You know, I am not really sure if I agree with Steve M. that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have a better understanding than the Democratic candidates of how the electorate feels right now. He could be right, but I don’t see the evidence for it in my personal life.
It’s true that you can find evidence that the electorate is angry and frustrated and filled with anxiety. But that doesn’t mean that either Trump or Cruz have even a puncher’s chance of winning the Electoral College. In fact, it’s quite possible that they’d lose worse than anyone is even imagining right now. Certainly, the GOP elites are feeling apocalyptic about their party’s chances if they go into the general with Trump or Cruz as their champion. It’s possible that they should be even more concerned than they are.
Or course, it’s also possible that they’re as wrong about this as they’ve been about nearly everything else in recent years.
When I talk to people I know or come into contact with in my daily life, the predominant attitude toward government isn’t anger exactly, but something closer to resignation and disgust. People don’t want to talk about politics. They don’t want to even think about politics.
It used to be that people would be intrigued to learn that I write about politics for a living and would seize the opportunity to talk my ear off. These days, I’m more likely to be pitied for having to focus on something as messy and pathetic as our national discourse.
If I had to describe the disposition, it’s apathy.
It’s not that people don’t care about political things anymore, but they’ve given up hope in the system.
In my circles, which tend to be more liberal and activist than most, this isn’t so much a pox on both their houses type of thing, although I see that attitude displayed with disturbing frequency from less committed folks that I know. Among liberal activists, the apathy comes from a sense that they can’t win big. All they can do is prevent the worst and perhaps make some incremental progress that doesn’t inspire much of anyone to drop what they’re doing and get engaged.
If you asked these folks if they’re angry, I suppose a lot of them would say that they are, but they’re really more frustrated and hopeless than they are seething with some desire to make their enemies pay.
Where hope still resides, it’s with a subset of people who are truly excited about the prospect of a woman president and see this as a potentially validating thing that will be quite fulfilling quite apart of any laws that might be passed as a result. Or, it’s with the Sanders brigades who seem to, in my opinion, bring a little (perhaps, much needed) irrational exuberance to the campaign. They believe their champion can shake things up–that he can bring the big win.
If that is what they think, though, I believe they would be disappointed to discover that this country’s will cannot be bent so easily. Our gridlock is structural at this point, and not subject to strategy or rhetoric.
This is not going to be an inspiring election, or, if it is, the result will never live up to the billing.
Politics isn’t exciting anymore because it doesn’t offer a big pay off, and who wants to celebrate a successful defense?
This apathy and hopelessness may be justified, and it does help the party that doesn’t believe in government. But I don’t think it means that the Electoral College is winnable for Trump or Cruz. And, if it’s not winnable for them, then I don’t think they’ve got their finger on the pulse of the (general) electorate in any meaningful way.
I think you underestimate (as always!) the power of the Green Lantern Bully Pulpit Unicorn Ring. Because you’re a rationalist. It’s your greatest failing as a pundit.
People on both sides would love Big Wins. But in the absence of Big Wins, we want Big Talk. In fact, we may prefer the latter. Obama’s had a few Big Wins that made no impact on enthusiasm and engagement because his administration is crap at braggadocio. And, despite what may want to believe, that matters. The Bully Pulpit is a pulpit. You need to preach if you want the congregation to sing along.
I still don’t believe Trump is going to win the Republican primary, but nobody brings the brag like he does, and goddamn that’s a thousand times better’n nothing. Sanders at least talks big, and even if he can’t deliver, the prospect of a president who continues to talk big and left isn’t nothing. It may not achieve policy goals, but it’s a first step toward counteracting that apathy and hopelessness that, as you said, undermines Democrats so much more than Republicans.
There’s so much mockery on the left about emotion and aspiration and passion. “Where are the votes for universal healthcare? Show me the actual votes in the Senate?” Hell, everything that some commentators say here is ‘curb your enthusiasm’ and ‘be grateful for what you can get’; they seem terrified by anything that’s not grounded 100% in eminently and immediately achievable possibilities. But there’s more to politics, and there’s more to people, than the numbers. As Trump proves, politicians can change the national conversation. They can change attitudes. Using nothing but words, they can shift expectations and even move votes. Yeah, it’s often undignified and even juvenile. But that’s us, we’re America. Until the left learns to embrace our inner carnival barker, I’m not sure how that apathy changes. But instead, we’re dignified and fact-based and professorial. Surely -this- time, when we marshal our facts, we’ll win the day.
Over at The Monthly, Martin responded to a commenter complaining that everything Obama has done has been small bore and not enough by linking to Grunwald’s opus (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/obama-biggest-achievements-213487) on the amazing amount of large, game changing things – BIG WINS – Obama has actually accomplished in practically every arena, how he has transformed America – and yet America has absolutely no idea he has done all these things because, as you point out, “because his administration is crap at braggadocio.” Grunwald largely agreed with that assessment. I would quibble with that a bit because the continuous gale of misinformation from all right wing media, a Dem Party plus a legitimate media that refuses to report accurately because that would not be “balanced” makes getting the facts out nearly impossible. Hell, the other night Anderson Cooper couldn’t agree with Obama that the idea that he is coming for everyone’s guns and going to declare martial law is a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
It drives me nuts that most Americans, hell most Democrats, have NO IDEA how much he has accomplished to make America a better place. But the fact is that they don’t. Democrats should be celebrating in the streets, but instead they have with a feeling that nothing is getting better (it is) and a sense of hopelessness against the rage coming from the right, while the right is hopped up on the rage that Trump is tapping into so brilliantly and just can’t wait to vote for – or against – somebody.
I have no earthly idea how to counteract the tidal wave of misinformation that comes from the right, and we need to be able to do that to build enthusiasm among Dems.
agree!
I agree with you that that the media is the first five problems, but if I’m too lazy to read the article you linked, give me one or two or three Big Rallying Cries about those Obamawins.
