RED STATE VOTERS
JUST once in 64 years has Arizona voted for a Democratic president. But now, the desert state – packed with conservative types – is just one of the unlikely prizes Hillary Clinton is eyeing as Donald Trump flounders.
As the US election surges into its waning weeks, the battle lines aren’t so clear anymore. Clinton has
her sights set on a landslide, and suddenly the traditional demarcations between red and blue states seem something for those without guts.
Pollsters FiveThirtyEight put Clinton’s chance of victory at 86.9 per cent. The New York Times puts it at 92 per cent.
National polls have Clinton hovering around a 7 per cent lead on Trump, and edging him out not only in key swing states but in Republican strongholds.
Trump’s imperative is do or die – reach out to new voters and expand his base or face electoral oblivion.
As Clinton locked herself away this week to prepare for her final debate showdown against Trump, her campaign made the decision to drop $US2 million ($A2.6 million) on ads in Arizona. It was a spend-up in a place they don’t vote blue – and the biggest late investment of the campaign in any Republican state.
What matters is not Arizona but what it represents – a confidence Clinton can beat Trump not only to the White House, but on turf that should be squarely his.
In addition to the $2 million in Arizona, the campaign outlaid $1 million in the red states of Texas and Utah.
Part of the Trump fairytale was always that his support base was different to the traditional Republican mould.
His backers weren’t just people who always voted Right. Instead they were working-class battlers who were angry at the Government and were excitedly swept up in his anti-establishment narrative.
They were the types who’d loved him on television and were enamoured with his business acumen. While Trump alienated some Republicans, others saw him as offering a way to bring a whole new generation of voters into the tent.