Hillary’s Problems Are Getting Worse

It just keeps getting worse for Clinton. Her self-made email scandal won’t go away, the Draft Biden movement is picking up steam and Democratic anxieties over her candidacy are continuing to grow. Now, there are signs her electoral coalition, once originally thought to be massive, is fracturing. Not only is she losing swing voters but elements of her base are souring on her candidacy.

The latest Fox News poll finds that the Democratic primary is becoming less and less of a Clinton coronation. Nationally, Clinton leads the field with 51% followed by Sanders at 22%. Biden sits at 13%. This is Clinton’s lowest showing in any national poll and is indicative of just how far she has fallen if she is barely maintaining a majority of Democratic support. Also indicative of the GOP’s competitive primary a whopping 74% of Republicans say they are very interested in the 2016 election compared to 56% of Democrats.

A Monmouth poll of the Democratic primary backs up Fox’s findings. Only 52% of primary voters back her candidacy compared to 16% for Sanders and 13% for Joe Biden. But, if Clinton is not the nominee, a majority of Democratic voters are fine with Bernie. In other words, Hillary’s commanding lead in the polls is not due to her being better than her opponents but simply being better known.

If Clinton’s primary support has fallen her general election prospects are tanking. The coalition she needs to win is starting to fall apart. According to a new NBC/WSJ poll, “In June, 44% of white women had a favorable view of Mrs. Clinton, compared to 43% who didn’t. In July, those numbers moved in the wrong direction for Mrs. Clinton: Only 34% of white women saw her in a positive light, compared to 53% who had a negative impression of her.”

One of Clinton’s big selling points is her ability to bring white women back into the Democratic fold, especially suburban and college educated white women who favored Obama in 2012. But in this poll Clinton has seen these voters perceptions of her dip. Suburban women have an unfavorable view of Clinton as well as college educated white women. Both results indicate a steep drop from a month ago.

Even among the staunchest element of the party’s base, blacks, her image has been marred. In June, 81% African-Americans had a positive view of Clinton compared to 3% who did not. In July, those numbers had dropped to 66% favorable and 15% unfavorable. Further, blacks professed to having less enthusiasm to vote in 2016 relative to 2012. If Clinton cannot get women to swing to her she will need increased turnout among the party’s core constituencies.

Even if women come back to her there is a worrying sign a massive and important group of voters will not, Independents. Only 27% had a favorable view of Clinton compared to 52% who did not. These low water mark indicates just how much Clinton’s playing to the base on key issues (inequality, immigration, police brutality) has hurt her among these key swing voters.

Suburban and college educated women were crucial to Obama’s victories in Colorado, Virginia and Iowa in both 2008 and 2012. Incidentally, this is where polls have shown Clinton trailing Rubio, Walker and Bush. But these voters are also key for Democrats to maintain their edge in Ohio, Wisconsin and Minnesota as well as holding Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. If these numbers do not improve the GOP could improve enough in the Cincinnati or Philly suburbs to turn the older, more blue-collar states. Democrats in Florida have no margin for error whatsoever if fewer blacks turnout than in 2008.

Gallup finds much the same. Nationally, only 44% of all voters view Hillary favorably. This marks her lowest point ever and a drop of 22% from her high in 2012. Among Republicans, Independents and Democrats her numbers have tanked. In 2012, Hillary was viewed favorably by 41% of Republicans. Today it is 12%. In 2012 she was viewed favorably by 65% of Independents and 91% of Democrats. Today only 42% of Independents and 79% of Democrats view her favorably.

There is still time for the Clinton camp to turn around their fortunes. It is early in the contest. The Clinton camp just released their first ads of the cycle in New Hampshire and Iowa aimed at humanizing and reintroducing the candidate to voters. Unfortunately, these two states voters know Clinton well and probably have more hardened opinions of the former First Lady than voters in other states. Worse, a new Granite State/UNH poll finds Clinton narrowly leading Bernie Sanders 42%-36% in the first in the nation primary state.

