The Deeper Meaning of the Latest Quinnipiac Poll: Trump Is In a Deeper Hole Than the Pundits Say

Donald Trump and his new campaign CEO Steve Bannon

The latest Quinnipiac Poll shows Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump by 51-41 in a head-to-head matchup, and by 45-38 if Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Jill Stein are included.  The headline on the Quinnipiac press release reads as follows:

CLINTON TOPS 50 PERCENT, LEADS TRUMP BY 10 POINTS, QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL FINDS; VOTERS LIKE CLINTON MORE THAN TRUMP – BUT NOT MUCH

I think the headline does not delve deeply enough into Quinnipiac’s own figures.  The press release notes that a “total of 44 percent of American likely voters like Clinton ‘a lot’ or ‘a little,’ while 47 percent dislike her ‘a little’ or ‘a lot,’ and 8 percent hate her [55% negative]. A total of 35 percent of voters like Trump ‘a lot’ or  ‘a little,’ while 53 percent dislike him ‘a little’ or ‘a lot,’ and 10 percent hate him [63% negative].”

Given the fact that 55% have a negative view of Clinton, and 63% have a negative view of Trump, Quinnipiac suggests that things may be closer than they are.  But I would posit that, in this environment, voters who only dislike a candidate “a little” could end up voting for that candidate, given the alternative. 

If you look at Questions 17 and 18 of the poll, a slightly more sophisticated picture comes into focus.  Only 41% of voters hate or dislike Clinton a lot, but 49% hate or dislike Trump a lot.  This is key.  No candidate is likely to get someone’s vote if they hate or dislike the candidate a lot.  And Trump is just short of so alienating nearly half the electorate.

On the other hand, the 41% who hate or dislike Clinton a lot is basically the irreducible percentage of the electorate who could be accurately described as “yellow dog Republicans.”  (The term originated with Southern Democrats before 1964, for whom it was said that they would even vote for a "yellow dog" if that dog was running on the Democratic ticket.)   Any voter who is not in that “hate” or “dislike a lot” group is a potential Clinton voter, given the views on Trump. And any voter who is in the “hate” or “dislike a lot” group is, it seems to me, highly unlikely to vote for a candidate that voter so despises. 

I believe its is quite unlikely that very many voters who currently dislike Clinton only “a little” will be tipped into the “a lot” category.  Their views of Clinton are already baked in, due to a quarter century of Republican attacks and Clinton's own missteps regarding her State Department emails.  The new "revelations" probably will not make things any worse for her.  But Trump is a newer commodity, and his recent antics may tip a lot of people from the “a little” to the “a lot” or even “hate” category, now that more and more people are paying closer attention as Election Day gets closer.  His attack yesterday on Clinton, calling her "a bigot" – a term even his Republican supporters decline to agree with in public – could very likely put him deeper in negative territory, particularly when paired with Clinton's documented demonstration, heavily covered in the media, of Trump's history of bigotry and divisiveness, culminating in his recent appointment of Breitbart chief Steve Bannon to be his campaign CEO.  It is noteworthy that the Quinnipiac Poll was taken between August 18 and 24 -- mostly, or perhaps entirely, before yesterday's seminal dueling speeches.

Trump is clearly doubling down on his slash and burn personna. Even his supposed "softening" on immigration is so vacillating that he alternately appears to be not changing at all, or doing a total flip-flop.  So Trump may already be in check-mate, absent a radical change in the picture.  He is certainly not likely to replace Steve Bannon with Steve Schmidt. 

Of course, this does not mean anyone should take anything for granted, and, for Clinton to actually fulfill campaign promises, the Democrats must retake the Senate and, hopefully, the House.  But things are moving in the right direction.  It is pedal-to-the-metal time.

Evan McMullin: Linchpin of the Plot to Defeat Donald Trump and Make Mike Pence President

Evan McMullin and Donald Trump

As soon as I heard that the latest Never Trump conservative “Independent” candidate,  Evan McMullin, did his undergraduate work at Brigham Young University, the Never Trump strategy came into focus. I am sure they know it is a Hail Mary, but their entire approach may be to pour their resources into Utah, where Donald Trump is extremely unpopular, behind a Mormon candidate whose background (Mormon missionary AND CIA operative) fits the conventional wisdom of the Utah sensibility. And the final goal will be to place Mike Pence in the White House.

Why pin their hopes on Utah?  Because if McMullin were to secure a plurality of the Utah presidential vote and thus Utah’s six electoral votes, there is a possibility, however remote, that the election could be thrown into the House of Representatives.  Just take a look the Real Clear Politics Create Your Own Presidential Map.  Given the recent gains made by the Clinton Campaign, this scenario is not terribly likely, but it is possible, and this is what the Never Trump conservatives are hoping for. 

As all political junkies know, 270 electoral votes are needed to win the election.

If Clinton wins all the electoral votes in the Northeast, down the coast through Virginia (including Vermont and D.C., which have no coast), Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii, she will have a total of 263.

Trump could lose Utah’s 6 electoral votes to McMullin.  It is significant that the latest Utah poll, completed August 4, has Trump at only 37% to Clinton’s 25% 

If Trump wins all the other states, he would have a total of 269. This means he would have to win North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin.  If he loses any of them to Clinton, Clinton wins.  But a sweep of these four states is not inconceivable.

As I explained this past March in A Primer for Understanding Some Possible Ramifications of the Upcoming Republican Party Crackup, if no one secures a majority of the electoral college votes, then the President is selected by the House of Representatives among the top three vote-getters, with each state getting one vote.  A majority of state delegations are now, and are likely to be, controlled by Republicans.  But the fracturing of the Republican Party could easily result in no candidate securing a majority of 26 state delegations. 

Also, if no one secures a majority of the electoral votes, then the Vice President is selected by the Senate among the top two vote-getters.  If the Democrats win back a Senate majority, Tim Kaine would be elected Vice President; if there is a tie, then Vice President Biden would break the tie (this vote would take place before the end of his term in office), presumably selecting Kaine. 

But if the Republicans keep the Senate, then Mike Pence would be elected Vice President.  And, more to the point, the Vice President would be Acting President unless and until the House deadlock ended, as explained in the aforementioned Primer for Understanding.

This last scenario is the Never Trump desperate attempt to stop Donald Trump and place in the White House Mike Pence, a “traditional” anti-choice, anti-LGBT President.  Not a likely outcome, but the best the traditional right-wingers (as opposed to the new, "populist" right-wingers) could hope for.