1

UPDATE

June 12, 2016

This is an update of my analysis from October 2015 of the playing field for the 2016 presidential election.

The major party nominees will be most likely Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Trump is especially well-known and the public is well aware of the allegations against Clinton and her general ideological tilt, if perhaps not as familiar with her policy proposals. All this and that the major candidates are in a dead heat at what is being considered the starting line of the general election makes it a good time to evaluate polling and ascertain the road to victory and the vulnerabilities of both candidates.

As polling has been generally accurate during the primary season, here are key developments averaged from five recent reputable surveys (Investor‟s Business Daily/TIPP, NBC News/Wall Street Journal, CBS News/New York Times, Public Policy Polling, ABC News/Washington Post) of registered voters compared to the 2012 presidential election exit poll. The five were used because their crosstabs aligned in insightful crucial categories.

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight emphasized that no one poll, no matter how good, can be relied upon for accurate results all the time. He said that therefore it is better to look to averages of polling in races.

IDEOLOGICAL/PARTISAN

Ideological Weakness

A small surprise as defections have been reported among the conservative ranks for months, the average 10-percentage point decline for Trump among conservatives compared to Romney could be a significant loss to the GOP coalition if these voters sit out the race or vote for another candidate.

Conservatives:

Romney 82% Obama 17% Other 1%

Trump 72% Clinton 18% Undecided/Other 10%

Partisan Weaknesses

Surprisingly, considering intraparty conflicts, major party unity appears to

be stable.

2

Among unaffiliated voters, though, there is a huge opportunity for both

parties. The presumptive nominees are in a dead heat with an average

22 percent of independent voters either undecided or taking an

alternative, making this demographic ripe for the picking up of

substantial numbers of votes. Note that many independent voters are

conservative.

Independents:

Romney 50% Obama 45% Other 5%

Trump 41% Clinton 37% Undecided/Other 22%

DEMOGRAPHICS

Gender Growth

Clinton modestly grew Obama‟s 11-point edge among women in 2012 to a

15-point edge, with significant number of women undecided.

Women:

Obama 55% Romney 44% Other 1%

Clinton 51% Trump 36% Undecided/Other 13%

Generational Weakness

For Clinton, there is potential weakness among the Millennials ages 18 -

29 years old, many of whom fervently supported Bernie Sanders in the

Democratic primaries/caucuses.

Ages 18 - 29:

Obama 60% Romney 37% Other 3%

Clinton 46% Trump 38% Undecided/Other 16%

This average 16 percent undecided or supporting another option is

substantial. Comparing Clinton‟s 8-point lead among this demographic to

Sanders‟ lead among this group against Trump – an average 48

percentage points – and one sees that it is not lack of support for the

Democratic Party that may be at issue, but rather Millennial ambivalence

towards Clinton.

3

Racial/Ethnic Weaknesses

Among Anglo Americans, the GOP has gone from a 20-percentage point

advantage down to 16.

Anglo Americans:

Romney 59% Obama 39% Other 2%

Trump 52% Clinton 36% Undecided/Other 12%

With the ethnic minorities with whom the GOP had hoped to improve and,

thus, grow the party, Clinton has not sealed fully the deal – yet is well on

her way to doing so; Trump seems to be doing only about as well as

Romney did.

Ethnic Minorities:

Romney 18% Obama 81% Other 1%

Trump 18% Clinton 70% Undecided/Other 12%

THIRD PARTY IMPACTS

Finally, both major campaigns need to consider that an average 14 percent of voters (per FOX News, IBD/TIPP, Quinnipiac) currently intend to support a third party candidate. While the third party share normally declines substantially at the ballot box compared to pre-election polling, that share has the potential of denying either major candidate victory in a very close race by their defections from normal allegiances to a major party.

CONCLUSION

In order to win the presidency:

Trump must recover previous GOP presidential election supporters and grow the Republican Party.

Clinton must hold the Democratic presidential coalition together and continue to prevent Trump from growing his coalition.

4

WHERE THINGS STAND – 2016

Demographics, Voting Patterns and What We Know Now

October 2015

It is certainly too early to predict the result of the next presidential election, especially as campaigns can have ups and downs.

Nevertheless, there is a lot we know now about the path to the next presidency. Overall, demographics and political leanings and dynamics point to a modest generic Democratic edge.

