By now enough time has passed since the Howard Dean boomlet that we can look back and see things a little more clearly. In many ways, Dean was a blank slate that people could adopt without really knowing or much caring about where he stood on many issues. What was important was that he was against the war and he was willing to fight in a way that we simply didn’t see from other candidates, particularly the ones who had actually voted to authorize the fiasco in Iraq. Dean had an ‘A’ rating from the National Rifle Association. That’s hardly unusual for a Vermont Democrat, but no one seemed to particularly mind. A physician, Dean wasn’t a supporter of single-payer healthcare. That didn’t seem to irk anyone. He went around talking about the potential need for a balanced budget amendment, which is “the stupidest, most irresponsible idea to be introduced by the leadership of a party in the history of the country.” Progressives loved him anyway.
Dean wasn’t particularly liberal, but there was a perception that he was way too far to the left to be a viable presidential nominee. Part of that, to be sure, had to do with him being the governor of Vermont. Rightly or wrongly, Vermont is seen as a virtual soviet republic filled with granola eating yoga instructors. On the other hand, Dean was the rarest of things: an actual WASP who was a prominent Democrat. He came from good old-fashioned Yankee congregationalist stock, which was at least not any kind of stumbling block for Klansmen and other anti-Catholic or anti-Semitic religious bigots. He was also about the right age, 54-55, to be a presidential candidate. If he hadn’t allowed himself to get caricatured as a creature of the far left, he might have been seen as a more legitimate contender by the establishment and done better in the primaries.
Bernie Sanders is much more like what Howard Dean was supposed to be like. All the reasons people had for thinking that Dean was too exotic and too far left are actually true about Sanders. Sanders is so far left that he won’t even call himself a Democrat despite seeking the nomination of the party. He’s a self-proclaimed socialist rather than an orthodox Democrat who has been wrongly labeled a socialist by the mighty right-wing media wurlitzer. He’s more representative of the “new” Vermont than the old Yankee establishment. He’s a transplant from Brooklyn, and quite noticeably Jewish, as well. Sanders is a strong proponent of socialized medicine and is unambiguously hostile to the big corporate business community. And he’ll be 74 years old in September. Ronald Reagan was only 70 when he took office in 1981.
Now, if there’s an argument in Sanders’ favor, it’s that unlike Dean he is the real deal. Progressives aren’t projecting their belief system onto him. If they have blinders, the blinders are about the likely appetite of the county at large for electing a 75 year old Brooklyn Jew from Vermont who calls himself a socialist and has made enemies of both the business community and the powers that be within the Democratic party. If the country is seriously in the mood to give someone like Sanders a term in the White House, then things have shifted under our feet so quickly that there’s hardly a political analyst in the country who knows what is going on.
And, I’ll admit, I’m willing to consider the possibility, however remote I might think it is, that the country really is somewhere completely different from where it has been and where the so-called experts think it is possible to be. If nothing else, I don’t think Hillary Clinton is exactly aligned with the zeitgeist of either the party or the nation. She’s most definitely a figure of the past, and highly symbolic of what is clearly a bygone era. I can’t decide if she’s benefiting from being in the right position at the right time or if she’s, fatally, the wrong person at the wrong time, but she is not the right person for this time.
The thing is, her position is so rock-solid within the Democratic Party that if she doesn’t get the nomination it’s going to cause a complete meltdown. The party might recover in time for the general election if she’s beaten by a mainstream alternative like Martin O’Malley, but if she loses to Bernie Sanders the whole worldview of the media and political and business and military establishments will fry like a blown transformer.
I’d be willing to argue that this is precisely the kind of thing that this country needs with a major caveat. Sanders would have to somehow win and become the president. If he lost, it would be a total fucking epic disaster that would throw the left into retreat and put the reactionary right in power at a time when that is the last thing we can afford.
Some people like playing with matches in an armory. I don’t.
When it comes to the modern conservative movement, I am not inclined to mess around. These folks are capable of great evil, and giving them greater control of the Supreme Court, not to mention the Pentagon, is the rough equivalent of pouring gasoline on the world and lighting it on fire.
So, this is basically where I am. I’ve often said that if I served in Congress, my voting record would most closely resemble Bernie Sanders’ voting record. I’d love it if he could somehow be elected the president of the United States. But everything I know about the country and its shortcomings and the powers that really control things around here tells me that Bernie Sanders cannot be elected president.
And, yet, I wouldn’t have predicted such quick shifts on things like gay marriage, marijuana, or even the Confederate flag.
So, I am not going to tell people that they shouldn’t try to get Bernie elected.
Just be aware that you have to be careful what you wish for. Close but no cigar is not an option here.
Most assuredly. And that includes the Democratic Party political establishment as well. You make the comparison to Howard Dean but I think another equally valid comparison could be made to 1972 and George McGovern, who was able to get himself nominated but found it impossible to get elected in large part because he was sandbagged by the DP political establishment. Then as now, the people in control of the state DP organizations, despite claims made to the contrary, are not “progressive”, not activists, not interested in social change. That’s for the more naive and innocent elements in the rank-and-file. They are mid-level political barons and power-brokers and their first priority is to protect their status as such, not to put into power a bunch of — in 1972, hippies; in 2015, socialists; in general, outsiders — who are going to come in and take their party away and undercut their power.
The people who matter in the DP may or may not be able to prevent Sanders from being nominated — that remains to be seen, and he may never pose a threat of being nominated in any case. But they can make sure he never gets elected.
