During the final stretch financing can become especially crucial to a campaign. As the days dwindle away so do the opportunities to influence the outcome, and you don’t want to be the side that runs out of money.

This is exposing a long-time weakness of the Trump campaign. While their fundraising has had some very good results occasionally, it has been sporadic and disorganized. More importantly, Trumps early refusal to raise large quantities of cash for his Presidential effort meant that the campaign started the General Election with an almost entirely vestigial operation. Even now after months of beefing up there are estimates that the Democrats still have more than twice as many paid staff out in the states organizing managing and fundraising. Because of this, Trump is unusually reliant on state party organizations to build up the get out the vote operation. State party organizations that largely dislike him, and worry that his takeover of the Republican nomination will scupper their delicately laid local political plans.

Reports have come out, from early voting states like Nevada in particular, that local and state GOP organizations are having trouble with such basic things as getting more lawn signs and campaign stickers from the Trump campaign. And that is leaving entirely to one side the fact that Trump is ideally meant to be helping them with fundraising and organization, not the other way

The Clinton campaign, by contrast,  raked in more than $100 million last month through their various funding vehicles. About thirty of that was through joint fundraising committees with  Democrats from Congress or State parties, so much of it will go to supporting people who aren’t named Clinton.

Counting all their various joint committees Trump  will have about $68 million going in to the dying days of the contest against Clinton’s $153 million. The Clinton campaign on its own directly controls nearly as much in its own right, excluding all PAC’s and joint committees as the Trump side has in total.

That is very, very bad for the Red team, as it seems that the Clinton camp are going to use a good chunk of that money plastering the airwaves with advertising. What is worse, because Clinton  raised money early she was able to secure advertising space more cheaply. So in order to respond, Trump must now pay the higher cost demanded by stations and media companies for last moment purchases.

Add to that the extra money Clinton can afford to transfer to other Democrats in need of cash, how much more she can spend on busing volunteers, conducting research, manning phone banks and you see how much of a headwind this sort of funding disadvantage can provide.

This sort of thing is not usually decisive, but it can help turn a victory into a blowout. But it demonstrates most clearly of all that the Trump campaign is not organizationally and logistically capable of conducting the kind of electorate-changing work that would be needed for the Trump theory to function in practice.

It is pretty universally accepted right now that whatever window Trump may once have had for winning this election is now firmly closed. But what scale of victory should we expect?

To answer this i’m going to look at three kinds of states that will make up the likely Clinton coalition.

The Big Blue Wall

These are the states that have gone Democratic since at least 2004. They total about 240 electoral votes. Most of them are very solidly Democratic states like California, New York and Illinois. Having such a large base means that Hillary only needs to win about 30 more electoral votes to win. They are off the table for Trump and will form the basis of any Clinton victory.

Swing States

The second group are this seasons swing states. Pennsylvania, New Hampshire North Carolina, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, Arizona, Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico. These are the states that have been competitive for most of the general election campaign. But Trump’s nosedive in the polling and Clinton’s subsequent 7-12 point lead in surveys has put virtually all of them in jeopardy. Trump seems unlikely to win in any of them, with his best results an even showing in Iowa. This is a comon phenomenon in Presidential contests. When one candidate is clearly winning they push the electoral map back into their opponents territory and put new states in play. What were once swing states now seem clearly lost to the underdog. For instance, Florida, North Carolina and Nevada which were once talked about as possible Trump pickups now seem very much in the Democratic column.

A good night for Clinton is picking up most, if not all, of these states. She only really needs a few to get to 270, but if she can seep them she’ll end up with about 300 electoral votes and keep Trump at 200. That would not only be an inarguable mandate for her but a repudiation of Trump.

 

Red States where Trump is Vulnerable 

If you hear about the states in this category something is going very, very wrong in the Kingdom of Trump. These are areas that are reliably Republican where the GOP Nominee is trailing his party’s historical performance. Places like Georgia, Texas, Utah, Missouri, South Carolina, Indiana and Alaska. These are safe Republican states whose loss would be a damning indictment of the failure of the Trump candidacy. Texas, in particular, is basically the only really big state the Republicans usually win. Removing it from their electoral coalition would gut the parties Presidential prospects and turn them into a regional grouping of the deep south and plains states, rather than a nationally competitive party.

And it isn’t as unlikely as it would usually be. Trump is only up by 2-5 points in Alaska, Texas, Utah and South Carolina. In Georgia he seems to be running even with Clinton.

