Yes, they did. They spent the 80s getting destroyed because they were portrayed as being too liberal. Bill Clinton was the most obviously conservative Democrat the party nominated since the Depression. It’s actually to a point that it dragged Hillary down among lefties who took the totally-not-implicitly-sexist idea that she’d just be a …
Yes, they did. They spent the 80s getting destroyed because they were portrayed as being too liberal. Bill Clinton was the most obviously conservative Democrat the party nominated since the Depression. It’s actually to a point that it dragged Hillary down among lefties who took the totally-not-implicitly-sexist idea that she’d just be a Trojan horse for her husband, even though she was probably more liberal than McGovern or Mondale.
Then why did Clintonism fail to work for anyone who who didn't have Bill Clinton with them? If it was about his beliefs, why didn't those beliefs continue to resonate?
Democrats have two big problems with swing voters. Well, three, but two are self-inflicted. The first one is that they are explicitly race-conscious. Biden's up-front announcement that he would appoint a black woman to SCOTUS is an example. That creates a question in some voter's minds: is the appointee the best person for the seat at that particular time, or is she being appointed because she is black and has the right political views? Dems talk about race, ethnicity and sexual orientation as if it is relevant to the job--they tend to lead the candidate descriptions with 'the first woman," the first openly lesbian..." etc. It is annoying and counterproductive. They don't need to change who they nominate--but they should not add a candidates minority status to the list of reasons voters should support the candidate. When Republicans choose a minority, they just choose and let the choice speak for itself.
The second thing they do is let the progressive wing of the party push them around. The left wing of the Democratic party is simply not popular enough with the electorate to carry statewide or national races. I don't know why the forgive student loans crowd can't understand that when you are only 30% of the Dem coalition, you aren't going to get your way.
The third thing isn't self inflicted---it's the Fox and Facebook effect. The left doesn't have the equivalent media ecosystem. Some Dems get it and will engage with Fox, but a lot of them refuse to and that hurts them. Showing up on Fox where conservative voters can see your face, hear you talk, and assess you for themselves is really important.
Perhaps when nominating/electing women, ethnic & religious minorities, and LGBTQ people becomes so frequent that it's normal, we can stop saying "first woman," etc. But until then, it DOES MATTER when someone breaks those barriers - and it should be celebrated.
How many people voted for Obama because of his policies?
"When Republicans choose a minority, they just choose and let the choice speak for itself."
Other than the times they don't, like when Reagan promised to nominate the first female SC Justice during his first campaign. So many of the things people point to as stuff Democrats do "wrong" are actually just things that Democrats get flak for while Republicans get a pass.
There's long been a double standard with this kind of thing. Since probably the 70s, Dems are the expected "baseline" for conduct and behavior by the media while Republicans get plaudits for there "good choices" which aren't even a peep in a Dem admin.
Partly because the Clinton era saw the culmination of the GOP’s long project of using race and abortion as wedges to break up what was left of the New Deal coalition, and partly because the remainder of the Democratic base that didn’t outright switch parties was simply uncomfortable with how conservative Clinton was and didn’t embrace it. Bernie never could’ve attacked Obama as hard as he did from the left — the idea that Hillary was a Trojan horse for her husband (along with more than a few cherry picked video clips where she went along with his positions) was a major animating force behind the Bernie Bros in 2016. I, as a Clinton Democrat sitting out at the centrist edge of the current Dem base, was constantly having to remind the Bernie Bros I knew that Hillary isn’t Bill, and point out she was a lot more liberal than Bill. By most metrics on her Senate voting record, she was one of the most liberal Senators other than Bernie throughout her time there. More so than Obama.
Combination of the Republican parties deal with the devil with the Falwell's coming due, nativist backlash to immigration generally (let alone reform), changing economics generally, and a (general) national lack-of-purpose post Cold War where we had no other great "forcing function" pushing the nation one way or another. Just making money for the sake of making money is fun for a little while but people grow bored with it rapidly, which is why Clintonism had short coattails ultimately
Absolutely. While the Iraq war vote was the big issue that he used as a wedge against her, on most other issues he was coming at her from her right, especially on health care. The ACA far more greatly resembled her position in the primary than his own.
In this conversation, I think something rather significant is being ignored and that was Ross Perot. Clinton only won on a plurality and It strikes me that the Perot coalition has more to do with the Trumpist mentality than it does anything else.
From my point of recollection, I think that the low point for the democratic party as a whole was the Rainbow coalition period where the party could not agree on lunch. It's interesting to see how it evolved into Clinton's second term after the Gingrich attempts to derail him. The most amusing parts being the House attempts to get rid of him over sex scandals where republican after republican was forced to resign for the same stuff.
She’s not as liberal as Bernie/AOC. Those two are, by American standards, bordering on crazy. He can hold a Senate seat in Vermont and she can hold a D+30 House district fine, but either of them is DOA in a statewide election in… generously, 30 states. But the real daylight on positions between Bernie and Hillary in 2016 was a lot less than most Berniecrats thought. She’s less combative in her rhetoric than he is, but she was only less liberal than him in that she pragmatically proposes to meet progressive goals in a way that can actually pass Congress and work in real world implementation. Almost all of their actual goals only differ in degree.
