Volume 4, Issue 39
How can this be?
Both candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, have been in the public’s eye for over 25 years. More has been written, examined, and ventilated about these two than any other candidates for President in recent times. Their positions on the issues are markedly well known, either in specificity or ideological terms. The first question is, why are they still undecided? And the second question is, why did the first debate fail them?
It is not unusual for 10% to be undecided at this point in the election cycle. But such indecision is usually generated by a desire for further explanation on policy and key issues. That is much less the case in this cycle. This consternation is character-driven. And this character tremor is partly a product of the candidates’ past histories.
The public senses a need for change. Yet some are not ready for indeterminate change. Some will rely upon the status quo. The latest Rasmussen poll describes the quandary this way, “hyper-competent bureaucrat versus changemaker.” Undecideds are not confused about the issues as much as they are uncertain about the risk of electing each candidate. The question becomes, do you vote for Donald Trump who has enormous upside for constructive change, but treacherous downside for government infrastructure failure? Or do you vote for Hillary Clinton who has very little upside for change, but also on the same account, very little downside for the failure of government services?
Eighty-eight percent of the American public consistently relates to pollsters that they believe the country is on the wrong track. Yet the dilemma presents itself as to whether subtle changes in the path of the wrong track would be a better directional course than an abrupt right-turn that could derail the train.
This paradox explains the division in the country and the inability of each candidate to outstride the other. Hillary Clinton believes that more government, better managed, is the answer to America’s problems. She touts her government experience as not only the best experience, but the critical experience required to better manage government services. Her problem is that more government is not change, and the American public lacks confidence and trust in her character to honorably manage government.
Donald Trump advances his experience as a businessman as the necessary experience for change in government. He has had business successes and business failures. He believes that government needs to be restructured, and that new priorities must be set. He brings to the Presidential marketplace a unique personality that is antithetical to today’s protocol of subdued political correctness. Hillary Clinton defines his personality traits as the composite nature of intemperance.
The debate last night rendered nothing new on policy statements, management, or explanations for change or restructure of government. The undecideds were left to contemplate their decision-making formula for unmeasured risk versus business as usual.
Further, the 88% wrong track research is not linear in its conclusions. There can be many views, colors, and perceptions of desired change. For instance, some are dissatisfied because they want more government. Benefits are not good enough, and a college education should be free. Part of this wrong track crowd was the energy behind the surprise Bernie Sanders momentum. The group has a Millennials subset who are looking for more government help in their start in life.
Workers idled by manufacturing plants moved overseas are angry at government that has failed them which they feel continues to mislead them. They are a part of the wrong track crowd that solidly supports Donald Trump. Forty-nine percent of the American public is participatory in government programs critical to their way of life. This includes all government employees at the federal, state and local level, the military, and those in need of assistance. It does not include Social Security recipients.
How the next President addresses the Administration’s commitment to these programs is paramount to the undecideds’ voting decision-making process. The question is not about the merit of the programs. School teachers and members of the U.S. military are critical in the services needed by our country. They deserve higher pay. But that is not the point for undecideds. The point is that people in each of these categories look at the right track/wrong track in a different way. Also, this 49% does not include all spouses who may have still another view point on the right track/wrong track as it applies to their family and their household.
Therefore, what is the main element missing for the undecideds to make a final, intelligent, and personal decision for whom to vote? It is determining trust in the character of the candidates. And it is about the personal impact on their lives of the results and consequences of the candidate’s character played out as President of the United States.
Last night, Hillary Clinton’s strategy was clear – solidify the base as the primary objective and irritate Donald Trump to continue to make the case of his flawed temperament. She is implementing a three debate strategy. In debate two, she will set up the scenario for the 49% of government participants that their way of life will be in jeopardy with a Trump presidency. With her base in hand, she will make the case that undecideds should trust competent bureaucracy. Donald Trump’s strategy appeared to be to act more Presidential and respectful. Whether by design or accident, he pressed the point recognized by his base that international trade agreements have cost them their jobs. And further, that Hillary Clinton has had thirty years to develop clear and concise solutions without success. Without saying it, he implied that she is business as usual and will take the country down an ongoing course on the wrong track. In the next two debates, he must make the case why business as usual is a greater risk for future prosperity than untested change.
Hillary escaped last night on challenges about the Clinton Foundation, the next Supreme Court nominee, the ‘Trump voters are a basket of deplorables’ statement, Benghazi, the Russian uranium deal, and so on. But fanning the flames on her character and policy indiscretions cannot make her any more disliked. Both candidates are setting records for unfavorables. Highlighting Trump’s business practices does not further disqualify him. The Trump protocol has already been calculated in the decision of his base to vote for him. Therefore, Hillary’s supporters are for Hillary, and Trump’s supporters are for Trump.
The last question on the undecided’s mind is, can I personally handle the change that’s coming? They are concerned about their jobs, their way of life, their liberty and their children’s future. Most are unselfish in their decision process. They are willing to pay a price for change today for a better future for their children. They must be convinced that the change will provide long lasting prosperity.
Providing a clear vision for the sustainability of the American way of life, and in all that means in the composition of freedom is the ultimate purpose in democratic and free elections. This principle is yet to be manifested in this presidential cycle.
It is critical for our democracy that a majority of the people are confident in the vision and the character of the next President of the United States, if he or she is to successfully lead our country for the next four years.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?