That's been the vibe I've felt since the day after the election. 2004 redux. Down to the Republicans misreading their narrow win and coming after popular government programs. Assuming there are still free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028 (90-95% chance, perhaps? Orbanization takes time), we have every chance to win those.
In scenario 2, the question is how well Trump's appeal translates to whoever his successor is in 2028. I suspect not particularly well. I also suspect that the public will be Big Mad in 2028 about *something*; when was the last time right direction numbers were above 50%?
I submit 2016 was the realignment year. We're in the third cycle of the realignment with no end in sight and a Democratic Party paralyzed by the chasmic divide between the priorities of its donor class and the overwhelming majority of voters who oppose the priorities of its donor class.
I would agree with that assessment if Bernie Sanders types were the rule and not the exception among Democratic voters. They are not. Far from it. If they were, you would see those types getting elected in purple and red states, and not just Vermont and a handful of deep blue cities. A major issue is that Democrats have to pander to voters who at least claim they want policies that don't stand a chance in passing, and for whom German/Nordic style multipayer system healthcare is "not good enough."
I think the working class voters Mark is referring to want Bill Clinton-esque blue collar politics and not Bernie Sanders blue collar politics. A lot of folks will hate hearing that but that's the bandwidth these lower-propensity, non-college ed voters are on.
I don't think it's an either-or of Bernie vs. Clinton. There just has to be more of an interest shown in working-class priorities and an understanding that certain issues are just never going to fly with more than a rump of the electorate. Re-watch the Presidential debates of 2019 for a blueprint on how to best destroy a political party for a generation.
I think part of our problem is that "progressive" as a label seems to be applied to anything decently left of Manchin and there's a wing of elected officials that will recoil in terror at anything with said label.
The standout example I can think of is Walz. After he was chosen as Harris' running mate, there was some push back on how he was "too progressive" because of the policies pushed through in Minnesota, like the school lunches. When people at the top are equating free/expanded school lunch programs as equivalent to Medicare For All, it's going to be hard to get them on board with run of the mill working and middle class oriented policies. There's a wide swathe of ideology between Sanders and Manchin that is unfortunately conflated with one or the other.
I'm less rigid about the specifics of left vs. center because I've seen Democrats of both stripes connect with the working-class by traveling different lanes that seemed appropriate for the time. It's more about messaging than ideology....and not appearing to pander to special interests or the donor class. Without getting into the specifics of Presidential primaries as is forbidden, there was a candidate whose message really connected with the working class in 2016 but really did not connect with them in 2020 simply because of a shift in focus from kitchen table issues to cultural issues.
Wrong. Much of that candidate's 2016 "support" - particularly outside urban and college educated America - was due to genuine hatred for his primary opponent. With said opponent not running in 2020, said "support" disappeared. This notion that we'd be in contention in West Virginia if we were exclusively a "kitchen table issues" party is simply not based in reality. If it were, no way no how does "right to work" get passed there.
Regionalism and demographics. The Republican Party was embedded in power in Vermont because it was and is a very small, rural, homogeneous state who associated the Republican Party with Abraham Lincoln and the Democratic Party with Jefferson Davis. Essentially the opposite of most southern states.
The Democratic Party only started winning in Presidential Elections there when the Republican Party went full theocracy. They don't do that, Vermont probably remains a default Republican state.
I think Trump's general fuck ups played a bigger role than cultural issues in 2020. There was general exhaustion with his loud incompetence particularly during the pandemic. I think that was more responsible for turning out 81 million people to vote him out but otherwise I think your point has merit that left vs. center is less important than a specific platform/message that connects with the majority of voters and its fair to say cultural issues played some role in 2020.
I would still argue Biden's dumpster fire campaign/messaging the previous year and a half mattered more than anything Harris could say or do and I give her some grace having to walk a line of defending his record that he failed to defend while charting out what she would do differently in 100 days.
I'd also say Gaza mattered at the margins and the people who cared most about it over anything else on both sides were going to punish Harris for it.
They DON'T want candidates who spend their time even discussing letting prisoners vote, gender reassignment, or even transgender athletes playing sports. That's for certain.
