If what he theorizes is correct, the Tea Party is here to stay, regardless of how much they fail. Not only that, but we’ll see a similar movement on the left, and Bernie Sanders might be just the beginning.
IMO, this is all positive, and liberals should be embracing this trend more than anyone. After all, aren’t we supposed to have more democracy, more rule by the people and less by the moneyed elites? Of course, that means that the ignorance of wide swathes of the American public is going to be more heavily represented and catered to than in the past, but that’s democracy.
What I think Klein is missing is one simple thing.
Why not then talk about the combined polling of Clinton and Bidden? The more reasonable thing I see is that either Biden decides to not run and then he is likely to support Hillary, or if Hillary loses with Biden finally joining the race she will in the end support Biden for the presidency.
And then we see why Klein is not doing that, the combined polling of Clinton and Biden (the insiders) leads to the most likely result in the Democratic side, an insider will be the nominee for the Democrats. That just torpedoes already what he is claiming.
Grasping at straws. I think that you are confused into thinking that most Democrats will not like to see either of the three as the democratic nominee, I can see that a few will not like to see Sanders as the candidate, but personally I would be ok with any of the current 3 main Democratic candidates.
I don’t think it’s grasping at straws. Sanders has almost no big donor support or endorsements. I still say that in 2004 he’d be Dennis Kucinich. And that Kucinich would be doing about as well if he was running for the first time in this cycle.
Not to be too flippant, but im of the opinion that political pundits have never known much. By and large they were wrong in the past, by and large they are wrong today. Even pundits proven correct in the past probably surprised themselves with their accuracy. A broken clock is correct twice a day and all that.
None of these “new technologies and changing media norms” are going to make a real difference unless and until they render electoral campaign financing/funding/donations irrelevant, i.e., make it possible for a candidate to get nominated without passing the “wealth primary” and to win office without buying any time on television. Does anyone see any sign of that happening?
Aside from all that, the primaries haven’t actually started yet. All we’re seeing is which candidates are not repugnant to the fringe right now.
Well, sooner or later we’ll all be watching TV on Hulu and its ilk. Maybe campaign ad buy dollars will start going to new media but it’ll be harder to control the message.
Not sure it is directly relevant, but just read an article in the Atlantic arguing that certain issues we are facing reflect a president/legislature system as opposed to a parliament.
Says US is one of the few presidential systems to last over the long haul, and that such a system only works so long as all parties agree to make some concessions/compromises. When one or more stop compromising, things shut down.
Not sure I understand all of it, but it is percolating in the back of my mind. Thought folk in this thread might enjoy the short read.
Deadlock in parliamentary systems is rare because the government, by definition, has an absolute majority. But in most parliamentary democracies that means forming a coalition government, so the deal has already been struck.
ETA: That was regarding the article Dinsdale linked to (which is very interesting).
I agree with the logic here, that as soon as you have success you enter into the system. But I don’t think that necessarily leads to the conclusion that “the Tea Party, and any hypothetical left wing equivalent, are doomed to fail.”
I would argue that while outsider technically means outside of the system, you could interpret the term to mean “outside of the elite class within the system.” (Exhibit A: Sanders) And I would even argue that Obama was a tenuous example of an outsider being elected. Hillary started out as the front runner with the big money, and Obama drummed up enough grassroots support to eventually beat her. (Not saying Obama didn’t have any big donations, but IIRC, a much bigger portion of Hillary’s funds came from big donations than Obama’s did.)
Historically, political endorsements and the support of big donors were key to winning the election. Now, we’re seeing candidates accumulate big fan bases without either of these factors. This could indicate a shift of power away from the elite and back to the people, which is exactly what both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street crowds were looking for.
It appears that Ezra Klein is admitting that pundits got it wrong, have been wrong, and do not know what the voters are thinking.
The models they typically used are broken. I suggest that those models have been broken for a long time or the pundits would have seen these changes coming. SURPIRSE! Pundits have only been spouting their personal opinions.
What new models should the pundits use? I suggest that they use models based on what the voters are actually thinking vs models based on what the pundits expect the voters to think.
As much as I respect Ezra Klein, I think he’s got the wrong end of the stick.
I believe the outsider candidate syndrome is overrated. Scott Walker failed because he’s a miserable candidate who couldn’t articulate why he wants to be president. Jeb Bush is failing because he’s a terrible candidate. I don’t think the outsider candidates are that compelling, it’s more like the establishment candidates are truly wretched.
On the Democratic side, Sanders’ popularity is not due to his being an outsider because he isn’t one. He simply articulates policies that Democrats like and is taking advantage of Hillary’s lack of personality and charisma. When Biden gets into the race, he will absorb the unHillary voters and his warmth and empathy may well carry him to the nomination, as I hope it does.
I disagree with adaher’s claim that the Tea Party is here to stay. Once they no longer have a black president to carp about, their racist backbone will snap and the Tea Partiers will splinter.
It appears we disagree with what these movements are about. Neither one seems to have a specific agenda they were united around and which is theoretically achievable. Instead, they both seemed to be based around a general sense of unhappiness with the status quo.
A movement with a specific goal like “we want black people to be able to vote” or “we want same-sex marriages to be legalized” or “we want abortions to be banned” can succeed in achieving its goal. But if your goal is something as nebulous as “we want things to be different” then it’s a mood not a goal and you can’t satisfy it by any specific law.
I agree with everything you just said. The Tea Party movement is about reducing government spending and government power, and returning more of the power back to the citizens. The Bernie Sanders movement, on the other hand, is about increasing government spending and power to reduce inequality. (Please correct me if I’m wrong, these are merely my perceptions.)
There is no benchmark to indicate that now the government is small enough, or now the American people are equal enough. But if we take steps to reduce government power, or to reduce income inequality, then I would argue that, if not indications of absolute success, these would at least be indications of succeeding, trending in the desired direction.
But to get back to the OP, I think the point of this article is simply that what the American people wanted didn’t tend to matter that much, because elections were won by “courting donors, winning endorsements, influencing the primary calendar, securing key committee assignments, luring top staffers, working with interest groups.” Now that doesn’t seem to be enough to win an election, and candidates actually have to pay a bit more attention to what Americans want.
Finally, I just want to add that I don’t really think this argument applies to the left. Bernie Sanders is closing in on Hillary’s lead, but I don’t think we see nearly the sort of “outsider insurgence” on the left that we do on the right.
That is so classic “getting the point then proceeding to ignore it”. The government is going to continue spending money; the governemnt is going to continue having power. If you dont have specific and persuasive arguments about where and how much you are going to cut, you are right back in the “I want change!” category.
I think that you are confused into thinking that most Democrats will not like to see either of the three as the democratic nominee, I can see that a few will not like to see Sanders as the candidate, but personally I would be ok with any of the current 3 main Democratic candidates.