POLITICAL LANDSCAPE:

As the political environment develops over the next 13 months, the election could go either way. Though the Democrats appear to have an edge, the Republicans are likely competitive enough to swing the election their way under the right conditions.

There are a lot of unknowns between now and November 2016 that could influence how the voters feel about each major party and its presidential nominee. There could be more economic disruption, new military conflicts in eastern Europe and/or the Middle East, political and personal scandals, etc.

We do know that both major parties are trying to put their best foot forward.

The Republican Congress and Republican governors are working to show the public that the GOP can govern well and advance resolutions to the nation‟s pressing problems. This will be a reflection upon the party as a whole as the national legislative ball is in its court.

The leading Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, has been laying out a substantive policy platform to define the rationale to elect her.

Additionally, both major parties will need to avoid traps:

The GOP must avoid making the mistakes of the past in messaging and targeting voters. The party also has the

5

daunting task of navigating the conflicting demands of its mainstream/economic conservative, social conservative and tea party wings. Finally, the party also must present a relevant policy platform that provides steps forward for the country.

The Democrats cannot allow a generally united base and favorable demographics lull its nominee into complacent responses to political and campaign challenges and vulnerabilities.

Fallacy: Swing Away from Incumbent President’s Party after Two Terms

Before we move on, let us eliminate a fallacy about a trend in presidential elections. It has been cited often, in particular about the 2016 presidential race, that a nominee attempting to succeed a two-term incumbent of the same party will see a substantial drop (average 6.2 percentage points, http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/04/history-is-not-on-the-democrats-side-in-2016/) in that party’s share of the presidential vote compared to the last such election, ostensibly because the voters are weary of the party in power and are looking for a change.

Whatever truth there may have been to that trend, the political dynamics now have changed. The last two elections that fall into the category really do not point to the trend.

In 2000, Al Gore only dropped .9 percentage points off of Bill Clinton’s 1996 share.

While in 2008 John McCain lost 5.1 percentage points of George W. Bush’s 2004 majority, one needs to look beneath the surface to fully appreciate the reasons for it.

o This has been a time of significant growth in the ethnic minority electorate. From 2004 to 2008, this electorate grew by 2.9 percentage points.

o Using Census turnout numbers for data to the tenths and factoring the ethnic minority electorate’s overwhelming support of Obama that year (75 percent), 2.3 percentage points or 45.6 percent of the GOP’s decline was due to growth in these communities that were inclined to give

6

most of their votes to the Democratic nominee in any case.

o In effect, only 2.8 percent of the American electorate could be characterized as having ―voted for change‖ from Bush to Obama. This number, though substantive, is smaller than has been portrayed and due to its size more likely the result of choices in a dynamic election rather than a swing.

Note that the ethnic minority share may grow again by about another two percentage points in 2016; thus further minimizing the potential for such a swing. According to the Census, the trend in the share of this vote in each presidential election from 2000 on has been an increase of an average 2.2 percentage points.

In addition, we are in an era of increasing extraordinary political polarization. It is uncertain how flexible the voters will be to swing between the parties in a presidential race.

All this does not mean there definitely will not be a substantive swing towards the GOP by voters who want a change from the Obama Administration, but a question of whether and how large it can be.

Polling

Additionally, in the aftermath of the recent British and Israeli parliamentary elections, there has been dangerous chatter from Republicans about the unreliability of political polls in relation to our presidential race.

First, let us recognize that the British and Israeli election systems and political environments are different from ours. Substantively, as an example, the British have a parliamentary form of government and multiple competitive political parties with which one has to ascertain the split of the vote in each district in order to project winners; whereas, for all intents and purposes, Americans directly elect their chief executive between two major candidates (with only two exceptions in our 228 year history where the candidate with the most votes did not become president).

7

As another example of the breadth of difference, note that last year the GOP won 51.2 percent of the vote nationwide for the U.S. House of Representatives and 56.8 percent of the seats. This year, the Conservatives in Great Britain won only 36.9 percent of the national vote but got 50.8 percent of the seats in the House of Commons.

