survey gives Mrs. Clinton a 14-point edge.
Unfortunately for Mr. Trump, these voters are more important than ever. As recently as 1988, whites without a college degree formed 54% of the electorate, compared with only 31% for whites with a four-year degree or more and 15% for nonwhite voters. A Center for American Progress analysis shows that by 2012, the noncollege white share of the electorate had fallen by 18 points to 36%, while college-educated white voters had risen five points to 36% and minority voters nearly doubled to 28%.
Given underlying demographic trends, absent a massive mobilization of whites without college degrees, college-educated whites may constitute an outright majority of white voters in 2016 for the first time. Even with such a mobilization, Brookings demographer William Frey has shown, Mr. Trump would lose to Mrs. Clinton by roughly the same number of voters that separated Mr. Romney from President Obama.
Pennsylvania, which Mr. Trump seems determined to carry against the odds, illustrates this dynamic. In 2012, according to a recent Wall Street Journal analysis, Mr. Romney did almost equally well among whites with and without college degrees, winning these groups by 16 and 14 points, respectively. Although Mr. Trump is doing a bit better than Mr. Romney did among noncollege whites, he is losing white college graduates to Mrs. Clinton by a stunning 21 points, 53% to 32%. In tandem with almost invisible support of 1% among African-Americans (six points worse than Mr. Romney’s meager showing), the Republican nominee’s collapse among educated whites has given Mrs. Clinton a lead of twice President Obama’s margin in the Keystone State.
The most successful presidential candidates have always practiced the politics of addition, adding new groups to a party’s existing base. Mr. Trump’s politics of division is doing more to drive away traditional Republicans than to attract new supporters. Unless he can turn this around, he cannot prevail.
It won’t be easy, because education has emerged as a core dividing line in the electorate. All else equal, areas with large shares of highly educated voters are more likely to deliver Democratic majorities, and vice versa. A recent NPR analysis of Census Bureau statistics found that the 10 states with the highest share of college-educated voters are all Democratic while the 10 with the lowest share are Republican.
Education casts a revealing light on the dynamics of the 2016 election. Mr. Trump tends to do better in states with low shares of both college-educated whites and minorities. Ohio and Iowa meet both tests; despite below-average shares of college-educated voters, Pennsylvania, Florida and Nevada do not. Conversely, Georgia, Arizona and Utah have above-average shares of college-educated voters, which helps explain why Mrs. Clinton is surprisingly competitive in these traditionally red states. If Mr. Trump were even modestly appealing to college-educated Republicans, she wouldn’t have a chance in these states.
Underlying these aggregates are deep differences of outlook and experience. College-educated voters are far more likely to believe that life for people like them is better than it was 50 years ago and that increased diversity has made the country better. Unlike less-educated voters, they believe that trade has benefited their family’s finances. So Mr. Trump’s signature issues—passionate opposition to trade agreements and current immigration policies—are bound to repel upscale Republicans even as they mobilize working-class voters.
The problem goes even deeper. Mr. Trump’s dark message of decline and fear resonates with less-educated white voters who have experienced downward mobility and cultural marginalization, but it does not speak to more educated center-right voters who have done well in recent decades. These voters respond negatively to utterances that smack of nativism, racism and religious prejudice, themes with which Mr. Trump has flirted.
Gender poses a distinctive challenge for the Republican nominee. His Rat Pack sensibility plays especially poorly among college-educated white women. And the more they see it, the less they like it. Before the two party conventions, Mr. Frey’s analysis shows, Mrs. Clinton’s margin among these women was 45% to 42%. But after the conventions, her edge widened dramatically to 57% to 38%. By contrast, the conventions had no measurable impact on either candidate’s support among white women without college degrees.
As Dale Carnegie famously remarked, you never get a second chance to make a first impression. Mr. Trump’s latest campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, who reportedly channels the sentiments of educated Republican women, has her work cut out for her.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Regarding the health of both candidates:
I hope none of the candidates object to being called elderly.
cnn.com/2016/08/23/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-health/
I hope none of the candidates object to being called elderly.
M
Mulligan2
Guest
Marriage equality is an issue that has already been decided. The majority of Republicans, while perhaps still personally opposing marriage equality, see it as a non-starter from a political standpoint. And the majority of the electorate sees this as a non-issue.
M
Millie123
Guest
Trumps proposed wall and the Israeli West Bank wall are nothing alike. Trump is proposing building a massive concrete wall along the entire southern border of the United States. It is estimated to be at minimum 1000 miles to at maximum 1900 miles.
