CAPITAL BRIEF : AFTER SUPER TUESDAY, CLINTON VS TRUMP?

Capital Brief, 2 March 2016

After Super Tuesday: Clinton vs. Trump?

FACTS:

• On Tuesday, March 1, about a dozen states and territories voted in both Democratic and Republican primary races (incl. Texas, Georgia, Virginia, Minnesota, and Massechusetts).
• Hillary Clinton won big on the Democratic side, amassing victories in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia among others.
• Bernie Sanders took a handful of states – Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Vermont.
• On the left, the overall delegate count stands at Clinton (595) vs. Sanders (405).
• For the Republican contest, Donald Trump emerged as the decisive victor, taking wins in Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Massachusetts, Vermont, Virginia, among others.
• Ted Cruz won his home state Texas, Oklahoma, and Alaska. Rubio’s sole victory, Minnesota.
• On the right, Trump stands firmly in first place with 319 delegates, followed by Cruz at 226, and Rubio with just 110.

ANALYSIS:

• Clinton’s victories on Super Tuesday reinforce the argument of widespread electability, at least among voters on the left. She won handily and did so in particular by amassing coalitions of minority voters. The so-called "Obama Coalition" is firmly in the Clinton camp, even if Sanders remains strong among young voters.
• Despite momentum in the early voting states, Sanders’ few wins on Tuesday reinforce the argument that he is unable to build a coalition beyond isolated demographics (white, educated, upper middle class liberals and young people). Even Massachusetts – bordering his home state of Vermont, where Sanders was hoping to claim an important victory – swung for Clinton.
• Following Super Tuesday, Donald Trump seems unstoppable as the Republican frontrunner. At this point, he has a healthy lead in the delegate count. He has proven able to turn out his supporters, not “reliable” voters, in all regions of the country and in states of varying demographics, sizes, voting histories. Super Tuesday proved that recent attacks on Trump, namely by Rubio, did nothing to dampen his stronghold over conservative voters.
• Trump benefits from the splintering of the rest of the Republican field. Smaller candidates like Kasich and Carson have no reason to remain in the race at this stage. And After Tuesday, Cruz – firmly in second place – has no reason to quit now.
• A path to victory for Rubio looks unclear. A win in Florida, his home state, would be important (a loss would be even more consequential), but he needs a string of victories to make the case that he can win all over the country in a variety of states and across the courants battling within the Party. In essence, he needs to demonstrate that he can do what Trump has already done.
• The Establishment backs Rubio, but so far voters are unwilling to lend him the same support as the Party machinery. Unless Rubio wins big in the coming weeks, his best hope for securing the nomination may be to prevent Trump from winning the necessary number of delegates and going to a contested convention this summer. This strategy is dangerous and would underscore the reasons why primary voters so strongly rebuke the Establishment and what they see as elite, insular practices that ignore the will of rank-and-file conservative voters.

CAPITAL BRIEF : CLINTON REMAINS STRONG, TRUMP GAINS BIG

Capital Brief, 24 February 2016
Clinton Position Remains Strong, Trump Gains Big

FACTS:

• On Saturday, February 20^th, Democratic and Republican voters turned out to vote in two different contests – Nevada for the Democrats and South Carolina for the Republicans.
• Hillary Clinton claimed a sound victory in Nevada at 52.6% against Bernie Sanders’ 47.3%.
• On February 20^th, Donald Trump won South Carolina (32.5%), then Marco Rubio in second (22.5%) and Cruz (22.3%). Then Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Ben Carson each took about 7-8%.
• As a result Jeb Bush suspended his campaign, ending his bid for the presidency.
• On February 23^rd, Donald Trump won Nevada handily with 45.9%, Rubio placed second with 23.9%, followed closely by Cruz (21.4%), Carson (4.8%), and Kasich (3.8%).
• In the wake of these two races, candidates have turned their attention to the next primaries: Saturday, February 27^th in South Carolina for the Democrats followed by Super Tuesday (March 1^st), and Super Tuesday for the Republicans. On March 1^st, about a dozen states vote.