These things aren’t designed to appeal to emotions: “$36 billion expansion of Pell Grants for low-income undergraduates!” “Student-debt relief effort that transfers burdens to taxpayers!”
What’re the GAME CHANGING WINS that are useful as rallying cries? That appeal to the raw emotions of votes such that they demand media attention?
I contiue to be mystified over people holding up k12 as some sort of obama accomplishment.
That said there was a recent global agreement to require more leverage for shadow banking along with regular banking. 22 major economies. Thats enormously preventative and I have no doubt Obamas team played a big role thete.
OK, that is the best argument for voting for Bernie that I’ve heard. This campaign has been hard for me. I searched for reasons to support Bernie despite the fact that Hillary has more experience, more contacts, more expertise, etc, etc. Hillary is, in my opinion, the more rational vote. I’ve heard all the reasons why people disagree with that, and none of them have swayed me.
But what is rational isn’t what we need? That’s a whole different game. Thanks for giving me something new to consider.
I support Bernie and would support him even if he was worse on the issues because I think that A.) any Democrat that doesn’t win the House in 2016 is doomed to four years of uselessness and stagnation B.) if the Democratic Party could figure out a way to cut into the GOP margins and/or excite their own base more they would have the House and C.) Hillary Clinton, being a generic New Democrat with no real motivating accomplishments or vision who is by-and-large going to rerun the Dukakis-Bill Clinton-Gore-Kerry-Obama electioneering playbook, won’t accomplish B under her own power.
Sanders may not be able to win the House. Early results with youth voters and independents are very promising, but the rubber hasn’t hit the road yet.
Clinton certainly won’t win the House. Even if Clinton did as well as 2012 Obama, she’d only have a final vote margin of 5.5-6%, which isn’t enough to win the House.
maybe the activists are finally catching up to how uninspired us ordinary voters are by “lesser of two evils”.
>>the predominant attitude toward government isn’t anger exactly, but something closer to resignation and disgust. People don’t want to talk about politics. They don’t want to even think about politics.
all the people who love to lecture us about our duty to vote even when we don’t like any candidate need to read these words over and over again until they understand that feeling.
I don’t want to think about filing my taxes. Or getting my flu shot. Or cleaning the toilet.
It’s not that we don’t understand the feeling. We believe adults should be able to overcome it for the sake of doing things that must be done.
tb92’s point is valid and very on point, but there is another side that the ‘non-voter’ group keeps intentionally ignoring.
There will be an election. The election will determine policy. The winner of the election will be the group/side/ideology that gets the most votes. The election is structurally setup where someone will always win the election.
If you don’t vote, it is irrational and illogical to the point of stupidity and/or insanity to think that your wants, wishes, and desires for the course of policy decided by the election will go your way.
If one insist on having things your way politically even though one didn’t participate in the literal deciding step (that is to say: voting) and one’s opinion did not reach the threshold for deciding the election, one is not really complaining about the democratic process of a democracy, one is bitching because one does not live in an authoritarian system where one can just have one’s will done by fiat.
Or to put it more simply but crudely:
You can wish and not vote in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up faster.
What ever you desire to happen, isn’t going to happen in a democracy with votes.
That being said, be as cantankerous as you want and vote for whoever you want in the primary. But come general election time vote who ever is going to do the best job that stands a reasonable chance of winning.
Because for all that I see lots of complaining about the ‘lesser of two evils’ and ‘think of the supreme court’ voting calls, I’ve never seen anyone factually refute the situation as being untrue.
Something to think about. Or you can continue a defined definition of insanity by continuing to do the same thing while expecting different results. Your call.
“You can wish and not vote in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up faster.”
That does seem like the choice if it’s Hillary versus Trump, wishing or a handful of shit. Nice choice.
By the way, nice ratings trolling Beahmont, for a petulant child. I apologize if it’s not you but otherwise, try to dig down for a just a little bit of courage for a well thought out reply about what you don’t like, I know it’s asking a lot.
I’ve said that to some otherwise intelligent people who say voting is a waste of time. Their position is that elections are hardly ever decided by a single vote, so their vote won’t matter, win or lose. Then I ask them, “What if everybody did what you do?” and I get no reply. Such people are free riders on the electoral process.
“The split among the Democratic Party in 2008 left some deep wounds in the rank-and-file Democratic electorate. There was a very vocal community of Hillary Clinton supporters who felt so badly treated by the Obama campaign that they pledged never to support Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee. They had the charming label “PUMA,” which stood for: “Party unity, my ass!” But although they were prominent online, a PUMA walkout at the convention never actually materialized.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/clinton-not-inevitable-no_b_8959440.html
People want unicorns and ponies and because they can’t get any, they want to give up.
oh boo hoo. spare me.
Am I tired?
Yes.
But, I understand, without hesitation, that they otherside is full of evil muthaphuckas that want to take this country back to the 19th century.
Since I know that – I can continue the fight.
I see too many unwilling to call those evil sociopaths for what they are. And try to pretend that they are something that they are not. Accept that they are EVIL, and proceed accordingly.
Why would people want to be part of a party that foists Rahm Emanuel, Andrew Cuomo and DWS upon us?
Mistah Debs. He dead.
Joe Hill. “‘I never died’, says he.”
Because the alternative, at this moment, is more black boys shot in the street, more women dying of back alley abortions, more elderly going hungry, more vets committing suicide, more poor people going without medicine, and more fascism in the world. Democrats aren’t great, and we must make improvements, but until we have another alternative, anybody with a heart or conscience should prefer them.
If those three of the worse things you have to worry about, you are damn lucky.
The problem is that those three appear to be OK with several of those those things you listed–in fact, are complicit in some.
Not all Dems are good. But, in general, the Democrats are significantly better than the Republicans, and for the moment, those are our only options. I choose to be part of the party that is not actively trying to kill my kids.
