I agree with you in this particular case, but not as a general rule.
As a general rule, your objective is to make the maximum possible positive impact that you can. So you need to be reasonable. If from your perspective the entire country has gone mad, then you need to accommodate their madness, however correct you may be about their condition. Otherwise you’re dooming yourself to irrelevance, and accomplish nothing.
That said, I agree with you about this particular instance. Firstly, Clinton barely lost, and there’s no reason to make wholesale revisions in your approach because you lost a nail-biter. Secondly, Trump is a radical departure from what’s been the accepted standard in this country for a long time, and I wouldn’t make too much out of one election. If populist buffoons start winning elections on a more regular basis then you would have to consider that, but for now I would think (or at least hope) that this is a one-time event.
Not a chance. Whatever else you may say about Clinton she is not stupid, and she understands politics. Yes she’ ambitious, but she is also a realist. She is not one to run a Quixotic campaign. America doesn’t like losers, there are very few cases of losers of the general election running again, and only one case of their succeeding. Many in the Democratic party blame her for the Trump presidency.At this point no one outside of the Republican party wants her to run. She knows this and knows she has no chance of winning the primary, and won’t run.
Further in 2020 she will be 73 years old. If she were to win, she would be 81 after two terms plus the additional aging that rigors of the presidency entails, she would be lucky to be alive by the end. At this point she is far more effective running her foundation and lobbying behind the scenes.
You need a positive programme to actually win them over to the Democratic side rather then just stay home or even still vote for Trump since polls and interviews indicate many Trump supporters don’t actually believe in his more extravagant promises but still supported him anyways because he was speaking about their concerns.
There’s no evidence progressives stayed home in this election considering Clinton’s strong majorities in left-liberal areas from Cambridge to Berkeley. It was her collapse among white working-class voters which led to her defeat.
Yet Trump somehow survived even “Pussygate”. Would relentless GOP attacks have eroded Sanders’s lead? Sure, but I find it hard to believe he’s favourability would decline 20 or 30 points when both Trump’s and Clinton’s barely moved in their bitter campaign. The fact is last year was an anti-establishment election and many if not most voters didn’t give a shit what a candidate did or said before this year if they seemed more anti-establishment. Plus its clear both from primary and general election results that Sanders had a strong appeal to rural whites that Clinton did not.
The word “populist” as no real meaning any more, lost most of it with Huey Long. It has come to mean what Trump embodies, a man who appeals to the worstest angels of our nature. Biden? Warren? Some combination thereof, yet to congeal?
I hold Obama to be a populist, as one who genuinely cares. My big beef with him was his born-again centrism, his relentless willingness to “reach out” to reasonable Republicans, a breed of cat he helped to extinguish when he won election. He makes a reasonable case for that approach, one that I cannot disprove but cannot agree.
Our country suffers not so much from the Dems or Pubbies, but the grip of the Apathy Party, the people who will not choose, will not participate. Perhaps a “negative populist” like Trump will accomplish what we could not, get the sideliners into the game. But that’s not a strategy, that’s more of a Leninist realpolitik, let the people suffer and they will join us. I cannot approve, I’m a radical lefty because I am a humanist, it is the foundation and I will not turn away. A turd does not have a “silver lining”.
I doubt its at all likely, but if I saw a truly “negative populist” start parading in lefty costume, I’m the boy who shouts “Wolf! In cheap clothing! Fuck that shit!”.
Actually, there’s some merit to having a plan. But first you need to know what problem you’re trying to solve.
IMHO, the real problem the Dems need to solve is the hollowing-out of the party at the state and local levels, with the most blatant symptom being the number of state legislature chambers that the GOP now controls.
That was happening to an extent up through 2004, but some combination of the 50-state strategy and Bush’s unpopularity reversed that in 2006 and 2008. But then Dean got dumped as head of the DNC, and it’s been all downhill ever since; the Dems have never been weaker at the state and local levels.
So if they made me DNC chair tomorrow, I’d be picking Howard Dean’s brains about just what the 50-state strategy entailed, and what worked and what didn’t. Then I’d implement the 50-state strategy, modified by lessons learned.
If it wasn’t already part of the 50-state strategy, the next thing I’d do is figure out how to make it as easy as possible for Dem candidates to run. Have a small office in each state to basically be the back office of every Dem candidate for state legislature, handling all the paperwork and financial records and so forth, and maybe run some weekend “so you’re going to be a candidate, here’s what it’s actually like, here’s what we’ll do for you, and here’s what you’ll need to do on your own” seminars.
Lies can get you elected, but it also increases public cynicism and increases the chance of losing the next election.
Trump is a bigtime liar, but he has a reputation as a straight-talker. A Democrat who is mealy-mouthed and takes moderate positions everyone knows he or she doesn’t mean will get eaten alive. You beat Trump’s faux straight talk with real straight talk.
Politics is like basketball in that matchups matter. Trump is a very specific kind of candidate. There are certain candidates that match up well with him and certain candidates that are just a foil for him. Franken is PERFECT vs. Trump. He’ll cut Trump to shreds.
Now Warren, with her I think it all depends on Trump’s popularity heading into 2019. If Trump is an utter disaster, Democrats can go as far left as they want. But if Americans are feeling pretty good about the economy, then Trump can portray her as knowing nothing about the economy and likely to ruin it.
Everytime someone says or implies “You think the country will elect An old white socialist??” I say, “They elected Donald Fucking Trump. DONALD TRUMP.”
Dial back the lefty social justice thing a bit and concentrate more on the economic justice front. Just make it about giving everyone a break and not just minorities or ‘the disadvantaged’.
Basically, the arrogance of the message has to go away, as well as the overbearing sensitivity to offense. There’s a time and a place for that, and it should not be forgotten, but it should never be front and center of your message, or you aren’t getting a majority in this country.
We (the democrats) also have to take the party back from the wealthy fundraiser circuit. It may have worked great to bring in big money for Hillary, but it’s a damned poor way to run a presidential campaign.
We need to remind people of the gains their grand parents and great grand parents fought for, minimum wages, shorter work weeks, worker safety laws.
Articulate and bright and into politics. And after Trump literally anyone can be POTUS.
"So, would Stewart actually have a chance if he jumped in the presidential race now?
Former Obama adviser Eric Lesser told Politico this week about Stewart, “I’d be hard-pressed to think of a person who spoke with the same amount of authority to that big of a group of people.”
Ted Cruz joined Sanders and went against the establishment Republicans. Trump sent Big Pharma stock prices spiraling by vowing to start government bidding for drugs. No it’s the outsiders versus the establishment. Obama had eight years to allow imports from Canada. Hillary has 30 years but all she did was set up an illegal server.
It’s not just about being smart, it’s about communicating in a straightforward way. Democrats have had a remarkable talent for nominating people who can’t communicate without hemming and hawing or just outright lying about what they believe.