So how likely is it that we see a real Clinton landslide? I wouldn’t bet on it. But we could easily be only one scandal away from talking about a Democrat winning Texas. Interesting times indeed.

The House of Representatives is the lower chamber of the American Congress. They are the ones called Congressmen. They, unlike Senators, must face election once every two years in their district. Its meant to be the more populist chamber, as opposed to the Senate which was conceived as the chamber off the states. This is why until fairly recently (in historical terms) Senators were appointed by the various legislatures or Governors rather than directly elected.

The ringmaster of the whole show is the Speaker of the House. And because the American system is predicated on the balance and separation of powers, for something to get done you need the co-operation and approval of first the House, then the Senate, then the President and finally the Supreme Court. So who commands a majority in the House of Representatives (and thus the Speakership) is pretty important.

But the Democrats probably won’t take it back this cycle, even though they are likely to get more votes than the Republicans for their congressional candidates. There are two reasons for this.

Redistricting

Once every ten years the U.S performs its census. This is used to inform a subsequent redistricting to reflect changing populations. In practice, however, parties have used the redistricting to gerrymander the system or to redistrict opponents out of existence.   Republicans did this after their landslide win in 2010, which is how we ended up with the current mess. Unfortunately this is a particularly blatant example, drawing ridiculous shapes on the map to make more districts that are fairly to extremely safe Republican and confining Democratic voters to smaller, safer districts where their votes would be wasted running up huge margins for the already victorious Democratic candidate. This was made particularly easy because redistricting in the United States is done by state governments, not the federal government.

For example. Chicago has two neighborhoods that are predominantly Hispanic in demographic terms. And Hispanic Americans generally vote Democratic, right? So they wanted to put them in the same district so all those democratic votes would go to one candidate and create two fairly safe Republican districts out of the rest. But the two Hispanic areas are on opposite sides of the city. Not to be defeated, they just drew a thin crescent-shaped line on the map linking the two up. The district looks like a horse-shoe now.

So the Republican party has engineered a system of districts where the Democrats need to win by about 6 points in order to actually get a majority. This also scores to underline another reason its difficult to turn Congress blue again.

The Huddle

Democrats in the United States like to congregate.  They huddle like Emperor penguins in urban and metropolitan areas much more than they used to. There are more than three thousand counties in the United States, and Barack Obama won the election in 2012 while carrying only 689. That can work, because those 689 include most of the huge urban centers like Los Angeles county, Cook County (Chicago), and the five counties that make up New York. He got 69% of the vote in cities with over 500,000 people. The Democratic vote is heavily concentrated in urban areas. And that makes it much easier to for Republicans to gerrymander the districts.

The consequence of this is that as Republican districts got whiter, more rural and older   they also got electorally safer. They could also ensure that there were enough districts naturally tipped in their favor to give them a majority.

But on the other hand, it gave Democrats more diverse, more urban and younger electorates that were also much safer. It has exacerbated the polarization of the parties, which had up until that point been fairly asymmetrical (the Democrats not moving much further left, the Republicans moving much further to the right).

Now most Representatives only need to worry about winning their primary, because the general election is something of a foregone conclusion.

The Democrats seem to be about 4-5 points ahead now. If that gets to 6 or 7 it might make sense to start talking about them taking back the house. But the system is so stacked against that they essentially need a landslide in order to eke out any majority in the lower chamber at all.

So it looks like Paul Ryan will be holding on to the gavel. For a while, at least.

 

 

 

 

 

Since the first Presidential debate Hillary Clinton’s polling numbers nationally and in the key swing states have improved dramatically. Polls show her with a lead of anything from 5 to 12 points nationally, up from about even on the eve of the first debate. That is an emphatic victory.

Usually the results for the Senate and the Presidential elections are highly correlated. For instance, if your guy is tanking in North Carolina it drags down support for your other candidates down the ballot. For the last few weeks there has been a disconnect, with the polls showing Clinton gaining ground and momentum without much movement happening in the Senate races that will determine the makeup of that chamber during the next Presidency.

But over the last few days the polling has started to converge, making the chances of Clinton having a friendly (or more accurately, less hostile) Senate to deal. The Democrats need four more seats to take back the Senate, assuming Clinton keeps the Whit House in their hands. Two independents (Maine and Vermont) caucus with the Democrats, and the Vice President can vote to break ties in the senate. So if you have control of the white house you only need 50, not 51 out of 100. They have 44 seats and need at least 48, while there are six states that seem like they could plausibly go blue. So lets have a look.

