Hillary in 2020?

[Unitedwestand13]

Against an alternative and aberration like Trump and the fact that the Cold War (and its attendant conflicts), McCarthyism and so on have long since been dead and buried save among the most manic conservatives, nevermind Trump's lack of incumbency vis a vis Nixon, that's a pretty bold claim; I'm not at all, nor have ever been sold on the supposed parallels between McGovern and Bernie save that the two were more progressive than the establishment of their party.

Never underestimate the power of political self interest.

The Nathan deal makes a convincing argument about McGovern’s failure instayin Alive: the 1970s and the last stand of the working class

https://www.amazon.com/Stayin’-Alive-1970s-Working-Class/dp/1595587071


George McGovern lost because he failed to win the votes of the white working class, voters that had been once been one of the bedrock groups of FDR’s former political coalition.

The white voters that decided the 1972 election had a particular thing in common, they were voters who had been supporters of of the presidential campaign of the former Alabama governor’s George Wallace.

Why were they attracted to George Wallace’s campaign? Because he campaigned on protecting the social and political status of white working class, who may have been economically liberal but were repulsed by the democratic parties support of the civil rights movement of the 1960s and other cultural revolutions of that era.

 

[Surrealistik]

Never underestimate the power of political self interest.

The Nathan deal makes a convincing argument about McGovern’s failure instayin Alive: the 1970s and the last stand of the working class

https://www.amazon.com/Stayin’-Alive-1970s-Working-Class/dp/1595587071


George McGovern lost because he failed to win the votes of the white working class, voters that had been once been one of the bedrock groups of FDR’s former political coalition.

The white voters that decided the 1972 election had a particular thing in common, they were voters who had been supporters of of the presidential campaign of the former Alabama governor’s George Wallace.

Why were they attracted to George Wallace’s campaign? Because he campaigned on protecting the social and political status of white working class, who may have been economically liberal but were repulsed by the democratic parties support of the civil rights movement of the 1960s and other cultural revolutions of that era.

Right, but here's where your theory falls flat (besides the litany of other reasons that were absolutely specific to the temporal/geopolitical context of the early 70s): Bernie actually had the support of white workers and would have surely eaten Trump's lunch here. Remember, this is the guy who was roundly and routinely criticized by establishment democrats and their pundits for not focusing on ID politics _enough_ due to his, in their view, 'disproportionate' focus on economics and the plight of the working class.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Right, but here's where your theory falls flat (besides the litany of other reasons that were absolutely specific to the temporal/geopolitical context of the early 70s): Bernie actually had the support of white workers and would have surely eaten Trump's lunch here. Remember, this is the guy who was roundly and routinely criticized by establishment democrats and their pundits for not focusing on ID politics _enough_ due to his, in their view, 'disproportionate' focus on economics and the plight of the working class.

I don’t own the arguement, I simply retold you what I read in cowies’s book.

Identity politics is the very thing that doomed McGovern, more precisely the failure to recognize what made George Wallace’s campaign so attractive to white working class voters. On the surface, it seems reasonable to assume that liberal and progressive economic and social policy would be enough to convince the white working class voters to vote for democrats. That is simply not true for one simple reason: being in favor of liberal economic policy does not mean you support every aspect of modern liberalism. Many white working class voters, despite being in favor of liberal economic policy, were conservative in social and cultural values, and it was this that made the white working class voter to become disillusioned with the Democratic Party. And you know what was going on in the 1960s and 1970s that created this disillusionment? The civil rights movement, the social and cultural revolutions, rather anti war movement. To the conservative working class, their long held and cherished traditional values were being tarnished and discarded and they blamed it on the upstart revolutionaries and youth who participated in that movement and the Democratic Party for abandoning the values of the white working class.

This is what in my opinion caused the white working class to abandon the Democratic Party; this is why the supported George Wallace; this is what made the white working class vote for Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1980, and it is what made trump’s campaign so diabolically effective

The white working class supported liberal economic policies when they Benefited whites, and whites alone. When these same policies are created to benefit everyone regardless of race, the white working class reject these very same policies.

Racial resentment has always been a driving force in politics.

The modern Democratic Party has chosen to embrace the notion that America is at its best when it is a pluralistic society.

My advice to you is to read Jefferson cowies’s book.

 

[Surrealistik]

I don’t own the arguement, I simply retold you what I read in cowies’s book.

