2016年,由于當時的總統候選人多為第三黨,特朗普獲得了前所未有的利好,最終在密歇根、威斯康星和賓夕法尼亞這三個關鍵州以不到一個百分點的微弱優勢險勝希拉里。
這次要想連任,特朗普必須大幅提升自己的普選支持率。
保羅?克里什納姆蒂是一位美國大選分析師,同時也是一位職業政治賭徒。據克里什納姆蒂透露,英國博彩網(Betfair)用戶已就本次大選結果押注2.6億美元,未來幾天預計還會翻倍。
克里什納姆蒂認為,特朗普如果要成功連任,他必須在2016年6300萬張支持票的基礎上再額外獲得1100萬,即再完成17%的凈增長。換而言之,特朗普必須從美國白人、藍領技工、低文化階層以及他的新近支持者群體中爭取更多的選票,以此彌補他在老年人、獨立人士及共和黨群體中的缺失。目前特朗普要做的是繼續鞏固白人工薪階層,同時拉攏拉美裔,后者對他在古巴問題及經濟復蘇事宜上的強硬態度頗為贊賞。
“特朗普似乎認為他可以重獲數百萬工人階層的選票,包括那些上次沒選他的,” 克里什納姆蒂說道,“有些工人階級可能確實會這么做,但這還遠遠不夠。”佛羅里達大學教授邁克爾?麥克唐納德補充道:“特朗普的主要策略是試圖讓拜登看起來不受歡迎,就像當初他對付希拉里那樣,但他這次的成效似乎不佳。”
顯然,在這最后關頭,特朗普必須設法擴大自己的吸引力,使得那些不滿其疫情處理方式的選民回心轉意,并抑制郊區居民對拜登的高漲熱情。一直以來,特朗普都貶低拜登,稱其上任將會破壞美國現有的社會保障及醫療保險制度,同時承諾自己將會平息城市暴力活動,以此保護當地居民權益,但目前尚不知此種說辭是否能夠幫助其獲勝。
特朗普還要面對的一個主要問題是選民們的“第三種”選擇傾向,上屆大選中就有很大一部分選民既不支持共和黨也不支持民主黨,因為他們覺得這兩者都很令人生厭。今年這一部分人有回流趨勢,也就是說他們會選擇在拜登和特朗普兩者中支持一方。按正常邏輯,上次不支持特朗普的人在今年也不會那么快的改變心意,那么他們唯一的選擇就是拜登。
2016年,特朗普在總計1.37億張普選選票中斬獲了6300萬張支持票,而希拉里的成績是6600萬張,兩人的支持率分別為46.1%和48.2%。那次的選舉極不尋常,可以發現除去這兩人的選票,還有800萬張選票(約占最票數的6%)流向了第三黨候選人,自由意志黨及綠黨候選人分別獲得了450萬及150萬張選票,而在一般情況下,第三方候選人的支持情況不會高于2%。
“2016年民調顯示,相當比例的美國人不想投票給主要候選人,因為他們不喜歡特朗普和希拉里兩者中的任何一人,所以他們做出了第三種選擇。” 麥克唐納解釋道。他指出,希拉里當年的電子郵件調查事件暴露出她是一個行事隱秘且遵從精英至上的人,所以選民不喜歡她,但今年拜登的支持率要比希拉里高很多。特朗普是想通過抹黑拜登,把這至關重要的800萬張搖擺票收入囊中。然而,拜登堅挺的支持率證明特朗普的策略并不奏效,在最新的蓋洛普民調中,拜登的支持率比特朗普高出了5個百分點。
雖然前路尚不明晰,但今年的選民投票率可能會大大超過2016年。特朗普需要的是所有人都投出手中的一票,并且爭取到這數千萬張額外選票中的多數部分,這樣才能獲勝。不過現在看來,拜登獲得額外選票支持的可能性更大。
有消息表明大量選民已經開始提前投票,據大選數據,已有8600萬美國人完成了選票郵寄或是前往投票站投票,該數字占2016年美國選民總數的三分之二。德克薩斯州的投票總數已經超過2016年,北卡羅來納、亞利桑那和佛羅里達三個州的投票總數也達到了2016年80%的水平。蓋洛普去年10月的一項調查發現,69%的注冊選民在被問及投票狀態時選擇了“比以往更有熱情”一項,而2016年選擇這個選項的人數只有50%。
克里什納姆蒂預測今年的投票率可以達到1.55億,會較2016年增加1800萬。他認為,刨去第三黨候選人的支持票,特朗普若想獲勝,則至少要獲得47.5%的普選支持率,以此對戰拜登的50.5%。也就是說特朗普至少要獲得7360萬張選票,較2016年還要高出1060萬。
“即使是7360萬張,我也不覺得他會贏,但他有機會,”克里什納姆蒂說道:“從他當選的那一刻起,我就覺得他不會再贏第二次了。因為他只能獲得一部分人的支持,但一個成功的總統應該是眾人贊賞的。他一直在加倍努力地討好他的現有支持者,他是史上最優秀的表演家,但他總挑起爭端,得不到所有人的好感。”
當然,特朗普仍可能像四年前那般創造奇跡,但他現時已然失去了65歲以上老年人們的支持,還在不斷觸怒郊區居民,現在的他,真的有可能搶到1100萬張額外支持票么?特朗普需要搭建起一座橋梁,橋梁的盡頭應該是更多樣化的選民面貌,但可惜他從未努力過。(財富中文網)