Illinois  +1

This one looks pretty over. Mark Kirk (Republican) was elected in the 2010 Republican wave and was always going to have a hard time winning in a Presidential year in very liberal Illinois.

Wisconsin +1

Basically the same story as Illinois. Russ Feingold (Democrat) has been ahead in the race to take back his Senate seat from incumbent Ron Johnson. What makes this more interesting is that Johnson defeated Feingold back in 2010. The rematch has not been kind to Johnson. He has been behind all month by between 5 and 12 points. So i feel pretty confident in giving this one away to the Democrats in our calculations.

The next races are less easy to call. But that is 2 for the Democrats so far, and they need 4 to take back technical control and  six to take back control in their own right, without the support of independents or the necessity of having Tim Kaine constantly waiting in the wings to prop up the majority.

Indiana +1?

By the numbers this one really should be in the above category. As mentioned before, Bayh was in the Senate representing the ‘Hoosier State’ (really, that is a thing) from 1992 to 2011. He has been ahead for basically the entire race, but his lead has narrowed over the last month from the mid-high teens to the mid single digits. That could just be a normal narrowing of the race. A 5 point win for a Democrat in Indiana is nothing to sneeze at. But the trajectory troubles me, polling of the state is scarce and Bayh has had some problems in the news recently surrounding contact with finance industry lobbyists during his previous tenure. So i will give it to the Democrats, but without the same feelings of certainty as Illinois and Wisconsin.

Missouri +1

Missouri is pretty reliably Republican in Presidential contests. But it also has a history of electing Democrats to statewide office. For example, the current Governor, his likely Democratic successor and the Democrat who occupies the other Senate Seat (the one not up for election this year). Here Senator Roy Blunt was thought to be a lock for quite some time. But Democrat Jason Kander, his challenger, seems to have gained a lot of ground over October. It seems plausible to me that Blunt has suffered from the terrible October that has dragged down Trumps numbers. Kander is ahead in the last 3 polls of the state and Democrats seem to be moving money and resources from Ohio (where they no longer have much chance of knocking-off Republican Rob Portman) to Missouri. This all leads me to think the Democrats will probably pick this one up.

New Hampshire +1

Sen Kelly Ayotte (Republican) is locked in a re-election battle with Democratic Governor of New Hampshire Maggie Hassan. This has been a tossup for a while, but Ayotte has had trouble regarding The Donald. First she endorsed him, then said he was an example to the youth, then took that back, the dis-endorsed him. That is not terribly demonstrative of the kind of decisiveness and reliability people are looking for in a Senator. Which is a shame, because Ayotte is one of the precious few genuinely moderate Republicans left. Her lead has ebbed away, slipping behind Hassan in the last three polls taken since mid-October. At this stage i think its likely Hassan will win the seat. So thats another +1

Pennsylvania

Those of you keeping score will note that we are now at four, the minimum number for keeping the chamber. This is important, because the remaining three close states can serve to counter-balance an unexpected loss in one of the above states or push the margin from contingent (though probably still reliable) to outright control of the Senate. So, the Keystone State. Once again, the incumbent (Sen. Pat Toomey) is a Republican elected in the wave of 2010 to a seat in a fairly liberal state who is now in trouble with the younger and less white Presidential-season electorate. Toomey and his challenger Katie McGinty have traded leads for the entire cycle. Right now McGinty appears to be ahead, but by only 2 or 3 points.Clinton has a huge turnout machine in Pennsylvania and a big advertising presence. This logistical advantage for the Democrats could be crucial in a close race. Add to this the fact that state-wide Republicans have had a hard time recently and this could very easily be another Democratic gain.

Nevada

The race keep Harry Reid’s seat in Democratic hands had not been going terribly well up until now. Republican Joe Heck was ahead of Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto in all but a handful of polls. But recently the Democrats polling has improved. Add to this the big advantage in early voting the Democrats seem to be enjoying in Nevada right now and it seems likely that the seat will stay blue

North Carolina

This is the least likely of the possible Democratic pickups. Clinton is ahead here, but the Republican Senate candidate Richard Burr seems to be over-performing Trump’s numbers in the Tar-Heel state. I think the GOP will maintain this seat, but if Trump’s popularity continues at this low ebb and if the Senate and Presidential voting patterns continue to converge, Democrat Deborah Ross could end up pulling an upset. The Democrats and the Clinton campaign are pouring money into this swing state, and if the trend-line continues Clinton could end up with some quite healthy coat-tails with which to drag Ross to victory.