McGovern was my first thought as comparison, a true lib, not a perceived one. Of course, he got the nom because the solid frontrunner — the establishment favorite Muskie — was dirty tricked by the Nixon forces leading to the perceived NH meltdown in the snow. And he lost the election because a) Nixon had arranged it so no one except possibly Muskie would have beat him that year, b) the Dem moderate-conservative wing abandoned McG, and c) George ran a terrible campaign early on, especially in re Eagleton.
It’s possible that today’s evil forces — the Hillary-hating MSM — could also undermine her candidacy by constant pseudo-scandal mongering, giving an opening to Bernie. Might depend on how well she and her campaign team respond. I’d recommend they not sit back and take it, but instead call out the media loudly and often for their blatant bias if the coverage continues along negative lines. Low risk — after all, the MSM rank down there with used car salesmen, pedophiles and the GOP congress.
Right now I take the Berniementum phenomenon seriously, precisely because I lived through the McGovern example. And my sense is the country is not quite ready — hasn’t nearly been prepared long enough through public education campaigns — for someone calling himself a socialist to take the presidency. That more than his being Jewish would seem to spell doom for the Dems in a fall election against the Jebster.
The people who matter in the DP may or may not be able to prevent Sanders from being nominated — that remains to be seen, and he may never pose a threat of being nominated in any case. But they can make sure he never gets elected.
What people are those? Do they even have the power anymore? At the state level they certainly do not. The only reason they do is the money they get from corporate interests. Karen Lewis, if her health had held up, would have kicked Rahm Emanuel’s ass. Teachout would have kicked Cuomo’s ass if she had any money behind her. The point being that the support for “the people that matter in the DP” is a mile wide and an inch deep. Did Dean ever draw the crowds Sanders is?
resident in the 80’s, I find the comparisons to Dean (who I knew when he was a state rep) and Bernie remarkable.
In truth I think there is a continuum from Dean to Obama to Sanders. The Obama victory in ’08 was a victory against the establishment, and against the DLC formulation of politics. I would argue this actually started with Gore’s acceptance speech in 2000, which was more populist than the DLC types wanted, but that is a complicated argument.
This revolt is fueled by three things:
What interests me as a veteran of the Sanderista wars in Burlington is how much broad agreement there is among left of center types about all three issues. The truth is liberals and the “left” in general hated each other. Bernie was successful in part because he found ways to keep people who hated each other in the same room, but it was never easy.
That task is easier now. At some point Bernie statements from the 70’s and 80’s are going to start to get press, and honestly when they do they will make him I think they will make him largely unelectable in a general election. But I don’t think they are going to matter much in a primary fight.
But the story here is about the unity that does exist within the Democratic Party, a unity that some in the establishment do not recognize.
The three causes of anger you name are shared by many who do not identify as “left”.
Would they vote for Sanders? I suspect many of them would.
The biggest fault of political commentators is that they categorize candidates based on all kinds of data from the past without giving due consideration to the uniqueness of each candidate and, especially, the uniqueness of the times.
I’m often amazed at how unideological and uncategorical many voters appear to be. They go by their personal experiences and their feel for people.
Of course there is always the propaganda, that’s a very real issue. But there are times when even strong propaganda doesn’t work. For example, I was just reading today that the entire Greek MSM, owned by the oligarchs, was pushing for the “Yes” vote. “No” won by 61+ to 39.
They can’t do the socialist dog whistles against him, he already calls himself a socialist. His ideas address the real problems of the day, and the arguments against them are weak and specious. I see Sanders as in the Roosevelt mode, and that’s exactly what we need in the near-depression we are in. Roosevelt was elected four times. And it could well be argued that, considering what ensued, Roosevelt’s dying before the end of his last term was one of the greatest political disasters of the twentieth century.
I always thought Hillary was more liberal than Bill. By a lot. But she inherited his team as Senator.
It’s easy to dismiss her leftward move as cynical – she’s trying to hold off Warren/Sanders – but I see it more as her coming back to where she started than morphing into the candidate du jour.
Why? Her upper-middle-class white feminism?
Bill has strayed further from his AR Democratic roots than Hillary has from her IL Republican roots. Economically and socially both are close to what an IL Republican was like in 1966: Everett Dirksen and Charles Percy.
maybe she was, in ’92, not any more. (she grew up middle class)
Non-scholarship, middle-class young women didn’t go to Wellesley.
what is your reasoning? the cost of Wellesley was too much for a middle class family to afford? her family didn’t fall into the need category?
She went to public school, they moved to Park Ridge [near O’Hare airport] not Highland Park or Winnetka or Evanston. they were/ are Methodists. How do you define upper middle class?
To add to that, I don’t know how Park Ridge compares to the other suburbs you mentioned, but it was literally on the edge of the prairie at the time she was growing up there, and O’Hare wasn’t even built yet then, so they were on the outskirts. But yeah, conservative middle class values with an emphasis on higher education (if somewhat suppressed for women). Comfortable but not wealthy.
From Bernstein’s A Woman in Charge
US Census historical home values
The median home price in IL 1950 was $8,646 (in 1950 dollars). Highest median price location was DC $15,000.
that doesn’t answer my points [about class markers]. btw hugh rodham sounds like an impressive guy. what was her college tuition plus room and board at the time? $2,800 in 1965.
How does one define middle class v. upper middle class?
v. working class or lower-upper class for that matter?
The lines of separation are very fuzzy. Wealth, income, job security, education, profession, lifestyle? Not all that much agreement on where the lines are set other than income in the 0.1% for the upper-upper and 1.0% for the upper. Even that grouping is further divided between inherited wealth/income and those that earned/accumulated their wealth/income.
