I hope that Kyle Smith is wrong and Democrats do not wake up the day after November’s presidential election feeling like Bill Murray in the movie Groundhog Day, but I increasingly feel that he’s likely to be right. As I look around, I notice that the people who are voicing the same concerns are largely from swing states or swing districts, including particularly the affluent suburbs.
Lawmakers are not necessarily the most astute judges’s of the electorate, but their self-interest alone guarantees that they make educated guesses. Over the last few days, I’ve seen suburban freshman Democrats, like Haley Stevens and Mikie Sherrill from Michigan and New Jersey’s 11th Districts, respectively, endorse Michael Bloomberg for president.
This isn’t good news for Joe Biden, as it’s clearly a result of their assessment that Biden will not prevail over Bernie Sanders and that another “moderate” champion is needed to help the Democrats hold their House majority. But, the unvarnished truth is that a Democratic presidential nominee who worries our suburban lawmakers is probably going to underperform in the affluent suburbs, and that’s precisely the opposite of what needs to happen for the Democrats to beat Trump in the Electoral College.
In fact, Hillary Clinton did better in these suburbs than Barack Obama or Bill Clinton ever did, and she still lost reliably blue states because of her terrible performance in rural areas and small towns. It seems unlikely that Trump will fail to clean up again in these areas of states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. So, he can lose in California and New York by huge numbers and get clobbered in the popular vote, and it won’t hurt him a bit.
I’ve been harping on this problem since the day after the 2016 election, but the Democrats were unable to resist the easy winnings Trump provided them in the suburbs. They rode that advantage to a huge midterm victory, as they decimated suburban Republicans all across the country, all the way down to the local row offices.
It was hard to argue with that kind of success, but I continued to warn that it could be a trap for the 2020 election. First, from a progressive point of view, dependence on affluent suburban voters was going to transform the party away from being good representatives of working class families, and that meant that ideas like progressive taxation and Medicare-for-All would become more remote than ever. But, second, if the party didn’t honor this change in the shape of their base and pretended that these suburbanites would support an economically populist and culturally urban platform, they would get the worst of all worlds. They’d lock in and even increase Trump’s rural advantage and depress their suburban one, leading to almost sure defeat in the presidential election.
The idea that Michael Bloomberg might swoop in and save the day seems extremely far-fetched to me, and I see his appeal to suburban lawmakers as a more a sign of panic and desperation than a solid plan.
If Bernie Sanders or even Elizabeth Warren is capable of proving skeptics like me wrong, they’re going to have to pull off something that seems extremely unlikely. They’re going to have to reshape the electorate away from the way it’s been headed, with urban/suburban vs. rural/small town polarization, and win by boosting urban and youth turnout to unimaginable levels. This would not be of much help in holding control of the House of Representatives, but it would potentially be enough to win back critical blue states that Hillary Clinton lost.
One sign that they’re on the right track would be indications that young small town/rural folks are splitting from the parents and rallying around the Democrat. Another sign would be that black support for Biden has transferred to a more progressive candidate and looks more energized than ever. What won’t work is the suburban strategy that was so successful in 2018.
And, because it won’t be successful, the party will not unite around this strategy even if it appears to have good prospects for defeating Trump. The reason the party won’t unite is because a non-suburban strategy threatens too many newly-elected officeholders.
Perhaps the most obvious way of pointing out the risk here is to state plainly that the strategy would ignore the preferences of black and urban voters while alienating suburban voters, and then hope that this doesn’t have the most predictable result that they don’t turn out or cast their ballots in a way that matches 2016 or worse. Ironically, going for the more progressive suburban-alienating options makes it critical that the small town/rural vote is heavily divided by age, with young voters defying their parents to support an economic populist over a cultural one.
This looks like such a long shot to me, that I completely understand those who are feeling panicked and desperate. But there’s still no way I am looking for Michael Bloomberg to be the left’s savior.
well aren’t you just a ray of sunshine.
the “Related Posts” bar led me to your “No to Bloomberg” story last year, where Euzoius said it best:
The problem with all this suburban panic is that the nation’s economic policies are going to be decided by the Congress, via legislation—including any healthcare insurance reform. If Dems take control of the government, they will pass the laws and the “socialist” in the WH will sign them. And if they don’t take control, then there won’t be any change in anything that can’t be handled via executive order (again). It’s not like the suburban component of the coalition will lose their power, suburban “moderates” in Congress will have plenty of power. Bernie can’t force the Congress to be more lib’rul than it wants to be. It’s not like threats to primary suburban Dems from the left will scare them!
The other thing to consider is that these suburban Dem voters threw out Repubs and voted in Dems in 2018 for a reason. If they voted Repubs out because of Trump hate, are they really going to sit out the 2020 prez election (which is all about flushing the Trump turd) because they dislike whomever the Dem primary churns out? If you are against Trump, isn’t EVERYONE the lesser evil by definition? The panic seems to answer “no”.
The nation has one chance and one chance only to get rid of Trumpism, and that’s having all sensible people vote against him, no matter what. If they won’t unite to do it, then they deserve whatever Der Trumper gives them (and us.)
So the suburban, affluent Dems are in it for the social part rather than the economic part. Where our “big tent” party grew big enough to house folks who would have been liberal Republicans. Fine with the economic system as is, because they’re benefiting from it. Good health insurance is affordable for them, so it’s fine. They have a Tesla in the garage charging from solar on the roof, so they’re battling climate change. They couldn’t stand the name calling, truth denying, and outright nastiness of the Trump Republicans.