編譯:陳怡軒
四年前,特朗普成功成為繼小布什之后第二位在普選中失利,卻在終選后入主白宮的總統。如今特朗普的全美內的支持率較上次有所下降,如此一來,特朗普能否再次連任,則取決于他在接下來的拉票能力,看其是否能夠再度縮小選票差距。
2016年,由于當時的總統候選人多為第三黨,特朗普獲得了前所未有的利好,最終在密歇根、威斯康星和賓夕法尼亞這三個關鍵州以不到一個百分點的微弱優勢險勝希拉里。
這次要想連任,特朗普必須大幅提升自己的普選支持率。
保羅?克里什納姆蒂是一位美國大選分析師,同時也是一位職業政治賭徒。據克里什納姆蒂透露,英國博彩網(Betfair)用戶已就本次大選結果押注2.6億美元,未來幾天預計還會翻倍。
克里什納姆蒂認為,特朗普如果要成功連任,他必須在2016年6300萬張支持票的基礎上再額外獲得1100萬,即再完成17%的凈增長。換而言之,特朗普必須從美國白人、藍領技工、低文化階層以及他的新近支持者群體中爭取更多的選票,以此彌補他在老年人、獨立人士及共和黨群體中的缺失。目前特朗普要做的是繼續鞏固白人工薪階層,同時拉攏拉美裔,后者對他在古巴問題及經濟復蘇事宜上的強硬態度頗為贊賞。
“特朗普似乎認為他可以重獲數百萬工人階層的選票,包括那些上次沒選他的,” 克里什納姆蒂說道,“有些工人階級可能確實會這么做,但這還遠遠不夠。”佛羅里達大學教授邁克爾?麥克唐納德補充道:“特朗普的主要策略是試圖讓拜登看起來不受歡迎,就像當初他對付希拉里那樣,但他這次的成效似乎不佳。”
顯然,在這最后關頭,特朗普必須設法擴大自己的吸引力,使得那些不滿其疫情處理方式的選民回心轉意,并抑制郊區居民對拜登的高漲熱情。一直以來,特朗普都貶低拜登,稱其上任將會破壞美國現有的社會保障及醫療保險制度,同時承諾自己將會平息城市暴力活動,以此保護當地居民權益,但目前尚不知此種說辭是否能夠幫助其獲勝。
特朗普還要面對的一個主要問題是選民們的“第三種”選擇傾向,上屆大選中就有很大一部分選民既不支持共和黨也不支持民主黨,因為他們覺得這兩者都很令人生厭。今年這一部分人有回流趨勢,也就是說他們會選擇在拜登和特朗普兩者中支持一方。按正常邏輯,上次不支持特朗普的人在今年也不會那么快的改變心意,那么他們唯一的選擇就是拜登。
2016年,特朗普在總計1.37億張普選選票中斬獲了6300萬張支持票,而希拉里的成績是6600萬張,兩人的支持率分別為46.1%和48.2%。那次的選舉極不尋常,可以發現除去這兩人的選票,還有800萬張選票(約占最票數的6%)流向了第三黨候選人,自由意志黨及綠黨候選人分別獲得了450萬及150萬張選票,而在一般情況下,第三方候選人的支持情況不會高于2%。
“2016年民調顯示,相當比例的美國人不想投票給主要候選人,因為他們不喜歡特朗普和希拉里兩者中的任何一人,所以他們做出了第三種選擇。” 麥克唐納解釋道。他指出,希拉里當年的電子郵件調查事件暴露出她是一個行事隱秘且遵從精英至上的人,所以選民不喜歡她,但今年拜登的支持率要比希拉里高很多。特朗普是想通過抹黑拜登,把這至關重要的800萬張搖擺票收入囊中。然而,拜登堅挺的支持率證明特朗普的策略并不奏效,在最新的蓋洛普民調中,拜登的支持率比特朗普高出了5個百分點。
雖然前路尚不明晰,但今年的選民投票率可能會大大超過2016年。特朗普需要的是所有人都投出手中的一票,并且爭取到這數千萬張額外選票中的多數部分,這樣才能獲勝。不過現在看來,拜登獲得額外選票支持的可能性更大。
有消息表明大量選民已經開始提前投票,據大選數據,已有8600萬美國人完成了選票郵寄或是前往投票站投票,該數字占2016年美國選民總數的三分之二。德克薩斯州的投票總數已經超過2016年,北卡羅來納、亞利桑那和佛羅里達三個州的投票總數也達到了2016年80%的水平。蓋洛普去年10月的一項調查發現,69%的注冊選民在被問及投票狀態時選擇了“比以往更有熱情”一項,而2016年選擇這個選項的人數只有50%。
克里什納姆蒂預測今年的投票率可以達到1.55億,會較2016年增加1800萬。他認為,刨去第三黨候選人的支持票,特朗普若想獲勝,則至少要獲得47.5%的普選支持率,以此對戰拜登的50.5%。也就是說特朗普至少要獲得7360萬張選票,較2016年還要高出1060萬。