Identity politics is the very thing that doomed McGovern, more precisely the failure to recognize what made George Wallace’s campaign so attractive to white working class voters. On the surface, it seems reasonable to assume that liberal and progressive economic and social policy would be enough to convince the white working class voters to vote for democrats. That is simply not true for one simple reason: being in favor of liberal economic policy does not mean you support every aspect of modern liberalism. Many white working class voters, despite being in favor of liberal economic policy, were conservative in social and cultural values, and it was this that made the white working class voter to become disillusioned with the Democratic Party. And you know what was going on in the 1960s and 1970s that created this disillusionment? The civil rights movement, the social and cultural revolutions, rather anti war movement. To the conservative working class, their long held and cherished traditional values were being tarnished and discarded and they blamed it on the upstart revolutionaries and youth who participated in that movement and the Democratic Party for abandoning the values of the white working class.

This is what in my opinion caused the white working class to abandon the Democratic Party; this is why the supported George Wallace; this is what made the white working class vote for Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1980, and it is what made trump’s campaign so diabolically effective

The white working class supported liberal economic policies when they Benefited whites, and whites alone. When these same policies are created to benefit everyone regardless of race, the white working class reject these very same policies.

Racial resentment has always been a driving force in politics.

The modern Democratic Party has chosen to embrace the notion that America is at its best when it is a pluralistic society.

My advice to you is to read Jefferson cowies’s book.

First of all, I don't agree with his assertions, that McGovern was condemned by ID politics; the situation was far more nuanced than that, many of which I listed, and there were many factors, including Nixon's inroads with China, the Vietnam War, residuals of the red scare, and so on. To pin it all or even mostly on ID politics is to me a complete misreading of what actually occurred.

Second, I also disagree that ID politics is primarily responsible for the abandonment of the working class white vote, particularly in the modern era; I think it's more the absence, either relative or absolute, of actual economic progressivism and populism in concrete support of the working class than the existence of diversity oriented politicking. Sure, no doubt Trump appealed to a certain subset of people who had conservative/regressive social convictions, but a large segment of his voters supported him on the basis of the idea that he would bolster their standard of living, and make a place for them in an economy that has increasingly left them behind. I don't doubt for a second that the so-called 'blue wall' rust belt as a concrete example, never would have flipped red if Bernie was the nominee.

Third, even if I were to grant that ID politics would have worked against Bernie (which I don't), the fact is that his focus was always on substantive policies and overall economic prescriptions rather than being predominantly couched in such things, and he would have, as stated, eaten much of Trump's lunch with regards to his economic/populist appeal, therefore the damage, if any, would have been limited.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

First of all, I don't agree with his assertions, that McGovern was condemned by ID politics; the situation was far more nuanced than that, many of which I listed, and there were many factors, including Nixon's inroads with China, the Vietnam War, residuals of the red scare, and so on. To pin it all or even mostly on ID politics is to me a complete misreading of what actually occurred.

Second, I also disagree that ID politics is primarily responsible for the abandonment of the working class white vote, particularly in the modern era; I think it's more the absence, either relative or absolute, of actual economic progressivism and populism in concrete support of the working class than the existence of diversity oriented politicking. Sure, no doubt Trump appealed to a certain subset of people who had conservative/regressive social convictions, but a large segment of his voters supported him on the basis of the idea that he would bolster their standard of living, and make a place for them in an economy that has increasingly left them behind. I don't doubt for a second that the so-called 'blue wall' rust belt as a concrete example, never would have flipped red if Bernie was the nominee.

Third, even if I were to grant that ID politics would have worked against Bernie (which I don't), the fact is that his focus was always on substantive policies and overall economic prescriptions rather than being predominantly couched in such things, and he would have, as stated, eaten much of Trump's lunch with regards to his economic/populist appeal, therefore the damage, if any, would have been limited.

But what if people tie choose the appeal of racism over any economic appeal

 

[<alt>doxygen]

But what if people tie choose the appeal of racism over any economic appeal

Many do. That is a GOP go-to, and has been since LBJ.

Carter and Clinton both won, imo, partially because they were from the south and knew how to blow the racial dog whistles very subtly. From LBJ to Obama (and some argue Obama used those whistles a bit) no Democrat won the presidency except those two southern boys. Bernie would have been toast.