Comare his plan to Israelis
The Israelis have not built a massive concrete wall along their border of the west bank. The Israelis border is 440 miles long, Around 1/3 of the minimum of Trumps proposed land size. The Israeli West Bank border is composed of 90-95% of barbed wire fence, You can see it here msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070904/070904_barrier_bcol_3a.grid-6x2.jpg The rest of the border is composed of concrete wall along the urban areas. That means that out 440 miles of border that the parts of the border that comprises concrete walls totals 44 miles in length.
Again, Trumps proposal is nothing like the Israelis…in either cost, size, or magnitude. He is proposing a massive concrete wall along the southern border. I can only vote on what he is proposing, and what he is proposing, I don’t agree with. As an aside though I think that a 1000+ mile concrete noise wall would be an international embarrassment.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Actually, if you think of it on a per capita basis, 1,000 miles for the U.S. is less than 44 miles for Israel.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
The Trump Wall and the Israeli Wall are essentially the same.
G
graciew
Guest
Are you saying income? Isn t México supposedly going to pay for it? Per capita is about half of Israel 's…
M
Millie123
Guest
Ok, how is 396 miles of barbed wire fence in Isreal essentially the same to 1000+ miles of a concrete wall running down the southern border of the United States. Ive read that he wants the height of this wall to be between 30 to 50 feet. So at the minimum, the height of the wall of 30 feet is the equivalent to the height of a two story building. We’ll have the height of a two story building in concrete running down 1000+ miles of the southern US border.
G
graciew
Guest
Too much Maths for me.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I believe you said Israel has 44 miles of concrete wall.
If you take 1000 miles of wall and divide by the population of the U.S., that’s about .00000333 miles per person in the U.S. or about an inch of wall for every man, woman and child. Multiply .00000333 times the population of Israel and that’s only about 26 miles. At 44 miles, each Israeli would have to pay for .0000055 miles, almost 3 inches of wall per Israeli; quite a bit more than the American would have to deal with.
So, per person in the population, Israel’s 44 mile wall is a bigger undertaking than a 1,000 mile wall would be for the U.S. Presumably, Israel has about the same number of taxpayers per capita as does the U.S., and Israelis make less, on average, than do Americans.
So, it would be less burdensome for the U.S. to build a 1,000 mile wall than it would be for Israel to build a 44 mile wall, not more burdensome as you suggested.
M
Millie123
Guest
Im sorry, but when you take the bulk of my concerns of the massive environmental impact, costs, manpower, resources and logistics of building a massive 1000 mile x 30 foot wall down the the entire southern border of the US with Mexico…your argument of looking at the length of the wall per capita with Israel does nothing to appease my concerns about this project. Ive seen many people here use the argument of looking at it in relation to Israel. From my perspective, looking at the 2 projects side by side together, between the 44 miles of concrete wall (396 miles of barbed wire fence) Israel has built and 1000 miles of concrete wall in the US that Donald Trump wants to build, the two projects have very little in common. Looking at it from your perspective of per capita, does nothing to make this project more logical to me. In fact the more I write about it and look into it, the more that Im convinced that its an amateurish idea and colossal waste of money.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/768541506160386048
After Clinton bounce, polls indicate tightening race in key battlegrounds
foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/24/after-clinton-bounce-polls-indicate-tightening-race-in-key-battlegrounds.html
L
Little_Sheep
Guest
Yep, that about sums it up. The Republicans lost their chance to put forth a reasonable, professional Conservative and, imho, have lost their ability to govern the greatest country on Earth. It’s beyond sad and I hope they can recover.
O
oneofmany
Guest
And the Democrats put up the most crooked person to run for president. Pay for play and letting national secrets get hijacked by other countries putting all of us at risk.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Why are so many democrats in denial about Hillary’s ongoing problems?
D
dasoul
Guest
Because they think she’s going to win despite those problems.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
I can’t speak for all Democrats but for me because the country faces so many more important matters and I care more about getting something done about the income disparity in the US between rich and poor and working class, about getting even more sick people covered with healthcare, about the climate, about the wealthy and corporations starting to pay their fair share, about immigration reform, about the temperament of the Commander in Chief, and so many more things. And nothing has been proven when it comes to these Hillary side stories. The last email investigation ended with no prosecutor in their right mind would press criminal charges. The Clinton Foundation has done good things. And I forget how many Benghazi hearings and hours of Benghazi hearings the nation went through. Enough already.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
The Clinton Foundation.
Please.
85% overhead and salaries.
According to the NY Times, 55% of Secretary of State Clinton’s meetings were with “donors”.
However, according to one of Clinton’s spokesperson surrogates, it was only about 10%.
- Status