Kevin Drum doesn’t think diminishing Bernie Sanders as an ineffectual “community advocate” rates high on the “Atwater scale” of nasty politics. I suppose that’s true. If Stabenow accused Sanders of being responsible for rape, I think we’d all be a little more alarmed. I still don’t think it’s a smart strategy to ape Sarah Palin’s criticisms of Barack Obama to go after Bernie Sanders. Disagree if you want.
On another subject, there was a point during the 2008 primaries when Clinton was all but mathematically eliminated and really was only hanging onto the hope that the DNC would seat delegates from Florida and Michigan in a highly advantageous (and unlikely) way. Then, as now, Democrats were tearing each other apart and fighting like cats and dogs. I thought it was doing damage to the party’s prospects in the fall for a variety of reasons.
But I had to reassess that later on when I saw how much better Obama had become as a debater. I also reevaluated the worth of having the country focused on the Democrats and Democratic priorities for months on end. But, most of all, when I saw how Obama narrowly won Indiana and North Carolina, I realized that that may only have become possible because Clinton’s refusal to throw in the towel early forced him to aggressively organize for both of those state’s primaries. In other words, it’s quite likely that Obama actually got a bigger Electoral College victory because the primaries went on so long.
I have to remind myself of this history because it’s really unpleasant to see the infighting that’s going on. And I think we’re going to have another long campaign, mainly because the proportional allocation of delegates will prevent either candidate from sewing up the nomination anytime soon. Even if Clinton rips off a bunch of big victories in a row and seems like the inevitable nominee, it’s pretty unlikely that Sanders will concede because he’ll have all the money he needs to keep campaigning. And I don’t think he really set out to win this thing at the beginning, so he’s not quitting just because he realizes that he won’t be nominated. He’ll want to keep hammering home his points and gathering delegates for the convention.
A long campaign will be painful, but 2008 showed there can be important upsides. The more states the two campaigns organize, the more work they’ll have done in advance of the general election. The more the country is focused on the differences between Clinton and Sanders, the more they’ll be focused on their messaging and values and the less they’ll be focused on the messaging and values of the Republicans.
It’s true that some feelings will get hurt and some bitterness will result. It’s not cost-free to have an extended contested nomination, and the eventual nominee will get wounded. But, even here, some of Obama’s worst vulnerabilities were old news by November precisely because they’d been hashed out in the winter and spring.
As long as the process doesn’t leave the nominee underfunded, it’s probably not a problem to have a long primary season.
At least, that’s what I’ll keep telling myself.
I agree. Better to have people thinking about the issues and policies than the vapid, often downright nutty, back and forth among the Republican candidates. But even more important than that is your point that a more drawn out primary means the Democrats will work hard in many states, which hopefully will help in the end for get out the vote.
Also agree. For one thing Sanders isn’t hitting Clinton with personal insults, no matter how much the media wants to characterize it as such. And the longer he contends the more people will hear about the issues involved – in spite of the media. I don’t see Clinton coming out of this wounded – she’ll be stronger.
By contrast, of course, a long fought GOP primary means that the winner has had to pander to the worst of the GOP base to get the votes, and so for the GOP it definitely leads to a damaged candidate come time for the general election campaign.
She’s getting better already.
They were both a little ‘spent’ perhaps by the second hour of the debate on Thursday night, but the most interesting part was that I actually started to see Hillary as more authentic as the evening wore on. Still don’t like much what she has to say. Her scattershot, we’re going to do everything all at once, still strikes me as naive, and all the rest of the criticisms of her substantively remain true (so I’m still voting for Sanders in the primary). But…
A little worn out, a little quieter, but still focused and determined. This is a better Hillary Clinton for me and I give credit to Sanders and their debating together for bringing out the better in her.
Nixon “got better” between 1960 and 1968. Didn’t change who he was and what he did once in office.
To the extent that the experience gained during a campaign sharpens and refines a candidate’s presentation of his/her authenticity and what she/he stands for and will work on when in office, “getting better” is a good thing. But I don’t think that’s what is being critiqued here.