The problem I have with this parade of horribles is not that I don’t think it’s true, it’s that I don’t think that voting in HRC will avert it. What I think will happen is that these awful things lessen slightly for four years, but then they get even worse than they were before after the GOP gets a clean sweep of Federal government for 2-4 years. Just in time for a new round of Gerrymandering to boot.
The choice should really be framed as ‘GOP wins, people die needlessly in 2016-2020 or HRC wins, people cling onto life for 2016-2020, then people die needlessly in 2020-2024’. That is, would you like to starve to death in the streets right now or would you like to take out a payday loan from the Mafia that you can’t possibly afford, live for a few months in a dilapidated apartment on starvation rations, then get tortured to death when they come to collect.
Clearly, not all of us believe Hillary is going to be a failure as a president. There’s no reason she won’t take ’20 if she takes ’16. Beyond that, it’s easy to sacrifice people for the next four years, if they’re not your people. Those of us with children on the line don’t generally consider it acceptable to sacrifice them for some imaginary gain.
You think HRC is going to put effirt into gaining state legislatures? Hahaha.
And if the choice is sinking slowly or hunkering down with my kids for a few years so they can have better lives for after? I’ll take the second.
Deathtongue, your confidence in this 2016-2024 scenario you have repeated many times is highly overdetermined. You and I and everyone else here cannot be certain what the major issues will be that determine the 2016 election, much less the elections in 2018 and beyond. It’s an argument that doesn’t persuade me, and it’s hard to imagine multi-millions of voters becoming persuaded by it.
So this is what it has come to. The HRC faction still doesn’t have a plan after 2014 and they’re just begging for a sudden burst of good fortune.
You do realize that randomness disfavors the Dems right now, right? That the public, rightly or wrongly, disproportionately assigns blame for negative black swans to the President. And since HRC won’t have the legislative levers, she can’t work black swans to her advantage or even mitigate their worst effects. The GOP, on the other hand, can through the magic of gridlock and a compliant corporate media can take advantages of the whims of fate much better than HRC could.
Combine that with the fact that current demographics heavily disfavor the Democratic Party winning midterm and off-year elections, you can see why I’m repeatedly sounding the panic alarm.
Seriously. An above-average case scenario has Hillary Clinton facing no hugely negative black swans and keeping it in her pants when it comes to overseas interventions — or getting lucky and having a Gulf War where she doesn’t get tagged with the blowback. If this happens… nothing much changes after four years and we’ll have to pray for another four years that nothing bad will happen. At that point, maybe the Obama Coalition will passively grow enough that the Democratic Party can win the White House. I mean, assuming that demographics stay the same, which is an extremely dicey proposition given the disturbingly GOP swing/voter dropout Millenials did going from 2008 to 2012.
This is what you want to hang your future on?
I’m a Bernie supporter, but I believe the scenario you paint in the wake of a Hillary victory is way overdetermined. If Bernie wins, he’ll have the same challenge in responding the somewhat unpredictable group of issues the voters will prioritize down the stretch in 2016, 2018, 2020 and beyond.
The Democratic candidates are not attempting to passively grow the Obama Coalition. It appears to me they are attempting to aggressively grow the coalition, and there is potential for both of the major candidates to do so for a number of reasons. Growing the coalition and figuring out ways to turn more of them out every two years will be their challenge, but it won’t be their challenge alone.
If the Democratic Party Congressional candidates had not gotten frightened by the shouty town halls during the ACA debate and run away from the President and the accomplishments of the 111th Congress, I believe their shellacking would not have been so substantial. President Obama was certainly not responsible for those Congressional campaign decisions.
You have your opinions based on your fixed opinion of who the 2016 candidates are. I’m looking at what the candidates and their campaigns are doing, and I’m pleased by their platforms. The fact that the polls are tightening between Hillary and Bernie is terrific news; it’ll keep them both working hard for our votes.
The problem is that the loudest voices on the left are largely White who really don’t suffer the consequences of GOP rule.
It’s not their voting rights under attack so they can afford to spend more time whining about shitty Dems rather than the crazy loons who would send folks like you and me back to the cotton fields if they could. At this point I read these Progressives whining for ponies and unicorns knowing that’s all they’ll do and just shrug.
That’s because you aren’t looking too hard. Venture outside of the Democratic Party Approved(tm) upper-middle class middle-aged urbanite media for a bit and talk to some young and/or poor leftists who are racial or religious minorities. That is, put down the Rachel Maddow and Paul Krugman and Erza Klein and Kevin Drum and Ed Kilgore for a few minutes and go to Latino Rebels or Carl Beiger or Roqayah Chamseddine even TYT. They’re pretty much singing the same tune.
And it’s not really much of a surprise. 75% of American women 18-30 make less than 25K a year. Historically, the people who don’t gamble on a better future over a status quo that promises indefinite but safe mediocrity aren’t the disadvantaged folk. I know that it’s a very convenient centrist dodge to claim that leftists asking for more progress and hope comes at the expense of those less well-off, but stagnation and indefinite rearguard actions hurts the most vulnerable, too.
I think you’ve got your Arthur Gilroy switch accidentally set to “on”
re:
You certainly nailed the pigeonhole I currently find myself inhabiting, at least. Not proud of that, but there it is.
Defending is never sexy, in any venue. Think to sports. When I was a kid, no one wanted to be goalkeeper, they wanted to be the one scoring the game winning goal. Of course I was a goalkeeper anyway, and flourished at it. But this still rings true through adulthood. No one really remembers you making that game winning stop, but they definitely remember the goal(s), and they’ll definitely remember if you failed to stop the ball even if it wasn’t necessarily your fault.
Many of my acquaintances are old conservative white men. And they are all angry with something, mostly Obama, who they think is just a failure. But, surprisingly, they are not sold on any of the candidates in the republican clown car (except a few), and they actually like some of the things Sanders is saying, but you know, a socialist? I take it as no one ever pays any attention to them, just old farts. So apathy may be a good way to see it.