For our purposes, it is probably best to look at the polling for the most recent U.S. presidential elections to judge the efficacy of America’s polls. In 2008, the RealClearPolitics (RCP) average of presidential election polling was off from the actual result by .3 percentage points and in 2012 it was off by 3.2 points. The first number is credibility to the industry. The second number is modest – not egregiously off; but certainly observers would prefer a smaller deviation as the average of polls showed a dead heat.

While we know that the polling industry is undergoing some challenges, it is extremely dangerous to disregard polls. Take polls with a grain of salt, yes. Discern which ones are more reliable, yes. But, use what benefits they provide. Good polling is useful towards key insights for effective campaign strategy.

It is also being said that American polling has an advantage over European and Israeli polling in that the U.S. has national elections every two years instead of up to five, facilitating more up-to-date data sets for the calculations.

And, American polling has been pointing to the winner. Note that while some polling for competitive U.S. Senate races last cycle were significantly off, the leaders still won save in NC where Kay Hagan had an insignificant .7 percent lead in the RCP average. Only in the Virginia race did polling inaccuracy potentially affect the final result.

PREMISE:

The projected voter and political landscape in 2016 requires that

A Republican presidential victor improves significantly in the swing states among all demographics, in particular the Anglo vote. Essentially, grow the party.

8

A Democratic presidential victor be not overconfident about the demographics of the electorate and share a robust vision for policy advances.

All things being equal, a mainstream Democratic nominee should have a modest edge over the Republican candidate. All through 2015 until recently, Clinton has been leading all potential Republican nominees in head–to-head match-ups. (In the wake of issues over her honesty and integrity, she is now in dead heats with those candidates.)

DEMOGRAPHIC AND PARTISAN LANDSCAPE:

*unless otherwise noted, shares of turnout and support for each party and its candidates are from the National Election Pool’s exit poll

All things beings equal, the trends point to the following big picture. But clearly, significant evolutions in the political environment, and each party and its nominee‟s response to them, can move the needle.

Earlier this year, the Washington Post ran an article entitled The GOP’s major 2016 problem — in 3 maps (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/06/the-gops-2016-problem-in-3-maps/). In a nutshell, it calculates that recent presidential voter turnout and voting patterns and projected demographic changes indicate that the Democrats begin with 291 – 347 electoral votes of the 270 needed to win the presidency.

Turnout

2016 turnout levels by racial demographic should be at least commensurate with that of 2012, and more likely will see about a two-percentage points increase in the overall ethnic minority share and about a two points decrease in the Anglo share.

As previously discussed, the ethnic minority share has increased an average 2.2 percentage points in each presidential election beginning with 2000 (in case you were wondering whether without Obama on the ballot, ethnic minority turnout would decline).

9

Anglo All Others

2012 73.70% 26.30%

2008 76.30% 23.70%

2004 79.20% 20.80%

2000 80.70% 19.30%

1996 82.50% 17.50%

Additionally, looking at last year‟s midterm election, even with the historic low turnout, Latinos composed the same share as in the previous two midterms – 8 percent. The black vote represented 12 percent, one point down from the 2012 presidential, essentially the same as with Obama on the national ballot.

Stability or growth has been the trend in ethnic minority turnout for national elections.

Republicans need to fear the estimable Democratic turnout machine and grow their party. Note that despite the catastrophe for the Democrats that was the 2014 midterm, they lost a CO U.S. Senate seat by only 1.95 percent to a GOP rising star at 54.5 percent turnout. The 2016 presidential election turnout in the state will likely surpass 2012‟s 70.7 percent, due to universal vote-by-mail now in place. In NC last year, Democrats lost a U.S. Senate seat by 1.56 percent with only 41.2 percent turnout. Contrast that with the 65.4 percent turnout for the last presidential. As we all know, the higher the turnout, the more the electorate tends to favor the Democrats.

Turnout Strategy

Salient insight about turnout strategy from Obama 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina, “The Obama campaign concluded that it was easier and more cost-effective to change the electorate by increasing minority and youth turnout than to build a winning majority…by persuading enough uncommitted white voters. When you have such a polarized electorate, getting from 41 to 43 [percent among whites] is much harder."

The Clinton campaign has already announced that it is replicating this strategy.

10

The Republican Party should note that this works for the Democrats because the demographics and political leanings of the voting-eligible population allow it – the Democrats are working with a favorable voting-eligible majority in presidential elections.

