Quote:

Will Americans elect a president most of the country hates?

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/article...-candidate

By SUSAN MILLIGAN Feb. 26, 2016, at 6:00 a.m.

Whom does America hate more – Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?

That's not just a political parlor game. Given the high negatives both leading contenders suffer, the already nasty and brutish presidential campaign is being driven heavily by the "no" factor, or the motivation voters have to turn out to prevent someone from getting elected.

The electorate, which has become increasingly polarized in recent years, may well decide the next president not by which contender is more inspirational or competent, but by which one can keep the more-hated persona away from Pennsylvania Avenue.

"It really may be that this is an election in which it is more about coming out to vote against someone than it is to vote for someone," says Micheline Blum, a lecturer and pollster at Baruch College in New York.

"It's not a happy thing, not something you would wish to have in our elections, that our electorate has such a dislike or unfavorable view of the front-runners. If both front-runners have more negatives than positives, that doesn't speak well" of the political environment, she says.

Both contenders face image problems, with Trump under fire for insulting a slew of targets, including women, Latinos, the disabled and 2008 GOP nominee John McCain.

Clinton, meanwhile, continues to be dogged by trust issues, and some Democrats fear the controversy over her home email server will at best keep wavering party members from the polls and at worst result in an indictment of the former secretary of state.

Trump, a real estate magnate and reality TV star with no experience in elected office, has racked up an impressive series of primary victories, winning support from Republicans who are frustrated with Washington politics and politicos.

But on a national level, Trump is deeply unpopular, earning a 60 percent disapproval rating in Gallup polling, the highest negatives a presidential candidate has reached since Gallup first began asking the question in 1992.

Clinton, who has long been a polarizing figure in American politics, comes in with the third-highest negative rating (52 percent).

Second place went to former President George H.W. Bush, the year he was running for re-election in the midst of a recession (and after he violated his "no new taxes" pledge). That puts Clinton in the number two most-negative position among non-incumbents seeking the presidency.

Normally, candidates with substantial negatives (or just low positives) might have a chance to win over voters as the campaign progresses. But in the case of Trump and Clinton – both very well known – it will be hard for either candidate to move the numbers much before November, should each earn their party's nominations, says Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion in Poughkeepsie, New York.

"Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are particularly known figures. There's no trial, no rehearsals, no get-to-know-yous. This one is going to be baked in early," Miringoff says. Meanwhile, "what we're also seeing now is an even further dividing of the country, more polarization," he adds. "It's not surprising that the Democratic and Republican candidates would be increasingly disliked by the other side, given all that polarization."

On that metric, Clinton might have an advantage. She still has high approval ratings among Democrats, with about three-fourths of her party in Gallup polling giving her a thumbs-up. But Trump, despite having assembled a devoted and enthusiastic group of supporters, doesn't do as well within the GOP community.

His favorability rating among Republicans is 59 percent, according to a January poll. A Bloomberg poll in late January had Trump ahead in the GOP field but with looming problems unifying the party: 42 percent of Republicans who did not support Trump said they could not be convinced to support him.

The numbers have the GOP establishment scrambling to find a way to stop Trump so they can ultimately stop Clinton.

"I really don't think that if you haven't already made up your mind, that you're going to be for Trump, who is an egomaniacal self-promoter," says Jim Roddey, who recently stepped down as chair of the Republican Committee of Allegheny County in Pennsylvania. "If Trump is the nominee, I think he's going to have a very difficult time in the general election, even if he runs against Hillary."

The damage could continue down-ticket, Roddey fears, endangering the Republicans' control of the U.S. Senate. "A lot of people won't go to the polls in Pennsylvania," which could be a job-killer for incumbent GOP Sen. Pat Toomey, he says.

And if Trump assembles a plurality of delegates ahead of the summer convention, don't count on Republicans coming together – no matter how much they want to keep Clinton out of the White House, says Fergus Cullen, former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party.

"As ugly as things are this week, wait until the summer convention. A third of the Republican Party won't support Trump if he wins the nomination," says Cullen, who has endorsed Ohio Gov. John Kasich for the GOP nomination. "If he loses the nomination, and especially if he has the most delegates, but not a majority, and the nomination goes to someone else, half of his supporters won't support the nominee either.

Trump will hold the party hostage and if he doesn't get what he wants, he'll shoot the hostage. What does he care?"

A Trump-Clinton scenario makes turnout and demographics even more important, as each party taps its base to turn battleground states. But in this case, the turnout drive may again be a negative-themed effort. Latinos and African-Americans, for example, were an important part of President Barack Obama's winning coalition in both 2008 and 2012.

A relatively strong showing (for a Republican) among Latinos helped elect George W. Bush in 2004 (when he got 44 percent of the Hispanic vote, up 10 points from 2000).

Clinton has a natural base among Latinos since they tend to vote Democratic.

But if Trump is the nominee, the Democrats are likely to rally the Latino vote by highlighting Trump's remarks about immigration (he wants to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico) and Mexican immigrants (whom he painted broadly as criminals). Trump, meanwhile, may be able to rally disaffected white voters who have a deep distaste for Clinton.

And there, the nation's changing demographics are problematic for the ultimate GOP nominee. A study released this week by the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for American Progress and the Brookings Institution shows Republicans losing the national election under the electoral models studied.

If Americans vote pretty much the same way they did in 2008 and 2012, the Democratic nominee will win this fall by a greater margin than Obama did in those years, largely because of the increase in Latino voters. For the first time in history, the 2016 electorate includes more eligible Hispanic voter than African-American voters, notes William Frey, a demographics expert with the Brookings Institution.

If Americans vote (by demographics) similarly to 2004 (when Bush did very well among Hispanics), Democrats eke out a razor-thin win, according to the modeling, because there is a bigger Latino vote now. However, Republicans would prevail in the electoral college under that model.

If turnout increases among Latinos and Asians, Democrats would win the popular vote by more than 6 percent. Even if Republicans are given a 15-point swing in votes from Hispanics and Asians, Democrats still win, the report said, albeit by just 2.5 percent.

The only voter demographic model that has the Republican prevailing is what Frey calls the "Donald Trump dream scenario" – one in which white voter turnout increases by 10 percentage points. But that scenario also presumes there would be no accompanying increase in the Latino turnout.

That hardly means all is lost for the GOP, Frey and others note, since national and international events, shifts in perspective within demographic groups and other factors can change the dynamics.
"Demography is not destiny," Frey warns. "But it certainly shapes destiny."

And this year, previous metrics may not apply, adds J. Ann Selzer, an independent pollster in Iowa, since few expected Trump to emerge as his party's front runner. "We are entering an era where there isn't anything in the past that can guide us, in terms of how this is going to play out," Selzer says.

The result will depend on who shows up to vote – and just maybe, on which contender they dislike the least.