Yes, they did. They spent the 80s getting destroyed because they were portrayed as being too liberal. Bill Clinton was the most obviously conservative Democrat the party nominated since the Depression. It’s actually to a point that it dragged Hillary down among lefties who took the totally-not-implicitly-sexist idea that she’d just be a Trojan horse for her husband, even though she was probably more liberal than McGovern or Mondale.
Then why did Clintonism fail to work for anyone who who didn't have Bill Clinton with them? If it was about his beliefs, why didn't those beliefs continue to resonate?
Obama's policies were pretty Clintonian.
Democrats have two big problems with swing voters. Well, three, but two are self-inflicted. The first one is that they are explicitly race-conscious. Biden's up-front announcement that he would appoint a black woman to SCOTUS is an example. That creates a question in some voter's minds: is the appointee the best person for the seat at that particular time, or is she being appointed because she is black and has the right political views? Dems talk about race, ethnicity and sexual orientation as if it is relevant to the job--they tend to lead the candidate descriptions with 'the first woman," the first openly lesbian..." etc. It is annoying and counterproductive. They don't need to change who they nominate--but they should not add a candidates minority status to the list of reasons voters should support the candidate. When Republicans choose a minority, they just choose and let the choice speak for itself.
The second thing they do is let the progressive wing of the party push them around. The left wing of the Democratic party is simply not popular enough with the electorate to carry statewide or national races. I don't know why the forgive student loans crowd can't understand that when you are only 30% of the Dem coalition, you aren't going to get your way.
The third thing isn't self inflicted---it's the Fox and Facebook effect. The left doesn't have the equivalent media ecosystem. Some Dems get it and will engage with Fox, but a lot of them refuse to and that hurts them. Showing up on Fox where conservative voters can see your face, hear you talk, and assess you for themselves is really important.
Perhaps when nominating/electing women, ethnic & religious minorities, and LGBTQ people becomes so frequent that it's normal, we can stop saying "first woman," etc. But until then, it DOES MATTER when someone breaks those barriers - and it should be celebrated.
"Obama's policies were pretty Clintonian."
How many people voted for Obama because of his policies?
"When Republicans choose a minority, they just choose and let the choice speak for itself."
Other than the times they don't, like when Reagan promised to nominate the first female SC Justice during his first campaign. So many of the things people point to as stuff Democrats do "wrong" are actually just things that Democrats get flak for while Republicans get a pass.
There's long been a double standard with this kind of thing. Since probably the 70s, Dems are the expected "baseline" for conduct and behavior by the media while Republicans get plaudits for there "good choices" which aren't even a peep in a Dem admin.
Partly because the Clinton era saw the culmination of the GOP’s long project of using race and abortion as wedges to break up what was left of the New Deal coalition, and partly because the remainder of the Democratic base that didn’t outright switch parties was simply uncomfortable with how conservative Clinton was and didn’t embrace it. Bernie never could’ve attacked Obama as hard as he did from the left — the idea that Hillary was a Trojan horse for her husband (along with more than a few cherry picked video clips where she went along with his positions) was a major animating force behind the Bernie Bros in 2016. I, as a Clinton Democrat sitting out at the centrist edge of the current Dem base, was constantly having to remind the Bernie Bros I knew that Hillary isn’t Bill, and point out she was a lot more liberal than Bill. By most metrics on her Senate voting record, she was one of the most liberal Senators other than Bernie throughout her time there. More so than Obama.
Combination of the Republican parties deal with the devil with the Falwell's coming due, nativist backlash to immigration generally (let alone reform), changing economics generally, and a (general) national lack-of-purpose post Cold War where we had no other great "forcing function" pushing the nation one way or another. Just making money for the sake of making money is fun for a little while but people grow bored with it rapidly, which is why Clintonism had short coattails ultimately
Hillary was honestly probably left of even Obama
Absolutely. While the Iraq war vote was the big issue that he used as a wedge against her, on most other issues he was coming at her from her right, especially on health care. The ACA far more greatly resembled her position in the primary than his own.
In this conversation, I think something rather significant is being ignored and that was Ross Perot. Clinton only won on a plurality and It strikes me that the Perot coalition has more to do with the Trumpist mentality than it does anything else.
From my point of recollection, I think that the low point for the democratic party as a whole was the Rainbow coalition period where the party could not agree on lunch. It's interesting to see how it evolved into Clinton's second term after the Gingrich attempts to derail him. The most amusing parts being the House attempts to get rid of him over sex scandals where republican after republican was forced to resign for the same stuff.
What's still funny with it is despite that, they're both still well in the centrist to center-left space.
She’s not as liberal as Bernie/AOC. Those two are, by American standards, bordering on crazy. He can hold a Senate seat in Vermont and she can hold a D+30 House district fine, but either of them is DOA in a statewide election in… generously, 30 states. But the real daylight on positions between Bernie and Hillary in 2016 was a lot less than most Berniecrats thought. She’s less combative in her rhetoric than he is, but she was only less liberal than him in that she pragmatically proposes to meet progressive goals in a way that can actually pass Congress and work in real world implementation. Almost all of their actual goals only differ in degree.