The Democrats, it can be argued, LOST the election because of their strong elites, who, it can be argued, basically rammed Hillary Clinton down the party’s throat, swatting away all opposition, including Bernie Sanders (not to mention Joe Biden).
Asserting that the “elites” should control the party also got John Q. Adams only one term, under memorable circumstances.
No, elites in control is not the solution. Being sensible enough as a candidate about what the party needs is; had the multitude of Republican candidates dropped out early, so that one true moderate could take on Cruz and Trump, that candidate probably could have won the nomination. But Kasich, Bush, and Rubio were all too full of themselves to sacrifice their opportunity that way.
That’s because both parties went too far in each direction. The elites exercised zero control over the GOP process and the Democrats’ elites rigged things to get exactly the result they wanted.
Democrats seem to have learned their lesson already. Pretty much every prominent Democrat quoted in the last couple of days about 2020 says they want a well contested primary. Howard Dean specifically says he doesn’t want to see anyone over 65 in the race.
The Republicans, who knows, but they’d better start thinking because Trump is not guaranteed to want a second term.
I’m puzzled by this. Did you Rip van Winkle through the last two years of UK politics? This may well have once been true, and probably still is true for Tories. But Jeremy Corbyn was incredibly vehemently and quite openly opposed by Labour elites (and justifiably so IMO), yet he won two years in a row with landslides from his grassroots followers.
I disagree with this too. If they were truly strong, they wouldn’t have let someone who was not even a member of the party come in and participate in the primary/caucus race and appear on nationally televised debates, battering the “anointed” candidate so badly that her reputation among voters under 25 was irreparably damaged.
I’ve thought that too, especially if his poll numbers are in the shitter. He can, like Jesse Ventura, retire and claim to the end of his days that he would have won reelection if he had wanted to.
I am not at all against Dean’s idea of sticking to younger candidates. But it’s a funny sort of reaction right after a primary race in which the candidate beloved by young voters was well over 65.
Right, the weird Republican rules and all the winner-take-all states definitely enabled Trump to win the nomination. Under Democratic rules, nobody would have had a majority and the convention would have nominated someone broadly acceptable, with normal sized fingers.
The problem on the Democratic side wasn’t with the rules, but that the entire party leadership united behind Hillary at an early stage, so that nobody who had anything to lose dared run against her. Honestly, I love Bernie, but if those elites had just held off on their endorsements and allowed some other mainstream candidates to test the waters, Clinton’s problems would have been apparent once the actual voting began and Bernie might have been a Kucinichesque footnote.
Martin O’Malley was a perfectly respectable candidate with a moderate image but a progressive record, who probably would have won the general. He was right there on the ballot, was in the debates, but no one voted for him. That’s not the party elites’ fault.
This is something that needs to be addressed and argued head on with people. I have yet to see anyone make a solid case to the people who are antagonistic towards elites. I don’t think it would be hard. Do we go to just anyone when we have a medical issue? No, we go to credentialed doctors that went to school, these are elite professions and elite people with expertise that has been honed for a long time. Who would choose their uncle Charlie who runs a shop over one of these professionals?
Same with legal matters, same with any number of professions. When it comes to policy and politics, things get squishier so it’s harder to make that kind of case directly, but I think these sorts of comparison could help melt the ice towards elites writ large. I want it to be seen as a good thing for someone to know about the history of a foreign nation if they are a foreign policy adviser. I want people advising people in power on economics to know something about the field, even though there are wildly different beliefs. I want people to be open to testing out their ideas and seeing if they hold up, and if not discarding them and adopting other ideas that are more solid and sound.
YOu definitely want technical experts in charge of technical jobs, but the idea behind elected officials is that we elect representatives of the people, not necessarily the best and brightest. Sometimes we might prefer a super genius in office, sometimes we might just want someone who is super brave and obstinate. And still others we might just want someone who we can trust. Most of our greatest Presidents weren’t known as intellectual giants and weren’t elected for their brainpower, although history gives them much more credit for their intelligence after the fact. Whereas most of the Presidents who we knew were super smart weren’t that great. That doesn’t mean brains aren’t an asset, but when the only thing people can really say about you is that you’re smart you’re probably not going to be very successful.
Elites can often be wrong, but this is where I think are more forgiving world view comes in. This was highlighted by Tywin Lannister.
Wisdom is the key. A wise king still takes the council of elites and advisers, but if you are only listening to a narrow band of views in a bubble world you can get an incomplete picture. This is not an argument against elites and expertise, just a view that a wiser DNC would not rely solely on their perspective to make decisions.
That’s why I wonder if the DNC does put their finger on the scale, that they say “new blood only” in 2020. No Sanders, no Biden, no Warren, just youngish candidates with loads of experience and accomplishments. If only to retrain the Democratic base to actually compare candidates and make intelligent decisions. It’s been too long since Democrats made a choice that wasn’t based on who had the most famous name, or who gave the best speech, or who had military service so we could stick it to those chickenhawks.
Just a straight-up race between 5 of the Democrats’ best officeholders that few have heard of: say Booker, Kaine, Hassan, O’Malley, and Duckworth.
I would match O’Malley’s progressive record against Dean’s any day of the week.
NB:As of Friday, Nov. 11, 2016 at 11:59 p.m., I’m unsubscribing from all political threads and will no longer participate in discussions in the Elections board, nor in political discussions in the Pit or MPSIMS. If you reply to a political post of mine after that point, I will not see it; please do not PM me to try to pull me back in to the debate. Thanks!
In hindsight it’s a shame he didn’t win in 2004. I didn’t like him because he was so partisan but his record in Vermont compared with what he’s done since shows just how brilliant and competent he is. That’s another guy who really should have considered challenging Clinton.
O’Malley was a good candidate as far as experience and policy, but he wasn’t different enough from Hillary. He never challenged her on anything. In that regard, he was not a good candidate. If he was ever going to gain traction, he couldn’t just be the lesser-known, male version of Hillary. He and Bernie, if they were actually serious about winning the nomination, made a mistake not hammering her on the emails.
Indeed. A combination of straightforward miscalculations. First, the extension of the process of electing leaders over the decades, to lessen the block vote powers of the unions (and, it was thought, to strengthen the hand of the incoming New Labour elite), culminating in opening it up to “supporters” at the cheap rate; and second, the decision by some MPs of the right and centre to add their nominations to Corbyn purely to ensure he, in the expectation that the individual membership would be obligingly compliant.
But he had been through the approval process to get into Parliament in the first place, and isn’t either unstable or clueless. But nothing will guarantee that either elites or insurgents have judged the mood and wishes of their electorates correctly.
I’m puzzled by this. Did you Rip van Winkle through the last two years of UK politics? This may well have once been true, and probably still is true for Tories. But Jeremy Corbyn was incredibly vehemently and quite openly opposed by Labour elites (and justifiably so IMO), yet he won two years in a row with landslides from his grassroots followers.