I’d be interested to hear why your friends are angry with Obama. As other commenters have noted he has actually done quite a lot of good for this country.
Most of my friends are rational and when I ask them what the President has done to earn such scorn they give me an easily debunked talking point. After the debunking they usually just change the subject.
So I am still waiting.
I have never seen an election with less hope among rank and file Democrats.
What is Clinton going to do that is significant?
Can anyone answer this question.
The only hope in the Party is Sanders – whose groups in the early states are the the same Obama won.
That could all be true but the dynamic of this with an aging social democrat facing a MSM choice with clout could be insurmountable. And probably is.
You are probably right – but there is an acceptance with the status quo reflected in this piece that DOES suggest in some ways that Trump and do Cruz are right.
There is no sense of URGENCY on liberal blogs. They are almost sleep walking. They have in a way very much given up.
And I have to say that is VERY dangerous in politics.
We don’t like our party very much.
Oddly, we may be our worst enemy. If often seems to me that a relatively minor difference in opinion on an issue can lead to STFU attitudes.
The idea in so many D circles is “demographic inevitability”, which is also called “suicide by stupidity”.
Every election is different. Everyone has a character of its own. And every election has a special moment in which a small issue rises to the top and makes things change.
In 2008, it was the financial crisis, and McCain’s response to the “crisis meeting” which he had called for. He was terrible in that meeting, and it was the end of his viability.
In 2004, it was the “Swift Boat” and also the “wave boarding” ad.
In 2012, it was the 47%, as much as anything.
What will it be in 2016? That will be revealed in July, August, September, and it will change the landscape. Maybe just a trim around the edges, maybe a tidal wave.
Demographics are destiny. This isn’t really controversial. People by and large are products of their environment, the environment recursively affects their identity, thus leading to people having strong, stochastically predicable political preferences and who thereby vote according to their preferences.
The problem is that centrists use the ‘demographics are destiny’ excuse to sit on their fucking asses. Obama won a Presidential election in a difficult year with Dukakis-like demographic proportions, and because demographic growth is centered in his favorable proportions it’s okay not to change anything.
Two things, though. One: while political preferences generally change glacially, they do change. If we’re talking about stable demographics over a period of 4 years, that’s fine, but the centrists are making plans for the next 12 years. That’s foolhardy. Evangelicals and Southerners were once a huge demographic proportion of the Democratic Party. That shit changed in a right hurry between the Carter and Reagan Presidencies. Food for thought.
Two: having a demographic advantage is only worth anything if you act upon it. The GOP had a huge demographic advantage with blacks and they blew it with the Hoover administration. The GOP had a sizeable demographic advantage with Asians and they blew it in the Clinton administration. Etc.
I agree that demographics are destiny. I also agree with your point that things shift. And why do they change? That is my point about the issue of the campaign.
The notion of demographics is a retrospective one in so many cases. You look back at the end and see why folks voted. The mistake, as you state, and as I have stated, is banking on that.
Reagan blew as many visual and audible dog-whistles for southern racists as he could.
Google;
Reagan’s Infamous Neshoba County Fair Speech
Reagan launched his official campaign right here ….
google
Welfare queens driving Cadillacs
his primary attack on both foodstamps and welfare;
google
strapping young buck
a favourite Reagan quote when campaigning down south.
One of Reagan’s biggest political supporters/allies was Jerry Falwell, an anti-civil rights bigot who used right wing christianity to fight any attempt at equal rights.
Reagan vetoed The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988
Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Reagan opposed the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Reagan sided with Bob Jones University in a lawsuit to obtain federal tax exemptions that had been denied by the IRS.
Reagan even opposed the Martin Luther King holiday. The only reason he signed was an overwhelming veto-proof majority (338 to 90 in the House of Representatives and 78 to 22 in the Senate) voted in favor of it, thus they would have easily over-ridden his veto.
Reagan threw blacks under the bus in an attempt to curry favor with anti-civil rights Southerners. That just might have convinced the southern bigots Reagan was one of them at heart, even if just for their vote.
So instead of being a real statesman, he pretended when needed, but played the dog whistle southern strategy politics to get elected
Trump stepping on Hillary and Bill’s every nerve for the duration of the campaign seems extremely likely on recent performance. I can’t be the only one noticing this.
Surely you, of all people, can quantify Democratic enthusiasm, no? I remember being pretty morose post-Dean, with Kerry. I can’t imagine that, as a party, we’re less hopeful now. (Except I can, but I wonder if there are polls …)
I can quantify:
The only life Clinton has shown has been during the Benghazi hearing.
She is now riding the wave of the supposed Obama put down of Bernie over the gun control issue. It could backfire.
It will backfire. Like it or not, the public thinks that the GOP is better for gun control. And not by a small amount, but a huge margin.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/07/23/gops-favorability-rating-takes-a-negative-turn/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/17/despite-lower-crime-rates-support-for-gun-rights-inc
reases/
Gun control is a big bugbear of the non-GOP upper middle class WASPs (and because these people are way the hell overrepresented in the media, it’s a bugbear of said media, too), but as much as I hate to admit it the Democratic consensus is on the wrong side of the issue.
This explains why HRC, faced with the very real threat of losing Iowa and NH and thereafter finding her lead in South Carolina shaved down and losing Nevada, decided to hang her hat on gun control despite three of these four states having urbanization rates below 65%.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d say that Obama and HRC were secretly rooting for Sanders to succeed. But I do know better and it’s that the centrists live in a bigger bubble than the conservatives and liberals.
Obama, yes.
Why she’s going to keep going on counting her money and wallowing in her celebrity, that’s what she’s going to do, what more could anyone ask for. Her husband too.
start another war
Does she still want the no fly zone?
yes, I assume so. that’s what I was thinking of. lest peace break out, she’ll reestablish hopeless violence and lots of $$ for weapons mnfcturers
We don’t have the luxury to think like that, any more than von Hindenburg did in 1933.