Republicans need to persuade and to modify policy positions to develop an electorate majority more favorable to their presidential nominee, barring auspicious developments for them in the political environment.

“Missing” White Voters

In recent years, some GOP activists and analysts have called for increased focus on engaging Anglo voters who have missed elections or stopped voting, citing a vein of disaffected persons likely to view the Republican Party favorably. (This past election cycle, the GOP implemented a program that emphasized turning out lower-propensity supporters.)

Sean Trende, senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics, wrote The Case of the Missing White Voters, Revisited (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/21/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_revisited_118893.html) that pointed out up to 6.5M additional Anglo voters were projected to vote for president in 2012 but did not. Trende categorized them as mainly similar to 1992 Ross Perot voters - “secular, blue-collar, often rural voters… largely concentrated in the North and Mountain West.”

Trende reminds us that Perot ran as an economic populist and deficit hawk who favored tax hikes on the wealthy to aid in balancing the federal budget. Additionally, Perot supported universal Medicare coverage and more education spending.

Analysis:

1. As Trende acknowledged, the “missing” Anglo voters were not enough to swing the 2012 presidential election to the GOP.

a. Securing these “missing” voters could be a big step for the GOP on the path towards the presidency or padding for the Democrats to compensate for voters that leave the Obama coalition.

11

2. Romney would have had to get 77 percent of the “missing” votes to attain just a popular vote plurality. An unlikely scenario considering that he garnered only 59 percent of the Anglo vote.

a. As the “Perot” voters could be called “centrist”, both major parties could have been competitive for the “missing” votes – potentially denying either side an overwhelming edge. [In 2012, moderates (as opposed to independents) split 56/41 between Obama and Romney.]

3. Therefore, gains likely would have had to been made also in ethnic minority communities for Romney to win the election.

4. Even if the “missing” voters were able to produce a popular vote victory for Romney, it would not have been necessarily an electoral one – which is what really matters.

a. Trende plotted these voters mainly along a trajectory of states running from Maine down to New Mexico.

b. Among swing states, only Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania could have seen substantial improvements for the GOP from these voters along this tract. If he had won these four states, Romney would have ascended only to 254 electoral votes of the 270 necessary for victory.

c. Additionally, many of these voters fall under states where the victor would not have changed, e.g., California, where the number of additional votes would have been substantive but still too few to even make the state competitive.

5. To get them to turn out for you, both major parties would have to find and use strategies that can motivate these disaffected voters. If they did not turn out for recent major national elections accentuated by clearly defined opposing ideologies, what would motivate these folks to do so in 2016?

In response to that question, Trende‟s “basic prescription is a healthy dose of economic populism.” For these voters, “more main street/populist on economics” and “less pro-big business/Wall Street” would help in gaining their fealty.

For persons disaffected by the view of politicians favoring the well-to-do and ignoring the “little guy”, this seems the appropriate route.

12

Clinton has released the outline of an “inclusive prosperity” economic growth plan; details to be unveiled throughout the campaign. We shall see when the details are discussed whether it is too “big government” for the many voters who have grown weary of government initiatives/intrusion. (Yet, the Clinton campaign is likely to have tested her proposals for majority appeal before unveiling them.)

On the other side, the GOP may be hamstrung on such proposals due to the party‟s ideological underpinnings and corporate ties.

The Anglo Vote

Despite the strong blowback against the Democrats this past cycle, the GOP still got only 60 percent of the Anglo vote for the U.S. House compared to Romney‟s 59 percent in 2012 for the presidency. (The GOP‟s fortunes last year were buoyed partly by the Anglo share of the electorate going up to 75 percent from 2012‟s 72 percent.)

Since these past two national elections highlighted clearly defined opposing ideologies and featured an energized GOP, it is uncertain how much the Anglo vote can move in either direction in 2016.

The GOP must win a larger share of Anglo votes in most swing states in order to win the presidency (see ethnic minorities section for discussion).

The Democrats must maintain their share of Anglos to remain competitive and win in swing states.

College-Educated Anglo Women

For history-making and political reasons, it was expected that Clinton would attain or surpass Obama‟s level of female support in presidential elections. College-educated Anglo women were expected to notably identify with her gender and professional background, and be conducive to her policy proposals addressing their professional issues.

