There weren’t that many of them. And most of them just hated Hillary because she’s an establishment Dem. This country elected a black guy twice followed by a reality TV show host. They’ve been incredibly clear that what they want isn’t a run of the mill centrist anything.
McCain and Romney were actually pretty good candidates who at least attempted to run moderate after getting through the GOP primary. Obama smashed them. HRC said all the things she thought people wanted to hear and Trump beat her by a hair because nobody was enthusiastic about her and she made a lot of unforced errors (also she had some bad breaks, but those were necessary for her to have a shot at losing).
Trump won by completely ignoring the middle and hurling red meat at his base and getting them to turn out. I don’t think a Democrat (other than Obama maybe) has ever even tried that in my lifetime. Definitely a good idea to try that instead of a slightly improved version of the HRC campaign. The demographics are on our side and we should use that like a club.
We are in the process of realignment. The old coalitions that made up both parties have shifted. Democrats need to find those foundational issues to forge a new coalition.
I support Warren because I believe class warfare should be one of those issues and her pragmatic approach to financial and political reform is a vehicle for moving in that direction. We should embrace polarization, divisiveness, and partisanship in pushing that issue.
This goes beyond 2020. I reject the desire for instant gratification. This election needs to be about more than defeating Trump. It has to be about a vision of the future and shifting the course of American politics.
The whole point of Medicare for all is that it’s paid for via progressive taxation. Offering a public option that is, while cheaper than private insurance, still paid for via a premium that is not scaled progressively in the same way (I.e. there are subsidies for the poor, but a person making 50k pays the same as a person making 350k) kind of defeats the purpose. I’ve also not heard any of the public option people state that providers would be required to accept their public option, in contrast to Medicaid which is very difficult to find quality providers.
And can someone explain how the public option makes it easier for us to get to single payer? Like what’s the mechanism there?
Warren’s statement is accurate and the message it sends is important. I of course incorporate this minor “hypocrisy” into my assessment of her but I also incorporate the fact that this “hypocrisy” is being being spread all over town by Ed Rendell, the ultimate swamp monster, so that he can get Biden in office (and his cokehead son in a position to take the legal but corrupt money that Rendell takes all day, everyday).
It makes me excited for someone like AOC to rise up and get a real shot at a presidential run. Imagine if Bernie today were only 45. He would crush any and all comers.
The '72 race is sort of relevant I guess, in a nutshell Muskie lost because he was an odious establishment centrist (although there were other events during the campaign which didn’t help) and got swept aside by the enthusiasm around the progressive George McGovern. For a variety of reasons, one of which was being “too far left”, McGovern went on to get demolished in the general, only winning his home state of Massachusetts, Nixon otherwise swept the map. This is the genesis of the religious belief now held by Boomer Democrats that “going too far left” will get you annihilated in general elections.
The real lesson of the Muskie campaign should have been learnt by Jeb!, because this was Muskie’s campaign logo:
Yep.
Edit: The above was from memory, I looked it up, McGovern did win Massachusetts but it was not his home state (that was South Dakota) and he also won DC.
The lesson is that you have to be uniquely terrible (Carter) or get fragged by your own party (Bush I) to lose as an incumbent in the modern age.
There does seem to be this weird thing though where people get totally sick of you by year 6 no matter what. Bush II got smoked in 2006 - before the financial crisis hit. Obama’s #s were in the toilet and I remember people being sick of Clinton. I don’t remember if people were sick of Reagan - probably not.
If Trump wins - which is obviously live - my money is that he will be a huge pariah by year 6. And then even his supporters will be tired of him and all his shit will come home to roost. And in some ways, if our democracy survives, that might be the best outcome. At least that’s what I will tell myself if he wins.
I really do think though that the 18-39 year-old voting rate is the gigantic sleeping tiger that could blow up the patterns of the last 40 years. Give them Warren or Bernie and see what happens. I meet and overhear so many young people who are strongly involved in politics than I used to when I was that age.
Reagan dipped to 50%, which was low for him. Clinton was still around 60%. The impeachment thing was a political loser for the GOP. The Democrats nearly won again (arguably did win) after 8 years while running human Ambien tablet Al Gore, Clinton’s VP.
Yeah Clinton was about like Reagan. I do remember sentiment turning on him though and I was like - over the blow job? But it wasn’t. I believe in the 6-year itch thing.
There was a pretty funny SNL skit at the time with Newt and a few other Republicans lamenting that nothing sticks to Clinton. And then Clinton walks in with two babes on his arm and buys the bar a round (or something like that).
Sure feels like Trump alternate universe happening now.
By the way, what people meant by “too far left” with McGovern was that he campaigned on an immediate end to the Vietnam War, which was considered Not Serious Foreign Policy at the time. Also, fellow Democratic contender Hubert Humphrey labelled him the candidate of “amnesty, abortion and acid”.
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
I think I said some stuff about this at exiled, but it’s not really the case that Clinton’s impeachment yielded much benefit politically. His approval rating spiked during the process, but after the trial was over it dribbled back to low 50s (still good). The only electoral metric by which the Democrats “won” anything was that in 1998 they didn’t lose the expected amount of seats in the 6th year of a 2 term Presidency, which is some made up PR bs you tell your donors I guess. Control of congress didn’t change in either chamber. 2 years later Bush beat (or didn’t) a VP who inherited a good but still post doctcom bubble economy; some argue Gore lost because he didn’t embrace Clinton enough but Gore didn’t embrace Clinton enough because W. was running a “cleanse the oval office” type of campaign and Gore didn’t want to lean on the intern diddler.
edit: low 50% was off a bit. It went from high of 67% during impeachment to a low of ~54% about a year and a half later, but he left office on an upswing of over 65%, the highest exit approval in polling history.
Whatever the poll #s say - I just remember having the same feeling in 1998, 2006 and 2014 - “Why did you love the guy 2 years ago and now you’re sick of him?”
Literally all I remember about the Clinton years is having that feeling. I can’t recall any details.
My mom in 2006 told me she was sick of George Bush (but terrified of whatever the Dems were going to run of course). Why? What changed?
Go back and read Politics from 2014 - the mostly liberal forum by that time was just trashing on Obama for drone strikes and whatever else.