There remains the possibility Republicans could help her out by nominating a fiery social conservative or Donald Trump. Even so, that takes Clinton’s political fortunes out of her own hands and into those of Lady Luck. Not a good position to be in for any candidate.

Democrats And Hillary Clinton Have A White Male Voter Problem

White men are not thrilled with Hillary Clinton.

Democrats and Hillary Clinton have a problem, a white men problem.  Key to Clinton’s long run in the 2008 primaries these voters have turned away from Democrats and their likely 2016 nominee in droves since the turn of the new decade.  The reasons are fairly obvious and have been written about ad nauseum-relentless focus on social issues, fiscally liberal policies aimed at redistribution of wealth and a lack of concern for male issues (like jobs).

But neither party seems to be paying much attention to this particular facet of our politics.  Republicans are intensively focusing on courting minorities and Democrats are continuing to work on wooing women.  White men who on their own are shifting to the GOP at every age level.  And these white males hold the keys to electoral victory in significant swing states, especially in the Midwest.

White men fueled GOP victories in 2010 and 2014.  In 2010, white men voted 64% for Republicans candidates in Congressional races.  In individual races in key swing states such as Wisconsin, Ohio and Iowa their margins provided the GOP big victories.  Fast forward to 2014 and those margins continued.  Take the case of the Iowa Senate race.  White men favored Joni Ernst 58%-40% while white women only 51%-47%.  This made up for Democratic favoring higher turnout among women.  In Colorado, turnout among white men (and men in general) won Republican Corey Gardner the election.  Depending on the exit poll men made up 48%-53% of the electorate and they favored Gardner by 54%-56%.  Among white men Gardner won by a whopping 20%-23%.  Gardner lost white women meaning he needed this increased turnout and strength among men.

These results do not bode well for Hillary.  If she cannot match Obama’s margins among whites and white men she will need increased support among minorities to make up the difference.  And even though she theoretically a 4% popular vote cushion created by Obama it is predicated on strong minority and single women turnout (Obama coalition).  Put thusly by Steve Schale, a Democrat who has worked on three campaigns, “Take Hispanics alone: Every point of white share you lose, you have to win Hispanics by 4 to 5 points more” to make up for it, Schale said. “In ’08, we knew if we really focused on keeping whites above 40 (percent), we couldn’t lose. To me, that makes more sense than always trying to cobble out a tight win. And at some point we are going to max out (with) Hispanics.” That maxing might have already come and gone.  Democrats did not even come close to hitting their 2012 numbers among minorities last year.

Of course, Republicans built a 27 point edge among white men in 2012 and they lost the election.  But in the crucial swing states that margin was much narrower.  Such strong GOP strength among men could be attributed to strength among white Southerners.  Republicans proved in 2014 they can make inroads with white men in swing states.  They also proved they could do it among white-collar men (MA, IL and MD) which could make the difference in rapidly diversifying Mid-Atlantic states (NC, VA).

This could have serious repercussions come 2016.  If Republicans do improve their margins among minorities, turnout drops and white men come into the GOP fold or any combination of the aforementioned Democrats could find themselves fighting in uphill battle across the country.

Clinton has telegraphed her campaign strategy by tailoring her message to the progressive grassroots.  In other words, a relentless focus on abortion, income inequality and the plight of minorities in America.  Left out of the campaign pitch are appeals to men in virtually every form.  Men don’t want to revisit the culture wars but they also want to hear their concerns over manufacturing and blue-collar jobs disappearing addressed.

Male discomfort with Hillary shows in the Democratic nominating contest.  In Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton has commanding leads among women but among men her leads are much narrower or non-existent.  Part of it might be the issues she talks about or maybe it is just the crowd she attracts.  Clinton’s message is heavy on subtle themes of the country is sexist and if you don’t agree/vote for me you are as a result.  Unlike women, men are likely to more assimilate these subtle messages and respond accordingly.  Accordingly being voting for the other candidate.

