After Tuesday’s Indiana primary, it seems inevitable that in the presidential election in November, Americans will choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
It was not always this way. Last summer, Trump was dismissed by some experts as “not a real candidate,” with a 2 percent chance of winning the Republican Party’s nomination. And although Clinton has been the Democratic frontrunner since announcing her bid in April last year, that a former first lady is running at all is still no small surprise.
The question now looming is which candidate can make it all the way to the White House.
Making predictions about November in May might be asking for trouble, but by some metrics it looks like Trump’s luck might be up. When polls have asked voters to imagine a scenario in which they must choose between Trump and Clinton, most have said they would choose Clinton.
Since May last year, 67 polls have pitted the two candidates against one another. In 58 such polls, respondents chose Clinton over Trump. Three polls found the two candidates tied and six gave Trump the win — on average by less than 4 percentage points.
However, polling averages show the gap changing considerably. In July last year it was vast — Clinton by 20 percentage points; in January it was small — Clinton by 3 percentage points. Currently, there are 6.5 percentage points between the two. That gap will no doubt continue to change.
Imagining who would lose the Nov. 8 election is sometimes harder than imagining who would win. The primary season can warp perceptions.
Candidates have a string of wins under their belts by the time they secure the nominations — in this case, Trump has won 28 states and Clinton 25. However, those wins might not seem quite so glorious when you attempt to distinguish the popularity of winning candidates from the unpopularity of their rivals.
Since June last year, for example, more Americans have said they have an unfavorable opinion of Trump — on average 60 percent — than a favorable opinion — 35 percent.
Trump’s unpopularity has been pretty consistent. Often, when he appears to catch Clinton in national polling it is not so much about a Trump surge as a Clinton dip. And since November last year, similar polling for the former secretary of state has found that respondents are less inclined to say they have a favorable opinion of her.
Clinton’s falling popularity has been so steady that last month she was considered more unfavorable than favorable: just like Trump.
That conclusion — that neither of the two candidates Americans would probably have to choose between are viewed favorably by the majority of those Americans — is important. It could affect turnout, especially if there is a particular lack of enthusiasm in one party.
Turnout at primaries has been high — almost double 2012, according to Pew Research Center. Among Republicans, primary turnout has risen from 9.8 percent in 2012 to 17.3 percent. Democratic turnout has increased from 6.3 percent to 11.7 percent, although four years ago US President Barack Obama did not face a serious challenger. If Trump can convince more people to show up, he could close the gap.
There is another thing Trump will have to do: Win over voters who do not identify as Republican. There are a lot of them. The percentage of Americans who describe themselves as independent is at a record high: According to Gallup, which has conducted polls on voter identification since 1988, 42 percent of respondents say they are independent while 29 percent say they are Democratic and 26 percent Republican.
Understanding the demographics of Trump and Clinton’s supporters can offer important clues about who they need to attract. A recent poll from CNN/ORC found that people who said Trump was their first choice for president were more likely to be male, white or older.
Of those who described themselves as “independent,” 42 percent said Trump was their first choice. When asked if they were “enthusiastic” about the prospect of Trump being nominee, 32 percent of independents said they were and 33 percent said they were “satisfied but not enthusiastic.” The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.
When CNN/ORC conducted the poll, between Friday last week and Sunday, they also asked those 1,001 adults — 890 of whom were registered voters — about Clinton. Her supporters were more likely to be female, urban or have an income of more than US$50,000 per year.
Many such findings about Trump and Clinton supporters have been borne out by exit polling during the primary season.
At this early stage of gazing into the crystal ball, a couple of things seem possible. Clinton will need to continue to appeal to women and older voters — not least because those groups are more likely to cast a ballot on election day.
However, the non-white vote will also become a more focused issue. When 31 percent of the US electorate is not white and there is only a 6 percent gap between candidates, it is clear how important such voters could be.
Ultimately, though, there is only one thing Clinton needs to do to win the White House in November: make herself less unpopular than Trump.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US