 

 

So there it is. The Democrats have a chance in 8 seats. They seem sure to win 2, and they only need 4. This gives them a lot of ways not only to take back the Senate, but to take back the senate with a working majority. The House will almost certainly stay in Republican hands. But two out of three ain’t bad.

The most important factor that typifies a functioning Democracy is the peaceful transfer of power after elections. The fact that both sides agree on the legitimacy of the process and the verdict of that process is crucial. The concession speech and the congratulatory phone-call are not just political niceties. They are an essential part of the Democratic tradition, particularly in the United States. They legitimize the new Presidents authority and stress the validity of the process and the institutions of the state.

Throughout the history of the Republic both sides have agreed on the electoral process and the necessity of accepting its outcome. George Washington labored for years to try and orchestrate a peaceful transition of power from the first to the second President. He knew very well that his example would set the precedent for the future of the country, and he worried that the politically divided infant Republic would tear itself apart as soon as his universally-respected hand was off the tiller. But when the moment of truth came, John Adams was fairly in and Washington was safely retired. Then Jefferson, Madison, Munroe and so on.

Every President since then has preserved this sacred tradition. It has been what separated the United States from other presidential democracies that rapidly descended into dictatorship. Even in moments of maximum danger for the Republic, the Civil War, the World Wars and the Great Depression this tradition was preserved.

 

The work and discretion of great men over centuries is now being casually slandered by a man unfit to host a reality TV show, let alone fill the chief magistracy. I’m not suggesting there are not problems with the system. I’m not defending the status quo as flawless and unimprovable. But Trumps position is dangerous for two reasons.

Firstly, because it deprives his opponent of legitimacy in victory. And that is the source of power. We all obey the government because we perceive its power and authority to be legitimately constituted and thus its laws also valid. Saying that someone stole the election is tantamount to saying they are not really President. That they can’t really send American soldiers into battle, sign treaties, promulgate executive orders and so on. It strikes at the very hart of the stability and functioning of the Republic.

Secondly, if the opinion that the system is rigged is allowed to metastasize within the electorate then it reduces the credibility and standing of the democratic process itself. And that is where you start getting into real trouble. Because once people stop believing that votes and outcomes are connected the incentives to participate collapse.

The fact that we are here is frankly sickening. This is a fundamental characteristic of the American system. It should be axiomatic. It should be, as it has been before, taken for granted as part of a general patriotic commitment to the values and traditions of the nation. That it should have to be explained at this late hour is a sign that there is something growing in America that does not belong on the vine. And we will hear more of it. Because while we may be done with Trump in less than a months time, he is not the disease. He is merely the rash it has broken out in.

 

Donald Trump needed to win the final debate. It should surprise exactly nobody that he did not. We have more than enough evidence right now confirming that Socrates he ain’t . But what is interesting is the way in which he lost.

This entire debate was a confirmation of my suspicion of what the Trump campaign now is. Because while it may still say ‘Trump for President’ on the plane, this is not really a Presidential campaign anymore. It is a face saving exercise.

We know Trump watches the polls. He cannot have missed them turning against him. And yet he is pursuing an aggressive and confrontational strategy on issues that will lose him the support of crucial voters.

Rather than attacking Clinton and shifting the conversation to her or her husbands misdeeds Trump compulsively backtracks to defend himself from charges. And when he did make attacks in Clinton directly many of them were some kind of strange in medias res alt-right talking point. He just drops a reference to some leaked email or some allegedly scandalous video that even i have never heard of and just assumes the entire public is up to speed.

That is a good strategy to gain ground against your opponent rhetorically, but a very poor strategy to convince undecided voters. But that doesn’t seem to matter to Trump at this point. Because now this is an exercise in brand management, not electoral politics.

Trump cannot allow himself to be attacked without response. He can’t just pivot to another issue he can win on. Most of this debate was just him standing there slogging through the proverbial losing ground.

He hit the sweet spots for his base, once again. And he said things that would alienate suburban voters, particularly those of the female or college educated variety just as he did before. The only saving grace of his performance in practical terms is that i’m not sure how much damage there is left to be done aside from adding some padding to Clinton’s electoral margin.

