In 2015 Bernie and Trump polled neck and neck while focus group participants claimed to be "on the fence" regarding which one to support. I was slow to understand how in the world a voter could confuse these two. This was not that long after the Occupy Wall Street protests. Then it dawned on me that people just wanted change, something unconventional; someone who would interrupt the status quo and stop the machine; someone who would level the playing field and move us more toward equality. Since that time, all the Sanders ideas have become less extreme and more mainstream. As Jess Piper says, "People calling us the “far left” and we are literally just out here talking about funding public schools and keeping hospitals open and paving roads…" https://substack.com/@jesspiper/note/c-298827870?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=q0z9o
The mistake that the liberal progressives make is in not picking their battles when they start getting attention. As Sarah Longwell points out in her focus group, when you talk about medicare for all (which is popular) you don't have to also talk about transgender issues (which, need I say, are controversial.) Not talking about more controversial ideas doesn't mean you can't support them later when they're up for a vote. Now we're arguing about electability when we all want mostly the same things – good schools, good medical care, and safe roads. And yes, electability is different all over the country. So play your cards right. But when you see a DSA candidate out there causing wild enthusiasm, it just might be time to move left.
God, I hate that “hardworking” cliche as much as I hate the “kitchen table” cliche. Whenever someone refers to hardworking Americans around the kitchen table, I know they’ve traded their critical thinking skills for a skull full of mush. Meanwhile, from what I’ve seen, Mamdami is the most skillful politician of his generation. It’s a shame he can’t be our president. Republicans have pushed the Overton window so far to the right, any sensible use of government for the people
I imagine a lot of the foothold "centrist" Democrats have (though I argue there are far fewer of them now as the party has demonstrably moved leftward) is because in American political science there's extreme focus upon rural/small town 'blue collar' workers. It's also a great dynamic to cast against urban, diversity-loving liberal. We're always meant to lionize blue collar workers only; this is also part of the long-term project to demonize people who went to college...especially those in the humanities.
This is why even though James Carville isn't really relevant when it comes to policy that Democrats advance, he's still going to get booked on shows. Because he's really one of the last of his kind and that works out well for ownership in mass media (who want Democrats to argue for Republican positions). This also helps for controversy points as it's easy to say Bill Clinton especially is a very bad man, and as Carville has the Clinton stink he also makes for a perfect foil to book on shows. I suspect this is part of why people constantly book Donna Brazile too.
The Democratic Party is definitely moving left, and that's a trend that has continued as the party loses seats in unreconstructed territory, so it'll be an urban coastal rump party due to the way the U.S. is organized.
"We're always meant to lionize White blue collar workers only"
in 2016 Hillary actually got a majority of lower and lower middle class voters, the median Trump voter was significantly more well off. Remember Joe the plumber, who was neither named 'Joe' or a plumber.
The Democratic party has definitely become more urban and more socially liberal, but it's still full of moderates, and a lot of its elected officials are from more conservative districts or states where they can't afford to run as full on progressives (think: Laura Kelly of Kansas, Tony Evers of Wisconsin, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, Katie Hobbs of Arizona-conservative states often elect moderate Democratic governors, while more liberal states like Vermont and New Hampshire elect moderate Republicans). I stubbornly believe these red areas are not doomed to be MAGA-fied forever, but neither are they likely to start electing wild-eyed leftists either.
Why is national politics such a meat grinder? And why is it so tempting for Democratic "strategists", whomever that may be, to find and support a compelling candidate who can articulate clear progressive policies which are already well supported by the vast majority of Democratic voters?
Why does that meat grinder do everything in its power to attempt to turn a candidate into all things for all people and homogenize their views into pasty, inoffensive mush? Voters will clearly overlook many personal flaws (you know who) if the candidate has the ability to connect with them and make them feel that he/she understands and shares their concerns. How have they not learned that simple fact?
And while Republicans above all else want a candidate who hates whomever they hate, Democrats want a candidate who elevates the discourse to unite us all despite our petty differences. Republicans are happy to exploit one issue voters, while Democrats should welcome a way to offer hope for everyone, and always emphasize that they want ALL to find a home here in every sense of the word. Why do Democrats fail to capitalize on ALL of the improvements that Democrats have championed and which Republicans have consistently fought and consistently tried to eviscerate?(Social Security, Medicare, Food Aid, International Aid, Labor gains, Green Energy programs, etc).
