Yesterday the NY Times had a hand wringey piece about a Hillary-Trump matchup. Sure she will do very well with women and minority voters but what about white men?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/as-hillary-clinton-sweeps-states-one-group-resists-white-men.html
Andrea Mitchell actually tried fanning this on Morning Joe yesterday. Then Micah said something that shows she doesn't know what a gender gap is: that sure Hillary will win by a lot with women but Trump will clean up with men.
Actually a gender gap is the cumulative difference between Hillary's numbers with women and Trump's with men. So if Trump gets men by 15 points but HRC gets women by 25-for argument sake-then the gender gap is 10 points.
There is no reason to think that HRC does any worse with white men than previous Democrats have done. Dems seldom do well with the demographic but Obama did well enough to win election twice.
"Overall, the former secretary of state led 50 to 41 percent among registered voters. Trump led 49 to 40 percent among white voters, while Clinton led 73 to 19 among non-whites. Trump led by five points among men, and Clinton was up by 21 among women. Trump led by 24 points among whites without college degrees, while Clinton led by 15 among whites with degrees."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trump-vs-clinton-would-reshape-the-electoral-map/2016/03/19/783a834c-ed35-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html
These are actually terrible numbers for Trump and the GOP. As bad as Trump is going to do among nonwhites, he needs to do historically well among whites-he needs to blowout Reagan's numbers in his 49-1 win over Mondale in 1984 when the Gipper won 64 percent of whites.
Mitt Romney won 59 percent of whites in 2012. Hillary's numbers-40 percent-are typical for a Dem. Obama had 39 percent in 2012, though he did have 43 percent in 2008.
But Trump is actually polling 10 points behind Romney. Ironically, not only does Trump have the power to maybe strengthen Latino support for the Dems for a generation similarly to black voters, but he actually at the same time is clearly seeing his very own 'white flight.'
At 49 percent this is the worst a GOP candidate will do with white voters in quite some time. George Bush Sr. did worse in 1992 but he had to split the vote with Perot.
Yet all the pundits are claiming that Trump could be real threat in the Rust Belt and win the GOP states they haven't won in years. To the contrary, he may well cost them states they haven't lost in many years.
P.S. The white GOP voters in this poll don't seem to like Hillary anymore than they like most Democratic candidates but Trump is actually causing many of them to just stay home.
P.S.S. And, yes, the gender gap here is 16. For Trump to win the male vote by just 5 points is also awful.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/as-hillary-clinton-sweeps-states-one-group-resists-white-men.html
Andrea Mitchell actually tried fanning this on Morning Joe yesterday. Then Micah said something that shows she doesn't know what a gender gap is: that sure Hillary will win by a lot with women but Trump will clean up with men.
Actually a gender gap is the cumulative difference between Hillary's numbers with women and Trump's with men. So if Trump gets men by 15 points but HRC gets women by 25-for argument sake-then the gender gap is 10 points.
There is no reason to think that HRC does any worse with white men than previous Democrats have done. Dems seldom do well with the demographic but Obama did well enough to win election twice.
"Overall, the former secretary of state led 50 to 41 percent among registered voters. Trump led 49 to 40 percent among white voters, while Clinton led 73 to 19 among non-whites. Trump led by five points among men, and Clinton was up by 21 among women. Trump led by 24 points among whites without college degrees, while Clinton led by 15 among whites with degrees."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trump-vs-clinton-would-reshape-the-electoral-map/2016/03/19/783a834c-ed35-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html
These are actually terrible numbers for Trump and the GOP. As bad as Trump is going to do among nonwhites, he needs to do historically well among whites-he needs to blowout Reagan's numbers in his 49-1 win over Mondale in 1984 when the Gipper won 64 percent of whites.
Mitt Romney won 59 percent of whites in 2012. Hillary's numbers-40 percent-are typical for a Dem. Obama had 39 percent in 2012, though he did have 43 percent in 2008.
But Trump is actually polling 10 points behind Romney. Ironically, not only does Trump have the power to maybe strengthen Latino support for the Dems for a generation similarly to black voters, but he actually at the same time is clearly seeing his very own 'white flight.'
At 49 percent this is the worst a GOP candidate will do with white voters in quite some time. George Bush Sr. did worse in 1992 but he had to split the vote with Perot.
Yet all the pundits are claiming that Trump could be real threat in the Rust Belt and win the GOP states they haven't won in years. To the contrary, he may well cost them states they haven't lost in many years.
P.S. The white GOP voters in this poll don't seem to like Hillary anymore than they like most Democratic candidates but Trump is actually causing many of them to just stay home.
P.S.S. And, yes, the gender gap here is 16. For Trump to win the male vote by just 5 points is also awful.
No comments:
Post a Comment