Interesting.
For an alleged one-note candidate, Sanders is singing the right tune, especially with his focus on economic injustice.
He's giving a home to voters angry over job losses due to trade deals or home foreclosures due to Wall Street's greed.
Exactly how Thomas Frank, in a whitewash, describes the Trump voters.
Clinton's failed attack against Sanders on the auto bailout during Sunday's CNN debate in Flint, Michigan, didn't pass the smell test in an auto-driven state that knows its history.
Sanders voted for the auto bailout as a stand-alone measure.
What he opposed was a much larger Wall Street bailout later on -- a portion of which included money used to rescue the auto industry.
Just Hillary reinforcing her well deserved reputation.
Clinton's blowout win in Mississippi means she will pick up more delegates than Sanders.
And it shows her huge advantage among African-Americans continues to be a firewall she can count on.
Really?
So what happened in Michigan?
But that strength has obscured her weakness among white voters -- which now looks problematic: After Florida and North Carolina next week, the South is done voting.
To see the problem, look at Clinton's calendar.
She concentrated nearly all of her five days of Michigan campaigning in Wayne County, the heavily-populated and heavily-African-American home of Detroit.
Sanders, meanwhile, competed across the state, and outperformed expectations in other minority-heavy communities.
About Trump.
In Michigan, Trump drowned out Kasich's modest Midwestern job-creating executive appeal, blasting away at trade deals and winning big among the Reagan Democrats he says he can bring into the GOP fold.
Ah, the very people Frank was writing about in The Guardian, white working class people who vote Republican.
Somebody, someplace, has already said that the Reagan Democrats aren't Democrats and haven't been since Reagan.
They are Republicans or aligned with no party.
Is that not true?
The story concludes with a warning about trade.
Nobody in this election season, in the primaries or in the generals later, is going out of his way to vote for free trade.
But a whole lot of people want to vote against it.
Hillary Clinton's husband signed NAFTA.
She voted for trade deals in the Senate. And she was among the last Democrats to stake out a position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Clinton has nuanced explanations for all of that.
Still, Sanders -- who has raged against all of these deals from the beginning, and features trade as a staple of his stump speech and his attacks on Clinton on debate and town hall stages -- is making her pay for it.
In Michigan, where 15% of all workers are labor union members, 58% of Democratic voters said they believe trade takes away U.S. jobs, according to exit polls.
Of those voters, 60% went for Sanders, while 39% went for Clinton.
Similar margins could hurt Clinton in Ohio, Illinois and Missouri next week.
Trade is the single best example of a populist uprising that spans the partisan divide.
Trump's nearly obsessive focus on blasting every U.S. trade deal and everyone who negotiated them guarantees that if he and Clinton are the nominees, this wouldn't just be a problem for Clinton in the primary.
If she advances to face Trump, it'd represent a reversal of modern American politics: An anti-trade Republican against a Democrat much more comfortable with trade.
It's enough to make Reagan Democrats fawn and Chamber of Commerce-types quake.
"We will take many, many people away from the Democrats," Trump said Tuesday night.
Of course, Trump always assumes he's going to be running against Hillary.
A writer in The Guardian sees the same problem.
A majority of Democrats and Republicans in Michigan have reported that recent trade deals have given people like them the shaft.
On the Democratic side, six in 10 Michigan voters thought trade takes away jobs and the majority of those voters supported Sanders; on the Republican side, four in 10 thought trade costs the country jobs, and the majority of them supported Trump.
Sanders’ and Trump’s big wins in Michigan tonight, and those polling numbers in particular, should have Clinton very, very afraid.
Exit polls show how Hillary is beating Bernie.
It's blacks and the sisterhood.
Blacks are not that big a piece of the electorate in other states or nationwide, or in the generals.
Her lead among women is not that much of an edge, all by itself.
About the black vote,
Sanders was helped, as well, by the relative dominance of white voters – whites accounted for seven in 10 Democratic primary voters in Michigan, compared with fewer than three in 10 in Mississippi.
And independents accounted for a quarter of the electorate in the Michigan contest, a better group than mainline Democrats for Sanders.
Clinton, moreover, did less well with black voters in Michigan than in other states, winning fewer than two-thirds of them, compared with 80 or even 90 percent elsewhere.
And then there is the omnipresent character issue.
Clinton continues to have some problems with perceptions of her honesty.
In Michigan, only about six in 10 today say she’s honest and trustworthy, vs. eight in 10 who say so about Sanders.
In Mississippi, she does much better, where three-quarters say she’s honest, as do seven in 10 of Sanders.
About the sisterhood,
Majorities of voters in both states are women (reaching six in 10 in Mississippi).