There’s a wave cresting right now that is so fucking dangerous that it must be stopped by any means necessary. If Hillary Clinton can do that (and, by the way, be the first woman president and provide new SC justices that aren’t insane) that’s all it will take.
Thank God that the wave will finish cresting between 2016-2018 and we don’t have to worry about the Democratic Party being totally undone in 2018-2024 thanks to a President full of disillusionment and probably even warhawkery. If we can just win 2016, we’ll be safe and free from the woods of unbowed fascism forever, so who cares how we win as long as we win, eh?
In this particular case, yes, exactly.
I don’t care “how” we win if the alternative is Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Fiorina, or Bush as president.
I don’t see how any reasonable person can disagree with this. (Even establishment conservatives are talking openly about voting for Hillary if Trump or Cruz is their nominee.)
Okay, so please tell me how you think that the elections of 2018, 2020, and 2022 and thus the future of the United States goes if Hillary Clinton wins instead. I’ll accept general terms such as ‘the GOP expands their margin due to lopsided demographics’, but remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Me? I’ve already said what I think will happen. To summarize: Hillary Clinton gets two years of SCOTUS appointments. Whereupon when the GOP regains the Senate and announces the breaking of a new norm: indefinitely refusing to confirm any justices to the left of Bork. A frustrated HRC returns to form and resorts to warhawkery in an attempt to exert some control. The war blows up in her face, as wars tend to do, and the Democratic base is dismotivated even further. An anti-establishment herrenvolk running on an ‘international intervention is bad, spend it on hardworking white people’ candidate comes to the fore. Contrary to centrist Dem expectations, while demographics are destiny they’re also not static and democrats lose youth in enough proportions — through drop-out rather than outright defections, but like with 2012 Romney it still happens — and the GOPer squeaks by a win with all three branches. The GOP solidifies its control on the state houses and uses their 4-year victory window (with a new round of Gerrymandering allowing them to keep Congress in 2022) to completely shred the Democratic Party.
Stunned, the inept and clueless centrists, so certain that the demographics were so destined that they could run another inept and clueless centrist and continue to win while ignoring what the demographics actually wanted, do what they do best: blame the goddamn DFHs and Millenials (now turning 40) for not going with the program, because it certainly wasn’t their stubborn refusal to adapt that led to disaster, oh no.
I don’t agree with your scenario. It’s based on a projection of neocon recklessness and ideological madness onto the DLC mentality. There’s some overlap, but not as much as you’re saying.
Anyway, come on. All of that pales in comparison to another conservative-establishment presidency. Remember the resignations at the justice department? Remember Bush pumping his fist and exclaiming “it feels good” after signing the AUMF? I mean, again, come on. The gulf is huge; the contrast is profound.
There is a massive disconnect between
There are assumptions behind these statements that are incompatible.
Your error is you believe the wave is cresting. HRC may beat it back today but I cant see her stopping it. Sanders has a better chance to destroy it permanently or rather, reduce it from a threat to a non factor.
Trump has identified an important issue. Democrats have a wrong idea about the American people. Americans do not support criminals, illegals, whatever. We are repeatedly TOLD that we do, but we do not.
Trump identifying this and stating it without ambiguity is regarded as “bold” “truth-telling” “not being politically correct”.
Are there any Democrats who are concerned about this? Clearly not.
I think the D Party will pay in Nov. But no one else here does. So, I may be wrong. But if someone in the D party could find a way to co-opt some of these voters, that would be powerful.
But I doubt that will happen. The illegals lobby is way too strong.
White Americans don’t support people of color immigrating here, legal status damned. That Donald Trump identified and embodies white supremacy isn’t any sort of secret, and what you’re longing for is for the Democrats to abandon a growing base in favor of a bigoted one that jumped the Democratic ship decades ago. No thanks.
Yep, regardless of whatever, pull out the “racism” statement. Good for what ailes ye. Always the argument winner.
Yeah, and you “ILLEGALS!” card is the same as it ever was. Do you have an argument?
Well, I don’t have the winning argument. But I recommend decency along Sanders thinking. I actually believe that racism can be defeated if we can address it head on.
You probably don’t know much about visa overstays, from your usually blather. But there are 4-5 million of them, and they are all colors. In fact, a lot of them are Canadian, Irish, English, due to English competency. Many of them are European. Many are H-1B overstays too.
The comment of “racism” is the first response of a person who cannot think of a second.
The comment of racism usually applies when you support racist BS. Adjust your White hood a little better there champ.
The attribution of racism is an indication of stupidity of the attributor. That would be you. I oppose illegals, of whatever color. If you can’t tell the difference, I wouldn’t be surprised in the least.
Earlier you stated a figure of 4 to 5 million undocumented aliens from Canada, Ireland and the UK, if I recall correctly. And that these were people who have overstayed their visas.
What is the basis for your figure? Because it’s way, way different than stuff I’ve read elsewhere.
For whatever it’s worth, I think your comments would be better received if you quit referring to people as illegal. No, they’re just people. What they’ve done violates US law.
Please don’t tell me that I’m foisting political correctness on you. That sort of statement is at least as much a sign of lazy thinking as is trying to shut down discussion by calling someone racist, a bigot, a fascist, whatever.
Why bother with your memory? Here is what I said: “But there are 4-5 million of them, and they are all colors. In fact, a lot of them are Canadian, Irish, English, due to English competency. Many of them are European. Many are H-1B overstays too.” Obviously, I said that there are 4-5 million (many sources) and that some are from various places. But since they are criminals, get exact counts is difficult.
We need to track them down, fine them heavily, and deport them.
And I will not object to you calling them whatever. I call them “illegals”. If you don’t like it, so be it.
If Trump and his supporters were upset about Northern Europeans and Canadians who have entered the country illegally or have overstayed their visas, you would have points worth considering.