If “The Father Knows Best” SES is considered “middle class,” then the Rodhams were middle class.
they are well defined by sociologists, though differences exist in definitions. I just tossed out a few of the markers. when I get a sec I’ll look for the definitions. of course case by case, region by region there are differences. Private vs public school, for example, there are a few places where the public schools are so good few bother with the expense of private schools – that being our highly discussed on this blog Princeton public school system and Evanston and Winnetka in IL. I assume there are more that I don’t know about. In theory Hugh Rodham should have moved to Evanston or Winnetka for the schools.
Chuck Percy, definitely. Everett Dirksen felt noblesse oblige for little guys. His support of enlisted soldiers against the Army brass was legendary.
Not so purely “enlisted” back then. How was his support for soldiers over the Army brass manifested? What was it like in 1966-68 when Westmoreland was sending kids off to die in paddy fields?
No, he intervened on individual soldier’s problems. The unusual part was that he would do it for soldiers without political connections. They ALL do it for people with connections, cf Bush joining the National Guard and Cheney’s multiple deferments. Intervention was also supposedly used for JFK which resulted in a medal instead of a court martial for disobeying standing orders (to never shut engines off on patrol).
The Clintons have always played their cards close to their chests, but in public actions I can think of two things that mark Hillary as substantially more liberal than Bill.
First, in the early years of the Clinton Presidency, what signature initiatives did they go to the mat for? Bill went for NAFTA. Hillary went for healthcare reform – one substantially more liberal than Obamacare. Which of these is more liberal?
Second, Hillary was the first major figure to ID the “vast right-wing conspiracy”. She was ahead of almost EVERYBODY on that one. She was mocked mercilessly for that – and was absolutely correct.
But, also, by rumor, she’s always been supposedly one of the liberal wing of the Clinton team. Even before Bill was elected that was the rumor and just a few months ago I was reading secondhand accounts saying she was calling for a more explicitly liberal campaign in 1992. After 25 years of smoke, you’ve got to expect some fire.
Pardon, but Bill Clinton ran on both approving NAFTA and reforming health care in 1992 and later added “the economy.” Assigning the health care reform to Hillary was unexpected and highly controversial since she had no expertise on the issue. Gore was shocked and had thought that it might be his assignment. The process was secretive and the final proposal was unworkable and not particularly liberal.
What did she do during her remaining six years as First Lady? First Lady signature issues are generally unremarkable, little is accomplished, and even less remembered. Those that do better than that focus on issues of importance to them and that predated their position as First Lady — ie Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson.
Who brought Dick Morris to Bill Clinton’s attention — first in AR and later his POTUS administration?
Hillary also pushed Bill to back DOMA.
Ah, the “vast right wing conspiracy.” She made that claim in January 1998 when she would have known that Starr had already been sniffing around Lewinsky. Not years earlier in response to “Troopergate,” “Travelgate,” “Whitewater,” etc. (It has previously been used to describe the those promulgating OKC bombing CTs.) Were there powerful and wealthy people that wanted to take down the Clintons? Sure. But no more so than and no more coordinated than what Carter had encountered. A difference is that Carter kept his pants zipped and he and Rozlyn hadn’t engaged in any suspicious or questionable personal financial deals. (All administrations seem to have a certain number of sleazy characters that move with them to DC. The number that came to town with Nixon and Reagan were exceptionally high. And exceptionally low for Obama/Biden (which I do think the public appreciates about them).)
Democrats have latched onto Bernie Sanders because they don’t want Hillary.
I am a lifelong Democrat and I don’t particularly want Hillary as President. She does represent the past, and she has too many cronies of her husband and of her own. It will be Business as Usual under her and I don’t see progress happening during her term.
That being said, I agree that I don’t want to risk losing to any of the Republican caricatures who are running, either. And if Sanders can win the nomination but not national support, then I would have to back Hillary.
There are numbnuts galore running for the Republican nomination. Why can’t we find some decent prospects for the Democrats?
We have them, but we are locked into the view that only Hillary can win.
I sincerely wish that she would die of a fatal heart attack. In her sleep, I don’t wish her any pain. But she needs to be GONE! And the Rahm Emanuel types she rode in on!
Seriously?
C’mon, man.
You know that’s just a horrible thing to say.
Yes, I do and I am sorry, however, did you never wish someone was gone? Someone you didn’t hate?
my god man, WTH?
What does PUMA spelled backwards spell?
Because you’re looking at one of them.
It’s an honest feeling. I’m not trolling. So give me a “2” if you want.
I didn’t give you anything, I normally don’t rate comments
Voice, you’re losing it
Again.
Sorry, Errol.
If this were true, show me the polls.
Democrats you know don’t want Hillary. That’s different.
(Donor to Sanders’ first two House campaigns, BTW…)
Citizens United, folks.
Citizens United.
…………………….
`Super PACs’ Take On New Role, Organizing Voters
by TRIP GABRIEL
JULY 7, 2015
IOWA CITY — College students supporting Rand Paul for president were out in force going door to door in this university town recently, using their iPad Minis to help identify Republicans committed to voting for the Kentucky senator in next year’s Iowa caucuses.
And when Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana visited the state the same week in June for town-hall-style meetings in Waukee, Council Bluffs and Sioux City, his supporters collected voters’ names and emails with an eye toward caucus day.
But the Paul and Jindal campaigns were not behind these time-honored grass-roots organizing efforts. Instead, in a twist that shows how even retail politics is being transformed by a flood of loosely regulated big money, the two candidates’ courtship of voters is being carried out by “super PACs,” which are using their abundant war chests to move into the nuts and bolts of campaign operations.
In previous election cycles, super PACs — which can raise unlimited donations from corporations and individuals alike — largely channeled money from wealthy donors into political advertising. But now they are branching out into what had seemed a fundamental function of a campaign committee: organizing voters one at a time.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/us/politics/super-pacs-take-on-new-role-organizing-voters.html?