I'm assuming you are younger than me; in the 90s voters didn't associate Clinton with outsourcing jobs (which had actually peaked in the preceding two decades)
I realize Clinton might be better known for his novel use of cigars. I also think of ObamaтАЩs reference to him as "the Secretary of Explaining Stuff".
I think Dems have done a decent job of shedding the left-culture-war stuff that proliferated in Trump's first term. By far the biggest problem this cycle was that people were still angry about inflation. If inflation had been normal over the past four years and everything else had been the same, Harris would have won and we would have taken the House even with all the party's outreach, messaging, and policy weaknesses.
The unpopular incumbent President who had accomplished a lot but had missteps stood down because he knew he wouldn't win. His VP lost relatively narrowly to a totally corrupt, immoral goon who the American people hadn't much loved in the past. There are parallels.
Pre President Nixon was hardly seen as a "totally corrupt, immoral goon" by the majority of Americans though. It took Watergate to get that through most people's skulls.
I didn't say he was seen that way, just that he was. Huge percentages of people in this country think Trump is basically a god who has never done anything wrong in his life, ever.
Oh, also, the Republican candidate expertly played on cultural animus to deliver a big "fuck you" to the social progresses the country had been making. Though this was certainly more dramatic in '68.
It feels like things could go 2 ways:
1) Trump's approval plummets, Dems win w/ a generic not Trump in 28. Dem structural problems papered over.
2) Trump doesn't blow things up. 2024 is a new 1980 - start of a real realignment. A Bill Clinton type fixer doesn't show up til 36.
Considering 2028 will be an open Presidential election, 2024 looks more like 2004 than 1980.
That's been the vibe I've felt since the day after the election. 2004 redux. Down to the Republicans misreading their narrow win and coming after popular government programs. Assuming there are still free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028 (90-95% chance, perhaps? Orbanization takes time), we have every chance to win those.
Don't forget the elections in 2025. We also have a MUCH stronger tradition of democracy than Hungary or pre Nazi Germany ever had.
In scenario 2, the question is how well Trump's appeal translates to whoever his successor is in 2028. I suspect not particularly well. I also suspect that the public will be Big Mad in 2028 about *something*; when was the last time right direction numbers were above 50%?
I submit 2016 was the realignment year. We're in the third cycle of the realignment with no end in sight and a Democratic Party paralyzed by the chasmic divide between the priorities of its donor class and the overwhelming majority of voters who oppose the priorities of its donor class.
I would agree with that assessment if Bernie Sanders types were the rule and not the exception among Democratic voters. They are not. Far from it. If they were, you would see those types getting elected in purple and red states, and not just Vermont and a handful of deep blue cities. A major issue is that Democrats have to pander to voters who at least claim they want policies that don't stand a chance in passing, and for whom German/Nordic style multipayer system healthcare is "not good enough."
I think the working class voters Mark is referring to want Bill Clinton-esque blue collar politics and not Bernie Sanders blue collar politics. A lot of folks will hate hearing that but that's the bandwidth these lower-propensity, non-college ed voters are on.
I don't think it's an either-or of Bernie vs. Clinton. There just has to be more of an interest shown in working-class priorities and an understanding that certain issues are just never going to fly with more than a rump of the electorate. Re-watch the Presidential debates of 2019 for a blueprint on how to best destroy a political party for a generation.
I think part of our problem is that "progressive" as a label seems to be applied to anything decently left of Manchin and there's a wing of elected officials that will recoil in terror at anything with said label.
The standout example I can think of is Walz. After he was chosen as Harris' running mate, there was some push back on how he was "too progressive" because of the policies pushed through in Minnesota, like the school lunches. When people at the top are equating free/expanded school lunch programs as equivalent to Medicare For All, it's going to be hard to get them on board with run of the mill working and middle class oriented policies. There's a wide swathe of ideology between Sanders and Manchin that is unfortunately conflated with one or the other.