Trump and his supporters are not upset about these white populations and their violations of immigration laws. Therefore, your points are crushed on the rocks of white supremacy.
Who gives a shit about actual numbers of visa overstays? Do you seriously think your average mope of a Trump supporter is like “damn those Democrats, allowing those visa overstays from Canadians! I want them illegals out!”
No. You know they don’t. I know they don’t. Yet on a consistent basis you act like they matter. Why is that? Could it be because you know as well as I do that what these supporters actually care about is a sense of lost “soft power” in America; like the Southern white in 1860 who had nothing to gain from slavery, yet fought its abolition to their very death to preserve it for the capitalist, agrarian class.
You could deport every last “illegal” in this country and it wouldn’t matter. This is about posturing and the culture war. Pick a side. The white people in this country who wish to cling to their guns, their religion, and indeed, their whiteness certainly have picked theirs.
You state “Many who have that belief have it due to racist”. Of course this is correct. And of course it is also irrelevant.
You seem to believe that establishing WHY someone believes something is important. It is not. What is important is, in politics, is finding a way to co-opt such persons.
My belief is that there are a lot more of such persons than previously thought. And that this is an important issue.
Your belief is that their motives makes them untouchable, and you’d rather just ignore them.
In Nov, we are going to see a lot of people voting against HRC (the likely D candidate) for reasons of immigration. For whatever reason, my suggestion is to find a way to incorporate some of those people.
See, that’s just it: these people CANNOT be co-opted. You might see some posts from Booman about how if we could just peel off a small sliver of the white vote percentage wise that it would have innumerable gains in flipping the house. That’s fine, we should do that. I believe Sanders has the best chance at doing that.
Am I willing to politically and morally sacrifice one of the largest growing portions of the electorate by promising to break up their families, deport their mothers and fathers, kick children who’ve been here their entire lives, and chant “Sieg Heil” as we march into the Capitol? No. And fuck anyone who thinks otherwise. They can join the white nationalist party down the hall.
OK, that’s clear enough.
Currently, ICE is raiding and deporting persons who 1) came here recently 2) have had an immigration court hearing 3) were not granted asylum.
Do you support deportation for those persons? If not, why not?
Do you support deportation for those persons?
I’d say it depends on a case by case basis, but most likely not.
If not, why not?
Most of them are arguably refugees, either economically or in terms of conflict zones as a result of our drug wars, particularly in El Salvador. Further, some of them have not, in fact, been given due process or exhausted legal options.
For the record, Obama’s record number of deportations further prove that these “disgruntled, angry, but not racist white Trump supporters” have nothing to offer us. Obama could deport them all tomorrow. Wouldn’t move the needle in the slightest.
Note 2) been in an Immigration Court.
They went to the court.
They lost.
They are not refugees.
The rule of law here is working. What is needed, now, is faster enforcement.
If Democrats want to try to bring some of the illegals haters over, they could consider supporting the working of the system. But even Sanders, who is sometimes sensible about illegals (he is not an H-1B supporter), is entirely pandering to the pro-amnesty crowd. Kind of disgusting really.
You’d think someone would do Sister Soljah at this point, but nope, pander pander pander. That’s a big fat loser strategy.
Immigration court halts some deportations after raids
Then why did they halt ICE raids?
From McClatchy:
Sending them to El Salvador and Honduras? Fuck that. Refugees, no question.
Australia has been deporting refugees left and right under Abbott, against international law, turning back boats. It doesn’t mean they’re not refugees simply because they’re deported or turned away. What bullshit.
Tony Abbott is no longer the Australian PM.
I know, the “has” should have been a “had”. I am not aware if Australia has reversed its position on deportations, or I’d have said they’ve continued under Turnbull.
This point is very clear: They have been to Immigration Court. They lost. That’s the end of the story. You lose in court, you are guilty. You lose in immigration court, you are not a refugee, you are to be deported. This is an absolute.
WRONG;
Because you “loose” in court when there are courts to appeal to actually means you really haven’t lost.
Until ALL appeals are lost …. and since this little gem;
BIA decisions are binding on all DHS officers and immigration judges unless modified or overruled by the Attorney General or a federal court.
is LAW.
Hmmmmm … federal court ….
Could this mean the process is actually FAR from over?
unlike your statement?
What I love about your bringing this up, dataguy, is that it is a Democratic Administration which is executing these raids right now.
For voters who place limiting/eliminating immigration as a top issue, will this make them more likely to support the Democratic Party POTUS candidate in November? FUUUUUCK NO. Will it hurt the Dem Party candidate with the growing non-white voting populations? Yes, it will.
Sorry, dataguy, there is no electoral benefit to the Democratic Party for them to do what you want them to do on this issue. I’m sympathetic to the argument that there needs to be enforcements of rulings on refugee claims which have had true due process, but don’t pretend this will help the Democratic Party in future elections. It won’t.
Why Did Democrats Lose the White South?
Plain as day:
Plain as fucking day.
Danger! Danger! Danger! Nick is giving his regular doom-and-gloom predictions for Democrats ……again. I’m guessing some of his negative predictions must have come true, but his batting average is terrible. But if it has to do with a minority group and the Democratic party, Nick’s got plenty of opinions and predictions. What a loser!
How do YOU think that 2016-2024 is going to go?
The way I see it, HRC is putting together a coalition that will probably win the Presidency but almost certainly won’t win the House in 2016 and won’t keep the Senate in 2018. Her supporters flat-out admit this. They’re trying to lube the base up for two years of SCOTUS appointments along with the symbol of having a (because it’s great symbolism that will inspire a generation, an ineffective, paranoid, out-of-touch) woman President. The demographics of her coalition don’t support anything otherwise, she doesn’t have any positive short-term trends coming her way, and she’s an average campaigner at best.