ANALYSIS:

• Clinton’s victory was expected and uncontested in its importance. The margin of victory seems to have no consequence on the electoral dynamic in the Democratic race.
• During the past several weeks, Clinton has been campaigning intensively on questions of racial discrimination. She has evoked white privilege - a concept that has rarely been spoken of at this level of politics –, honed in on institutionalized racism and espoused the Black Lives Matter movement. She has sought and won the endorsements of a number of very famous Black public figures and released ads touting her history of combatting discrimination. Clinton seems to have understood the crucial importance of Black voters to her White House bid. More immediately, she is looking to ensure a convincing victory in South Carolina, the site of her worst defeat in 2008 and a place where there were accusations of coded racism on the part of her husband while campaigning on her behalf.
• Many Super Tuesday states are very friendly for Clinton. It is possible that after the last counts of Tuesday’s votes, the path to the nomination may look much clearer for Clinton, but given the climate of resentment of “Establishment” candidates, Sanders still may surprise.
• The real shifts are occurring on the Right. Trump’s solid win in Nevada (his third consecutive) makes him look increasingly stronger as a candidate – especially given that his popularity increases as his rhetoric toughens.
• The smaller candidates (Kasich, Carson) will stay in the race through Super Tuesday, but absent any major surprise, they are both unlikely to claim any victories giving them a reason to stay in the race after Wednesday. Their continued presence seems more effective in steering votes away from Rubio.
• Rubio continues to argue that he is a credible alternative to Trump capable of winning a general election against Clinton. Unlike the Party Establishment, voters seem to disagree so far. With only second and third place finishes, Rubio will need to do very well on Tuesday in order to prove that he is capable of winning something. Routinely claiming victory from third position begins to look less convincing as the race wears on. But support from Kasich and Carson voters could certainly help boost his chances, if they pull out.
• Ted Cruz’s presence in the race is an element of further division. An ultraconservative candidate, he lacks the support of many conservative groups that back Trump. Given the bitter rivalry between the two, it is unlikely that a considerable part of that support will defect to Cruz. And the Establishment, behind Rubio at this point, finds Cruz even less palatable than Trump. Apart from an Iowa victory, he has not topped third place. Super Tuesday will help to better assess where both Cruz and Rubio stand.
• What remains clear is that the remaining Republican candidates will likely need to unite around one person among them as an alternative to Trump’s gaining momentum.

CAPITAL BRIEF : CLINTON, CRUZ TAKE IOWA, DYNAMICS SHIFTING

Capital Brief, 3 February 2016

Voting Begins: Clinton, Cruz Take Iowa and Election Dynamics Shift

FACTS:

• On February 1, the first electoral event of the 2016 season took place with the Iowa caucuses.
• Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were predicted to finish in a virtual tie with the advantage given to Clinton. This indeed proved to be the case. Clinton won in a razor sharp victory, receiving 49.9% of the total vote (versus Sanders’ 49.6%). Voter turnout was particularly high, second only to the record-breaking 2008 (the year Obama won, and Hillary Clinton placed third). Following the Iowa caucus in which he received less than 1% of the vote, former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley suspended his campaign.
• On the Republican side, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz also went into the caucus in a virtual tie, with pollsters predicting a Trump victory. Ted Cruz surprised by winning with 27.6% of the vote, leaving Donald Trump with 24.3%, and Marco Rubio in third with 23.1%. No Republican candidate has pulled out of the race since the results on Monday.

ANALYSIS:

