Rep. Ellison Predicts Trump's Success; Beltway Insiders on "This Week" Panel Laugh in His Face

[Scootaloo]

27. There is always risk. Nothing is ever a "sure thing"

The question is, who can bring in more voters? Clinton has several things running against her.

• She can only "guarantee" the loyalist portions of the party. The left neither likes nor trusts her, and she's had a whole year to make it clear to us that she has absolutely no interest in our votes. That's almost a third of the party, maybe a little more, that she's decided to dismiss out of hand. The "loyalists" still make up the majority, certainly, but they have a problem too - they tend to assume, in their partisan fervor, that their candidate is always a shoo-in, and might be prone to staying home because they figure "she got it."

• She's been similarly dismissive of independent voters thus far. Her beeing a part of a "dynasty" and very much a "business as usual" candidate are also strong negatives for her among independents, who are primarily independents becuase they dislike the "standard" politics of hte US. All she really has to offer them are the same cautious, uninspiring K-street pablums they've bene rejecting all this time.

• Instead - as things are looking currently - she's going to try to court Republicans, the "I'm not Trump but I'm still a conservative!" approach. Problems there are multiple. First off, party wonks hate trump, but the voter base seems to really like the guy. She might get Charles Koch's vote, but the entire McCleetus clan of Burpsville, Iowa is going to make his ballot irrelevant several times over. Second, even though the remainder of Republicans dislike Trump, they still hate Clinton. They've hated her for thirty years, and are going ot keep hating her for thirty more. Third, such a play weakens her support within her own party, because nothing turns off Democrats quite like a candidate who takes them for granted and goes over to play ball for the Republicans.

• Thus far, her entire campaign in the primaries has been centered around claiming to be the second coming of Obama and ranting and raving against her opponent's policy proposals. Trouble here is.. .she's most definitely not Obama. They share a party, and there the similarities kind of peter out. Plus, even if she were able to convince people that she was a third term for Obama, that runs up into the problem that.. .well, there are lots of people who don't want a third Obama term. That leaves her with railing against "The Other Guy." That brings its own weaknesses - It allows "the other guy" to frame the discussion, and casts the "opposition" as nothing more than a vapid protest candidate.

Sanders does better on all tof these. he can secure the Left of hte party, and makes a strong showing with independents. Though it's nothing to bank on, he even has some slight crossover with disaffected Republicans - the difference there mostly being t hat he's not named Clinton. He has policies, ideas, and propositions, and those makde up the bulk of hsi campaigning, centering him as an "issues" candidate.

Zero risk? Of course not. Just the fact that we're trying to squeeze a third consecutive term in one party is fraught with risk. But Sanders could very well do better in the GE.