_r=0
Eye. Ball.
Quit compaining about Citizens United. The only reason it is a problem is because political advertising works. That fact, in turn, signposts the real problem. Political advertising (for that matter, any advertising) ought to be completely ineffective. The fact that it works implies that good outcomes are strongly excluded.
Party establishments have become irrelevant with direct funding from wealthy patrons going directly to candidates. That shows up in party discipline, unity election strategies, and legislative rancor.
It was the trend ever since big media and negative campaign advertising started winning elections. The party could not raise that kind of cash for a coalition campaign any more because of all of the single-issue sources of funding.
What the media are upset about is that the establishment of the parties is no longer their focus. Ironically they have become incredibly wealthy as a result of the same media forces that have fragmented the parties, enlarged the field of candidates, sent a large amount of the money into anonymous channels. But they can depend on some of the big money boys to be grandstanders enough to cover: Edelmann, Koch brothers, Trump, and some nitwit real estate company executives in Texas and other states. Stick a camera in from of them and they roll.
It makes you wonder whether this was intended by the Masters of the Universe or not.
I’m going to say ‘not intended’, because the establishment has had too many own-goals from 2005 to present (immigration reform, anything involving the Tea Party after 2010 and even then, Bowles-Simpson, the embarrassing spectacles of the 2012 and 2016 GOP campaigns, etc.) to justify the modest increase in power the wealthy assholes got after Citizens United.
Still, it does provide neat evidence for the hypothesis that out of all of the stupid and powerful asshole groups (European and Asian fascists, Leninists, chattel slaveowners, Subsaharan African warlords, etc.) only modern American plutocrats are stupid enough to initiate a new round of Red Army purges right when the Nazis are sieging the Soviet industrial centers.
I was not a fan of Hillary in 2008 and, in fact, grew to like her less and less as the primaries went along.
I have always liked Bernie to a degree, although he can be very over the top at times and seems to be a one trick pony.
I would, however, vote for either in the general.
All that being said, the Hillary I am seeing now is not the Hillary I saw in 2008. I respect her more and see where heer views and priorities do seem different this time around, as well as who she has surrounded herself with. Few of the 2008ers are around this time.
I think her time serving as SoS for Obama had an impact on her and for the positive.
I’d also like to think her time as SoS gave her new wisdom as regards our usually flawed approach to FP and dealing with the other major powers in the world. But I’m still waiting to see that reflected in her FP statements on the stump. So far, she like all the others is sticking to the Obama admin’s policy of toughness, sanctions, American Exceptionalism and Pax Americana.
That kind of rigid, unthinking hawkishness is going to eventually get us into a shooting war with Russia, probably with China teaming up with them against us.
Meanwhile, Putin has now gone from referring to the US as “our partner” to “our geopolitical opponent.” Apparently the former term had been used by Russian leaders as far back as the Gorbachev/Reagan era. Not a good sign …
If he can beat Hillary, who is in a far more dominant position in the primary than any Republican will be in the general, given the systemic advantage that Democrats now enjoy, he can beat the Republican.
I very much doubt he can beat her, despite my donation. But I’m also not sure if it’d be a terrible thing to give this country a choice between the unabashed left and the unabashed right. Sanders versus Cruz, and we’ll see exactly what kind of country we are. You’re afraid of that, which I understand.
No one is afraid of what “we’ll see”. We’ve already seen.
This is not any “kind of country”. It isn’t a country at all. It is a geographical territory in the midst of a cold civil war. Cold, because dishonest — the dishonest option will always be taken before the honest one.
actually what stengthens Bernie’s “electability” is the fact that the Rs don’t have a strong candidate to choose from.
The Occupy Movement was a real threat to both Corporatist Democrats and Republicans as it started to ooze out everywhere like an ocean of oil just below the surface. Once that fuse was lit both Republicans and Democrats used police violence to put it down. From the December 29, 2014 issue of New York Magazine:
“Suppose you want to raise the minimum wage to a fair level and know that change is not going to come from inside Washington. Not in this climate. So, as president, I’d invite millions of low-income workers to come to the capitol. Like a bonus march. I’d do the same thing about making college affordable. Put out the call, invite a million students. Make sure they’re all registered to vote. Then when these congressmen come by the White House and they’re beholden to the Koch brothers, the super-PACs, or the oil companies, I will say, `Do what you want, but first do one thing for me: Look out the window. “
“Look out the window,” Bernie repeats, liking the sound of it, the call to arms, just the sort of phrase that might get the attention of a downtrodden, detached electorate and prompt them to raise a fist in the air.
“Look out the window because all those people are out there. They’re demanding their fair share and they’re not leaving until they get it.”
Team Hillary and team Obama are why after the 2008 mandate for change that propelled the first black man to the Presidency we lost both houses of congress. This is bad because now the only reason to vote Democratic is because the Republicans are so crazy.
Bernie is what we wanted from Obama. What we got was a moderate Republican to the right of Eisenhower. Obama was a blank slate and we all read into it what we wanted to hear only to find the same old Republican and DLC team still in charge. That won’t work for Hillary because she has a record and an opponent who only talks about important issues she would just as soon ignore.
I was shocked as my conservative friends would come around to Bernie as soon they heard the message because Bernie goes on Fox News to deliver the same exact message. That message resonates to the point that some Republicans are starting to change their party affiliation just so they can vote for Bernie. Republicans can be in real trouble if Bernie does as well with rural American as he has done with rural Vermont. We’ll know this true when progressive candidates start entering down ticket races to be part of the coming wave. We might just break the hold of the stupid in places we never expected.
