Presidential bids uncover new struggles this election
While uncertainty has been in no short supply this election season, we can all be certain of one thing: For the political scientist, it has been captivating to observe. The swirling and rapidly changing attitudes among voters, the ebb and flow of third-party candidate popularity and the accusations and insults lobbed between candidates are all indicators of one unifying trait: No one, it seems, is happy with how things are. Regardless, the primary political slugfest this coming fall will be between Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican Nominee Donald Trump. Trump is entering that fight with an arm tied behind his back, but Clinton’s foundation may not be as concrete as some supporters believe.
Trump’s campaign is currently struggling with a plethora of deficiencies and mistakes. Trump came into the summer with campaign funds in the area of $1.3 million, compared to Clinton’s approximately $42 million. The deficit can largely be attributed to his alienation of many traditional pillars of Republican material and voter support. When Trump makes an unsuccessful personal attack or a political blunder, voters and donors distance themselves from the candidate, or in some cases, flock to the Clinton camp or a third party. One must look no further than the recent Trump feud with the Khan family to find ample evidence.
After some charged back-and-forth between the nominee and the Khan family, who were called to the stage at the Democratic National Convention, Trump’s campaign spokeswoman made the nonsensical claim that President Obama and Clinton were probably responsible for the death of the Khans’ son, Army Captain Humayun Khan, in Iraq. This is, of course, in spite of the fact that when Capt. Khan died in 2004, neither Obama nor Clinton held office in the executive branch or could reasonably be assumed to be responsible for the death of the Army captain in an explosion caused by a suicide-bomber. This absurd statement was only one in a long series of poorly considered and tactless ad hominem attacks. However, the candidate’s vitriol was in this case aimed at a well-respected military family, which resulted in particularly harmful fallout for the Trump campaign: Seth Klarman and Meg Whitman — two major Republican campaign donors — defected to the Clinton camp. Other Republican donors remained reluctant to contribute. President Obama added to Trump’s woes by making the claim that Trump was “unfit to serve as president” and “he keeps on proving it.”
Republicans have more to worry about, however, than just getting Trump under control. They are also anxious to maintain a majority in the Senate this election cycle. But, as history shows, there is a strong correlation between presidential victory and congressional victory. If Trump cannot muster enough support to take the presidency, then it may be that the Republicans will not be able to preserve their eight-senator lead in the upper house of Congress. Some Republican leaders are therefore desperately lobbying established donors on behalf of Trump in hopes that the presidency can still be won by a conservative, however unorthodox and unpredictable that conservative might be. Unfortunately for these Republicans, many big-name donors seem quite averse to the Republican nominee’s positions and demeanor, much like the aforementioned Klarman and Whitman.
Trump’s clearest attempt to bring doubtful party members into his fold came in the form of his VP selection of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, but this may serve as a double-edged sword. Pence, who is well-known as a shrewd and experienced politician who could temper Trump’s inexperience and brashness, is equally well-known for his highly conservative social and fiscal views. These positions, while perhaps calming to a few members of the Republican old guard, may inadvertently repulse more of the 39 percent of voters who identify as independent in the general election, who could instead be drawn to the Libertarian or Green tickets — or even the Democratic ticket.
On the other hand, in recent months the Clinton campaign has seen several boons. The defection of noteworthy donors from the right to the Clinton campaign has the potential to help keep the campaign’s coffers full enough to offer considerable resistance to Trump, especially through advertising, in which the Trump campaign has been notably lacking. Perhaps the most significant advantage that Clinton has recently secured, however, is the endorsement by her rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Despite the intense rivalry between the two candidates for the Democratic nomination, Sanders nonetheless took the step toward party unification that the Republican Party is sorely lacking, and encouraged his supporters to vote for Clinton in the upcoming election. Warren Gunnels, a senior Sanders adviser, commented after the endorsement that the Sanders campaign “got 80 percent” of what they wanted to see in the Democratic Party platform. This is a plus for those voters who felt they could not compromise on Sanders’ ideals, and these factors may invite the in-party coordination necessary to reach the target number of 270 Electoral College votes in November.
However, the Democratic Party’s incorporation of the majority of Sanders’ demands into their official policy goals also presents a challenge to Clinton similar to that which Trump faces: the unpredictability of middle-ground voters. It is clear that Clinton is attempting to build a more inclusive coalition than the Trump campaign. What is difficult, though, is getting skeptical Republicans like Whitman and reluctant “Bernie-or-Bust” voters to agree on the Clinton campaign’s relevance to their interests over third-party options that are trying desperately to curry their favor. Clinton must maintain a delicate balance in presentation and policy in order to hold her coalition together in the face of the threat that third-party candidates may represent. Third parties have a long and illustrious history in the United States of not winning elections, but ultimately influencing who did. Reform Party Nominee Ross Perot received 19 percent of the popular vote in the 1992 election, and by Former President George H. W. Bush’s own admission, cost Bush his reelection. The Green Party’s nominee in 2000, Ralph Nader, received less than 3 percent of the popular vote. Yet, Former President George W. Bush’s critical victory in Florida by 537 votes was almost certainly caused by Nader’s presence in the race. Third parties are not to be discounted.
At this point, it cannot be predicted with complete confidence who will win the presidency in November. There are many variables, and this particular election cycle has proven to be among the tensest and features two of the least-liked candidates in decades. However, it is likely that if Trump continues to alienate financial backers and voters with caustic outbursts and tactlessness, he will not be looking at resounding success in November. Likewise, if Clinton cannot prove to young and independent voters that she is their best choice, dissatisfied voters may disproportionately leave her cobbled-together coalition and instead look to third parties. As several recent polls have indicated, given the chance they will have a potentially devastating effect. However it turns out, this November will certainly be one to remember.