Thanks for the reminders, SER. I remember thinking back in the day that Bill Clinton was so centrist, I couldn't understand why Republicans hated him. I also recall a certain publisher's campaign to force retirements and resignations of certain Republicans in Congress also engaging in the kind of "extramarital" activity they claimed to find so "morally reprehensible".
There is absolutely nothing I would like better than to see the Clinton cabal relegated to the dustbin of history now. For those who remember, they really were an important turning point from blatant Reaganism in 1992 (with it's attendant racism, misogyny, anti worker sentiment and love of inherited wealth) but even in 2008 it was clear their brand of centrism was not aging well. By 2016 anyone with an IQ higher than 10 could see it, and yet they soldiered ahead, a last oblivious gasp before they were finally extinguished for good. Yes, there are some embers that continue to flair up-James Carville has morphed into a complete, bitter asshole, and don't get me started about Mark Penn. Republicans have had a decade's head staet on Democrats in this regard.
Bill Clinton was such a disappointment. I remember when the Democrats selected him at one of those secret gatherings in a forest somewhere. We were Brown delegates in 1994. Some suits walked into our meeting and told us that we would be changing our votes. I think we eventually did.
The stories of him harassing women were everywhere. I never understood why his sex pest behavior was not a deal breaker.
Then he gets elected and champions that awful two year welfare limit and got cheers for being strong on poor people. It's been so frustrating to deal with Democrats. They just refuse to get out of their own way. This two party system hasn't worked out well at all. I wish I could live long enough to see a Marxist party to prevail.
In 2015 Bernie and Trump polled neck and neck while focus group participants claimed to be "on the fence" regarding which one to support. I was slow to understand how in the world a voter could confuse these two. This was not that long after the Occupy Wall Street protests. Then it dawned on me that people just wanted change, something unconventional; someone who would interrupt the status quo and stop the machine; someone who would level the playing field and move us more toward equality. Since that time, all the Sanders ideas have become less extreme and more mainstream. As Jess Piper says, "People calling us the “far left” and we are literally just out here talking about funding public schools and keeping hospitals open and paving roads…" https://substack.com/@jesspiper/note/c-298827870?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=q0z9o
The mistake that the liberal progressives make is in not picking their battles when they start getting attention. As Sarah Longwell points out in her focus group, when you talk about medicare for all (which is popular) you don't have to also talk about transgender issues (which, need I say, are controversial.) Not talking about more controversial ideas doesn't mean you can't support them later when they're up for a vote. Now we're arguing about electability when we all want mostly the same things – good schools, good medical care, and safe roads. And yes, electability is different all over the country. So play your cards right. But when you see a DSA candidate out there causing wild enthusiasm, it just might be time to move left.
The <spit>Liberal<spit>Press<spit> in action.
God, I hate that “hardworking” cliche as much as I hate the “kitchen table” cliche. Whenever someone refers to hardworking Americans around the kitchen table, I know they’ve traded their critical thinking skills for a skull full of mush. Meanwhile, from what I’ve seen, Mamdami is the most skillful politician of his generation. It’s a shame he can’t be our president. Republicans have pushed the Overton window so far to the right, any sensible use of government for the people
is decried as communist.
Never heard of Alinksy until Obama was running. Hilarious.
I imagine a lot of the foothold "centrist" Democrats have (though I argue there are far fewer of them now as the party has demonstrably moved leftward) is because in American political science there's extreme focus upon rural/small town 'blue collar' workers. It's also a great dynamic to cast against urban, diversity-loving liberal. We're always meant to lionize blue collar workers only; this is also part of the long-term project to demonize people who went to college...especially those in the humanities.
This is why even though James Carville isn't really relevant when it comes to policy that Democrats advance, he's still going to get booked on shows. Because he's really one of the last of his kind and that works out well for ownership in mass media (who want Democrats to argue for Republican positions). This also helps for controversy points as it's easy to say Bill Clinton especially is a very bad man, and as Carville has the Clinton stink he also makes for a perfect foil to book on shows. I suspect this is part of why people constantly book Donna Brazile too.