As long as the process doesn’t leave the nominee underfunded,…
That only happened when candidates accepted primary matching funds and had to abide by state and national total spending limits. Which also included shutting down actual campaigning once the nomination was secured and before it was formalized at the convention. Romney did run out of money before the general election cycle, but some loans that he could later repay bridged that gap for him.
Re-privatization of presidential elections has been swell for democracy.
A long campaign has upsides or downsides depending on how the candidates respond to the campaign’s length. The length presents more opportunity to use state Senate and House campaigns to facilitate the Presidential candidate’s primary campaigns in the later states and begin to create the basis for coattails in the earlier states. If the fact of Bernie’s support causes a Democratic challenger to win an otherwise hopeless race, it likely won’t matter what the ideological differences with Bernie are. They will go to the mat for Bernie’s legislation like Hillary for banks. Likewise for Hillary and any progressives who get improbably elected on her coattails. (But the establishment unlike previous generations of Democratic pols are trying to prevent that situation from happening even if it means losing the Congress.) There is a failure of the big tent party to be big tent for certain designated people — to the point of sacrificing the party and the country.
Yes, Bernie Sanders is not exactly a card-carrying Democrat, but a lot of card-carrying Democrats are staking their hopes on him. Insurgencies are tricky, and the status quo loves to use all of the establishment levers available to them for advantage even if it is destructive in the end. How many states have we seen this syndrome occur in?
Long campaigns provide more opportunity to shake out resources into broader local organizing so long as they are not wasted on media attack ads. Do the candidates have the discipline not to go cut-throat? Will a Clinton victory bring more House victories from independents to the center as advertised? Will a Sanders victory bring more House victories from independents to the left (often identified as third-party voters)? It’s how the campaigns handle the broader campaign territory strategy. Helping a Congressional candidate measureably can solidify campaign turnout. Good unity campaigns do work and even make waves.
Far too many variables to claim short or long primary campaigns are good for a party. Kerry wrapped it up early, there was no contest on the GOP side, and Kerry came close to winning the general. Little change in the House, the most common outcome in Presidential election cycles, but the Senate flipped to the GOP. The DEM 2008 House and Senate gains may have been baked into the cake earlier.
’92 went all the way through the beginning of June and DEMs lost nine House seats and there was no change in the number of DEM/GOP Senate seats (each party did flip two Senate seats).
’80 Carter and Kennedy battled all the way to the convention. Significant DEM losses in both the House and Senate.
I think those ’80 losses were because Reagan actively supported taking control of Congress. Reagan actually had an agenda. We don’t like that agenda but he wanted something more than “I want to be the big cheese.” So he was effective in a way that Trump or Cruz would never be. A President Cruz would not be able to have an agenda, other than the Koch Agenda, because too many (R) Senators hate his guts.
Reagan lost the Senate in ’86 and DEMs controlled the House throughout his and GHWB’s tenures. So, once the electorate had a chance to live parts of Reagan’s agenda, they didn’t like it. Which is why 1988 was the one POTUS election that got away. (Had Ted Kennedy not shot his wad in 1980 and cleaned up his personal act, he would likely have won easily in ’88.)
And he got things done, right? So why the argument that whoever is elected in Fall can’t get anything done because (R)’s control Congress?
“Getting things done” isn’t a measure I use. The ’47-’49 GOP Congress got a lot of things done contrary to Truman referring to them as the “do nothing Congress.” Lots of bad things. (Some that continue to hobble us today.) Bill Clinton and the GOP Congress also got a lot of things done. All I which should be undone — thrown in the trash heap along with where DADT and DOMA now reside.
Reagan and to a lesser extent GWB accomplished much of their agenda because they were better at first selling it to the general public. Kept it simple to understand and made it sound good or necessary. If Bill Clinton hadn’t appropriated GOP legislative talking points he wouldn’t have gotten anything done.
A couple of good articles:
Hillary Clinton: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. This one is short and hits on all the right points.