Regardless, Clinton needs to find a way to fix this problem or she will have an issue.  Relying on Obama level turnout and unprecedented support among women to make up for huge deficits among men is not the stuff Presidential campaigns are built on.  But maybe Clinton is going for another first.

Walker Unlikely to Win Wisconsin if GOP Nominee in General Election

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has a lot going for him as he seeks his party’s nomination for the Presidency. He is a successful two term Governor of a blue state at the Presidential level, has presided over three statewide electoral victories and enacted sweeping legislative reform.

But it is Wisconsin’s blue hue at the Presidential level that stands out as Walker’s greatest weakness.  For all his successes in state politics the Governor is unlikely to carry Wisconsin at the Presidential level.  This, as one of his campaign’s strongest talking points is that he can carry a blue state like Wisconsin and perhaps take another with it (Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, etc.)

Like many “Blue Wall” states Wisconsin is a competitive state at the state level.  But that competitiveness has not translated to Presidential races.  While Bush lost the state in 2000 and 2004 by less than 1% John McCain lost it by 14% in 08 and Romney 7% in 2012 just a mere five months after Walker won his recall by 7%.

Like Bush, Walker contends he can put Wisconsin on the map.  One of the things most people overlook about Bush was his 2004 strength among rural moderates.  These voters are a significant share of the Wisconsin electorate, are pro-gun, split on abortion and fiscally conservative.  Bush had a cultural appeal to these voters.  In much the same mold Walker does as well.

Look at Walker’s three statewide victories.  In 2010 Walker not only racked up huge margins among the suburbs of SE Wisconsin but he also carried Northeastern Wisconsin (home to Green Bay and its populous suburbs) and the heavily rural Northwest.  Walker won suburban voters 43%-56% but rural voters 44%-55%. The last Republican to do so well among these voters at any level was Bush.

Fast forward to the 2012 recall and Walker further solidified his support among the group.  While Walker’s support among suburban voters stayed largely flat he increased his support among rural voters to 60%. Walker’s support in his 2014 reelection bid among suburbanites increased to 57% but his rural support dipped slightly to 58%.

Walker’s runs also hint at other strengths he possesses.  He never won less than 45% of the 18-29 vote and hit a high water mark of 47% among the group in 2014.  The support traditionally conservative SE Wisconsin gave him was also remarkable.

But, this was all done at the state level in statewide races.  The issues boiled down more to pragmatism and cost cutting than debates over abortion, gay marriage, tax cuts for the rich, etc.  Once the debate turns to that how would Walker fare?

Already, Walker’s standing in the state has taken a steep dive.  Since 2011 Walker’s approval ratings remained remarkably steady according to Marquette University, hovering around 45%-51%.  When he was reelected in 2014 52% of voters approved of him and he received 52% of the vote.  But new polls find he is now underwater as he makes his national aspirations known and focuses on courting a larger, national audience.

A PPP survey finds the Governor with a 43/52 approval rating and he trails Hillary Clinton 52%-43%.  More worrisome the more accurate Marquette University survey finds Walker trialing Clinton 52%-40%.  Highlighting one of the Governor’s issues a whopping 64% said the Governor could not handle both the duties of running for President and being state executive.

Admittedly, it is early.  Much can change.  But early polls out of Wisconsin show Walker would struggle to win his state.  However, both PPP’s and Marquette’s samples reflect a more traditional 2008 and 2012 electorate; less Republican and more Democratic, a far cry from the 2000 and 2004 electorates.

Regardless, Walker has his strengths.  He appeals to rural, downscale voters as well as suburbanites not just in Wisconsin but nationwide.  However, if he is to win Wisconsin if he is the GOP nominee he will have to find someway to maintain his appeal to rural voters in the Northwest and suburban voters in the Northeastern suburbs.  Not an easy task when the issues you courted these voters on have changed and become much more polarizing.