Because this is not a winning strategy. He got up on the stage and said what he wanted to say, not what he needed to say. In a very real way he is no longer playing the same game as he was before. Now every action seems pitched to maximize his apparent strength, minimize his opponents performance, deligitimize the system that is soon to rebuke him and shift the blame for his loss.

So it seems that Trump isn’t a masterful political tactician after all. That he isn’t ‘playing four-dimensional chess’ or ‘dominating the media through mind games’. He reminds me most of the Wizard of Oz. A an empty facade of smoke and light telling you to pay no attention to the sad, egotistical, vain old man behind the curtain.

 

 

 

The final Presidential debate of 2016 will shortly be upon us, the final set-piece battle of the campaign. With that in mind, lets take a moment to examine the metaphorical terrain.

The polling for Trump can best be described as dire. Horrific would also suffice. Any word basically denoting impending catastrophe would serve quite nicely, to be honest. Remember all those nice swing states we were talking about? Ohio? North Carolina? Virginia? Florida? Pennsylvania? Iowa? Arizona? New Hampshire?

Gone. All such horses were last seen bolting headlong from the Republican stable at top speed.  Baring an absolutely historic reversal of fortune for the Clinton campaign she will be elected.

So the dynamics of the race have not changed so much as solidified. Clinton must first do no harm. She must not to anything that risks throwing away her lead. Playing for time at this point in the game is an entirely acceptable strategy. She has everything to lose, and very little left to gain.

That is because once Trump loses voters the marginal electors you are trying to persuade to change from Trump to Clinton become more and more committed. This effectively puts a floor on Trumps support, currently looking to be about 39 or 40 percent. These are the people who are die-hard Republicans or Trump-enamored independents. It is reasonable to expect they will deliver most of the remaining states to Trump by fairly solid margins, with the possible exceptions of Georgia and even Texas that are teetering historically close to swing-state status.

So Clinton is already pretty much at the zenith of what is practically achievable in terms of electoral performance. Grinding Trump further into the dust has low returns on effort at this stage. Much better to try and maintain your position and work on the way Hillary is perceived by the electorate.

Trump on the other hand is trailing badly in the final minutes of the game. It is now or never time. If he has a Hail Mary pass to throw, expect to see it in the debate. His target is the same as it was if he wants to win: College graduates and women. They are the easiest targets for him, and the groups he most needs to persuade.

But i am not convinced he is going to go for the win. I think the time when that was a plausible avenue is long past. One of the primary requirements of political office is that you suborn your own pride and ego in order to win. Clinton has demonstrated this over and over again, that she is willing to do things that she knows maker he look foolish or subservient in order to gain the power she wants. When you are the head of a movement, when millions of people are depending on you to win, your own pride and ego cease to be relevant in the face of that awesome responsibility.

But can Donald Trump do the same? Is he capable of apologizing for something he isn’t actually sorry for? Is he capable of looking weak and vulnerable on that debate stage, in front of all those people? Is he willing, really, to look like a loser?

His whole life so far has been one attempt to live up to his fathers Manichean worldview. Trump Senior told young Donald that there were two kinds of people in the world; winners and losers. And so Donald became a winner.

 

He cannot simply let the attacks slide, or accept the brick-bats and jeers as he should. He has to fight back. Because if he doesn’t, people might think he is a loser. But in so doing, he will guarantee his defeat.

What he should do is give some kind of heartfelt apology, focus on trade, the economy and the corruption of the Washington establishment. But what i think he will do is compulsively defend himself and the edifice of his own majesty against the barbs of an unfair world. And you simply cannot come back from this position by playing defence.

 

 

I have decided to save discussion of Donald Trump’s recorded conversation regarding women and the groping thereof to its own post. There is a lot to talk about there, and right now I want to get in to the second debate. But the problem is that the context of this debate is vital in assessing the aims and actions of both Clinton and Trump. So let me briefly paint that context for you.

Donald Trump is currently at the centre of perhaps the most damaging presidential election scandal since the Eagleton affair in the 70’s. More than a dozen officials and lawmakers in his own party have retracted their endorsement of him. For once the hackneyed phrase ‘condemned from all quarters’ actually applies. The only person I have seen make much of a defence is Sean Hannity, and even he heavily qualified his remarks. It is a conflagration of truly historic proportions, to the extent that there are calls on him to step down from senior Republican figures. So, having set the scene let’s talk about the debate.

So what were they trying to do?