Obama dropped from 52 percent in 2008 of this group to 46 percent in 2012 (National Journal, 2/9/15). Those six percentage points may indicate the basic extent of this demographic‟s flexibility to swing from one major party to the other; conceivably, the flexibility could be

13

more, depending on each party nominee‟s empathy and skill with this group.

Clinton, though, has been erratic recently among women overall, ranging from 1 point ahead of Bush to 17 points ahead of property developer Donald Trump. Obama won women by 11 points in 2012. The Democrats should be concerned about Clinton‟s appeal among women, as their support appears to be soft for her. Granted that reliable votes tend to return to the fold, women are expressing serious reservations about her. It makes sense that American Crossroads is testing messaging for swing women.

Democratic candidates could inhibit the GOP‟s growth possibilities among Anglo voters if they hold or grow Obama‟s share of college-educated Anglo females.

Non-College Educated Anglos

The Republican Party has been celebrating and touting its dominance of non-college educated Anglos‟ votes.

The ABC News/Washington Post presidential survey (July 16 -19) told us that Clinton was slightly ahead then of Obama‟s 2012 level of support in the demographic (by three points, at 39 percent); so we can surmise that she or another Democrat could be competitive in holding and perhaps even growing Obama‟s share of this group, and that Republicans must work hard to not only grow but also to hold their share towards a presidential victory.

In any case, these national numbers muddle the reality in swing states. According to James Carville and Stanley Greenberg‟s Democracy Corps, non-college educated Anglos in the South and the Mountain West may have provided only 30 percent of their votes to Obama in 2012; but, across the rest of the country, the demographic generally supported Obama in the 40s percentage range. This makes a big difference when cobbling together winning coalitions for swing states.

Both parties should be aware that disappointment with Obama does not appear to have fully fixed this group‟s levels of support or opposition for each political party. Targeted messaging and persuasion appear to be able to move the needle.

14

Ethnic Minorities

This past election cycle, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, the Latino vote for GOP U.S. House nominees dropped from 38 percent in the previous midterm down to 36 percent. This despite significant additional resources invested by Republicans towards engagement.

Black support for Democratic House nominees did not wane from the 2010 midterm.

These relatively consistent shares are indications that we will likely see a split of the ethnic minority vote for president next year along the lines of 2012 (83 percent – 17 percent in favor of the Democratic nominee); though, Bush or fellow GOP candidate U.S. Senator Marco Rubio could attract larger shares of the Hispanic vote for themselves through their deep relations with the Hispanic communities.

In light of ethnic minorities‟ heavy tilt towards the Democratic Party, how much do they matter towards a GOP presidential victory?

Let us look at 2012 as an example.

New York Times writer Nate Cohn pointed out that a 10-point gain among 10 percent of the electorate would have yielded an additional percentage point in the popular vote for a presidential candidate (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/upshot/hispanic-voters-are-important-for-republicans-but-not-indispensable.html).

If you apply the formula to the election‟s Hispanic, black, Asian Pacific American (APA) and “other” voters based on their 2004 support (40, 11, 44 and 40 percent, respectively) of President George W. Bush‟s reelection, turnout numbers to the nearest tenth from the Census and the more reliable National Asian American Survey Obama/Romney APA split (68 percent – 31 percent), you find a hypothetical gain of 2.05 percentage points for Romney. Then you deduct the same amount from Obama‟s total (under the scenario, improved performance for one candidate means the shifting of those votes from the opposing candidate). Obama‟s 3.9-point winning margin instead would have been a Romney popular vote victory of .32 percent.

15

Obviously the popular vote technically does not determine the president. Nevertheless, this exercise shows how important ethnic minority voters potentially could be for the Republican Party.

In 2012, Obama won the Anglo vote in only two swing states (IA and NH narrowly at 51 percent). In the other swing states that he won (which was all but one), overwhelming ethnic minority support boosted him to a majority/plurality.

The Democrats‟ challenge with the ethnic minority communities is turning out the party‟s voters at the same or better rate as in 2012 to ensure enough votes for victory. Some of this could be for the replacement of Obama voters who shift to support the GOP nominee or who do not vote.

The GOP needs to pick up as many ethnic minority votes as possible to construct a majority/plurality and to relieve demand on the necessary-for-victory Anglo vote threshold in each swing state.