And some Republicans are changing their party registration so they can vote against Hillary, then change them back and go vote against the socialist. Remember that we are in an environment of extreme electoral hardball here.
As for breaking the hold of stupid in places we never expected, the decline of shock jock radio and resurgence of music radio might be a tell for if that’s happening. Some shock jock bankruptcies would be welcome news.
This being purely anecdotal, the Republicans and Independents I was referring to were truly disgusted with both Republicans and Corporatist Democrats. Even if what you say is true, if Bernie wins the nomination a win is still a win. With the Democratic base energized enough to beat Hillary for the nomination, Bernie becomes President.
It will take a while but a strong progressive movement in rural America will be a real problem for shock radio. What I’m talking about is more short term as in real progressive candidates deciding to primary Corporatist Democrats and challenge Republicans in time for the 2016 elections.
Bernie’s decision to run was based on how ready he thought the country was for a progressive movement in large numbers. He decided it was and judging from the size and enthusiasm of the crowds, he may be right.
A nice fairy tale. I’d like to believe it. But I know what will happen if he starts to look like he might win. The MSM will concoct some lie like the Dean Scream and blast it all over the “news”.
The people who say Hillary is the only Democrat who can be elected are correct. The first Jewish President will not be Bernie Sanders, but Rahm Emanuel or some sell out like him.
I’d sure like to put on an old Jimmy Stewart movie and believe in it. I really would.
I’ve been impressed by the difference between what ppl say about Bernie and how he sounds – hear him occasionally on VPR; he articulates the problems so clearly. kind of a “no drama Sanders” also, VT being a small state fundraising is more manageable than other states and as I understand it he’s helped out other congresscritters with their fund raising (heard this on VPR but it was interview with all three VT critters so perhaps Leahy)
Mild Manners Sanders, they call him.
I believe that that is the experiment being run in the Democratic Party primary. We have not had that kind of a test in a primary in some 48, or 60, or 84 (you choose) years. Fascists and neoconfederates have been thinkable primary candidate (actually in both parties) during that period; socialists and those even further to the left have not. And yet we persist in calling both parties big tent parties–because that is their structural architecture because coalitions are the only way to cram that many strong-willed people into a single party. And the winner-take-all dynamic of American elections pretty much ensures an aspirational governing party and a cantankerous opposition party.
The achilles heel in a Bernie victory under current circumstances is the absence of a governing coalition in Congress to give him legitimacy. To a lesser extent, that was Obama’s entering situation as well and allowed the Congressional Democrats to sit on their hands while the silly birther nonsense unrolled without a response from allies. It allowed a persistent rumor that the military was against him to drive policies in a more militaristic direction. Obama did not have sufficient allies in Congress. If Bernie comes in without major coattails and without the whiff of a realigning wave election, the Congressional opposition from both parties will be pretty immediate. More immediate than what faced Clinton. And the media will be trying to suffocate a Bernie presidency in the the crib and bring him to heel.
I don’t think that the congenital prognosticators are going to have any real data on this race until April or May or 2016. There are an incredibly large number of events external to the election itself that are still in spin. And likely more to come. Candidates who can respond to those changes so as to reassure the public and still motivate voting will likely benefit. That is a reason that sorting out the bedwetters needs to be a major part of the opposition campaign against the Republican Party.
It’s been two generations since McGovern’s historic defeat. It’s easy to dismiss his candidacy as just him spectacularly imploding under the weight of Nixon, but a demographic analysis of 1968, 1976, and 1980 shows that he didn’t do much worse in context than his contemporaries.
At any rate, you know what gives Bernie Sanders an edge that McGovern didn’t have? This:
1970 U.S. Urbanization: 73.6%
2010 U.S. Urbanization: 80.7%
1970 Non-Hispanic White: 83.5%
2010 Non-Hispanic White: 63.7%
1970 25+ year olds with a bachelor’s degree: ~11%
2010 25+ year olds with a bachelor’s degree: ~20%
1970 Gini Coefficient: 0.394 (close to the lowest in history)
2011 Gini Coefficient: 0.477 (close to Herbert Hoover level)
It’s time for the centrists in the Democratic Party to stop quaking in fear; the tides have shifted in favor of the leftists and will continue to shift for at least a generation. Even if Bernie doesn’t manage to beat Hillary Clinton, she should certainly pick up his torch.
(BA/BS only, Romney did even better. Obama did better among those with advanced degrees.)
1968 and 1972 were the fruition of the “Southern Strategy.” When white folks had enough coin in their pockets that they could afford to reject New Deal economics (that had put the coin in their pockets) in favor of their racism and sexism. If the Gini Co were evenly distributed across all demographics, the GOP and neoliberal DEMs would never have had a chance. But its not.
Regarding college graduates: Republicans have since the start of the 20th century completely spanked the Democratic Party among college graduate/some college voters. 1980 Reagan had a whopping 15%/20% edge over Carter. 2012 Romney only had a 4% edge and this is only with strict college graduates. As you noted, postgraduates and voters with some college voted for Obama.
What’s driving this trend? Simple. College degrees are less and less a thing of the upper-middle class (who were already in the tank for Republicans) as more people earn them. And as more and more people attain or at least start on their college degree Democrats will do better and better. Quite a turnaround, don’t you think?
Fewer and fewer college graduates get that ticket to move into the upper-middle class. What appears not to be driving the trend of liberalism in relation to years of education is the actual content of the education. Colleges through the 1970s were more liberal than they are today. What’s different today is: 1) the GOP denigrates those with education and promotes fundie religions 2) high levels of student debt.
seems an [accessible] upper middle class has disappeared with the chasm between rich and poor.