The Democratic Party is definitely moving left, and that's a trend that has continued as the party loses seats in unreconstructed territory, so it'll be an urban coastal rump party due to the way the U.S. is organized.
"We're always meant to lionize White blue collar workers only"
in 2016 Hillary actually got a majority of lower and lower middle class voters, the median Trump voter was significantly more well off. Remember Joe the plumber, who was neither named 'Joe' or a plumber.
The Democratic party has definitely become more urban and more socially liberal, but it's still full of moderates, and a lot of its elected officials are from more conservative districts or states where they can't afford to run as full on progressives (think: Laura Kelly of Kansas, Tony Evers of Wisconsin, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, Katie Hobbs of Arizona-conservative states often elect moderate Democratic governors, while more liberal states like Vermont and New Hampshire elect moderate Republicans). I stubbornly believe these red areas are not doomed to be MAGA-fied forever, but neither are they likely to start electing wild-eyed leftists either.
Why is national politics such a meat grinder? And why is it so tempting for Democratic "strategists", whomever that may be, to find and support a compelling candidate who can articulate clear progressive policies which are already well supported by the vast majority of Democratic voters?
Why does that meat grinder do everything in its power to attempt to turn a candidate into all things for all people and homogenize their views into pasty, inoffensive mush? Voters will clearly overlook many personal flaws (you know who) if the candidate has the ability to connect with them and make them feel that he/she understands and shares their concerns. How have they not learned that simple fact?
And while Republicans above all else want a candidate who hates whomever they hate, Democrats want a candidate who elevates the discourse to unite us all despite our petty differences. Republicans are happy to exploit one issue voters, while Democrats should welcome a way to offer hope for everyone, and always emphasize that they want ALL to find a home here in every sense of the word. Why do Democrats fail to capitalize on ALL of the improvements that Democrats have championed and which Republicans have consistently fought and consistently tried to eviscerate?(Social Security, Medicare, Food Aid, International Aid, Labor gains, Green Energy programs, etc).
I don't get it.
Common sense Dems always use Rep framing, so no wonder they are wrong so many times.
Thanks for the reminders, SER. I remember thinking back in the day that Bill Clinton was so centrist, I couldn't understand why Republicans hated him. I also recall a certain publisher's campaign to force retirements and resignations of certain Republicans in Congress also engaging in the kind of "extramarital" activity they claimed to find so "morally reprehensible".
https://youtu.be/gRW4eSt3Hn4?si=le3dPJfXO8AO1EKq Dave Vitter, Larry Flynt on Larry King
And LOL...
https://www.nola.com/news/porn-star-stormy-daniels-considering-a-run-against-sen-david-vitter/article_d94c6aef-81cc-5630-82d9-64a96a9bd5d3.html
There is absolutely nothing I would like better than to see the Clinton cabal relegated to the dustbin of history now. For those who remember, they really were an important turning point from blatant Reaganism in 1992 (with it's attendant racism, misogyny, anti worker sentiment and love of inherited wealth) but even in 2008 it was clear their brand of centrism was not aging well. By 2016 anyone with an IQ higher than 10 could see it, and yet they soldiered ahead, a last oblivious gasp before they were finally extinguished for good. Yes, there are some embers that continue to flair up-James Carville has morphed into a complete, bitter asshole, and don't get me started about Mark Penn. Republicans have had a decade's head staet on Democrats in this regard.
Bill Clinton was such a disappointment. I remember when the Democrats selected him at one of those secret gatherings in a forest somewhere. We were Brown delegates in 1994. Some suits walked into our meeting and told us that we would be changing our votes. I think we eventually did.
The stories of him harassing women were everywhere. I never understood why his sex pest behavior was not a deal breaker.
Then he gets elected and champions that awful two year welfare limit and got cheers for being strong on poor people. It's been so frustrating to deal with Democrats. They just refuse to get out of their own way. This two party system hasn't worked out well at all. I wish I could live long enough to see a Marxist party to prevail.
"I never understood why his sex pest behavior was not a deal breaker"
Because it was clear early on this was a guy who could win.