The thing is, I can totally see the Republican Party continuing to obstruct their asses off. They rode that strategy to huge gains in 2010 and 2014 and there’s no reason to expect why they won’t repeat it for 2016-2020. And while passive demographic change will eventually allow New Democrats to win Congress, it’s very likely that the Republican Party will catch some positive black swan (like, say, a Democratic Presidency marked with disillusionment and frustration and wearing the stink of warhawkery) and win all three branches of government. Even if they don’t, it’ll take until about 2024 until the Democratic Party can win the House in Presidential years with its current strategy and no positive or negative black swans.
And the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic Party have NO plan to counter this whatsoever. The best-case scenario they have is stagnation for the next four years with maybe being able to mount a weak counterattack in 2020.
You want to know why people are scoffing and dropping out? It’s because no one wants to hear ‘life won’t get much better for the entirety of your adulthood, but it can get much worse. So STFU, stop being a baby, and vote for predictable mediocrity’. No wonder why HRC is doing so poorly in Trump matchups in recent polls. Disaffected people with no medium-term hope buy lottery tickets and recreational drugs for a reason.
TTIP will see to the Dems in 2018. Maybe even 2020. Plus your other points.
“Among liberal activists, the apathy comes from a sense that they can’t win big. All they can do is prevent the worst and perhaps make some incremental progress that doesn’t inspire much of anyone to drop what they’re doing and get engaged.”
This is exactly the result of the Democratic Establishment and the DLC run by the Clinton Machine losing election after election giving up both houses of congress, one of them in a crucial census year. How many times do you have to be kicked before you begin to cower hoping not to be kicked again. Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
“I believe they would be disappointed to discover that this country’s will cannot be bent so easily.”
I agree with you that the arc of history or will is slow, long and not easily bent but it does bend. The first question becomes, what is the definition of the people’s will? The second question is then, was that definition accurate? These questions become the very basis of our 240 year old experiment with democracy. We did not start out with political parties but we found we needed them as grease to make the gears turn. The political party’s job (only job really) is to answer the first question. The second question is always answered by the election.
I think the reason we have a large populist movement on both sides of the aisle is because the establishments of both parties have failed to get the answer to the first question right. If both parties get question one wrong, the gears stop turning. The party who gets question one right wins when the second question is answered by the election. This is the genius of our system, our expression of democracy.
“It’s not that people don’t care about political things anymore, but they’ve given up hope in the system.”
This is why it’s so important for the establishment of either party not to put their vested interest thumb on the scale during the formation of the answer to question one. If either party gets the answer to question one wrong, they lose the answer to question two. That’s how it works, you get kicked again.
The soul of the Republican Party is dark and ugly but is starting to find their answer to question one in spite of their establishment. This is in plain sight if you dare to look.
The soul of the Democratic Party is not yet decided. I think the outcome of the struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party is going to set the tone for the future of our nation. We either get better or we get worse.
Coming into this election cycle I did not think we were going to have a choice, let alone get a shot at question one. My distant hope was Elizabeth Warren but she was not running. Then Bernie Sanders appeared with a set of issues and solutions that should already be at the core of every Democrat running for office. His issues poll at the top across party lines. It was like it had taken the arc of history thirty years to catch up to him, a true nice start for the correct answer to question one.
Now we have a choice. Is the soul of the Democratic Party best represented by Establishment Hillary Clinton or Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders? The devil is in the details or should I say issues. Are we going to maintain corporate media and blog silence with the usual sound bite analysis or are we going have a serious discussion about the many differences between the two? Hillary attacked Bernie for his vote to not make gun manufactures liable for how their products are used? Which side is reasonable and best aligns with the will of the people? Our forum here is one of the best places to contemplate this issue and issues like this. Bernie thinks this struggle should be decided by the issues, not personal attack. I agree with him.
“Our gridlock is structural at this point, and not subject to strategy or rhetoric.”
If we can get the correct answer to question one, the people will be at our back so we can solve those structural problems. It may take awhile but at least we’ll be on a winning path.
“This is exactly the result of the Democratic Establishment and the DLC run by the Clinton Machine losing election after election giving up both houses of congress, one of them in a crucial census year.”
How many ways is this claim infuriating?
Thank you for your response. Not that you did it but rating trolls who leave no comment degrade the frog pond forum, just sayin’.
The gist for your comment is you are infuriated if someone says the soul of the Democratic Party needs some adjustment if it expects to win the next presidential election when things are just fine as they are. I can certainly understand why center field Democrats would be infuriated when their version of the soul of the Democratic Party is challenged.
Yes I did say, “…the Democratic Establishment and the DLC run by the Clinton Machine…” when the DLC as an organization no longer exists. The point I was making is that the DLC lives on inside the Clinton Machine dominating the present day Democratic Establishment. That has already cost us control of both houses of congress.
What was the DLC? The DLC was a non-profit 501(c) corporation founded in 1985 that, upon its formation, argued the United States Democratic Party should shift away from the leftward turn it took in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.
The DLC tried but failed to remake itself in the summer of 2009, when its founder, Al From, stepped down as president. Its new leader, former Clinton aide Bruce Reed, sought to remake the group as a think tank and the DLC split from its associated think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute. Reed then left the DLC to serve as Vice President Joe Biden’s chief of staff. The DLC folded (2011) when it could not find a new leader and ran out of money.
What happened to the DLC organization? On July 5, 2011, DLC founder Al From announced on the organization’s website that the historical records of the DLC have been purchased by the Clinton Foundation.
Did the DLC somehow live on to become part of the Clinton Machine to dominate the Democratic Establishment? I’ll let Thom Hartman help:
Although he’s not as well-known as someone like Karl Rove or Frank Luntz, Al From is one of the most important political operatives of the past few decades. A veteran Democratic staffer, he thought his party moved “too far to the left” during the 1970s, and so, in 1985, he founded a group known as the Democratic Leadership Council, or DLC, whose stated goals were “to expand the party’s base and appeal to moderates and liberals.”