I don’t know about that. What I do know is that university students that don’t go on to become staff, for whatever reason, are still becoming more liberal. Some hypothesize that it’s not university at all but just a side-effect of youth independently becoming more liberal and attending college in general. Whichever it is, it’s a good thing because liberality still gets reinforced among this cohort.
Much more cynically, the lack of bourgeois acculturation by college no longer being a ticket to the upper-middle class is another ‘good’ thing as far as Democratic Party votes are concerned. It’s all of the good sides of university attainment (social liberalism) with none of the downsides (economic conservatism).
It imploded under the inaction of the then establishment Democrats, like Southern Dixiecrats still remaining in the party after Thurmond’s exodus, local labor union officials eaten up with hyperpatriotism over the Vietnam war, city machine politicians who were losing their ethnic voter base to suburbs.
The current Democratic establishment is just as content with its privileges and fearful of change.
Don’t let the hope that the tides have shift create the magical thinking that they indeed have. That test is yet to come. Which is why this can be a grassroots campaign — if people want change for real.
I’m just saying that the demographic shift gives leftist Democrats a chance, a chance that they never had back in the 70s and 80s.
I’m openly contemptuous of older leftists’ focuses on gaffes and campaign missteps for what-if scenarios, because they just plain did not have the numbers even in best-case scenarios. As much as we agonize over McGovern’s missteps, the fact remains that 1972 was unwinnable with the Democratic platform even if Nixon wasn’t a ratfucker and we had JFK running. 1968 was only winnable because Wallace functioned as a spoiler and because Texas was still (barely) in the Democrat’s corner — but Nixon + Wallace’s vote total was over 56%. Even if Carter presided over an economic boom and those hostages were never taken, he simply could not have won without the South. His defeat would’ve ‘just’ been Dukakis-level.
And the reason why I’m so contemptuous of that kind of electoral analysis is because it allows the dumbass centrists a permanent talking point to gainsay any leftism. If you truly believe that what caused Mondale to lose in 1988 was because he got into a tank and pardoned Willie Horton — rather than the more quantifiable and falsifiable notion that what caused Mondale to lose was the Californian tax revolt, the near-height of the crime waves in Northeastern urban centers, and the permanent realignment of the South — then there’s no scenario you can present to the VSP wing that won’t get henpecked to death with horse-race jetsam.
If the “numbers weren’t there even in the best-case scenarios,” how do we explain that from May through August 1988 Dukakis comfortably led GHWB? The numbers absolutely were there that year, but not for a lame-ass Democratic candidate
If the “numbers weren’t there even in best-case scenarios,” does seem strange that the GOP didn’t have a permanent lock on controlling Congress during those decades.
I don’t know, why did the polls show Dewey defeating Truman? If you’re going to claim that the methodology was flawed, then why did the polls show GWB clobbering Gore for the latter half of 2000? Why did 1996 show Dole as being a lot more competitive than he really was? Why were the polls showing Obama with an 8% lead over Romney for most the 2012 when it was really 4%?
Dukakis’s performance fits quite cleanly within the overall trend of demographic performance since 1980 (the year when the post-Nixon realignment started to hit in full force) so I find it easier to claim that those polls were outliers or mistaken for whatever reason and that in reality most candidates in absence of scandal or a FP/economic disaster perform within 1-2% of the demographic mean.
Only in the sense that the South’s alignment was unusually slow. Democrats holding Congressional parity from 1968-1994 was due to Southern Dems. Our leadership did a heroic job of herding those cats and this was definitely a case where Southern stubbornness worked out for the best, but make no mistake that since any majority depended on keeping them in line, liberals had little-to-no chance of directly implementing our agenda, especially after 1980.
Do you ever bother to check facts before making assertions?
1948 is easy. The polling was bad and the reporting by Republican controlled major newspapers made it worse. AA were underpolled with the assumption that their votes and participation rates outside the south wouldn’t differ from that in prior elections. Unions were also motivated to get out the vote because of Taft-Hartley — so, it wasn’t just that Truman won, but Democrats took back the House and Senate as well.
In which of these polls was Dole competitive? The man never even broke through to 40%.
The polls from 1999-August 2001 always had GWB in the lead. Gore pulled ahead after his acceptance speech and then it was nip and tuck all the way through election day.
A tip on reading polls — watch the trend lines, including the 50% magic marker, and incorporate events and/or media manipulation that unfold in-between polling dates. Obama was never 8 points ahead of Romney among likely voters. Disenchantment/disaffection was always going to reduce Obama’s winning margin from that of 2008. Voters didn’t “come home to the GOP,” they stayed home.
First of all, I don’t care much for your tone. You have a bad habit of whining about me having unsourced assertions, which is unwarranted because I (like in our last conservation about corporate America stabbing Obama in the back in 2012 via contribution) will come back with a source if you ask.
Seriously, you think that I’m wrong? Ask for a freaking source, first.
Now then:
1.) I KNOW about the infamously bad methodology about the polling for the 1948 election. I even said as much. The reason why I used that example was to introduce the possibility of polling not reflecting reality. To be sure, it’s a leading statement because polls have improved in methodology over time (my liberal anchor, Steve Kangas, even has a page dedicated to such of a history) but I still maintain a post-hoc postmortem on exit polling is more useful than one that maps events to the campaign session because it unfalsifiably overstates the impact of minor black swans — unfortunately, an interim poll-based analysis of the campaign has to rely on such an analysis. Which leads into my next talking point:
2.)