“即使是7360萬張,我也不覺得他會贏,但他有機會,”克里什納姆蒂說道:“從他當選的那一刻起,我就覺得他不會再贏第二次了。因為他只能獲得一部分人的支持,但一個成功的總統應該是眾人贊賞的。他一直在加倍努力地討好他的現有支持者,他是史上最優秀的表演家,但他總挑起爭端,得不到所有人的好感。”
當然,特朗普仍可能像四年前那般創造奇跡,但他現時已然失去了65歲以上老年人們的支持,還在不斷觸怒郊區居民,現在的他,真的有可能搶到1100萬張額外支持票么?特朗普需要搭建起一座橋梁,橋梁的盡頭應該是更多樣化的選民面貌,但可惜他從未努力過。(財富中文網)
編譯:陳怡軒
Four years ago, Donald Trump became the second presidential candidate after George W. Bush in 2000 to lose the popular vote and take the White House. It’s a given that he’ll come up short in the national count this time, too. The outcome hinges on Trump’s ability to keep that deficit narrow enough to secure a second victory in the electoral college. In 2016, Trump prevailed with a relatively low number of total ballots, because third-party candidates amassed a far higher proportion than in most elections, and Trump got the maximum mileage imaginable from his haul by edging Hillary Clinton by less than a point in no fewer than three electoral vote-rich states, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
To win reelection, Trump needs to immensely boost his performance in the popular vote. Paul Krishnamurty, a professional political gambler and elections expert for the U.K. betting site Betfair––the venue has booked $260 million on the election so far and expects that number to double in the days to come––reckons that Trump must raise his 2016 count of 63 million by roughly 11 million, or 17%, to stand a decent chance. That’s the net increase required, meaning as of today, Trump must squeeze enough new votes from his white, blue-collar, non–college-educated base and groups newly leaning his way to make up for his losses among seniors, independents, and disgruntled Republicans, and still add 10-plus million to his 2016 total. Trump can get part of the way by rallying his hard core of white working-class voters and notching gains with Latinos impressed by his handling of the economy and tough stance on Cuba.
