You misunderstand. A progressive Democrat will enfranchise felons because he believes felons should have their rights restored. They see it as a civil rights issue.
DLC Democrats have never particularly been in favor of that. They have historically been tough on crime types. This was primarily to position themselves to appeal to middle class voters. But if the political situation changes, they’ll certainly take advantage of it.
I’m pretty sure if he was the governor of North Dakota he would never have contemplated such an action.
Seems to me that you’re using a little hyperbole here.
You might say “enfranchising felons”, I might say “restoring right to vote to ex-felons who have served their sentence”. That is a civil rights issue, and Republicans oppose it because they want to restrict the rights of blacks, who constitute a disproportionate share of ex-felons.
I don’t think our standard bearer is going to be Mcauliffe. The guy exudes smarm from every pore. He’s probably a decent enough governor, but he isn’t going to whip up the turnout. In other words, he has all the charisma of Mike Dukakis.
Plenty of time to sort out the contenders from the pretenders. Wake me up when they start forming the Lewis and Clark exploratory committees.
The way politics works is that if an action will have a negative effect on your prospects you’ll oppose it, at least if the status quo is justified in some way. Disenfranchising felons does have a policy justification, which is why it’s legal. I personally think felons should get their voting rights back, but only after a certain amount of time, such as five years, to make sure they have their community’s best interests at heart.
He’s no idiot or dreamer, so he’s obviously thinking he has a shot and does. But a lot of things have to go right for him:
No better high profile experienced candidate. If Biden is in, Mcauliffe is out.
No one who can raise tons of money like he can. Cory Booker will probably be very popular both with corporate donors and small donors. If Booker is in, Mcauliffe probably still runs, as Booker is flawed, but he’ll probably fail to beat Booker.
There needs to be a lot of progressives and wannabe progessives in the race, with him the only centrist. That way the progressives split their votes and he wins a lot of early delegate hauls and gets momentum. That has often been the strategy of the most rightward candidate in the Democratic primary, and it rarely works. But it could this time because of just how far left many 2020 hopefuls are leaning. If they are all talking single payer and tax increases and trans rights and gun control and he’s out there directly appealing to union voters, that’s a contrast that favors him, even in a Democratic primary.
I looked up clips of McAuliffe speaking and he sounds far more charismatic and engaging than Mark Warner. Warner sounds to me like another Tim Kaine. He may be a great guy, but his speaking voice is not dominant, confident, and powerful enough. I really think these things are important for the candidate, though I know others don’t agree.
It would be nice, but it’s just not the way the world works. Presentation is important. A presidential election is a form of marketing campaign. It’s just the way it is.
The good news is that most of the time neither candidate has much charisma. We’ve been a little spoiled in this generation, with Reagan, Clinton and Obama, but most elections will not feature someone with an electrifying personality.
I would say just the opposite, that in the age of television and now the internet and social media, candidates like Reagan, Clinton, and Obama are the norm, not the exception, and they will continue to be the norm, and the rule that the more charismatic candidate will win the election is going to continue in perpetuity. In the past 30 years, out of all the successful presidential candidates, only George H.W. Bush could be accused of lacking charisma, and he was a one-term president.
It always feels like in American politics, the answer is always move to the right.
The GOP lost? they need to move to the right.
The democrats lost? They need to move to the right.
Trump didn’t meet anyone in the center. A lot of voters barely pay attention. Plus the more you abandon your parties base, the more you run the risk of your base sitting home or not donating time or money to the campaign.
If a democrat moves to the center right to win a million votes, tehy may lose a million liberal votes, and those liberals will take their money and volunteer time with them.
Hillary Clinton was a weak, unpopular candidate running for a 3rd consecutive democratic term. She still got 66 million votes. The votes are there for the democrats, we just need to focus on turnout. Making voting as easy as possible (automatic registration, restoring voting rights to ex-felons, ending gerrymandering, mail in ballots, etc) will do more than trying to appeal to swing voters.
Are you saying that a lot of people would find economic progressivism more appealing than social progressivism? in that regards I think you are correct. But it has to be credible progressivism. As a society we’ve had endless politicians talk big about progressive and liberal values, then do little to nothing while in office. So somehow the candidate has to actually be credible. That will be hard because there is no way congress enacts a progressive agenda no matter which party controls things.
I don’t think economic progressivism is realistic as a legislative agenda. Even in blue states, they don’t practice it. Health care is a mess in california like like every other state. Poverty rates are high there. True economic progressivism would be single payer health care, a reduction in income inequality, fully subsidized public college, trust busting, ending regulatory capture, getting money out of politics, etc. I don’t see either party doing that. The democrats may talk a big talk, but when push comes to shove they won’t actually do it.
Yeah, there’s this widespread view that a candidate needs to have name recognition, but it doesn’t really hold together. They’ll get all the name recognition they need just by virtue of being the candidate. I mean, heck, how many people knew of Sanders, before he made a credible run for the Presidency?
But here’s the thing about McAuliffe. It’s easy to restore ex-felons’ voting rights if you can do it en masse with a single bill or executive order. And anyone can see doing that if there’s even a modest political benefit.
But I keep coming back to: this wasn’t that easy. In fact, it wasn’t easy at all. He wasn’t going to get such a bill through a GOP-dominated legislature, and the courts ruled that he couldn’t do it en masse by executive order: that each ex-felon had to have his/her voting rights restored individually. With a separate piece of paper, with a separate signature.
So he signed 176,000 pieces of paper. For a benefit that wouldn’t even accrue to him, because he was term-limited out of the governor’s office.
That’s a pretty big commitment of time and energy for a net gain of maybe 80,000* votes statewide. For the next guy. Something like that is sheer repetitive drudgery, not to mention the writer’s cramp. Over the course of 2 years, signing 240 letters a day, day in and day out.
He’d have had to be very strongly motivated by the prospect of those extra votes for the Dem running to succeed him.
Or maybe he was doing it because he believed it was the right thing.
Thinking about what it takes inside you to keep on forcing your way through an onerous but completely voluntary task like that, I find your cynical explanation unbelievable. It would be easy enough to throw in the towel even if you were doing it simply because it would be wrong to leave it undone. But that might be enough to enable you to see it through. Anything less? Nah, no way.
*Assuming half of them vote, and they split 95-5 D-R.
Same was true of Bush Sr, who had the benefit of running against Mike Dukakis.
So excluding 2016 (what’s the call on Trump having been charismatic in 2016? I don’t know), in 6 of the last 9 elections, we’ve had charismatic v. noncharismatic, and the charismatic candidate won. In the other 3, both were noncharismatic.
Hillary’s charisma was greater than Trump’s, but the absolute value of Trump’s charisma was much greater than Hillary’s. Apparently, negative charisma works just as well for getting elected as positive does.