Clinton’s maxim at this point should be ‘first do no harm’. She could also benefit from Napoleon’s recommendation to never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Basically just stand there and let him hang himself is the ideal scenario here. Virtually the entire media and political establishment are already piling on Trump, Clinton just wants to stay out of the way. Look Presidential, don’t lose your temper, don’t get knocked out.

Trump, on the other hand, has a whole host of problems he needs to try and solve. These can broadly be boiled down to three imperatives. Firstly, he must try to get past the horrific clobbering he is taking over the tape. Secondly, he must try to hold the base together and keep the party from totally disowning him. Third, if he wants to win the election he needs to make serious inroads with two voter groups; Women (particularly of the suburban variety) and white voters with college degrees. Needless to say white suburban women with college degrees are a particular problem.

So how did they do?

Again, let’s start with Clinton. I think she did well. In fact, I think on points she probably came out on top. She was focused, measured and effective in her criticisms and deflected most of Trump’s incoming fire. The old wound about the Emails played up a bit, but on the whole her performance was very sound. Which is exactly where you want to be right now if your name is Hillary Clinton. You don’t want to create a scene or a story that will overwhelm the disastrous coverage Trump is getting. I think Clinton was strongest when she was talking about herself and her biography. Because while Clinton is very well known, her early career and advocacy are not. Highlighting and contrasting that record with Trump’s will endear her to exactly the sort of voters she needs to deny Trump. So she did no real harm, looked Presidential and didn’t create a big story. That ticks all of our boxes.

And then there is Trump. To be honest I think Trump was more effective this time than he was in his first disastrous foray. He spoke more slowly, seemed more calm and rarely broke into the nasal upper register he so often deploys.  Clinton would attack him he would punch back with a barb about trade or ISIS or the ongoing Clinton email scandal. This was a much more effective strategy for Trump, more reminiscent of the first portion of the first presidential debate.

Unfortunately Trump is still labouring under the handicap of being medically unable to make sense for more than about ten seconds running. But this matters less if you just jump from one right-wing talking point to another. And when I say ‘right wing’ I don’t mean Republican. Because what we are seeing tonight is the Breitbartization of the Trump campaign. From the belligerent, counter-punching tone to the ‘jail Clinton’ and ‘Clinton is the Devil’ subject matter, Trump’s performance channelled the animus of the far-right news organisations and those who read them. I’m sure he’ll get rave reviews over there.

But while I saw a lot from Trump that I would like if I were a populist conservative, I saw very little I thought I would like if I were a white woman in suburban Philadelphia or Orlando. He may have rallied the base and staunched some of the bleeding, but he did nothing to help secure the election. With conservatives but no moderate suburban voters, he loses.

What is more, his defence of his scandalous utterances was laughable. Apparently it was ‘locker-room talk’. Leaving aside the fact it happened on a bus, I’m not entirely sure why he thinks the location of the speaker is important. So that made no sense. Then he just said he was ashamed of it, but that he would destroy ISIS. His defence was literally that he would destroy ISIS. That isn’t going to butter any bread. So in terms of killing the scandal he gets no points.

So he didn’t disarm the tape scandal, he didn’t give moderates anything to reassure them about his candidacy, but he did reassure the base. Unfortunately for him that isn’t nearly enough.

I keep coming across a theory put forward by my friends and echoed by the commentariat at large that Trump doesn’t actually want to be president, that this is all some kind of PR exercise wildly out-performing his own expectations. Perhaps that was true at one point, but i think that grossly underestimates the egomania of The Donald.

It seems pretty clear to me from his statements over the last week at least that he has imbibed deeply of the kool-aid. Like all con-men who persist  in their line of trade long enough, he has started to believe his own hype.

I picture MacTrump roving the wilds of Central Park near his high and crenelated tower, pressing on through mist and mystery and finding the three crones of legend. He will be Glamis! Cawdor! King hereafter! And he has swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Hillary Clinton seems to be ahead in Florida. That, my friends very bad news indeed for he who would be King. Because no matter how you figure the maths right now, if Trump fails to win the Sunshine State it becomes very hard to get to the magic number.

Florida is one of the perennial swing states in American presidential politics. Once every four years vast resources are poured in to try and secure it. It has dashed the hopes of many an aspirant, most memorably Gore in 2000. But more than this, Florida is a bit odd. So lets take a closer look .

The most obvious reason for Florida’s importance is its size. It is the largest swing state. At 29 electoral votes, it is much larger than Pennsylvania (the next largest), and very much larger indeed than Ohio. So winning here can offset a lot of bleeding elsewhere.