“He seems to think he can get millions of working-class folks who weren’t enthused enough to vote for him the last time, to vote for him this time,” says Krishnamurty. “Some of them will, but it won’t be nearly enough.” Adds University of Florida professor Michael McDonald, who heads the United States Elections Project, an excellent source for voter turnout data: “Trump’s main strategy is attempting to make Biden appear unlikable, like Hillary Clinton. But that messaging is not getting through.” Trump can only win by somehow broadening his appeal in the last days of the campaign. He’d need to bring home millions of the graying Americans appalled by his management of the COVID crisis, and dampen the suburbanites’ surging enthusiasm for Biden. It’s unclear that claiming the former VP would undermine Social Security and Medicare, or his law and order message pledging to protect homeowners by quelling violence in the cities, get him anywhere near the giant gains in the popular vote needed for victory.
A major problem for Trump is that a big chunk of the electorate shunned both the Republican and Democratic standard-bearers last time because they found both of them intensely dislikable. Now, these onetime protesters are back supporting a major candidate because they deem one of the contenders likable, and they’re not suddenly warming to Donald Trump. In 2016, Trump won 63 million votes of the 137 million cast. His total was 3 million short of Clinton’s 66 million, and he trailed her share by 2.1%, 46.1% to 48.2%. The election was highly unusual, because 8 million, almost 6% of the total, went to third-party tickets, notably the Libertarian and Green candidates at 4.5 million and 1.5 million votes, respectively. That 6% is three times the 2% that usually goes to third-party tickets and write-ins and is the non–major-party share expected in this election.
“The 2016 Census reported that a high percentage of Americans didn’t want to vote for a major candidate, because they didn’t like them,” says McDonald. “So they took other options.” He notes that the James Comey letter drove home the narrative that Clinton was secretive and elitist. “It was one of these moments when people’s impressions crystallize,” he says. “But Biden’s approval numbers are much better than Clinton’s.” Trump is clearly trying to lure a big number of the 8 million rebel voters for whom the likability quotient is crucial by painting Biden as a bad guy. “The idea is to motivate people who like or don’t dislike Biden to hold their nose and vote for Trump,” says McDonald. That the strategy isn’t working is evidenced by Biden’s sturdy approval ratings, which in recent Gallup surveys exceeded Trump’s rating by 5 points.
It’s probable, though not certain, that turnout this year will far exceed that in 2016. Trump needs a scenario where sundry more ballots are cast, and where he gets a big proportion of the tens of millions of extra votes, to prevail. It looks now, however, like the lion’s share of the surge will go to Biden. The huge increase in early voting points to a big turnout. According to the Elections Project, 86 million Americans, two-thirds of the total number in 2016, have already voted either by mail or at polling sites. The volume in Texas already exceeds the 2016 total, and over 80% of the people who voted in North Carolina, Arizona, and Florida four years ago have cast their ballots. A Gallup survey from October finds that 69% of registered voters are “more enthusiastic than usual” about the race versus 50% in 2016.
Krishnamurty predicts that turnout could hit 155 million, an 18 million increase over the Trump-Clinton contest. He reckons that to win, Trump would need to get at least 47.5% of that vote to Biden’s 50.5%. (Don’t forget the roughly 2% forecast for mavericks and write-ins.) But just look at how many more ballots he’d need to collect. Of the 155 million votes cast, he’d need to win 73.6 million. That’s 10.6 million more than his 63 million in 2016. “Even at 73.6 million, I don’t think he’d win, but he’d have a shot,” says Krishnamurty. “I’ve been saying he wouldn’t win again from the day he was elected because he’s a divisive candidate, and successful Presidents are unifiers. He doubled down on the strategy of appealing to his base. He’s the greatest showman ever, but he went out and picked fights, and that’s what killed him with the seniors.”
It’s still conceivable that Trump can repeat the sorcery of 2016. But adding almost 11 million votes when he’s losing the 65 and over crowd and doing even more to rile suburban women? Trump needed a bridge to a much broader constituency that he never built, and now it’s a bridge too far.