Each week, Nate Cohn, The Upshot’s politics analyst, and Toni Monkovic, an Upshot editor, will discuss the 2016 race and post a lightly edited transcript of their written exchange. Readers can submit questions for future chats, and we’ll select one or two of the best ones.
Toni Let’s have a little fun speculation. Knowing what we know now — given Bernie Sanders’s strong run from the left — how close could Elizabeth Warren have come to beating Hillary Clinton if she had run? Could she have beaten her?
Nate Oh, God, that’s a good question — I’ve spent a lot of time wondering about it myself. To start, I think it’s worth remembering that Warren would have had the two same challenges as Sanders: winning nonwhite and affluent voters. I think she could have done better among affluent voters, simply because I think someone like her — who is technocratic and policy-focused — would have seemed more reasonable and acceptable than someone talking about political revolution. I’m not sure she would have done much better among black voters, especially in the South.
The second thing I’d note is that the Clinton campaign, especially early on, basically handled Sanders with kid gloves. They didn’t think he was a serious threat. That’s not the way they would have handled Warren. I don’t know how much of a difference it would have made.
But it’s definitely possible. At the very least, Clinton would have spent much more money.
Toni When we’re all done in the Democratic race, with the District of Columbia primary on June 14, how close do you think Sanders will come to Clinton in the white vote? (Understanding that this would purely be an estimate.)
Nate There are a lot of Western states that didn’t hold primaries, and Sanders did well in the caucuses there. My guess is that he will narrowly edge out Clinton among white voters, assuming he would have won many of those predominantly white Western states by a comfortable margin (you kind of have to guess at what would have happened if there were primaries).
Toni I think that would surprise a lot of people. It speaks to the power of the minority vote in the Democratic electorate.
Nate Should it? Obama lost the white vote by a 55-39 margin in the 2008 primaries, according to the exit polls. And he lost Latino voters. All of his victory came from a lopsided margin among black voters.
This year, Clinton matched Obama’s tally among black voters, beat it by a big margin among Hispanic voters and beat it by a comfortable margin among white voters. Hence, a clear Clinton victory.
In the end, it’s really tough to win the Democratic nomination while getting blanked among black voters. They represent almost a quarter of the electorate. You would need to do what Clinton did in 2008 in almost pulling it off: win big among both Hispanic and white voters. Bernie was never poised to do either.
Toni I remember being surprised when Clinton came out against the trans-Pacific trade partnership. It was a rare break from President Obama, and seemed to go against her past support for trade agreements. But looking back (and looking ahead to places like Michigan), it seems she got the politics right. Agree?
Nate Well, I don’t know about that. I don’t think she got much credit for it, and it fit into the narrative that Clinton’s a flip-flopper with no conviction. I do think it’s true that trade was a problem for her in the Midwest, and could continue to be in the general. I’m just not sure whether her T.P.P. switch really helps insulate her from it.
Toni Thomas Edsall wrote that Donald Trump’s strength seems to be underrated in telephone polls because some of his supporters may be ashamed to reveal their support in that format. Trump is doing better in online polls of the general election. The suggestion is that we’re in for a closer race than a lot of people think.
Nate I haven’t investigated it thoroughly. It’s a big question that the survey industry hasn’t totally figured out yet. A few quick observations, though: There are big differences between online and telephone surveys besides the absence of an interviewer. I’d also note that Trump seemed to do better in the online polls throughout the primaries than he actually did. He was earning 40 percent of the vote in the online Morning Consult poll long before he really approached it in the actual tabulated vote.
Toni You made a comment last week that surprised me. Trump essentially dismissed the importance of data in campaigns. (Obama was said to have a sophisticated data operation that helped him win the last two elections, with Clinton poised to receive the baton). And you said, “Eh, I kind of think he has a point.”
Nate I definitely agree with Trump that data is “overrated.” That doesn’t mean it isn’t helpful or that he would be well off to ignore it. But the hype around analytics and data-driven turnout efforts has definitely outpaced the actual effect it has on election outcomes, especially in a presidential election when turnout is bound to be very high.
Toni Can you give a ballpark figure on what percentage of the vote could be affected by an outstanding data operation versus an average or mediocre one?
Nate In a presidential election? Maybe half a point.
I think there’s a chance it represented Obama’s margin of victory in Florida,the closest state in 2012, but it’s hard to be sure.
Toni Looking back at the G.O.P. race, other than Trump’s rise, what was the most stunning development?
Nate The failure of mainstream Republicans to elevate a single broadly acceptable candidate by the end of the primary season.
I think you can blame Marco Rubio’s debate performance in New Hampshire, to some extent.
Toni How damaging was Jeb Bush’s entrance into the race to mainstream Republicans’ chances of elevating a broadly acceptable candidate? In retrospect, he was never going to catch on in that campaign environment, and he took oxygen away from someone like Rubio.
Nate Who knows what would have happened if Jeb doesn’t get in. Does Mitt Romney join? Does that let donors consolidate around Rubio faster, which I think would have been very bad for Trump? I just don’t know. What I will say is that it was very damaging that Bush proved to be as weak as he was. It was enough to block the emergence of another strong mainstream candidate, but he wasn’t able to use those resources to defeat Trump. Instead, he spent millions weakening Rubio in New Hampshire.
Toni Let’s wrap this up by getting back to Elizabeth Warren. There may begood reasons that she won’t be the vice-presidential pick, and she may not even want the post. But from a pure vote-getting perspective (and I realize these picks typically don’t matter all that much for that purpose), would she be the best selection?
Nate I think it’ll be clearer after the primaries have wrapped up. Does Clinton have a real problem on her left? Or does she have a secure left flank, so that she’s free to target moderate Republican-leaners in the suburbs? I think the case for Warren is useful in the former condition more than the latter. I’m also not sure whether Warren helps with working-class white Democratic men. They’re basically Clinton’s biggest vulnerability, and I think there’s a case that choosing Warren could make that worse.
Toni Why do you think she could make that worse?
Nate Because she’s a woman, and I just don’t know whether two women are worse than one for that group.
Last week, Nate and Toni assessed Donald Trump’s potential strengths and weaknesses in each of the battleground states and discussed whether liberals should be worrying about polls showing a tight race. You can see that conversation here.
No comments:
Post a Comment