I mean, she's recently been sporting her modest "let's appeal to simple, religious, salt-of-the-earth, low-income voters" hairstyle, so it's not hard to believe these places really are locks.
Hillary always seemed more genuine and stronger candidate to me when she worked the populist working-class issues in the '08 primaries than the Hillary of the '16 primaries.
Now I haven't been paying much attention to her hairstyle or clothing, but rhetorically and substantively I think she has now successfully managed to pivot back to the "fighter for all Americans" mode, now that the primaries are over and (thanks to Bernie), we now have an extremely progressive party platform.
Not quite sure your exact meaning.... are you are saying that she has solidified support in these particular states as a result of expanding support among low-income White/Anglo undecided voters, or that somehow these states are more representative of that particular demographic? I am assuming the former, rather than the latter.In fact, I'm suggesting that the she has already secured the places where any Democrat should be competitive.
Now she has the luxury of trying to appeal to less liberally inclined voters in traditionally red states. Hence the less manicured look.
She also wore this look on her swing to Kentucky and West Virginia for the primaries earlier this year.
West Virginia:
Michigan (a couple days ago):
These are compared to this look that she was sporting when the race was tighter:
The urban looks are usually more "volumous" and done up. When she strays from that (and puts her hair behind her ears, for example), it seems that there is usually a reason. I know this is all kind of ridiculous, but you can't tell me the image isn't deliberately managed.
