« What if black voters really don’t like Bernie Sanders? | Main | A depressing Thursday thought about global warming »

August 04, 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Race is an obvious factor in the election, but with Clinton as the likely Democratic nominee, I'd think that the gender breakdown of voters will be a factor as well.

As the case of Todd Akin, the Republican non-senator from Missouri, demonstrates, some male Republican candidates hold views that are abhorrent even to long-time Republican women voters. The Republicans have an ongoing talking point that there is no "war on women," but the burden of proof is on them. Certainly their present witch hunt against Planned Parenthood is not a sign of their good faith on this issue.

As Clinton's nomination moves from a likelihood to a certainty, it seems clear that some Republicans will employ misogynistic "dogwhistle" tactics against her candidacy. Frankly, I think some of them will even use foghorn tactics. Just as Walker energizes black voters, a Republican candidate who is associated with these tactics will likely energize women voters against him.

Because of this additional factor, I think it's possible that Clinton could have a significant swing of women voters, which will show up more in the popular vote than in the electoral college -- but enough to make it hurt the GOP right in the symbols.

(This factor goes away if the GOP nominates Fiorina, but I'd bet a thousand dollars against that. Any takers?)

Nope, no taker here.

Fiorina has virtually no chance of taking the nomination.

What happens if she gets the Veep Spot?

The last two GOP Veep candidates were, from an electoral standpoint, bad and worse. Probably not a trend, to be sure.

I agree with Carlos WRT women. Even assuming the GOP makes no gaffes, my type specimen here is my 80+ year old mother. Mom was an Irish Catholic urban Democrat who morphed into a Reagan Republican and then retired and moved to The Villages, Florida, where Fox News literally plays on loudspeakers in the town square. She voted for Bill Clinton once, but otherwise she's been an absolutely solid GOP presidential vote since 1980.

She is completely in the tank for Hillary. Doesn't care about her politics, and processes attacks on her as "men trying to cut a strong woman down".

Am I overinterpreting? is Mom an outlier? Dunno -- but if she's not, then the GOP has a problem.

Doug M.

Fiorina as VP pick wouldn't -- what's the cliche? "move the needle" -- at all, although she wouldn't be actively offensive, the way Palin was to many Republican-leaning women.

It's striking how tone-deaf even moderate male Republicans are about Clinton's candidacy. For example, calling it a coronation, with the semantic implication that Clinton will somehow become queen, is of course grating to Democrats, but women in general tend to find it insulting. Again, you don't need to be a political scientist to see a structural dissimilarity in how the two parties treat women.

(Would Democrats treat a presumptive Republican woman presidential candidate the same way? That's an unanswerable question, since none are likely to exist any time soon, which is rather my point.)

I don't she could even plausible run for Veepstakes; she's there, like Carson, to be a bit of a human shield for the party as a whole.

Her anemic polling, coupled with her donations coming from other campaigns, suggests that that's not her fate. Maybe cabinet secretary under certain circumstances (Commerce or Labor).

Veepstakes should favor female Senate Armed Services Committee members, since the most likely GOP candidates are governors. Given their current selection mechanisms, I'm not sure if they know that, though.

Joni Ernst for Veep?

C'mon, just say it: Kelly Ayotte is your pick for GOP Veep regardless of who the nominee turns out to be. (From the standpoint of maximizing the GOP's chance of winning.) Correct?

My selection patterns, not theirs?

1) Ayotte
2) Fischer
3) Corker
4) Ernst

The problem with Ernst is that she's a Bircher, and I'm not sure she could bear up under real national scrutiny. This leaves the odds of a Palin-level melt down higher than is a generally good idea.

There are two other issues with picking the ol' hog castrator:

1) Relative inexperience: if she's the "female vet/foreign policy experience" choice, she's not going to give depth to the ticket, and may scan as a Palin-style insult.

2) Vetting: She's into Agenda 21 and worried about fluoridation. That suggests she may have stranger skeletons in her closet. There's also the joy of explaining Ag subsidies to America.

2a) Walker-only: Regional balance.

Fischer is just as far to the right as Ernst is, hides it better, and is a better campaigner. She may not be an Army Nat'l Guard Vet, but she's got STRATCOM.

The other option would be someone like Corker, who I expect would pass.

Yes, your opinion on who would maximize the GOP's chance of winning in 2016.

What does Senator Fischer have to do with Stratcom? (Serious question: I'm missing the reference.) Also -- isn't she kind of a giant "fuck you" to Latinos?

I'm not clear on why Senator Corker would beat Rubio as a Veep pick for anyone other than Rubio. (I'd included Bush in that, even though he would run the risk of having a Democrat as his Vice-President.) What's the logic?

I'm interested!

Deb Fischer is in charge of STRATCOM's subcommittee on the SASC. She's more plausible as a pick as a result, compared to a freshman Senator. She's also tighter with John McCain and the leftovers of the same GOP FP establishment.

Since almost any non-Rubio VP pick is an insult to Latinos--and even Rubio is, with an eye on current rhetoric--I'm not sure how bad to feel about Fischer vis a vis Ernst's preference to secure the borders, anti-amnesty, deport "illegals", and only offer government services in English. I think the only member of the GOP Senate Caucus you'd be able to pick that'd be Latino neutral is probably Gardner.

Bush can't pick Rubio for constitutional reasons, as they're both residents of the same state. Corker a Biden/HWB-like pick: moderation, foreign policy experience, Senate experience, friendly with financial services. He'd be a good pick for Walker, and in some ways, better than Ayotte (balancing hawkishness and gender).

Does that make sense?

Ayotte's a blue-leaning swing state incumbent with a high approval rating. Those get picked as VPs sometimes, but the senate's close enough (and VP selection smoke-filled room enough) that I think it'd be a significant consideration in favor of someone else.

Nitpick: Bush can pick Rubio. What would happen is that Florida's electoral votes would be thrown away in the VP election, which might throw it to the Democratic vice-presidential nominee.

Would that risk be worth it? I suspect not, but I'm not completely sure.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)