Women have outnumbered men across in the 2016 Democratic primaries, and have voted by 2-1 for Clinton in contests.
Clinton's failed attack against Sanders on the auto bailout during Sunday's CNN debate in Flint, Michigan, didn't pass the smell test in an auto-driven state that knows its history.
Sanders voted for the auto bailout as a stand-alone measure.
What he opposed was a much larger Wall Street bailout later on -- a portion of which included money used to rescue the auto industry.
Just Hillary reinforcing her well deserved reputation.
Clinton's blowout win in Mississippi means she will pick up more delegates than Sanders.
And it shows her huge advantage among African-Americans continues to be a firewall she can count on.
Really?
So what happened in Michigan?
But that strength has obscured her weakness among white voters -- which now looks problematic: After Florida and North Carolina next week, the South is done voting.
To see the problem, look at Clinton's calendar.
She concentrated nearly all of her five days of Michigan campaigning in Wayne County, the heavily-populated and heavily-African-American home of Detroit.
Sanders, meanwhile, competed across the state, and outperformed expectations in other minority-heavy communities.
About Trump.
In Michigan, Trump drowned out Kasich's modest Midwestern job-creating executive appeal, blasting away at trade deals and winning big among the Reagan Democrats he says he can bring into the GOP fold.
Ah, the very people Frank was writing about in The Guardian, white working class people who vote Republican.
Somebody, someplace, has already said that the Reagan Democrats aren't Democrats and haven't been since Reagan.
They are Republicans or aligned with no party.
Is that not true?
The story concludes with a warning about trade.
Nobody in this election season, in the primaries or in the generals later, is going out of his way to vote for free trade.
But a whole lot of people want to vote against it.
Hillary Clinton's husband signed NAFTA.
She voted for trade deals in the Senate. And she was among the last Democrats to stake out a position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Clinton has nuanced explanations for all of that.
Still, Sanders -- who has raged against all of these deals from the beginning, and features trade as a staple of his stump speech and his attacks on Clinton on debate and town hall stages -- is making her pay for it.
In Michigan, where 15% of all workers are labor union members, 58% of Democratic voters said they believe trade takes away U.S. jobs, according to exit polls.
Of those voters, 60% went for Sanders, while 39% went for Clinton.
Similar margins could hurt Clinton in Ohio, Illinois and Missouri next week.
Trade is the single best example of a populist uprising that spans the partisan divide.
Trump's nearly obsessive focus on blasting every U.S. trade deal and everyone who negotiated them guarantees that if he and Clinton are the nominees, this wouldn't just be a problem for Clinton in the primary.
If she advances to face Trump, it'd represent a reversal of modern American politics: An anti-trade Republican against a Democrat much more comfortable with trade.
It's enough to make Reagan Democrats fawn and Chamber of Commerce-types quake.
"We will take many, many people away from the Democrats," Trump said Tuesday night.
Of course, Trump always assumes he's going to be running against Hillary.
A writer in The Guardian sees the same problem.
A majority of Democrats and Republicans in Michigan have reported that recent trade deals have given people like them the shaft.
On the Democratic side, six in 10 Michigan voters thought trade takes away jobs and the majority of those voters supported Sanders; on the Republican side, four in 10 thought trade costs the country jobs, and the majority of them supported Trump.
Sanders’ and Trump’s big wins in Michigan tonight, and those polling numbers in particular, should have Clinton very, very afraid.
Exit polls show how Hillary is beating Bernie.
It's blacks and the sisterhood.
Blacks are not that big a piece of the electorate in other states or nationwide, or in the generals.
Her lead among women is not that much of an edge, all by itself.
About the black vote,
Sanders was helped, as well, by the relative dominance of white voters – whites accounted for seven in 10 Democratic primary voters in Michigan, compared with fewer than three in 10 in Mississippi.
And independents accounted for a quarter of the electorate in the Michigan contest, a better group than mainline Democrats for Sanders.
Clinton, moreover, did less well with black voters in Michigan than in other states, winning fewer than two-thirds of them, compared with 80 or even 90 percent elsewhere.
And then there is the omnipresent character issue.
Clinton continues to have some problems with perceptions of her honesty.
In Michigan, only about six in 10 today say she’s honest and trustworthy, vs. eight in 10 who say so about Sanders.
In Mississippi, she does much better, where three-quarters say she’s honest, as do seven in 10 of Sanders.
About the sisterhood,
Majorities of voters in both states are women (reaching six in 10 in Mississippi).
Women have outnumbered men across in the 2016 Democratic primaries, and have voted by 2-1 for Clinton in contests.
No comments:
Post a Comment