But Florida is also demographically interesting. And to understand why we have to go back a little. Because until the and booms of the early 20th century Florida was effectively part of the South. Waves of migration from other states and countries have dramatically transformed its demography, so that now it is both one of the largest and one of the most diverse of states. So lets go through them from north to south, and remember these groups and places are all within the same jurisdiction. Their  heterogeneity is the reason Florida is so fascinatingly odd.

The Panhandle

Most northerly is the Florida panhandle. This is the place most like what Florida used to be. It is basically the South. Large numbers of white voters, particularly those of Scots-Irish descent. Demographically similar to the rest of the Southern states to which it is adjacent, it is a solidly Republican zone except for the state capital of Tallahassee. More on that later . It went for Rick Santorum when he was running against Romney and is fertile ground for such social-conservatives. Its important to remember tht this region is to some extent a relic population. The whole state used to like this. I have heard people there describe themselves as ‘Florida Crackers’. ‘Cracker’ being the derogatory term for rural, poor, working class white people in the south who have for most of American history had little or no political voice and barely two pennies to rub together. Many of them are descendants of those who first colonized the swampy, humid terrain of the state in far off days of yore. But in many parts of Florida they have been demographically overtaken by more recent arrivals. It is only in the Panhandle, and in other pockets between large population centers, that their writ still runs.

Black Voters

Florida also has a large African-American population, about 17%. This population is particularly dominant in cities such as Tallahassee, making them solidly Democratic. They also predominate in small, largely homogeneous communities scattered throughout the state, particularly in the north. These are often the legacy of the system of share-cropping and implicit segregation and are just as poor and just as plagued by generational unemployment. In this regard they have a lot in common with the poor whites who often live in the adjacent town. The antipathy of these two groups who share so much in terms of economic and social disadvantage is one of the enduring perversities of American politics. Florida’s black population gives the Democrats a strong basis on which to build their state-wide support.

Retirees

Florida, with its warm climate and comparatively cheap property has been a prime destination for retired Americans for years, particularly from the north-east. In fact, Florida has the highest percentage of over-65 voters in the country. They generally vote Republican, as do most older Americans, but are not as supportive of the sort of social-conservative populism that gets so much play in the Panhandle and with rural whites. They live mostly in communities on the outskirts of large cities in central and south-central Florida.

Suburban Voters 

Once someone built a railway into Florida, and discovered how cheaply land could be drained and unlocked for development, a huge rush of property speculation ensued. Though this has long since died down, that rush was what really started the demographic transition.  The rush of migrants led to the advent of cities like Orlando the large numbers of urban and suburban voters they now supply to the state. Service industries predominate, particularly the theme park industry and tourism. Suburban voters are quite moderate, not leaning particularly heavily Democratic or Republican.

Cuban Exiles

While most Hispanic voters in the country, and in Florida generally, vote Democratic the Cuban American population of Miami has historically been Republican and conservative. Remember that many Cuban Americans are either exiles or the children of exiles, not simply economic migrants. The experience of and inherited antipathy to the Communism of the Cuban government has powerfully shaped the culture of Cuban-Americans. Ever wonder why Marco Rubio is a Republican? Or why his political base is the city of Miami? Look no further. Although their loyalty to the Republican party appears to be eroding in the new generation, there is still a considerable divergence between Cuban-Americans and other Hispanic-Americans.

Miami

Miami is famous as one of the most culturally liberal parts of the country. It has a vibrant gay scene, many affluent voters and a large entertainment industry. It is, to be blunt, pretty much the opposite of the north of the state. It is also a large city, with Miami-Dade county being home to a large percentage of the voters both Republican and Democrat.

Hispanic Voters

I really don’t like the term ‘hispanic’. Its not terribly descriptive. Hispanic Americans may come from Puerto Rico, Mexico, Columbia, Guatemala, El Salvador or many other parts of the Americas. But they all get lumped in to one group, despite the very real linguistic and cultural differences between them. But unfortunately we must generalize to some extent, and there does appear to be some level of correlation between membership of the ‘hispanic’ bloc and voting intention. There are a great many Hispanic voters in Florida. And they mostly vote Democratic.

 

 

Really, Florida is three or four states in one, each with its own eccentricities and pathologies. Winning here requires mobilization, organization and support across a wide variety of demographic and geographical terrain. And win here you must, because the Sunshine State will likely determine the next President. Again.