I’m assuming that you mean August 2000. Exactly. So in that case, what caused the convergence? Did Gore’s campaign suddenly start kicking major ass out of nowhere? Did GWB have some major gaffe? If Gore’s acceptance speech is what caused a positive reversal in fortune for him, did other candidates experience this? And if so, what was the strength of this factor? If not, why not?
Here’s my hypothesis: I’m maintaining that since neither candidate had a scandal more severe than ‘those Bush twins are out of control!’ or ‘Gore and the Internet lol’, Gore’s come-from-behind technical victory was a reversion to the demographic mean rather than anything attributable to what he or Bush did.
3.) As for 2012 Obama/Romney, the two most accurate pollsters of that election, PPP and Pew (neither of them analyzed by Nate Silver, nuts for him) and before the election started to tighten in summer 2012 they predicted Obama with a +6-+8 range.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
#polls
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/266615-study-finds-ppp-kos-the-most-accurate-pollsters-in-
2012
4.) Finally, about Clinton-Dole: I admit to being mistaken on this one. For what it’s worth, here’s the source of my confusion: http://library.law.columbia.edu/urlmirror/CLR/100CLR524/ptpreselec.html
I scrolled to the bottom of the page and mixed up those numbers was a theoretical Clinton-Dole matchup without Perot running. I apologize about getting this one really wrong.
As far as Bush clobbering Gore for most of the final months of the 2000 election, here’s my source:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2genT.htm
One thing to note, however: the polls consistently overestimated Nader’s support by 1-3%, a huge number in such a close election. So maybe ‘clobbering’ wasn’t the right word, but Bush did have a considerable polling advantage for the final months of the 2000 election even with the Nader factor.
This — I don’t know, why did the polls show Dewey defeating Truman? If you’re going to claim that the methodology was flawed, didn’t read as it were an introduction to the possibility of polling not reflecting reality. Sure sounded like “don’t bother me with any claim of flawed polling.”
The methodology and purpose of pre-election polling and exit polling are very different. An interesting topic but not one that seems particularly useful to this discussion. (And I still don’t accept that the FL 2000 exit polls were wrong.)
Yes, I did mean 2000.
Your hypothesis fails to account for why GWB led Gore for over a year. Political junkies tend to underestimate the name recognition factor in early Presidential polling. VPs have lower name recognition than former Presidents. Many people thought that it was GHWB running in 2000 and have a more favorable impression of him than they’d had in 1992. The Bush campaign was also very good at painting Gore as unserious and morally like Clinton. This was facilitated during the summer when Gore’s campaign had to go dark due to primary campaign matching fund rules.
The two conventions and acceptance speeches was the first time that the vast majority had seen the two candidates and could make a comparison. “The Kiss” and a very fine speech by Gore account for his polling bounce. Had he followed that up with steady debate performances, he likely would have held onto that lead. Less important, but also relevant was that Cheney handily dealt with Lieberman in their debate.
All of us on occasion get a bit carried away with trying to make our point and misremember facts or misread quickly accessed information sources. Interpreting past election results is a whole lot of art and not so much science. I’m a somewhat decent reader of pre-election polling (lots of stat courses), but fell down in 2014. And I’m still not exactly sure why. The only hypothesis for the Senate races that doesn’t breakdown is the old, “if given a choice between a real Republican and fake Republican, voters will choose the real deal.” Modified in 2014 with “even if the real deal is a rightwing loon” which wasn’t true in the 2012 IN Senate race.
The only hypothesis for the Senate races that doesn’t breakdown is the old, “if given a choice between a real Republican and fake Republican, voters will choose the real deal.” Modified in 2014 with “even if the real deal is a rightwing loon” which wasn’t true in the 2012 IN Senate race.
Still don’t buy this either, at least in 2014. Those results still make no sense. Especially Colorado.
as far as McGovern goes it seems to me difference between now and then 3 factors make Bernie campaign very different though what this means for his potential for winning presidency I don’t know:1 intertubes today for communication, bypassing the tradmed (which was also very different back in the day) 2 vietnam war vs engagement in ME as the war background of the candidacy 3 general economic prosperity of McGovern period vs todays economic prosperity only for the select few with ppl really relating to this issue rather than the war / peace though that is always in the background
Incumbent. Setting aside everything else, an incumbent has an advantage over a challenger. Less so if the political party of the incumbent is fractured.
what about incumbent? neither McGovern nor Bernie are incumbents.
In the end for Booman it comes down to fear. But all that does is slow down the collapse.
And the collapse just brings the final triumph of the Revolution closer.
I seem to have fallen among Leninists…
Interesting theory, that the centrists are actually secretly Leninists working to bring about the revolution. After all, why else would they have engineered the financial collapse of 2007? Or permanently weaked the United States’ prestige and diplomatic bonds with an ill-advised war in Iraq? Heck, that’s even a nice explanation for the post-9/11 militarization of the police; by encouraging the police to become more brutal and authoritarian, it increases proletariat hostility towards the status quo of law and order.
Don’t you just love a revolution that you can just sit on your ass and watch your political opponents do the work for you?
Too bad their plan to collude with the Republican Party to initiate massively destabilizing spending cuts in a recession — and thus accelerate the collapse of the economic and welfare state — got derailed by the Tea Party. The Tea Party were patriots and prophets and we laughed at them. 🙁
I’m truly impressed, with both of you
Yeah. All these self-proclaimed “realists” in the Democratic Party somehow never see the reality of what their timidity is doing to the country.
(Well, in some cases it’s not so much timidity as it is self-interest backed by rationalization.)
