OK.... so Hillary didn't have a really good day in New Hampshire.... but, didn't everyone expect that she would lose NH badly from the start? As much as she wanted to narrow the gap there, it didn't happen. So, the outcome was no surprise, but dig down in the data and you find some information that gives one pause in the Clinton Campaign. The most disturbing outcomes are really two-fold: 1. the great disparity between Sanders and Clinton among young folks (gigantic), and, 2. the fact that Hillary also lost young women by a wide margin. For the sake of brevity, lets say that both data sets reflect one issue - the youth vote - and that the sub-set of young women is merely reflective of the age factor.
Now, you really can't say that the Democratic side is an inter-generational contest. After all, Bernie is older than Hillary by a bit. So, how is it that he bests her in this cohort? After all, both are really "establishment" candidates. Bernie has served in elective office for decades and Hillary is ... well ... Hillary. So, that's not it. Some say that his position on "free" college education is the key. Perhaps so... at least this may have some relevance and impact on the generation of voters that came away from their education years with gigantic debt or, seeing few job prospects, refused to go into heavy debt and gave up college altogether. Hillary is also supporting a better opportunity to attend college, just not free altogether. In either case, its about money... and lots of it. I think that this is really the problem theme for Hillary and the real issue - sometimes stated and other times unstated - that has the potential to once again sink the Clinton campaign - MONEY.
Lets take it as a given that young voters - as a voting class - are most likely still the most idealistic segment of the voting population. And, in fact, they are rapidly becoming the largest voting block - if they vote. Further, while they may be idealistic and still view the future as likely better than the present (eternal youth optimism), they are also the most skeptical generation in the past 50 years. With 43% as non-white, and feeling economically vulnerable, polling finds that just 20% say that most people can be trusted. That is, 80% of all people are suspect. And, of course, "politicians" fall far below that measure in "trustworthiness." Assuming all that is accurate, then it makes sense that young folks are suspicious of Hillary Clinton's past - the scandals, the history, and, more recently, the Republican attacks on her trustworthiness around the issues of Benghazi and the email issue. Hillary's response has been, "trust me" because I have been there for decades on issues that you care about. Not bad, until we get to the other issue that job- poor millennials care about - greed.
Historically, people without money really do not trust people with money. The poor don't trust the rich to act on their behalf or in their best interests - it reeks of "trickle-down economics." Instead, they think that the rich (owners, CEOs, managers, Boards of Directors, Hedge Fund Managers, Wall Street, etc. - the Monied class) are driven by wealth building and greed and will, therefore, act in their own interests and not for the benefit of working folks. For decades, this has become one of the bedrock beliefs and campaign themes of the Democratic Party in campaign after campaign and in debate on a wide variety of issues. It is the basis of Republican complaints regarding Democrats playing the "class warfare" card. Viewed through this prism, the Clinton Campaign has a serious problem.
Benghazi and emails aside, the fact that the monied class has had a history of "buying" elections with their excessive wealth through campaign contributions. Now, with the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court, and through stealthy "Super PACs" channeling hundreds of millions of dollars into favored candidates, including right-wing conservative extremists, voters see a nexus between the power of money and influence corrupting good judgment and poisoning fair public policy debate through the "strings" attached to millions and millions of dollars in campaign contributions. This is especially true of young voters, including young women, who believe that 80% of people cannot be trusted!
In my view, Hillary's primary problem is that she is entrapped between calling for the end of big money's influence on politics, the repeal of "Citizens United" and Super Pacs, and the out-sized roles that millionaires and billionaires play in our public discourse/elections, and accepting big contributions herself. Hillary has a Super PAC and she has accepted very large contributions into her campaign and into her PAC. This cash come from the very same millionaire class and Wall Street players that the Millennials distrust. This is not an issue lost on the Sanders campaign.
Bernie Sanders and his campaign team are taking the more cautious route at this time. They are not attacking Hillary as a "liar" or saying that she "cannot be trusted." They are well aware that she may very well be the candidate of the party at the end of the day. But, the recent (post Iowa) and constant refrain about Hillary accepting large amounts of "Wall Street" money (remember 'Occupy Wall Street'?), and having a large Super PAC stuffed with contributions from the rich, play on this theme and either inject or underscore a Hillary mistrust factor. The Sanders Campaign message is, Hillary says she will fight the Big Money interests including Wall Street and Big Banks and the role of "dark money" and Super PACs and be an advocate for social justice, those left behind, and for a society filled with opportunity for all, while she accepts giant waves of cash from wealthy donors and corporations. The message is a vague feeling that she may be just another "bought" candidate who had to make promises for that money. This is the basic Trump campaign theme succeeding on the republican side. Sending this message to an audience that already mistrusts their political establishment elders by a wide margin, may send Hillary into the "not trustworthy" category and could very well frustrate her campaign and deny our democracy the very first woman president in US history - evidently, not something that young millennium women care about at all.
Two other factors could make a difference. One is the racial divide between Clinton and Sanders. African American and Latino voters tend to wade through all of the verbal combat and, instead, rely on history to point to someone who has been in their corner for years and not just during this election cycle. This is the Hillary strong suit. The other factor is that young voters (18-29), the very cohort that is causing the Clinton Campaign fits, has a spotty turnout history. In 2012, just 38% of Hispanic voters cast ballots compared to 55% of Black voters and 48% of white millennials. Hillary needs to empower the Black vote, register and get out the Hispanic vote, and keep her fingers crossed that young women will "see the light" before election day. As is often the case in a political contest - as in much of life - the future of the nation may very well be determined by who shows up.
No comments:
Post a Comment