This time it really is different

Via Political Scientist Will Moore’s FB page.  Whoa.

Also, interesting to see Trump’s dramatic upturn as more and more Republicans come around on him because, despite his blindingly obvious awfulness, well, damnit, he’s the Republican nominee.  I think Hillary may get a small uptick once Bernie finally endorses her.

Also, I do imagine we are in store for the most negative campaign ever.

About Steve Greene
Professor of Political Science at NC State

16 Responses to This time it really is different

  1. R. Jenrette says:

    If Hillary picks Elizabeth Warren as her running mate she will win big.

    • Jon K says:

      I couldn’t disagree more. If Hillary wants to pick up conservative leaning voters who are upset about Trump that would be the worst possible choice. I believe it would put my support of HRC in question. I would probably just skip voting for president. She should pick someone who has appeal outside of the far left of the democratic party.

      • R. Jenrette says:

        That ticket will unite the Democrats. More importantly, it will excite them. Goodbye, Bernie Bros. It will draw independents.
        Elizabeth Warren appeals across the liberal vs conservative lines. Voters on both sides and in the middle know the economy is rigged just as Warren says. Trump isn’t an appealing option for most of them.

    • Jon K says:

      Yeah I don’t think she appeals to independents at all. It would send the message that Hillary is basically going to govern as a far left ideologue and not as the pragmatic politician she has campaigned as thus far. I think that it would cause many people to give Trump another look. She has fairly high unfavorable ratings and is about as polarizing as you can find on the Democratic side. If she was going in that direction she would just pick Sanders.

      It would also really piss off many of the Democratic wall street donors that Hillary is counting on donations from.

      I don’t think Hillary wins by moving left. She can pretty much count on those votes. Her biggest potential vote pickups come from voters who just cannot vote for Trump. Elizabeth Warren wouldn’t win over a single one of those voters. As one of those voters, I can tell you it would be a horrible mistake. Hillary gets points for being pragmatic and for her foreign policy positions. Why on earth would she pick someone who is divisive, only appeals to the very liberal voter, and throws doubt on Hillary’s commitment to pragmatic governing? Elizabeth Warren wouldn’t be an asset for President Hillary when she has to deal with at the very least a Republican House of Representatives.

      • Jon K says:

        I thought these possibilities from the Washington Post list make way more sense:
        Amy Klobuchar: We know from Clinton’s campaign chairman, Podesta, that Clinton will have a woman in her final vice presidential mix. The only question is who. Klobuchar fills that slot for now as an up-and-coming star in the party who represents a state — Minnesota — where Democrats would be favored to hold a seat in the Senate. But this could be Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) or former Homeland Security secretary and Arizona governor Janet Napolitano — or a woman we are not even thinking about right now.

        4. Tom Perez: The Labor secretary checks two boxes for Clinton (and, yes, some of vice presidential picking is box-checking): He’s well regarded in liberal circles, and he’s Hispanic. Also, he’s not named “Elizabeth Warren” or “Bernie Sanders” — neither of whom Clinton wants to pick
        . Tim Kaine: The Virginia senator was among the first — if not the first — major elected official to endorse Clinton’s presidential campaign. (He said he was for her in May 2014.) That’s Kaine’s MO; he endorsed then-Sen. Barack Obama in February 2007. Kaine’s profile — Christian missionary, fluent Spanish speaker, governor and now senator of a swing state — is outstanding. The one issue for Kaine: He’s a white male with “senator” before his name right now.

        Julian Castro: Castro, on paper, is the person Clinton would like to pick. Why? He is a telegenic 41-year-old Latino from Texas. He complements her in virtually every way, demographically speaking. My working belief has long been that Castro was picked to be secretary of housing and urban development in the Obama administration at least in part so he would have the experience and profile to be part of a national ticket. Castro will absolutely be vetted; whether he passes that vet remains to be seen.

      • Steve Greene says:

        I’m going with Hispanic man.

  2. rgbact says:

    The uptick Hillary finally gets will be interesting. If she’s underwater currently, that means she’s losing many Democrats Shocking considering where she’s been. Is this just a relic of a bitter primary…..or a part of the larger “throw out the establishment” movement that voters seem so enamored with. If the latter……Democrats will be kicking themselves for years for sticking with her.

    Romney also appears to have had an uptick after the primary. Not many others though

    • Steve Greene says:

      I won’t be kicking myself. What are Democrats supposed to do, go with Bernie who is way less electable (despite what current polls show)? It’s not like there was an Obama out there in 2016.

      • rgbact says:

        IDK. Maybe Bernie is electable. Voters are all about rhetoric and slogans and “new” these days. Democrats instead went with pragmatism and experience. Oops.

  3. R. Jenrette says:

    Julian Castro would be exciting but he should have had a job that would give him more foreign policy or financial cred.
    Elizabeth Warren gets under Trump’s skin. She can be the attack dog that is a big part of the V-P’s job, saying what is better said by the V-P than the presidential candidate. Hillary can put her in charge of putting some of the 2007 financial “geniuses” in jail.

    • Steve Greene says:

      I think Warren can be an effective attack dog while not actually being the VP candidate.

    • Jon K says:

      Her in charge of anything related to banking / wall street would be an absolute disaster. Besides the fact that her views are very much on the extreme side she would turn all Democrat wall street types against the ticket. That is a lot of contributions you’d be throwing away.

      Remember 2010 when Obama called the bankers fat cats? His wall street supporters turned on him big time. It was a big part of the “shellacking” that happened.

      You can demonize wall street all you want. You can believe that they are evil if you want. They represent a very important and necessary part of the world economic system. Regulations are one thing, but what Sanders / Warren would do if given the chance makes me shudder. You don’t just blow up multi-billion dollar firms without very serious consequences. Also those firms have vast resources that they will call on to fight it every step of the way.

  4. itchy says:

    Interesting to see all these charts in one place. Reagan/Mondale looks just as I remembered.

    But, wow, that is a huge nosedive that Dukakis took! I didn’t even realize he fell that far that fast.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: