Despite Charlie Sykes’ warnings, the current political cycle really does not have that much in common with 1972. For one thing, the Democratic Party is not currently the default majority party in the country and it is not coming apart at the seams or circling the drain. If anything, the Democrats are about dead-even with the Republicans and have the wind at their backs, as demographic trends (in both youth and ethnicity) heavily favor them to make advances in the near future. There are some ideological divides between the center and the left and between the older generations and the younger ones, but nothing as severe as what divided the Southern and Northern wings in 1972.
Having said that, I have been ringing a lot of the same alarm bells as Sykes about the Democrats putting their 2020 campaign in peril. The Democrats have basically substituted their farmer/labor alliance for an urban/suburban one, and it may work out as a nearly even trade in the raw numbers but it has exacerbated the problem of having most of their votes concentrated into small areas while also creating an Electoral College challenge (see 2016).
The flip side of the Republicans losing all their moderates is that the Democrats are now living in a bubble. What they see as obvious is not obvious in most congressional districts. What they see as virtuous is not necessarily seen as virtuous, patriotic or even sane in most congressional districts.
There are creating two problems for themselves. The first is a possible repeat of 2016, where they become perceived as so out of touch to the values and concerns of small-town and rural Americans that even a ridiculous man like Donald Trump seems highly preferable. The second is that they’re beginning to stress their suburban support with some of their policies, and the only way to offset rural losses is to do even better in the suburbs than they did four years ago. If Trump does as well or even better in his base areas as in 2016, and the Democrats do not improve on their suburban numbers, then the president will almost surely be reelected.
This is still not all that likely to happen in my view for the simple reason that Trump has lost support throughout his four years in office. He cannot depend on people to vote for him on the assumption that he’s going to lose anyway. He’s not a (ha, ha) joke or protest candidate anymore. He won’t get the considerable bloc of people who always vote against the incumbent regardless of party. He won’t automatically get the historically anti-Clinton suburban vote either, since there will be no Clinton on the ballot. More than this, Trump has definitely lost support among moderates, particularly well-educated folks from the professional classes. He’s going to do worse with Asians, Indians, Latinos, and blacks than he did four years ago. He’s not beginning this race at the starting line with his opponent. Despite the advantages of incumbency, he is starting from the rear.
Nixon did not suffer from most of these disadvantages in 1972. He would have been difficult to defeat no matter who the Democrats nominated or what they promised on the campaign trail. Trump is not looking at potentially winning 49 states. He’s looking at trying to win twice while losing the popular vote.
But he does have a strategy and the strategy is correctly calibrated for the task at hand. He must racialize the electorate to maximize his vote in heavily-white communities and tap a wedge in-between the urban and suburban Democrats so that the latter will defect in sufficient numbers for him to recover his losses. His problem is that efforts to maximize his white vote actually have the effect of pushing urban and suburban Democrats into a closer alliance. For this reason, he will fail unless the Democrats help ramp up his base numbers and depress their own.
This is where policies like free health care for undocumented people or abolishing all private health insurance are going to do damage. These things are not popular in general and are especially unpopular with the Democrats’ suburban base. A lot of the Democrats’ rhetoric on border issues is toxic not just in the sticks but also in the communities ringing our cities.
So, yes, the Democrats really could blow this election by running a non-strategic campaign based on abstract values against a campaign that is laser focused on just the voters it needs to win.
This isn’t an argument for changing values, but it is an argument for not being too stupid to beat a man like Donald Trump.
There’s a wide gap between “Making health care more affordable and accessible” and “A completely government run healthcare system”. Why so many candidates staked out an extreme position had never made sense to me. Any move to a less radical position is going to be seen as a capitulation to special interest and immediate political ad fodder.
I also worry about the lack of talk about economic and job messaging at the expense of what could be classified as social justice issues.
My wife is one of the most positive people I know, and she’s convinced that Trump is going to get re-elected next year. I used to scoff at her pessimism, but I’m starting to feel like the Democrats really are stupid enough to lose this thing.
As the preposterous situation of 25 (and counting) Dem prez wannabes demonstrates, it’s a party without leaders or any particular discipline. But this also ensures that the full panoply of extreme progressive to moderate positions gets “represented” in the mix. And so far the soporific moderate Uncle Joe is the clear front runner. Many of the issues that cause suburban worry are being advanced by a limited number of Dem reps in fairly safe Dem districts, these positions are not going to become national policy under any Dem admin, although there would be nothing inherently radical in Congress reforming an abusive agency like the GICEtapo. (One wonders how many white suburban divorces have occurred because of National Trumpalism?)
For me, it’s not really “are the Dems too stupid to beat” Der Trumper. Rather the question is: are the American people too stupid to beat him? (We will leave aside the failed Constitution that allows a political minority to “win” a national election, as obviously we as a nation are stuck with it)
Leaving aside the general “conservative” campaign tactic of fomenting an illegal war of aggression for “national security” purposes, Der Trumper has a singular issue, opposition to and hatred of (mostly) Latino immigration, legal or otherwise. To the extent he can throw other non-white immigrants into the hate and contempt hopper, he’s delighted to do it. While he also enjoys his misogyny (people fail to note that all members of “the Squad” are also assertive younger women), non-white immigrant harassment is what he enjoys and what he spends his entire day on—while Mick Mullooney repeals the 20th Century regulatory state with Trumper’s (oblivious) approval. It’s about as clear a plutocrat/white (male) nationalist agenda as one could imagine.
And that’s obviously what somewhere between 42-46% of the citizenry want, too. In a failed system that permits (even encourages) minority rule, there are so few voters (in the absurdly critical “swing states”) up for grabs that questions of Dem strategy become somewhat moot. Trumper will run his spite-based, minority rule electoral college strategy because its all he has left, and probably all he ever had. If you can (today) even imagine voting for Der Trumper in 2020, you were predetermined to hate on and reject the Dem nominee, no matter who they turned out to be or what they say. If you can even imagine a situation where Der Trumper is the superior “lesser of two evils” for the nation, you are a failed citizen. You are quite beyond the reach of either reason or morality, no matter how good your play-acting skills.
In the climactic vote in the Reichstag, the Communists voted with the Nazis to bring down the Weimar Republic. The Germans were too stupid to beat Herr Hitler, too….
“In a failed system that permits (even encourages) minority rule…”
This puts the lie to the US being the “greatest democracy in the world” as the situation is antithetical to democracy.
The only thing that matters is this graph. Trump’s approval goes down when he increases the racism even though it brings Republican voters closer to him. You’ve noted this very thing in bringing urban/suburban voters together.
Indeed, we know for a fact Trump is going to make the election about this. There’s nothing we can do about that but increase our own turnout. Rachel Bitecofer has some analysis forthcoming utilizing voter files from 2018 showing that Republicans and Democrats both experienced turnout surges. She also believes based on that analysis that Pelosi is making precisely the wrong calculation with regard to impeachment.
Maybe!
But here’s an alternate view:
1) primaries are for sorting out the parties’ platforms. And platforms can change, especially as public opinion changes. In 2004 no Democrat who hadn’t supported going to war with Iraq was going to win the nomination (or the election). In 2008 the Democrat who hadn’t supported going to war with Iraq won the nomination and the election (easily). Most of what’s happening right now in the Democratic field is the typical dynamic of a party figuring out what its platform will be.
2) candidates run to their base in primaries, and run to the center in general elections. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will have time to “pivot” to the center. (Whether they can do that successfully is another question.)
3) With the significant exception of Sanders, the leading Democratic contenders all show some promising signs of being able to claim “the center”. Biden is there already and is making it a centerpiece of his campaign. Warren does it by connecting her “growing up in Oklahoma on the ragged edge of the middle class” story to her policy proposals (and by going to WV to unveil her opiod plan). Harris has her law enforcement background, her “for the people” slogan, and her general cautiousness about getting too specific on issues. Buttigieg (like O’Rourke) is campaigning on his youth and aspirational values. Most of the rest of the pack (Booker, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Klobuchar, etc.) are experienced pols who’ve won elections outside of their home (geographic, ideological, identity) turf.
That said, I share Booman’s concerns (though perhaps not to the same degree). In the end, that’s one reason I’m hoping for a large turnout in the early states—the more people who vote, the less likely the Dems are to end up with a nominee who doesn’t reflect the breadth of the party’s center-left coalition.
You have company from the left and right. Two columnists this week make the same point. Tom Friedman in the NY Times titled his column “Why Trump will be Reelected in 2020” and commented that the debates showed nearly everyone espousing the same unpopular things Martin mentioned. George Will, a conservative republican who despises Trump, wrote a column also naming those same dangers and suggested that the party should nominate Michael Bennett as the one left of center but avoiding those extreme views.
The best thing for everyone is if we ask Republicans who is acceptable to them as the Democratic Nominee, and then eliminate the rest from contention.
Oh, right, /s, in case that’s necessary.
Also: Tom Friedman is not on the left in any meaningful way.
I just got back from a race in the Rust Belt/Trump country (they tend to put race tracks in rural areas). Racers are predominantly male, white and have some money to spend on their hobby. (Racing joke, Q: How do you make a small fortune in racing? A: Start with a large fortune.) Many of them are owners of or execs in small to medium sized manufacturing companies. American made! Job creators. You can’t get more American than these folks – just ask them.
For the most part they are convinced that Trump has revitalized the economy. For most of them their businesses are doing great, quite the opposite of when Obama came into office.
“Businesses have someone looking out for them and are willing to spend. Before there was too much uncertainty.”
“This is how it supposed to work, the money trickles down – my orders are at an all time high”
“Trump is the best thing that has happened to my business in a long time.”
“We finally have a strong economy and we have people that want to give away all the money to people that just want handouts. No one gave me a handout”
Nothing about immigration, nothing about Russia, nothing about nationalism…
I used to think you had to be an idiot to believe anything the GOP said. But these are not dumb people. There is a hell of a lot of engineering in racing and dumb racers get weeded out in a hurry. I realized that they believe what they believe because that’s all they hear. The Republicans have a monopoly in these areas. Martin is right. If the Democratic Party won’t even try to be heard in these places or push ideas that are DOA then we (liberals) can expect to get our asses kicked in these areas again in 2020.
Let me just add that having to constantly click on “read more” really sucks.
Honestly, that bubble began to be sealed against us in the early Bush days. It took a while but the process seems totally complete. My FIL — Republican, but not a Trump voter — can’t even really discuss politics anymore. Not even the same language. And that’s someone who *dislikes* Trump.
Yes, having to hit Read Moore is terrifically annoying. As is having to login over and over and over again on my mobile phone. As is having to scroll past a ton of other stuff just to get to the comments which should be right underneath each article. It is a testament to how much I love Martin’s writing and that of all of the community members that I put up with the site frustrations.
Generally speaking, party activists are going to get their strongest say this year. There is going to be some wrangling and not all of it will be pleasant. But it won’t have long term consequences if party leadership can hold the line. Most people aren’t going to tune in until next year.
My worry is that the number of people who voted for him because they thought he’d lose will be more than offset by arch conservative nuts who stayed home because they thought he’d lose.
Hopefully, the Dems have done focus groups and determined that the way to mobilize Mexican American citizens in Arizona, who sit out every election, is to offer health insurance to non-citizens. If it doesn’t help flip a state, then stop talking about it. No one who can vote cares enough to make it their reason for joining a party.
I thInk that’s the problem right now. We intuitively know we can’t lose any of hillary’s Voters and expect to win. I don’t think we have, actually. We also kind of know that we need more voters in three or four states to win. We just don’t know who and where those voters are in those states.
And for some related fun, a great bit of satire from Chas Gillespie on McSweeney’s:
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-am-against-identity-politics-by-which-i-mean-i-am-in-favor-of-white-identity-politics
This is where policies like free health care for undocumented people or abolishing all private health insurance are going to do damage. These things are not popular in general and are especially unpopular with the Democrats’ suburban base.
I don’t understand how you construct a health care system that’s only universal for U.S. citizens. Which part of the medical system is going to determine which immigrants (if any) will have access to the health care system? In any case, I’m pretty sure that won’t be part of the general election message.
I agree with you on the private health insurance aspect. I’m thinking that the eventual result will be a beefed-up ACA, possibly with a public option that will eventually compete directly with private health insurance.
“…policies like free health care for undocumented people or abolishing all private health insurance are going to do damage. These things are not popular in general and are especially unpopular with the Democrats’ suburban base.”
I, like many people with private insurance, have no love lost for health insurance companies. Private insurance is far from the panacea some are assuming those who have it view it as. The pushback on that is, its better than nothing; but we should still get what we pay for, and in many cases, policyholders don’t always do, given what we pay in premiums, and what we get. And the cost of prescription drugs is outrageous, even with insurance in many cases. The problem is, expecting the dems to effectively handle messaging and communications around “abolishing private insurance” when they totally botched the less disruptive and far more straightforward “you can keep your own doctor” (led by one of the best orators they’ve had) is absolute madness. If dems couldn’t effectively message the ACA, how are they going to message no more private insurance? The simple answer is, they don’t have the chops; they can’t.
The solution is unequivocally drop the abolish private insurance concept, at least for now. Remove the regulatory shackles from the current program that prevents it from competing with private insurance. Allow ANYONE willing to pay the premiums to buy in, and provide subsidies for low income people to afford it, if need be, since premiums are already low. Remove the restriction preventing Medicare using its market power to bargain on lower prices for prescription drugs. The end result will be an affordable health insurance option without the overhead and profits that will make private insurance look like the raw deal it is. People will willing drop private insurance for a cost effective alternative that doesn’t mean a drop in coverage or quality. Private insurance will either (finally) die if its own greed, or be forced to offer competitive plans at same cost without all the bullshit.
Even democrats should be able to manage, “Medicare offers a low cost, quality health insurance alternative for those without private insurance. You can keep your private insurance, but when you’re ready to save money on prescription drugs and premium costs for the same quality care, Medicare is here for you.”