您现在的位置: 纽约时报中英文网 >> 纽约时报中英文版 >> 观点 >> 正文


更新时间:2016-10-28 10:23:20 来源:纽约时报中文网 作者:佚名

Hillary Clinton’s Resounding Mandate

I hear two observations about the 2016 presidential race so incessantly that they’re like hit songs at peak ubiquity. The lyrics are seared into my brain.


One is that the Republican and Democratic nominees leave voters with no real choice. That’s nuts, because it implies that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are equally unpalatable and it misunderstands “choice” as profoundly as Trump misreads polls. He and Clinton may not be the political buffet of our dreams. But one entree is perilous, while the other has tired ingredients in a suboptimal sauce. Salmonella or salmon with cucumber and dill: That’s a choice. I know what I’m putting on my plate.

一种是:共和党和民主党提名的总统候选人其实让选民没得选择。这纯属胡说八道,因为它意味着唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)和希拉里·克林顿(Donald Trump)同等地令人难以接受,并且误解了“选择”的含义——其程度之深与特朗普对民调的误读不相上下。他和克林顿或许不是我们所梦想的政治自助餐。但一道主菜是危险的;另一道的酱汁不太理想,原料也相当老套。沙门氏菌还是三文鱼搭配黄瓜和莳萝:这是一个选择。我知道自己该往盘子里放什么。

The other observation is that when Clinton is elected — sorry, if Clinton is elected — she’ll have shaky authority and murky marching orders, because she’ll be the beneficiary of an anti-Trump vote, not a pro-Clinton one. This, too, misses the mark. Even if we grant that voters aren’t so much rushing to her as fleeing him, they’re fleeing for specific reasons. They’re expressing particular values. Those reasons and values are her marching orders, and there’s nothing murky about them.


I’d go even further and say that they amount to a mandate, which is this: to safeguard the very America — compassionate, collaborative, decent — that he routinely degrades.


First, though, some math. As Damon Linker explains in The Week, Clinton is in a position to notch a resounding victory by historical standards.

不过先要说点数学上的问题。正如达蒙·林克尔(Damon Linker)在《一周》(The Week)杂志上所阐释的那样,按历史标准衡量,克林顿将赢得一场辉煌的胜利。

As of late Tuesday, the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls put her 5.4 percentage points ahead of Trump in a four-way race and 5.1 ahead in a one-on-one matchup. In three of the last six presidential elections, the margin of victory was significantly smaller than that; in the other three it was larger, although only slightly in the 1992 contest (5.5 percent), which her husband won.

网站“真正明确的政治”(Real Clear Politics)最近的民调显示,截至周二晚上,在四人对决中,她的支持率平均领先特朗普5.4个百分点,一对一时,她平均领先5.1个百分点。反观此前的六届总统选举,领先优势远远低于这些数字的共有三届;在另外三届中领先优势要大一些,不过1992年的那届只大了一点点(5.5%),取得胜利的是她丈夫。

Given early-voting patterns, Trump’s erratic behavior and her campaign’s superior ground game, I think she’ll exceed current projections; an ABC News tracking poll last weekend had her up by 12. The largest national margin since Ronald Reagan’s 18.2-point advantage in 1984 was the 8.5-point spread with which her husband was re-elected, and that was 20 years ago.

鉴于提前投票的趋势、特朗普的古怪行径以及希拉里竞选团队强大的基层组织能力,我认为她的领先优势会超出当前的预期;ABC新闻频道(ABC News)上周末开展的追踪性民调显示,她领先了12个百分点。自罗纳德·里根(Ronald Reagan)在1984年领先18.2个百分点以来,全国性领先优势的最大值是8.5个百分点,那还是他丈夫在20年前竞选连任的时候。

It’s true that none of the victors in the contests over the last three decades had an opponent as unprepared, unsteady and unsavory as Trump. But it’s also true that Trump is the protest candidate — the “change agent,” in prognosticators’ preferred parlance — at a juncture unfavorable to an insider like Clinton, who’s no darling of voters to begin with.


So if voters hand him an overwhelming defeat, it’s a bold statement, with undeniable messages.


They’d be saying that sexism like his is intolerable. That’s evident in the yawning gender gap that he confronts, in the disproportionate number of women who are voting early and in the possible surge, after Election Day, of women in Congress. The Year of Trump is turning out to be the true Year of the Woman, and not only because of a glass ceiling’s shattering.


This gives Clinton a mandate to make sure our public discourse and laws never treat women as subordinate to men.


Voters who weren’t intrinsically anti-Trump but ended up in that column are punishing him for the way he attacked the Khan family, Alicia Machado and so many others before and since. That’s clear in the words and timing of Republican leaders who defected from Trump. Each reached a point where, for reasons moral or political, Trump’s pettiness and viciousness could no longer be shrugged off.

一些选民并非生来就反对特朗普,最终却加入了反特朗普行列,他们是在惩罚他,因为不能容忍他攻击汗(Khan)的家人和艾丽西亚·马查多(Alicia Machado)的方式,不能容忍他一直以来攻击其他许多人的方式。透过抛弃特朗普的共和党领导人所说的话和所选择的时机,可以清楚地看到这一点。鉴于道德或者政治上的理由,每个人都走到了无法再对特朗普的狭隘和恶毒置之不理的地步。

There’s a mandate for Clinton in this as well. It’s to rise above and push back at the corrosive politics of insult, and she did more to betray than to honor this with her “basket of deplorables.”


An unorthodox candidate, Trump has run an unholy campaign that pits honest-to-goodness Americans, whoever they are, against others, including Mexican rapists, a Mexican-American judge, a president with Kenya in his blood and anyone with the Quran on a night stand. This appeals to an unsettlingly sizable group of voters.


But its repudiation by a definitive majority would tell Clinton that she’s being trusted, as Trump never could be, to lift us above such labeling and — to borrow a bit from her own stump speech — build bridges instead of walls.


While her election might not be any validation of her prescriptions for health care, the Middle East or trade, it would say loudly and clearly that the country cannot survive the divisiveness that Trump promotes and will not abide the bigotry that he projects.


Acting in accordance with that wouldn’t give our first female president most (or even much) of the legislation that she wants. But it would give her all of the authority that she needs.