A core problem for the GOP in this regard is that the party is driving away potentially receptive Hispanic and APA voters through its rhetoric and proposals in the immigration reform debate.

Florida

Florida had the closest presidential contest in 2012 - Obama by 74,309 votes of 8.5M cast.

Note that the Census projects the state‟s Anglo share of the electorate will drop from 2012‟s 66.7 percent to 64.4 percent by 2016, which could make it slightly more difficult for Republicans to win statewide. As everyone knows, among Florida‟s communities, it is the Hispanic ones that are expanding their share of the citizenry and those communities are trending Democratic.

As usual, due to having one of the largest number of electoral votes and the competitiveness of its presidential races, FL is pivotal for winning the presidency.

This means the state‟s Hispanic population likely will have greater influence in choosing the next president than most other groups of voters.

16

Considering the states with the closest presidential races in 2012 as the swing states (FL, NC, OH, VA, CO, PA, NH, IA, WI)(excluding NV, which ranked 9th for closeness and which the Census projects to have an electorate that grows to 38.7 percent ethnic minority in 2016), the Democrats begin with 223 solid electoral votes and the Republicans with 191 of the 270 needed to win the presidency.

If the Democratic nominee wins FL and PA (a GOP presidential nominee last won this state 27 years ago), s/he then is already at 272 electoral votes (FL has 29, PA 20). This is with only two out of the nine swing states.

While the aforementioned scenario is just one hypothetical, it is a plausible and swift victory route for the Democrats. If Bush or Rubio is the GOP nominee, their strong relationships with the local Hispanic communities might be enough to give the Republican Party the edge in FL. This state is critical for keeping the GOP in the presidential election game.

AS OF TODAY, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL

As previously noted, issues that come to the fore over the next 13 months, and the major parties‟ and their presidential nominees‟ response to them, could move voters‟ preferences.

Nevertheless, all things being equal, based just on the information we have today, here are the changes (all other factors indeterminate or neutral) we appear likely to see in 2016 to the Democrats‟ 2012 3.9-percent winning presidential margin:

Ethnic minorities – up 2.2-point share (average quadrennial trend) of electorate at Obama‟s 83 percent win of the communities, subtract commensurate decreased share of Anglo vote = + .97 points

Sum: .97-point increase of Obama‟s 3.9-point margin of victory in 2012

Result: The Democrats with a modest 4.9-percentage point edge against the Republican nominee

17

This is reasonable. Look at Clinton‟s performance. Despite the torrent of months and years of attacks against her, she was leading GOP candidates all year and is currently in dead heats against them.

CONCLUSIONS

This exercise is based on demographics, voting patterns, and other information we know today. Changes in the political environment due to economic stress, military conflicts and scandals could swing the electorate or tilt it further in one direction.

So what is the road forward for both major parties?

Democrats

Clinton is the favorite for the nomination and was until recently leading all potential Republican opponents in general election match-ups. Currently, she is in dead heats with the GOP candidates. Despite the tsunami of attacks against her and favorability ratings around 40 percent, she has proven to be resilient. Nevertheless, it is clear that her response to the scandal of her using a private email server while Secretary of State has been bad and hurt her significantly.

Her core strategy is to replicate and augment the Obama coalition and turn it out, especially ethnic minority voters, who are likely to overwhelmingly back her.

Additionally, one of Clinton‟s key attributes is her potential greater appeal among Anglo women, which would hamper a prime Republican strategic goal of increasing the GOP‟s share of the Anglo vote.

With the Clinton brand and likely to take some positions a bit to the right of Obama, she may have more appeal to mainstream America and its swing voters than the incumbent who, even when not meaning to do so, comes off as expressing sympathies out of tune with their concerns.

18

Clinton has been defining the rationale for her candidacy through major policy positions and proposals. There are those who question her fire for the race and whether she is running simply because it is the next step in her career, and not because she has a robust vision for America. She must continue to present a forceful and substantial vision of how America should move forward and advance into the future. Persuasion here may also compensate in part for misgivings voters have about her personal qualities.

Her vulnerabilities include negative public perceptions of her integrity and overconfidence that would lead to complacent response to political challenges.