 

[Jack Hays]

First of all, I don't agree with his assertions, that McGovern was condemned by ID politics; the situation was far more nuanced than that, many of which I listed, and there were many factors, including Nixon's inroads with China, the Vietnam War, residuals of the red scare, and so on. To pin it all or even mostly on ID politics is to me a complete misreading of what actually occurred.

Second, I also disagree that ID politics is primarily responsible for the abandonment of the working class white vote, particularly in the modern era; I think it's more the absence, either relative or absolute, of actual economic progressivism and populism in concrete support of the working class than the existence of diversity oriented politicking. Sure, no doubt Trump appealed to a certain subset of people who had conservative/regressive social convictions, but a large segment of his voters supported him on the basis of the idea that he would bolster their standard of living, and make a place for them in an economy that has increasingly left them behind. I don't doubt for a second that the so-called 'blue wall' rust belt as a concrete example, never would have flipped red if Bernie was the nominee.

Third, even if I were to grant that ID politics would have worked against Bernie (which I don't), the fact is that his focus was always on substantive policies and overall economic prescriptions rather than being predominantly couched in such things, and he would have, as stated, eaten much of Trump's lunch with regards to his economic/populist appeal, therefore the damage, if any, would have been limited.

But what if people tie choose the appeal of racism over any economic appeal

Sorry, to butt in, but the 1972 election was my first. I remember McGovern vs Nixon well.
Times have changed, but some things are the same. Nixon was able to damage McGovern by associating him with McGovern's own academic/urban supporters. Their presence in McGovern's coalition repelled many working class voters. I suspect Bernie would be hobbled by the same optic. In addition, suburban moderates who went for Nixon in 1972 went for Hillary in 2016. I don't think Bernie would have done as well with that group.

I don't know who would have won Bernie vs Donald, but I don't think Bernie had a better shot than Hillary.

 

[Surrealistik]

But what if people tie choose the appeal of racism over any economic appeal

Many do. That is a GOP go-to, and has been since LBJ.

Carter and Clinton both won, imo, partially because they were from the south and knew how to blow the racial dog whistles very subtly. From LBJ to Obama (and some argue Obama used those whistles a bit) no Democrat won the presidency except those two southern boys. Bernie would have been toast.

It's an interesting assertion albeit a baseless one I really haven't seen much if any compelling evidence of.

Yes, there's a social conservative vote that Bernie wouldn't have captured; that I don't dispute, but I think you are greatly, even egregiously overestimating its importance.

The fact is that turn out was terrible, disenchantment was prolific, and people by and large seemed to think (and rightly so) that they were confronted with bad and worse of which they picked what they thought to be least virulent when they could bring themselves to cast a ballot at all; there was no one to vote for. Further, per the data that existed at the time, Bernie was far better positioned to win per his double digit edge over Hillary and Trump alike than the former with the general population, nevermind the specific states that were won and lost, most tellingly the rust belt. Moreover, even if you buy into the idea that ID politics was an albatross that cost Hillary, and would have been a liability for Bernie, again, in his case that adverse impact is considerably lessened as he by and large did not campaign on an ID centric platform which constituted much of Clinton's thrust.

No one has a crystal ball and can provide concrete, absolute answers of what might've been, but Bernie was definitely the better bet, hands down if you were at all soberly assessing the facts as they stood.

Sorry, to butt in, but the 1972 election was my first. I remember McGovern vs Nixon well.
Times have changed, but some things are the same. Nixon was able to damage McGovern by associating him with McGovern's own academic/urban supporters. Their presence in McGovern's coalition repelled many working class voters. I suspect Bernie would be hobbled by the same optic. In addition, suburban moderates who went for Nixon in 1972 went for Hillary in 2016. I don't think Bernie would have done as well with that group.

I don't know who would have won Bernie vs Donald, but I don't think Bernie had a better shot than Hillary.

Per all the polling data at the time and per the states that Donald both won and won on, I'd have to disagree.

Again in McGovern's case, there was an absolute heaping list of reasons for his loss, and most of it had little to do with the idea of elitism or ID politics. To me, reductionism of 72 to ID politics, or even urban vs rural speaks more to a desire to engage in revisionist history, or at best, selective recollection, as a support for argument than to earnestly and soberly assess what actually happened at the time.

 

[Jack Hays]

It's an interesting assertion albeit a baseless one I really haven't seen much if any compelling evidence of.