Longer and meatier (and less optimistic or more realistic about length of the daunting task that confronts us is Smash Clintonism: Why Democrats, Not Republicans, are the Problem
No, it’s argument often used here. That one shouldn’t vote for Bernie because he can’t get things done with a Republican Congress. By implication Hillary could (how? by doing (R) things?) or if neither can do anything why bother voting?
Working link: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/05/smash-clintonism-why-democrats-not-republicans-are-the-proble
m/
Wow. That article certainly exposed the foreign policy chops to critical review. That is one area where Biden might possible not be as bad. I don’t see Bernie as strong in that field as I would like, but maybe he keeps Kerry, who does seem to be able to take directions.
Ted Rall has always been a favorite but the Smash Clintonism article is the sharpest piece of political writing I have seen this cycle. It was like I was reading what I had been thinking.
The Smash Clintonism article asks the question, is it possible to free the country and the world from the thrall of neoliberal-neoconservative politics? What does that mean anyway, neoliberal-neoconservative politics?
Neoliberal: relating to a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism.
A quick look at Wikipedia we find; “Beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, its advocates supported extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy. Neoliberalism is famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.”
Neoconservative: relating to or denoting a return to a modified form of a traditional viewpoint, in particular a political ideology characterized by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy.
Again from Wikipedia we find; “Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among Democrats who became disenchanted with the party’s domestic and especially foreign policy. Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administrations of George W Bush and George H W Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion if Iraq. Prominent neoconservatives in the Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Robert Kagan and Paul Bremer. Senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld while not identifying themselves as neoconservatives, listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel, the promotion of democracy in the Middle East, and the buildup of American military forces to achieve these goals. The neocons have influence in the Obama White House and neoconservatism remains a staple in both parties’ arsenal.”
Taken together, for me, this means letting the corporatist have free reign to maximize profits regardless of the consequences to the rest of society then using military force to shove it down our throats worldwide. This goes a long way to understand the significance of Hillary voting with the neocons in favor of the Iraq war. It doesn’t take much to see this has always been the agenda of the DLC and the evolved Clinton Machine, why we call Hillary our very own Margaret Thatcher, why we characterize Hillary’s foreign policy as Republican.
Getting rid of neoliberal-neoconservative politics is the reason we desperately need Bernie’s political revolution. It’s not going to be easy and it probably will take several years but either we fix this or we join that long list of failed empires. Becoming the world economic oppressor using our military might was not the goal of our American Revolution some 240 years ago, we’re better than that.
The “Smash Clintonism …” piece is by Andrew Levine. As I said above, meaty and weighty. Ted Rall did the quick and to the point piece.
“The more the country is focused on the differences between Clinton and Sanders, the more they’ll be focused on their messaging and values and the less they’ll be focused on the messaging and values of the Republicans.”
This is exactly the reason I have attempted so many times to make myself a pain in the ass by trying to hijack the conversation back to the struggle within the Democratic Party away from post after post about how fucked up the Republicans have become.
I view this awesome blog as an exchange of ideas between opinion leaders whether they contribute with a comment or are just lurkers. Putting an idea out here is like throwing red meat to a pack of hungry dogs. This is exactly what we need to do to arm ourselves in our quest to influence others whatever direction that takes.
We need to tear apart weak arguments no matter which side they come from because it’s important. This primary is really a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party and that doesn’t happen very often.
For all the hand-wringing (and media trolling), this primary has nowhere near the rancor that 2008 did, which is good and bad. Good, because that shit is depressing. Bad, because I don’t think people suddenly became more courteous; I think they’re just less engaged.
Do we need to up the rancor factor in the Dem primary this year? I don’t know. But maybe that’s because I’m 58 and have thrived on rancor since I was a kid when my brothers were sent off to fight in Viet Nam and my parents fought at home about it all the time. Maybe rancor isn’t as pervasive now as it has been since then despite the harrowing times most younger voters today suffered in their formative years. Credit to Obama maybe for fostering a sense of hope and joy through the difficulties that seems to inject the Democratic campaign this time with wonder and optimism that a political revolution is possible. Not sure….
