Political judo: poaching the other side's voters

It is probably smart to mess with your opponent's coalition.   Trump and HRC are both doing it.

Donald Trump included in his scripted foreign policy speech in Ohio a bit of the same idea he voiced in his big speech at his nominating convention: the notion that Hillary's tolerance for and inclusion of Muslims means she is hurting women and the LGBTQ community.

Article in LGBTQ Nation Website

Hillary has her coalition of the discriminated-against.   Trump has his coalition, focused around people loyal to the GOP brand even as the contents of the package changed, plus an extra dollop of white males without a college degree of both parties.  Trump has a majority coalition, perhaps, barely, but he needs blue collar working class Democrats and Independents to cross over, and he needs some erosion from Hillary Clinton's coalition.

GOP formula: America vs. Islam

One elegant solution for Trump and Republicans generally is to pit part of Hillary Clinton's coalition against another part.  The key villain for Trump is not immigrants, it is Muslims and Islam.  Vilifying immigrants has backlash: Hispanic citizens vote and they have immigrant relatives and friends.   There are enough American Muslims for them to be scary, but not enough to be a meaningful voting bloc. 

So Trump points to Hillary Clinton's tolerance for and inclusion of Muslims as an attack on American values and a piece of the coalition: women and gays.   Smart strategy, probably.  The "Clash of Civilizations" notion is a familiar idea and GOP voters are comfortable with it.

Marco Rubio's campaign ad on the War of Civilizations reveal the judo nicely in 30 seconds.  Islam is bad because the women in one small Muslim-majority country  (Saudi Arabia) aren't allowed to drive cars.  The fact that this country is an ally in our fight against ISIS, and the fact that the country is an exception, and the fact that we maintain good relations with them and that America and Europe imports oil from them is not mentioned.  The fight is Christianity vs. Muslims.   30 Second Ad

The psychological base for the GOP is to reaffirm American identity with walls, borders, loyalty tests, and symbols of patriotism and affinity.   Americans are inside the tent so someone has to be outside the tent.   Muslims are it.   Trump can be muddled a little on women, on Hispanics, on blacks, on immigrants, so his talk on those issues have become more nuanced and moderate.  But he is still clear on Muslims:  they are dangerous outsiders.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is going after a longtime piece of the loyal-Republican coalition, the national security hawks.   She has located some 50 Republicans active in national defense and has them say Donald Trump cannot be trusted as Commander in Chief.     These 50 officials include a former Republican governor and Cabinet Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge.  This is no knockout blow to Trump, but it puts some dissonance into the Trump coalition and claim that he is the one to "keep America safe."

These judo moves have risks for both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.   You cannot make an inroad into the others' camp without messing with your own brand.

You cannot trust some commanders.  Custer's men learned that.

Hillary's coalition includes peace-oriented Democrats who supported Obama previously and Sanders recently, but now that the primary is over HRC can remind the world that she is not the patsy pushover to terror that Trump claims she and Obama are.   Still, these voters don't want to see Hillary-the-hawk, even if she is less threatening than Trump.   They always have Jill Stein to divert to.   Similarly, Trump's Christian values voters don't want to see Trump showing respect and validation for gays.  Still, Muslims and their Sharia law is more scary than "the homosexual agenda" so he can take the risk.

Do either of these judo moves do any real good?   Are women or the LGBTQ community seduced back into supporting Trump, figuring that Hillary is not really all that supportive?   And are voters with a pro-military cast of mind seduced into supporting Hillary over Trump?  I have no data, but I have a suspicion.  It gives some voters a mental toe-hold to do what they may deep-down want to do.  It gives a Republican woman a reason to think that Trump isn't so bad or Hillary so good.  And it gives some military-oriented men reason to think that maybe a reckless hard-charging devil-may-care commander like Trump might just get a bunch of soldiers killed.

Political coalitions are leaky.   People vote for a variety of reasons weighing their political interests and affections in multiple directions.   Politicians want their brand to be strong enough that they hold onto the people that like their brand, but they also want the votes of people who want the brand to be different.   

And that is what we are seeing.   Trump wants the male "women-have-all-the breaks" vote and the female vote.   Hillary wants the peace vote and the votes of military people who can be encouraged to doubt Trump.