Yes, there's a social conservative vote that Bernie wouldn't have captured; that I don't dispute, but I think you are greatly, even egregiously overestimating its importance.

The fact is that turn out was terrible, disenchantment was prolific, and people by and large seemed to think (and rightly so) that they were confronted with bad and worse of which they picked what they thought to be least virulent when they could bring themselves to cast a ballot at all; there was no one to vote for. Further, per the data that existed at the time, Bernie was far better positioned to win per his double digit edge over Hillary and Trump alike than the former with the general population, nevermind the specific states that were won and lost, most tellingly the rust belt. Moreover, even if you buy into the idea that ID politics was an albatross that cost Hillary, and would have been a liability for Bernie, again, in his case that adverse impact is considerably lessoned as he by and large did not campaign on an ID centric platform which constituted much of Clinton's thrust.

No one has a crystal ball and can provide concrete, absolute answers of what might've been, but Bernie was definitely the better bet, hands down if you were at all soberly assessing the facts as they stood.





Per all the polling data at the time and per the states that Donald both won and won on, I'd have to disagree.

Again in McGovern's case, there was an absolute heaping list of reasons for his loss, and most of it had little to do with the idea of elitism or ID politics. To me, reductionism of 72 to ID politics, or even urban vs rural speaks more to a desire to engage in revisionist history as a support for argument than to earnestly and soberly assess what actually happened at the time.

I make neither an elitist nor ID politics argument, and I have no 2016 axe to grind. I voted for neither Hillary nor Donald.
The argument is cultural. Nixon had the traditional Repub vote in his pocket. He extended his reach into the working class because they were repelled by the youthful, academic, urban supporters who won the nomination for McGovern. Trump likely would have benefited from the same dynamic, and would probably have run stronger in the suburbs against Bernie than he did against Hillary.

 

[Surrealistik]

I make neither an elitist nor ID politics argument, and I have no 2016 axe to grind. I voted for neither Hillary nor Donald.
The argument is cultural. Nixon had the traditional Repub vote in his pocket. He extended his reach into the working class because they were repelled by the youthful, academic, urban supporters who won the nomination for McGovern. Trump likely would have benefited from the same dynamic, and would probably have run stronger in the suburbs against Bernie than he did against Hillary.

Again my fundamental argument is that I've yet to see any kind of compelling evidence that the crux of McGovern's loss is reducible to some kind of cultural aversion/repugnance with regards to a specific group of supporters: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...oomed-to-lose-in-1972/?utm_term=.93d8326b3792

For starters, and that's really just scratching the surface, though it does touch on some of the more compelling/salient reasons.


Moreover, Bernie polled better with working class people than Hillary among the general populace, nevermind his blatantly superior numbers and polling in terms of favourability among the general.

I believe you when you say you don't have an axe to grind, with my comments on reductionism being more oriented towards others in this thread who have done just that, but I do think that there is much that is important which is being discounted in such an analysis.

 

[Jack Hays]

Again my fundamental argument is that I've yet to see any kind of compelling evidence that the crux of McGovern's loss is reducible to some kind of cultural aversion/repugnance with regards to a specific group of supporters: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...oomed-to-lose-in-1972/?utm_term=.93d8326b3792

For starters, and that's really just scratching the surface, though it does touch on some of the more compelling/salient reasons.


Moreover, Bernie polled better with working class people than Hillary among the general populace, nevermind his blatantly superior numbers and polling in terms of favourability among the general.

I believe you when you say you don't have an axe to grind, with my comments on reductionism being more oriented towards others in this thread who have done just that, but I do think that there is much that is important which is being discounted in such an analysis.

As you wish. I was there in 1972. I'm out.

 

[DH Kirkwood]

We've had quite a few wins (I think it's like, 26 Justice Democrats now) and a fire seems to still be lit under the asses of progressives. The only way anyone is going to 'crave' a centrist is if the Democrats manage to drive in the message that centrists are more 'electable', but they won't, because Hillary Clinton lost to a ****ing reality TV clown.

It's important to note that the 'progressive movement' actually predates Sanders. Obama was elected on far more populist rhetoric than the policy he actually governed on, and then there was the 'Occupy Wall-Street' movement. Sanders wasn't some phenomenon that came and went away. His popularity is a product of what's being going on for the last forty years.