That obviously sounds nice in theory, but in practice it meant the destruction of the thing that made the Democratic Party the United States’ governing party for most of the 20th century: the progressive values of the New Deal and FDR. Under From’s leadership, the DLC staged a bloodless coup of the Democratic Party, and swapped out the progressivism of FDR, Truman and Johnson for the corporatism of the Clintons.
The final victory in the DLC’s takeover of the Democratic Party came when Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992.
Al From had personally recruited Bill to run for president, and the DLC’s ideas were the basis for most of his policies. Over the next 20 years, the DLC consolidated its stranglehold over the Democratic Party. Even though it is no longer actually the DLC, its supporters still control the Democratic establishment, especially Hillary Clinton. Democratic voters are sick and tired of the DLC-Clintonites running the show. The base of the Democratic Party is still progressive even if the party bigwigs have sold-out to the corporatists.
The progressive base wants to go back to the values that made the Democratic Party the United States’ governing party from the New Deal until the 1990s. They want real change, not Republican-lite policies pretending to be progressive.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34370-the-dnc-junta-is-continuing-the-democratic-leadership-co
uncil-coup
What Thom Hartman says helps define the real choices we face for the soul of the Democratic Party. Do we want to go back to the values that made the Democratic Party the United States’ governing party from the New Deal until the 1990s or do we want to continue to go down that bumpy detour started by Al From?
I know this is all opinion but if we make the right choice we win, the wrong choice we lose and that will certainly turn into fact. Winners always have the correct answer to question one; what was the will of the people?
If the Clintons and their supporters had a stranglehold over the Democratic Party, Hillary would have been the Party’s nominee in 2008.
If corporatists had full control of the Democratic Party, the 111th Congress and President Obama would not have saved us from a second Great Depression and would not have stacked up their impressive list of progressive accomplishments.
I am far from claiming there are “no problems” in the Democratic Party. I’m just irritated by claims from people who claim that our President and Congressmembers like Majority Leader Pelosi are betrayers of the progressive enterprise. These broad claims require us to ignore their full records, and fail to account for the tremendous challenges we faced in January 2009 and how successfully our Party’s leaders faced them down.
As a Bernie supporter, I agree with the claim that Sanders would pursue policy goals that are more progressive and would meet my preferences. However, the devil’s horns that many people insist on placing on Hillary are often preposterously over the top, and again require us to ignore her full record, particularly in the Senate.
Hillary’s record is to the left of Bill. Not that anyone wants to deal with that.
I didn’t say “…the (Hillary) Clintons and their supporters had a stranglehold over the Democratic Party…” The DLC became the Clinton Machine or Democratic Establishment, whichever way you want to look at it. The problem for Hillary in 2008 was Obama had embraced the DLC, just look at who was in his first administration. The first clue that Obama had embraced the corporatism of the Clintons was when he opted out of public finance for presidential elections, turning to Wall Street for big money, three times the amount available for McCain because McCain had opted in. They got quite a lot for their money.
The corporatists did have plenty of control over the Democratic Party. You should go see “The Big Short.” Wall Street wrecked the world economy then were bailed out by the taxpayers with no strings attached allowing them to become even bigger while giving themselves huge bonuses. We didn’t break them up when we had the chance as Paul Volker advised let alone send any of the banksters to jail. Does that sound like the legacy of FDR or the legacy of Al From?
When politicians, any of them, take money from the corporatist then represent the interest of the corporatist instead of the interests of the people they must not be considered progressive and in my opinion should no longer even be considered Democrats, that is, if the Democrats want to be called the Party of the People. They can change their direction or find another line of work, sort of a political revolution.
I do admire Obama for what he accomplished especially given what he had to work with. Our next very important task is to dismantle the Clinton (DLC) Machine to once again return Democrats to the values that made the Democratic Party the United States’ governing party from the New Deal until the 1990s.
This thread is almost dead, wish you had jumped in earlier.
I don’t disagree with the fact that money buys influence. I will quarrel with you that this influence is absolute in all cases as you grandly claim here, and it’s worthwhile to point out the places where you print the legend here and veer away from the facts.
Let’s start with the fact that the bailout of financial institutions took place under the Bush Administration. This sinks your claim that Wall Street’s supposed purchase of President Obama was the beginning of the quid pro quo that was followed by them being “bailed out by the taxpayers with no strings attached”.
And, about that “no strings attached” part…
The bailout had enforceable provisions requiring the banks to compensate the Federal government which, chiefly under Obama Administration enforcement, has allowed the Federal government to have made a $65.4 billion profit as of today:
http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/
And re. this claim of a 100% bought-and-paid-for Obama and Congress:
Is the Dodd/Frank bill “no strings attached”?
Is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau “no strings attached”?
Are the massive set of settlements the Justice Department has gained from the major financial institutions for their wrongdoing, the latest of which was announced today, “no strings attached”?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/business/dealbook/goldman-to-pay-5-billion-to-settle-claims-of-fau
lty-mortgages.html?_r=0
Yes, the financial institution bailout passed under W. Bush did not include a provision which allowed the government to limit executive compensation. But are the sentiments Obama states in this report the sentiments of a bought-and-paid-for President?
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/obama-decries-fat-cat-bankers/
Did the ending of the Bush tax cuts for the top marginal rate represent what financial institution leaders wanted?
On balance, have Wall Street executives acted in ways which displayed happiness with the bought-and-paid-for President? Who did they support in 2012? In the last three Congressional elections?
Would I have liked to see many more jail terms? Has reform petered out and has enforcement been undermined since Republicans regained control of Congress? Yes and yes.
Just looking to have us consume more of the facts and less of the legend here.
The militia guys are digging through federal files and tearing down fencing do ranchers can drive cattle through the refuge.
WHERE ARE THE AUTHORITIES? I DAMN WELL WANT TO MAKE MY ENEMIES PAY.