She is beginning to open up and engage the press, which is critical for being approachable for the general public. Approachability can imbue trust to relationships with voters; trust being a key factor in their decision-making and a potential counteracting agent to some of their concerns about her honesty.

In addition, her responses to political attacks have been muddled and even circular. This comes off as a lack of confidence whereby obsession with details and too many chefs in the kitchen detract from clear, confident and strong messaging.

Finally, she appears afflicted with a mindset familiar in the DC political world – avoid looking bad at all costs. Spin and spin. But, do not admit to or allow yourself to be painted into a corner as having a flaw or having made a major mistake. Do not be vulnerable. Voters, however, may tolerate honest fault better than apparent prolonged fakery.

As Republicans continue to attack her, muddled and/or spun responses are extremely dangerous as swing voters could become more substantively disturbed about her integrity and ability to be a good leader.

Republicans

Today‟s Republican Party is like a man drawn to be quartered. It does not matter which way he moves; whichever way he eventually does, he will be injured.

19

The mainstream/economic conservative, social conservative and tea party wings are steadfast (in many cases vehemently and belligerently) set on their diametrical directions for the party‟s future. (Bravo to Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner for managing to unite their respective caucuses and avoid pitfalls for as much as they have.)

For a path to victory, Republicans should show they can and do govern well and responsibly. It would improve the GOP‟s image, which would reflect well upon the eventual nominee.

The Republican nominee must be someone who, if not unites the party, at least for whom the rank and file will turn out and vote.

Nevertheless, that person must also be someone who will motivate and be competitive in holding and growing Anglo women and ethnic minority support in order to counter these Clinton/Democratic advantages and build a majority/plurality in the general election. The party and its nominee must aggressively engage these voters with relevant messaging and build relationships for 2016.

Perhaps most importantly, the nominee must provide a compelling policy agenda that offers solid solutions to the nation‟s major issues and not fallback generic party philosophy. This is especially so since Clinton is proposing such solutions, in particular a substantive “growth and fairness economy” plan with increased responsibilities and oversight placed on corporations and the affluent. Lower-income/non-college educated Anglos that are a key to a victorious Republican coalition may be receptive to such tax and regulatory overtures due to these Anglos‟ disaffection with the “elites”.

Finally, the GOP has two major core problems to address:

First, the raucous retrenchment and rebellion by factions within the party against cultural and political developments threaten to turn off needed swing and ethnic minority voters. Obviously, Trump‟s grandstanding on illegal immigration is the clearest example of this. Even with Bush or Rubio as the nominee, one wonders if the party‟s brand damage would be so severe that it would inhibit GOP gains within the Hispanic communities.

20

Second, the party is so fractured that it will continue to struggle to develop a substantive, coherent, compelling narrative and platform for election. What pleases one coalition partner can threaten the party‟s standing with another.

Both these problems relate to relevancy. Can the GOP develop a viable vision and message to appeal to voters (especially swing) concerned with America in the 21st century?

The mid-July release of USA TODAY/Suffolk University and ABC News/Washington Post surveys displays well this conundrum. A bare majority of likely voters versus about a third believe that America has settled the existential issues of Obamacare and same-sex marriage. But, 63 and 49 percent, respectively, of Republicans believe that they should continue to fight to reverse these steps.

With hands tied, many of the current GOP messaging efforts are outrageous or cast Clinton as a bad person and leader (politics of destruction and vilification) rather than focus on constructive proposals for the future of America. The GOP is gambling on passion and trust versus substance.

While this can be impactful, it is an uncertain strategy; almost all year, despite the heavy coverage for years of the severe and toxic criticisms leveled against Clinton, demographics seemed likely to break between the parties in the presidential race as they have previously done.

Additionally, after many years of such tactics, the voters are catching on to the obfuscation, demagoguery and distraction.

Consider Frank Luntz‟ lesson from this year‟s U.K. national election:

“Voters told me they couldn‟t be bothered to follow the daily machinations of the candidates: „they really aren‟t saying much of anything.‟”

The two major parties are close enough competitively that the presidential election next year can go either way. The Democrats must hold together their coalition while the Republicans must handle internal issues and win over a slightly larger section of the electorate,

21

both Anglo and ethnic minority. Both parties have goals to meet and challenges to successfully address in order to seal the presidential election.