 

[Logicman]

Who in the Sam Hill would vote for that over-the-hill, left-wing, incompetent, corrupt, morally-challenged, cellulite gas bag? I hope she does get the Democratic nomination. Then we can all watch the hair-brained, liberal snowflakes whine and cry again.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Don't laugh. Although obviously no friend of Democrats, the author makes some telling points. The basic takeaway is the old political wisdom: no matter how much the Dems hate Trump, "you can't beat someone with no one."

Count on Hillary Running in 2020
Michael Goodwin, New York Post

". . . Intramural feuds are often bloody, but this one is also stupid. Trying to silence Clinton is a lost cause and, even if it succeeded, wouldn’t cure what ails Democrats.
In fact, shutting her up might push the party even deeper into the wilderness.
Implicit in the charge that Clinton is the problem is the assumption that others are the solution. It’s a fair point — until you try to name any Dem who has a better shot at serving as the party’s leader, uniting it around a message and potentially defeating Trump in 2020. After all, that’s the job that is vacant. . . ."

Jack Hays hits CTRL+C/CTRL+V on NY Post article in desperate attempt at wishful thinking.
FILM AT ELEVEN.

 

[MrMike]

Gawd I hope she runs in 2020. Watching Cackling Hillary and LizzieWatha tussle over a losing cause in the Primary while Cory Spartacus stands to the side and looks for his spine would be some hilarious entertainment...

:lamo

 

[DH Kirkwood]

Who in the Sam Hill would vote for that over-the-hill, left-wing, incompetent, corrupt, morally-challenged, cellulite gas bag? I hope she does get the Democratic nomination. Then we can all watch the hair-brained, liberal snowflakes whine and cry again.

Heh, you're right to hope that she wins the nomination. You guys would easily win if that happens. Fish in a barrel and whatnot.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Don't laugh. Although obviously no friend of Democrats, the author makes some telling points. The basic takeaway is the old political wisdom: no matter how much the Dems hate Trump, "you can't beat someone with no one."

Count on Hillary Running in 2020
Michael Goodwin, New York Post

". . . Intramural feuds are often bloody, but this one is also stupid. Trying to silence Clinton is a lost cause and, even if it succeeded, wouldn’t cure what ails Democrats.
In fact, shutting her up might push the party even deeper into the wilderness.
Implicit in the charge that Clinton is the problem is the assumption that others are the solution. It’s a fair point — until you try to name any Dem who has a better shot at serving as the party’s leader, uniting it around a message and potentially defeating Trump in 2020. After all, that’s the job that is vacant. . . ."

The author is a delusional fanatic if he thinks the only candidate the Democrats have is Hillary R. Clinton; who BTW will be 73 years old on the election. Both she and Trump are, IMO, too old for office.

 

[Dittohead not!]

View attachment 67243346

This is the Champion the left needs...the Champion they deserve.

This is the Champion the right needs...the Champion they deserve.

But the rest of us neither need nor deserve nor desire either one of the above.

 

[VanceMack]

This is the Champion the right needs...the Champion they deserve.

But the rest of us neither need nor deserve nor desire either one of the above.

As long as you stay in denial, Hilary will lose again and Trump will win another 4 years.

 

[Jack Hays]

Jack Hays hits CTRL+C/CTRL+V on NY Post article in desperate attempt at wishful thinking.
FILM AT ELEVEN.

Not sure what the point of that was. No one ever made money betting on Hillary's restraint or lack of ambition. I wish the Dems would run someone I could vote for.

 

[Jack Hays]

The author is a delusional fanatic if he thinks the only candidate the Democrats have is Hillary R. Clinton; who BTW will be 73 years old on the election. Both she and Trump are, IMO, too old for office.

I did not and would not vote for either.

 

[Dittohead not!]

As long as you stay in denial, Hilary will lose again and Trump will win another 4 years.

Denial that Hillary is going to run, and has a chance of getting the nomination, that sort of denial?

 

[Divine_Wind]

I did not and would not vote for either.

Agreed on both counts. I strongly doubt the DNC would run Hillary and I also doubt Trump will run for a second term.

 

[VanceMack]

Denial that Hillary is going to run, and has a chance of getting the nomination, that sort of denial?

Denial that you support her, supported her, and are really excited about her as a candidate.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Denial that you support her, supported her, and are really excited about her as a candidate.

LOL! OK, then, link to my posts saying that Hillary is a great candidate for president.