This fight seems a lot nicer than 2008, probably because there are concrete philosophical differences between HRC and Sanders.
It just started later; shorter always seems less horrible.
Billmon —
Just like Barney Frank and Howard Dean.
Some old but still wise words:
Excellent parenting advice:
Business Insider February 5, 2016 – Influential people are still pushing Joe Biden for president
No measurable corruption in Joe’s political career but on public policies he’s not distinguishable from Clinton. Looks as if some DEM insiders are getting worried about having put all their chips on Clinton.
WaPo — “Dems ready for long, pricey primary between Clinton, Sanders” — this was not part of the game plan.
Billmon
side note: a Goldman-Sachs lobbyist was invited to the debate and sat next to Howard Dean (a Hillary supporter).
It’s that fear of neolibs losing the helm. Economically, Biden might be worse than Hillary. She at least got the bankruptcy bill vetoed by Bill before she helped pass it as a Senator.
I saw that, too. Biden’s name keeps being floated out there. It seems that some are worried that Clinton cannot do it this time around (again) and have some concerns re Sanders. NeoLibs don’t wanna give up all that power and money.
I doubt that Biden will get in the race, but it’s interesting to note how many times his name gets run up the flag pole to see who’ll salute.
Yes, they are getting nervous. But since the cleared the bench of any possible contenders, they don’t have a replacement quarterback that can be called up. All they’ve got is Joe who at this point is also old and has name ID closer to that of Sanders than Clinton. Also, both Clinton and Obama knocked him out in Iowa ’08.
As long as the process doesn’t leave the nominee underfunded, it’s probably not a problem to have a long primary season.
Are we really worried about this? Sanders will have no problem raising funds if he is the nominee. I think we see evidence of that now. I hope HRC has no problem either. Why would she? If she does, that’s not a very good sign.
So, you think he won’t suffer from going up against Super PACs when he doesn’t have one?
You hit the point of diminishing returns from SuperPACs fairly quickly. (And anyway, he won’t be able to prevent outside groups from raising funds to deliver ad campaigns for him even while he’s insisting he has no SuperPACs. Unions at the very least, if he’s the nominee, will be in it, won’t they?)
A very good point, Booman. On the one hand, lots of campaign money is wasted on 30 second ads repeated five times an hour on every station. Repetition is good, but saturation only feeds the media. (A sudden thought: Is that the real goal of the mindless ads? To pay off the media for favorable treatment? Payola?) On the other hand, if money is the determining factor, then Democracy is dead and who cares which corporate shill wins? The Supreme Court? Who can they appoint worse than Thomas and Scalia? Would Hillary appoint anyone that wasn’t a stooge for the corporations? Abortion? The Republicans will never outlaw abortion nationally. It’s the whip they use to fleece the rubes. They need that bogeyman to whip their voters into line against their economics interests. And so do Democrats! “Yes, HRC will ship your job to China and do whatever the banks tell her to, but you must vote for her to keep abortion legal.” “Yes, Bush will drive you into poverty, blow up half the Middle East, and do whatever the banks tell him to, but you must vote for him to save the babies!”
Even if Sanders loses but gets enough donations that the loss is not clearly ascribable to lack of money, it is a blow to the idea that money is speech, that corporate donations mean more than the lives of voters.
Right. It’d be nice to believe that my vote here in Wisconsin on April 5th will “count” toward deciding the nominee. Sure voters in all states feel the same way.
No mention of the possibility that hard feelings were ameliorated by dangling the Sec of State to Clinton, thus garnering her and Bill’s full support in the fall of 2008? I can’t see either one of them doing something like that this time.
I would really like to see your evidence that that happened.
Not that the authors of “Game Change” are particularly trustworthy or reliable, but the account there is that Obama persuaded Hillary to take the job, that she resisted taking it.
Ok, let’s say it was as stated in Game Change, he needed her full endorsement. I’d still be really surprised if it didn’t affect her efforts on his behalf in the fall.
