Hillary’s Big Dilemma
Published in El Universal
(Venezuela) on 8 June 2016
by Alfredo Toro Hardy (link to original)
(Venezuela) on 8 June 2016
by Alfredo Toro Hardy (link to original)
Translated from
by Tom Walker.
Edited by Shelby Stillwell.
Hillary Clinton has a broad base of support, which includes the largest minorities in the country, Hispanics and African-Americans, as well as a clear majority of women. Her popularity among older adults is also high. However, in order to guarantee a win for her against the most unpredictable of opponents, she will have to broaden this base of support as much as possible. To do this, she has to define her position on the political spectrum, in the middle of a highly polarized election, and orient herself toward the center-right or the center-left.
Voter Support
She faces a big dilemma. A swing to the left would let her attract a significant percentage of voters mobilized behind Bernie Sanders. What we see there is a large number of recent graduates in the professions who see themselves trapped between the huge student loan debt they have accumulated and the lack of job opportunities. According to a study by Sarah Ayres Steinberg with the Center for American Progress, the consequences of this will follow the millennial generation (so called because that generation was born in the new millennium) for decades. Because of their low salaries, menial jobs unrelated to their education, unemployment, and the resultant lack of professional experience, there is a risk they will become a lost generation (See: “The high cost of youth unemployment," April 5, 2013). Added to this is the burden of the millennials’ high student-loan debt. According to Julian Berman, the combined total of this debt is more than $1.2 billion, and it increases by $2,726 every second (“America’s student debt grows $2,726 every second,” Market Watch, Jan. 30, 2016). What typifies this group — appropriately, given the troublesome bind they’re in — is how passionate they are about politics. If Hillary can succeed in attracting them by offering political concessions plus a vice-presidential candidate they can get behind, she will gain an energetic group of supporters. On the other hand, if they are left to disperse out of frustration, it could make them turn toward political indifference. However, there would also be excellent opportunities to cast for votes on the right. These could come from certain sectors of the Republican Party frustrated by Trump’s triumph. The Republican Party, it should be remembered, is made up of three basic groups: disenchanted working class voters, radical conservatives, and the pro-business group. Turning toward her right, Hillary could capitalize on the discontent of the third group in the face of Trump’s anti-free trade proposals. This sector comprises not only big businesses, but also small and medium-sized businesses, with a high concentration in the service sector. A huge number of entrepreneurs come together there. Furthermore, this would let Clinton attract numerous Republican women. With a message and a vice-presidential candidate responsive to them, they could well be drawn into the Democratic fold.
A simple cost-benefit analysis makes the center-left option look more attractive, above all because it’s possible that many of the young professionals might stop voting altogether, seeing that as the lesser evil compared with voting for Clinton. However, there are two points to consider. The first is that there’s no guarantee the young millennials won’t just wash their hands of the electoral process. The second is that there is an important rebellious streak in the working class, making it receptive to being drawn to the Democratic Party from the left. This has been seen clearly in the high numbers of votes going to Sanders in the midwestern manufacturing states. It could well erode Trump’s main base of support. In other words, the center left option offers more possibilities for Clinton.
Two Factors
There are, however, two factors that shouldn’t be overlooked: the identity of the party and the idiosyncrasy of the candidate. With respect to the first factor, it’s clear that the Democratic Party is identified more with the working class than with the entrepreneurial class. In fact, from the time of Franklin Roosevelt and for long decades thereafter, the working class was the captive bloc of the Democrats. It was only after Reagan and the weakening of the unions that the working class started to migrate to the Republican Party. Attracting a part of that old bloc could lay the groundwork for gradually winning them back. Otherwise, the liberal wing, represented by the younger generation, will fall within one of the traditional sectors of the party.
However, the preferences of the candidate are also involved. In this sense, it’s undeniable that Clinton is much more attuned to the business world than to the world of the working class. In fact, her campaign against Obama was fought from the center-right, and her campaign this time has naturally evolved in that direction, to counter the challenge posed by Sanders.
We’ll have the answer soon.
Voter Support
She faces a big dilemma. A swing to the left would let her attract a significant percentage of voters mobilized behind Bernie Sanders. What we see there is a large number of recent graduates in the professions who see themselves trapped between the huge student loan debt they have accumulated and the lack of job opportunities. According to a study by Sarah Ayres Steinberg with the Center for American Progress, the consequences of this will follow the millennial generation (so called because that generation was born in the new millennium) for decades. Because of their low salaries, menial jobs unrelated to their education, unemployment, and the resultant lack of professional experience, there is a risk they will become a lost generation (See: “The high cost of youth unemployment," April 5, 2013). Added to this is the burden of the millennials’ high student-loan debt. According to Julian Berman, the combined total of this debt is more than $1.2 billion, and it increases by $2,726 every second (“America’s student debt grows $2,726 every second,” Market Watch, Jan. 30, 2016). What typifies this group — appropriately, given the troublesome bind they’re in — is how passionate they are about politics. If Hillary can succeed in attracting them by offering political concessions plus a vice-presidential candidate they can get behind, she will gain an energetic group of supporters. On the other hand, if they are left to disperse out of frustration, it could make them turn toward political indifference. However, there would also be excellent opportunities to cast for votes on the right. These could come from certain sectors of the Republican Party frustrated by Trump’s triumph. The Republican Party, it should be remembered, is made up of three basic groups: disenchanted working class voters, radical conservatives, and the pro-business group. Turning toward her right, Hillary could capitalize on the discontent of the third group in the face of Trump’s anti-free trade proposals. This sector comprises not only big businesses, but also small and medium-sized businesses, with a high concentration in the service sector. A huge number of entrepreneurs come together there. Furthermore, this would let Clinton attract numerous Republican women. With a message and a vice-presidential candidate responsive to them, they could well be drawn into the Democratic fold.
A simple cost-benefit analysis makes the center-left option look more attractive, above all because it’s possible that many of the young professionals might stop voting altogether, seeing that as the lesser evil compared with voting for Clinton. However, there are two points to consider. The first is that there’s no guarantee the young millennials won’t just wash their hands of the electoral process. The second is that there is an important rebellious streak in the working class, making it receptive to being drawn to the Democratic Party from the left. This has been seen clearly in the high numbers of votes going to Sanders in the midwestern manufacturing states. It could well erode Trump’s main base of support. In other words, the center left option offers more possibilities for Clinton.
Two Factors
There are, however, two factors that shouldn’t be overlooked: the identity of the party and the idiosyncrasy of the candidate. With respect to the first factor, it’s clear that the Democratic Party is identified more with the working class than with the entrepreneurial class. In fact, from the time of Franklin Roosevelt and for long decades thereafter, the working class was the captive bloc of the Democrats. It was only after Reagan and the weakening of the unions that the working class started to migrate to the Republican Party. Attracting a part of that old bloc could lay the groundwork for gradually winning them back. Otherwise, the liberal wing, represented by the younger generation, will fall within one of the traditional sectors of the party.
However, the preferences of the candidate are also involved. In this sense, it’s undeniable that Clinton is much more attuned to the business world than to the world of the working class. In fact, her campaign against Obama was fought from the center-right, and her campaign this time has naturally evolved in that direction, to counter the challenge posed by Sanders.
We’ll have the answer soon.
Previous article![]( "Military Experts Criticize American Railgun")
Next article![]( "The Law May Be Good, but Your Life Is Not Guaranteed")
