Well that's been an interesting week. While waiting for the New York primary to wind down before blogging, there were the following (in chronological order): Jesus Lunch, Prince dying, Jake Arrieta no-hitter. But we'll steer the ship back to the political scene, 'cause that's how this blog rolls.
Full disclosure. As far as I'm concerned, the races on both sides, Democrat and Republican, baring an indictment or alien invasion, are pretty much over. It'll be Clinton and Trump. The establishment deck has been stacked against Bernie from the start, and Cruz is simply too unlikable to be a serious alternative to the entertaining Donald. But that doesn't mean the remainder of the primary season isn't without plot lines that may extend suspense into the fall, such as "who will win and why". And today's news about a Cruz/Kasich alliance makes VP Kasich now officially a non-starter.
New York was a salvation of sorts for both Trump and Clinton. For Trump, it was very much home turf, and the results bore that out. For Clinton, less mentioned was that Hillary's margin of victory over Bernie was LESS than her margin over Obama in '08, when she was the current New York senator. So all in all, not the end game that the Clinton supported were hoping for, as Bernie had since doubled down on staying in til the end. The big ongoing question is what happens to the Sanders voters in the general.
I listen with great amusement to spokespeople and surrogates for candidates talk about how their candidate wants a debate about "policies" versus "personal attacks". Pretty much that's a code word that a line of attack is working, and the affected candidate is trying to defend him/herself until they find a suitable counter-attack. But since negative attacks work, what can we expect in a Trump-Clinton match up?
As the title of the post suggests, in a reality where very few voters are truly swayable in a general election, I think it will be less (much) about the candidate's policy positions than more "emotive" qualities such as perceptions about character and personality, all to drive turn out. Simply put, if a voter places Second Amendment gun right protections as a top priority, or conversely a desire for minimal restrictions on abortions, well... those voters are already set. I just becomes the question if they're committed enough to show up and vote. "Intensity" is a huge unknown variable, and I hope to post on that later.
So where will be the intangible battle lines in a Clinton/Trump match up? Trump, never subtle, has already signaled that there would be no off-limits topics in his salvo against Hillary, and there's no reason to suspect he's bluffing. While specifics are plentiful (e-mail server, Benghazi, Bill, Rose Law, Goldman Sachs, Iraq, etc...), there is a common thread that may likely tie together the sum of the Trump attacks: authenticity. In most cases "trust" can be used synonymously, but authenticity suggests, "is what she's saying what she means?". No one, and I mean no one, would ever suggest Clinton is not highly intelligent, even her strongest critics grant her that. But what really dogs her is the nagging impression that she's simply not "one of us", that her life experience (First lady, Secy of State) combined with her own statements ("dead broke") place her at odds with the perceptions of most Americans, even the rich ones. A more recent illustrative example has been during the primary season, where she's been critiqued for her speech making (or screech-making) at rallies. Her defenders claim it's all sexist, that male candidates don't undergo similar scrutiny. But comparing Hillary to other women candidates out there, Sarah Palin wasn't' criticized the same way, and she's wack-a-doodle. Clinton's speech impediment isn't content, it's delivery, and she's so mechanical that she makes Siri seem like Mr. Rogers. Having watched more than a few of her speeches, I find her cadence so unnatural it's a distraction from the content of her talks. That cadence (or lack thereof) absolutely kills her applause lines, like trying to clap during a Japanese Godzilla movie dubbed in English, you don't naturally know when the lips move, or when you're supposed to clap. Either way, she simply doesn't come across as "authentic", maybe even to those that love her.
But... it's never all bad when your likely opponent is Donald Trump. If Hillary lacks authenticity, the Donald is perhaps burdened by having too much. One of the many downsides of having no discernible filter between ego and mouth is that...there's no filter between ego and mouth. I think many Americans are wondering, "do I want a President that's a looser canon than I am?". I find the interesting contrast between Trump and Clinton is not "is one smarter than the other". but rather, "who better reflects my views"? And stylistically, Trump is a challenge, even if you can get past his controversial policy positions. He's simply so unlike any candidate before. Howard Dean's "scream" would be a rounding error in the ledger of Trump outrageous remarks. But what is indisputable is that, on the GOP side, he's cleaning up in the vote totals. None of the other candidates even comes close, regardless on how they try to spin it. Why, why, why? In a season where unrest is bubbling just beneath the surface, maybe people are looking for someone that isn't afraid to air some non-politically correct opinions, and the PC pushback from other candidates and talking heads only adds fuel to the fire. I think the challenge to Trump heading into the general is how does his reconcile some really outrageous statements in the face of continued criticism. Thus far he's be successful in doubling down on the rhetoric, but "build a wall" and "let's keep Muslims out" seem to be very difficult policies to enact in a real world.
Tomorrow marks another string of primaries, and more fodder to the cannon. Thanks for following, and we'll pick it up again soon!
No comments:
Post a Comment