So something that occurred after the election affects behavior before the election? Neat!
You read “Game Change?” Personally I stay away from all the anti-Clinton, anti-DEM center to rightwing gossip and polemical books, articles, blogs, etc. Poorly written weak on facts, or making them up, and weak logic isn’t my cup of tea.
This ain’t 2008.
Questions for the general election:
1. How does Clinton get the turnout in the three key demos she needs:
= African Americans
= Hispanics
= The young
She isn’t Obama – so the first will be a struggle. Her percentage will be great, but her margin will not be as big
On the second Sanders has as good numbers as she does, but it’s probably not a big problem
What in gods name does she have to say to the young.
A good piece people should read. Written in 2007 it is in an interview with Charlie Peters of the Washington Monthly in 2007.
In part:
This was from 2007. Reading it now and you realize just how much damage Peters and his type did to the country and the Democratic Party. This was before the Wall Street crash – and there is no doubt Peters and the neo-liberals were every much as fault for the Great Recession as the GOP was.
There was always a second problem with the neo-liberal agenda: it attacked groups that provided a counter-weight to the right.
Politically attacking teachers unions is fucking moronic. So you blow the teachers unions away: who benefits? The GOP. This was Bradley Delong’s critique of the original neo-liberal manifesto. Whatever the merits of the ideas, they had no real political appeal. In fact, many over time worked to destroy counter-weights to capitalism.
So now, in 2016, Clinton is the neo-liberal crack-up personified. The neo-liberal idea of focusing on, to borrow Gordon Brown’s phrase, “financial innovation” is a political and policy disaster. The policies which where at the heart of the neo-liberal agenda must now be undone – and in reality this is both Clinton’s and Sanders agenda.
Hillary is a Democratic Party out of gas and ideas. You can write all the pieces about Donald Trump you want, but the simple fact is the Democratic Party is a fraud – led by people associated with failure – whose only real appeal is that they can win.
When viewed in this light, you realize just how unique Obama was. Irreplaceable really.
Much of Sanders agenda is poorly thought out. I don’t support a $15 minimum wage – I understand economics. But there are ways to accomplish the same thing using the EITC. So in a sense I remain a bit of a neo-liberal.
But Sanders isn’t lying to himself. The last 15 years have seen inequality explode, and there are systemic problems with capitalism that aren’t going to be solved by the limited solutions Clinton is proposing.
And I think about 80% of the party would agree with that paragraph.
So we are left with unlikable candidate, with associations from the neo-liberals that are now political liabilities, Clinton is really the last gasp of ’80’s neo-liberalism.
An agenda that long ago ceased to address the political and economic reality of the moment.
The irony is obvious: the ideological division in the Democratic Party are far greater the the Republicans.
“There was always a second problem with the neo-liberal agenda: it attacked groups that provided a counter-weight to the right.”
Card Check and “re-negotiate NAFTA” should have been a clue. They changed sides, in effect. Just look at education alone.
In the most recent national polling, Clinton’s domination over Sanders with African-American voters is very high, like 85%-15% high. Hillary also has double-digit % leads with Hispanics. Her lead among all Democrats is largely due to these large advantages with with these important voting blocs.
White liberals lecturing African-Americans and Hispanics about how rotten Hillary is for their interests isn’t working. Color me unsurprised.
And, for reasons that are obvious to any sentient being, Clinton would certainly do better with white voters than President Obama did in his general election, as would Bernie.
To the extent it focuses on and hashes out policy issues, sharpens actual differences (both with each other and with the wingnuts), realistically analyzes potential pros and cons of competing proposals, etc., etc. . . . it could be a WONDERFUL thing.
The sort of damaging personal nastiness highlighted in your post is the problem. (Not that I’m telling you or anyone else anything you didn’t already know . . . and more or less already say.) If you could somehow get the likes of Stabenow to stuff a sock in it (good luck with that!), a primary season extending all the way to the convention could be very beneficial.
(I’m also inclined to guess that the longer it stretches out, the better Bernie’s chances — both for the nomination and the general — get.)