Dean wasn’t a blank slate. Informed progressives recognized that Dean had a few qualities that had been missing in Democratic Presidential candidates. A regular guy persona that didn’t come off as soft or wimpy and a personal life without skeletons. While inclined to be conservative, smart enough to be persuaded by information and facts that contradicted his conservative impulses. He had departed from the DLC after evidence emerged that NAFTA had been wrong, and mindful of that error, didn’t ignore the facts before making a conclusion about the IWR.
Economically he was as much of a naif as Obama (Social Security is going broke). wrt to his “balanced budget” fetish — wasn’t Bill Clinton praised and continues to be admired for the same thing? wrt guns, for all the Democratic political capital that’s been put into that issue, has anything been gained? What proposed gun control legislation would have thwarted the Sandy Hook school and Charleston church massacres? Would reduced levels of US state sanctioned and promulgated violence trickle down?
Dean caught a ripple. Unknown how he would have matured if the ripple had turned into a wave.
Yes, ideology is not the sole criteria of a successful president who moves the ideological marker.
The important thing about Dean is that lefties had a good idea what they would have had to work with. What and how to push on and what to give him a pass on. Not FDR material. At best, more like Truman/JFK.
Doubt a newly elected Dean POTUS could have gotten away with telling the troops, “I’ve got it; now go home and STFU.”
What I like best was, “If the facts don’t fit your theory, you change the theory, not the facts.”
True Believers, whether Left or Right, want to change the facts (or deny them).
active in Vermont and knew Dean, 2003 was a shock and in many ways made no sense.
Dean as governor did one thing: pursue health care reform and fail at it. The two other accomplishments, civil unions and school financing reform, were forced on him by the Court. He only became Governor because Snelling died in office and he was Lt. Governor.
He caught in part because he reflected my native state’s long standing (and bipartisan) suspicion of military adventure. He stood up and opposed the war loudly.
Oh how strange it is to see them connected.
That mattered and he mattered. He wasn’t ready for a national campaign – Vermont politics is probably as bad a training ground for that as any in the country. Vermont doesn’t have real Republicans – hasn’t for years. He shot from the hip.
Bernie is a better politician that Howard – far more disciplined – he has had to be.
The fact that Bernie is an older white guy indeed how he looks may mitigate the shock of who he is; imo a woman president following Obama is actually too much of a shock for many and another of Hillary’s electability hidden weaknesses
A reasonable analysis. We can’t afford a republican presidency, that’s clear. But you forgot one question: can we, as a nation, afford a Hillary presidency? Because if, in the long view, we really can’t, then the risk assessment is changed.
If you’re not already looking ahead to the effects of a third Clinton term and the likelihood of another credit collapse between now and 2020, you’re playing checkers while the world is playing chess. 2016 isn’t as automatic with Sanders as the nominee, but it’s still very much the Dems’ to lose.
2020 is lost already if we nominate and elect a candidate too incompetent or beholden to Wall Street to respond swiftly and strongly when the next crash arrives, and likely so will be the huge demographic advantages Democrats currently enjoy. Paving the way for President Cruz is not the business Democrats should want any part of. “Be careful what you ask for.” Indeed.
If you care about issues other than economic ones, nominating Sanders is suicidal. If you care about economic issues nominating anyone but Sanders is suicidal.
As someone who is only along for social issues, fuck Sanders. And anybody supporting him is doing their damn best to make sure we have a president Cruz or Santorum. And should savaged for helping turn LGBT, women, and minorities over to the GOP.
Social issues first, always first. Even if that means losing on economic issues.
The problem is that fucking up on economic issues sets the stage for conservative counter-attacks, especially given the lopsidedness of Congressional voting. You may prioritize social issues, but how are you going to protect your gains when we have a centrist-induced recession via financial deregulation/spending cuts that allows the Republican Party to get an ‘in’ during an off-year election and ride that gridlock pony to economic calamity?
I mean, right now it’s not even obvious that there isn’t going to be a recession before November 2016. And if we do have one, it’s going to be because of the Democratic Party’s economic centrist foolishness in not pursuing a sufficiently large stimulus package and going along with that imbecilic debt ceiling debacle.
I think that the Democratic Party made the right long-term call in prioritizing the Rainbow Coalition over the New Deal Coalition, as we can see from Japan/Australia/Western Europe, but make no mistake that the #1 thing right now threatening the rights of women, children, and racial and sexual minorities is the specter of an ill-timed recession.
Nate Silver has considered the question…:Bernie Sanders Could Win Iowa And New Hampshire… Then Lose Everywhere Else.”
And Nate Cohn:“Why Bernie Sanders’s Momentum Is Not Built to Last”.
Believe them if you want to. Their kind of analysis gets one only so far.
Right up to the South Carolina primary, usually.
Also, Silver’s analysis suffers from a fatal flaw. How many events has Sanders done? He’s barely even touched a place like South Carolina yet. Don’t you think Sanders knows what he must do to win the nomination and has a plan for it?
I’ll let Shakespeare answer that one:
GLENDOWER: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
HOTSPUR: Why, so can I, or so can any man; but will they come when you do call for them?
I don’t expect and I’m not even sure if I want Sanders to be the Presidential nominee. I just want him to put the fear of God into Hillary Clinton. To let her know that the only reason why she won was because the standard-bearer of unbowed McGovern-style liberalism was a 73-old non-Christian socialist who got a late start and that the mechanism that let him punch way above his weight class could be hers if she took the drastic but long-needed step of, instead of hippie-punching, VSP-punching.
Winning Iowa and New Hampshire and having to endure a few humiliating news cycles and debates should do the trick. If it doesn’t, well, we’re just fucking fucked, aren’t we?
Booman keeps getting more learned
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/the-balanced-budget-amendment-delusion/?_r=0