Clinton will win because she represents a coalition larger than herself

The same was true of President Obama in 2008 and 2012. Aside from Trump’s personal difficulties, the Democratic Party’s deep and diverse political coalition helps to explain the quality difference between the posse backing her up and the one backing up her opponent down the home stretch.

Author: Harold Pollack

Harold Pollack is Helen Ross Professor of Social Service Administration at the University of Chicago. He has served on three expert committees of the National Academies of Science. His recent research appears in such journals as Addiction, Journal of the American Medical Association, and American Journal of Public Health. He writes regularly on HIV prevention, crime and drug policy, health reform, and disability policy for American Prospect,, and other news outlets. His essay, "Lessons from an Emergency Room Nightmare" was selected for the collection The Best American Medical Writing, 2009. He recently participated, with zero critical acclaim, in the University of Chicago's annual Latke-Hamentaschen debate.

3 thoughts on “Clinton will win because she represents a coalition larger than herself”

  1. NBC reports that the Trump campaign has abandoned Virginia and is now focused on only four states: Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The last is what I believe you guys call a Hail Mary as Clinton is up by 9%. If this is correct, he is simply trusting to luck in Arizona, New Hampshire and Nevada, all of which he needs to have a plausible path to 270 electoral votes. It's pretty much a concession.

    The remaining question, and a very important one, is whether the Schroedinger's pussies of the institutional GOP in the House and Senate (in a superposition of endorsement and condemnation) will go down with him, allowing Clinton two years of actually being able to govern the country before the Democrats lose the Senate again in 2018.

  2. The eternally optimistic among us hold the hope that the Republican self-immolation might engulf the House as well as the Senate. If so, it's possible that President Clinton might have a first two years of significant accomplishments that would be appreciated by an American electorate accustomed to Republican estopel of progress of any sort.

    In that case, I would not write off the hopes to keep the Senate in the mid-terms.

  3. I think I agree with the idea behind this post but perhaps for a different reason. I agree that Secretary Clinton will (probably) win and that her win is because she has a coalition larger than herself. I also agree that President Obama won for the same general reason. But the simplicity of the post's premise perhaps hides that there is a much different mechanism at play for how Secretary Clinton ended up with a larger coalition. President Obama reached young people in a way that Secretary Clinton does not, and Mr. Trump offends people far more deeply than Gov. Romney and Sen. McCain.

    To put it another way, President Obama did better than his opponents, but Secretary Clinton is avoiding doing worse than her opponent. That could be a problem for Mrs. Clinton in 2020. However, I won't have any sympathy for Republicans if she wins in 2020 as well. The ascent of Mr. Trump is one of the most odious chapters in the history of American presidential politics. Even more offensive than Mr. Trump himself is the spinelessness of of the Republican Party as an institution.

Comments are closed.