The afflueDems are living in their affluent bubble thinking that everything can continue the way it is. It can’t. When some of them realize this, look for a sudden switch in the polls.
I question if lies and incivility are the only things suburbanites found objectionable about Der Trumper and Trumpism, since such shit has been part and parcel of “conservative” politics since the rise of St.Rushbo.
But of course it’s hard to deny your description of where they are at in life, although I doubt many are very complacent about their health care insurance, and Teslas are still a luxury purchase. And if you are right, that simply means they’d be jumping out of the pan and right back into the Trumpism fire.
I’d guess we simply don’t really know what this huge slice of the electorate will actually do if not presented with a “moderate” Dem for prez. But their new Congresspeople need to reassure them that they aren’t going to let their sky fall. It’s also rational not to panic…
Work and plan, suggest and implore, but don’t panic. Trump has lost the next election already. There are too many reasonable folks in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin who made a mistake last time, but will not repeat it. No Democrat no matter how “moderate” will change the mind of those who think Romney is a liberal, so go ahead and choose the candidate you like most. The real battle is for the Senate and secondarily the house. That’s where my donations are going.
I keep reading these panic posts from you basically making the same case. One thing I don’t get: If Biden loses then black and urban voters aren’t going to come out and vote? I could see that Bernie, or even Warren, might be risky among suburban voters who voted for Romney, but are they really going to depress the urban and black vote? Everything I am hearing is that Democratic constituents, certainly a lot of Biden supporters in places like South Carolina, are looking for someone who they believe Trump. Joy Reid has said they see a Trump win as an existential threat. So, if they are supporting Biden because they believe he can win, will they just decide not to vote?
The other thing, Trump’s numbers started to bump up a bit, and then right after the impeachment Gallup, like clockwork, Gallup came out with a poll showing Trump at his highest level of support and everyone started to panic. But Gallup has done this repeatedly over the years and every time once people start to analyze the poll, it appears that they have oversampled Republicans. Do they do this purposely? I think we have to see what happens after New Hampshire and South Carolina, what new polls come out in the weeks ahead, and what new evidence comes out about Trump. We still don’t even know what the state of the economy will be as the election approaches.
Lastly, I have asked you this before, but do you ever read Rachel Bitecofer? I would be curious to know what your view is of her theory and methodology, because she is saying something different.
Yea, i can see the logic of Booman’s take, and I’m worried about Bernie too, but what if we assume the following:
1) Bernie, in the 2020 environment, can turn out urban/black voters as well as Hillary did.
2) The suburban voter today is like 10 times more aggrieved about Trump now than they were upset about Trump in 2016. Maybe any dem, even Bernie, could do as well or even better in the burbs compared to Clinton.
3) Bernie will appeal the best of any candidate to the the rural independent, because in spite of being a Brooklyn Jew, he’s the most like them, and understands them the best. And because those people hate Wall Street the most. So he has the most potential to peel off chunks of the rural vote from Trump.
If these things are true, Bernie is the best General candidate. Maybe not best President, but that’s a different thing.
There are two good articles in the Atlantic, one by Brownstein illustrating the amazing edge Bernie has amongst young voters, even minorities, and then this one https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/great-affordability-crisis-breaking-america/606046/ about the extent how the great economic expansion of the post-great-recession era has failed Ameircan families in the areas of affordable housing, health and child care. There’s a lot of people across all strata of society who will agree wholeheartedly with those findings and cast a radical vote.
And yes Congress is broke blah blah. But sometimes you have get on the horse you have and ride it hard.
Interesting points. You might be on to something. Everything is unproven at this point. We’ll have to see how things go tomorrow and the subsequent races, who (and how many) comes out to vote. If Bernie does become the candidate, and does go on to become president, it will be a shock (meaning a surprise to many), and will likely shake people out of a certain view of things, and maybe get them to question certain strategies. I think that the choice of running mate is also going to be very important this time, and would affect some of the issues that Martin has been discussing.
Harris for veep on a Bernie ticket? But then Kobushar might be better, with the mid-west angle.
Stacey Abrams?
I’m neither sanguine nor panicked:
https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/status/1226967670467244035
One poll…so make of it what you will. Trump is not inevitable, any more than Thanos was inevitable. Let’s be prepped all the same.
I don’t understand what you mean here. Are you saying that the winning strategy (for Bernie) would be to just go after rural whites? White urban voters don’t seem to have an issue with that strategy. I don’t think it will work bc I think Trump’s emotional appeal is different and more visceral.
Our Revolution didn’t flip a single seat in 2018 (surprised no candidate has mentioned that). It bewilders me that 2020 is on such a different track. That we have no Democratic brand cohesion after the House Dems were able to band together and impeach Trump is just dispiriting as all hell. It doesn’t surprise me turnout in Iowa wasn’t too high and it won’t surprise me if it’s not in NH, either.
I should add I grew up with Democratic brand loyalty as a kid with a Gore button because it represented something much different than Chester/Berks County rednecks who enjoyed telling me gun control was right and gay marriage was wrong. Those are today’s MAGA voters and I don’t think they’ll be pried away while Trump is in office.