• On the left, Clinton’s victory could be considered a mixed result. She won, after all, in a state in which a quarter of Democrats identify themselves, like Sanders, as socialists. She won in a state traditionally difficult for the Clintons, thus becoming the first Clinton – and especially the first woman in history – to win this caucus.
• Yet, Clinton invested heavily (money, staff, personal visits) over the past several months in an effort to win Iowa convincingly. Her Iowa infrastructure was better than Obama’s mythic operation in 2008. The narrowness of her victory may underline a lingering voter sentiment that the problem lies not in Clinton’s operational and tactical game, but resides rather in her person. If this argument holds true, it is perhaps most true for many young first-time voters, who turned out overwhelmingly to support Sanders (80% of voters under 30 cast ballots for him).
• On the right, Iowa was an important loss for Donald Trump. Indeed Iowa voters showed that for as much as Trump’s anger discourse may have resonated and captured the public and media imaginations, ultimately: 1/ his proponents’ fervor did not translate into mobilization around Trump in this key electoral moment, 2/ temperament and policy mattered more to the base’s conservative voters than mere indignation and finally, 3/ Cruz’s grassroots operation outperformed Trump’s nontraditionally organized campaign effort.
• The Republican Establishment has been eager to separate itself from Trump and Cruz. Trump’s defeat in Iowa was a first small step to achieving that objective. Cruz's victory was good for Cruz, but perhaps even better for Rubio. As the race moves forward, there will be a growing pressure on smaller candidates to rally their supporters and donors around a single electable Republican candidate. 
• Jeb Bush was once considered the natural Establishment choice, but has proven to be a weak candidate with a diminishing momentum. If bolstered by a strong showing in the next voting states, Rubio’s solid performance in Iowa (23.1%) makes a convincing argument that he could/should be the Establishment heir, providing a moderate, electable alternative to Ted Cruz and thus a chance at beating likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.
• The overall electoral mood in 2016 is different than that of 2008. In 2016, 50% of Democratic voters say that experience is very important to them, whereas only 29% of Republicans agree. The opposite was true in 2008 - the last time Hillary Clinton ran - when Democratic voters felt that experience was secondary to judgment and temperament and nominated Obama.  Conversely, Republicans wanted experience first and foremost and nominated Senator John McCain.

CAPITAL BRIEF IS BACK IN TIME FOR THE 2016 ELECTION SEASON

Capital Brief is back!

In the lead-up to the 2012 election, I published a one-page weekly analysis of presidential election dynamics, taking the most noteworthy evolutions of the previous week and presenting them accompanied by a concise analysis.

After the jump, read the inaugural Capital Brief of the 2016 election season, this edition focused on the GOP and Democratic debates and their aftermath.

EUROPE1 INTERVIEW ON OBAMA'S STATE OF THE UNION, PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

Last weekend, I was a guest of David Abiker on Europe1 (C'est arrivé cette semaine) to talk briefly about Obama's last State of the Union address, his potential impact on the 2016 presidential contest, the place of Donald Trump in the Republican race, and the heated battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in the early primaries.

Listen to the full interview (French) at the link below, starting at the 9'30" mark.

C'est arrivé cette semaine (16 Jan 2016)

FRANCE24 DEBATE ON OBAMA EXECUTIVE ORDERS ON GUN CONTROL

Recently, I had the honor of participating in France24's Debate (English), moderated by François Picard, on the topic of Obama's executive orders on gun control.

See the full video after the jump.

AMERICA TESTED BY THE RISE OF FOREIGN NATIONALISMS (ENA HORS LES MURS)

My recent article, "America Tested by the Rise Foreign Nationalisms," was published in the April 2015 edition of ENA Hors les Murs.

The article takes a look at US foreign policy, and Washington's posture abroad, when confronted by the rise of nationalisms around the globe - looking especially at the cases of its sole peer competitor (China), historical allies (Japan, Israel), and potential strategic partners (India, Russia) - and the particular challenges each poses to US interests.

The consequences, posited in this article, demand a reflection on the US' role and means in defending and projecting its influence amid shifting balances in a world dissatisfied with the consequences of globalization, as evidenced by the rëemergence of powerful "domestic fronts."

The full article (in French) after the jump.

"A NEW AMERICA?" - MEASURING POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF SOCIAL SHIFTS (POLITIQUE INTERNATIONALE)

Head over to the website of revue Politique Internationale to read my article appearing in the Winter 2012 volume.

The article (in French) analyzes the nature and depth of ongoing social shifts and the consequences on the major parties' messages and strategies; the political and ideological preferences of this "New America" (composed of strategic demographic and electoral blocs); and how these preferences will impact both America's domestic and foreign politics.

Visit Politique Internationale to read the full article in French.