During every presidential campaign, candidates make "gaffes" which occupy the attention of the media for a few days. Most of them are soon forgotten, but Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" has had unusual staying power. People not only remember it, but often say that it had a big impact on the campaign. A few days ago, Thomas Edsall had a column in which he quoted Charles Murray, in a 2017 podcast interview: "the ‘deplorables’ comment by Hillary Clinton may have changed the history of the world....all by itself, [it] might have swung enough votes" to elect Trump. Edsall didn't present this as a controversial claim, but as illustrating the "animosity to elite liberalism that Trump has feasted on."
Clinton made that remark on Sept 9 (a Friday), and it made the news almost immediately. According to the polling averages in 538.com, Clinton led Trump by 42.1% to 38.9% on Sept. 8. Her lead had been narrowing since the middle of August--on September 1, it was 42.5 to 38.4. What happened after the "basket of deplorables"? On September 15, her lead was 41.6% to 39.9%. Her lead continued to narrow, reaching a low of 41.7% to 40.6% on September 20th, before widening again. So nothing dramatic happened--she lost a little ground after the remark, but she'd been losing ground before the remark, and her lead recovered later. If you looked at the figure without knowing anything about the campaign, you wouldn't identify September 9th as notable in any way.
The 538 figures are a smoothed and weighted average of many polls--Real Clear Politics gives unadjusted figures. They also show Clinton's lead as narrowing after 9/9, continuing a trend that had started in August. Those figures show a slight increase in her vote share after 9/9--Trump increased faster, and support for third party candidates declined.
Of course, the election was close and you can't rule out the possibility that it changed enough votes to alter the outcome, but there's no evidence that her remark had much influence on voters. Its staying power is partly because of her peculiar choice of words, and partly because it fits with an idea that's popular among both conservative and liberal elites: that elites show more disdain for ordinary people than they used to. I've had several posts suggesting that this idea is not true, and I'll have another one soon.
Probably right, but wouldn't you want to compare polls finished before the date to polls started after? Comparing moving averages almost guaretees you won't see a discontinuity, since pre-date polls will be in the post-date average
ReplyDeleteYes, if I were doing a full-fledged analysis I'd use the RCP figures. I just quoted the 538 numbers because they're easier to summarize and less affected by sampling error.
ReplyDeleteSince progressive commentary differentiates so strongly between marginalised and non-marginalised groups, it is perhaps not surprising to find no increase in generalised disdain. But the same differentiation does seem to lead to more progressive disdain for Euro-descended ("white", I dislike racial terms as they mislead in all sorts of ways) working class, especially when they vote the wrong way or express the wrong concerns, as defined by said progressive elites.
ReplyDelete