I'm less rigid about the specifics of left vs. center because I've seen Democrats of both stripes connect with the working-class by traveling different lanes that seemed appropriate for the time. It's more about messaging than ideology....and not appearing to pander to special interests or the donor class. Without getting into the specifics of Presidential primaries as is forbidden, there was a candidate whose message really connected with the working class in 2016 but really did not connect with them in 2020 simply because of a shift in focus from kitchen table issues to cultural issues.
Wrong. Much of that candidate's 2016 "support" - particularly outside urban and college educated America - was due to genuine hatred for his primary opponent. With said opponent not running in 2020, said "support" disappeared. This notion that we'd be in contention in West Virginia if we were exclusively a "kitchen table issues" party is simply not based in reality. If it were, no way no how does "right to work" get passed there.
Wonder how we ever won the state, except for 2 or 3 elections, from 1932-1996. I guess economic issues didnтАЩt matter to most presidential voters.
Regionalism and demographics. The Republican Party was embedded in power in Vermont because it was and is a very small, rural, homogeneous state who associated the Republican Party with Abraham Lincoln and the Democratic Party with Jefferson Davis. Essentially the opposite of most southern states.
The Democratic Party only started winning in Presidential Elections there when the Republican Party went full theocracy. They don't do that, Vermont probably remains a default Republican state.
I was referring to West Virginia.
I think Trump's general fuck ups played a bigger role than cultural issues in 2020. There was general exhaustion with his loud incompetence particularly during the pandemic. I think that was more responsible for turning out 81 million people to vote him out but otherwise I think your point has merit that left vs. center is less important than a specific platform/message that connects with the majority of voters and its fair to say cultural issues played some role in 2020.
I would still argue Biden's dumpster fire campaign/messaging the previous year and a half mattered more than anything Harris could say or do and I give her some grace having to walk a line of defending his record that he failed to defend while charting out what she would do differently in 100 days.
I'd also say Gaza mattered at the margins and the people who cared most about it over anything else on both sides were going to punish Harris for it.
Working class voters want Clintonesque outsourcing of American jobs?? I donтАЩt think so!
They DON'T want candidates who spend their time even discussing letting prisoners vote, gender reassignment, or even transgender athletes playing sports. That's for certain.
And on a lighter note, I insist that "Hey, you!" is a perfectly good, gender-neutral pronoun.
Well yes, going too far with the тАЬhip in the crowdтАЭ agenda does not expand the base for Democrats.
I'm assuming you are younger than me; in the 90s voters didn't associate Clinton with outsourcing jobs (which had actually peaked in the preceding two decades)
Nearing two-thirds of a century...
I realize Clinton might be better known for his novel use of cigars. I also think of ObamaтАЩs reference to him as "the Secretary of Explaining Stuff".
They donтАЩt want Clintonesque policies. That brought them NAFTA.
Are you that Pennsylvania guy from DKE? The same obsessive anti-progressive, тАЬJohnny one note,тАЭ posting.
I think Dems have done a decent job of shedding the left-culture-war stuff that proliferated in Trump's first term. By far the biggest problem this cycle was that people were still angry about inflation. If inflation had been normal over the past four years and everything else had been the same, Harris would have won and we would have taken the House even with all the party's outreach, messaging, and policy weaknesses.
Assuming inflation is worth 2% in the swing states then yeah.
2024 was 1968. Let's hope we don't re-run 1972.
No it wasn't. Not even close. 1968 would be riots in Chicago and on the convention floor.
The unpopular incumbent President who had accomplished a lot but had missteps stood down because he knew he wouldn't win. His VP lost relatively narrowly to a totally corrupt, immoral goon who the American people hadn't much loved in the past. There are parallels.
Pre President Nixon was hardly seen as a "totally corrupt, immoral goon" by the majority of Americans though. It took Watergate to get that through most people's skulls.
I didn't say he was seen that way, just that he was. Huge percentages of people in this country think Trump is basically a god who has never done anything wrong in his life, ever.
Oh, also, the Republican candidate expertly played on cultural animus to deliver a big "fuck you" to the social progresses the country had been making. Though this was certainly more dramatic in '68.