OTOH, the present is almost exactly like the '90s, only with cooler phones and more wars.
Indeed, and “Old Democrats” getting destroyed in Presidential elections in 1984 and 1988. Clinton tacked a new way and made Democrats somewhat relevant again in Presidential politics.
Anyways, I think people do tend to forget that Clinton attempted universal health care and gays openly serving in the military in his first two years. The massive pushback from not only the Republicans, but also his own party, forced him to triangulate even more. After all, politics is the art of the possible, and at that time those things weren’t possible.
I do think there is more Clinton in Obama than most people realize.
well said.
I think one can say some “progressives” reject the Clintons, but the vast majority of the party doesn’t. I say “some” progressives because not all progressives engage in the presentism that those who dishonour the Clinton legacy do. Also, progressives are rising in the party ranks vs. moderates (like myself.) But centrists love the Clintons and their first presidency, myself included.
The OP ought to remember that the Dems are still a bigger tent than the GOP.
And yet, Hillary is winning the primaries, which I have to assume includes a large portion of the Democratic base.
I think the “white portion of the base” would be an accurate description.
Clintonism has never been accepted by the Democratic Party at large, but the Clintons have been.
Not really. Clinton supporters skew darker and older while Sanders are lighter and younger.
that’s what I was saying: the white portion of the Democratic “base” has rejected the Clintons, and gone with Sanders.
I am not sure what you mean. The black portion of the base isn’t voting in the primaries?
Edit: and reading above, you think that’s why it’s even close right now? If a larger part of the black Dem base was turning out Clinton would be creaming Sanders? Do you have numbers to support that?
Hillary is winning the overall popular vote 58-40. Bernie carries white progressives, Hillary gets non-whites, and moderate/centrist Dem whites and the few conservative white Dems left.
They’re more inclined to go with Sanders in the primaries, but I don’t think that means they’ve rejected Clinton.
Just curious, assuming that Hillary wins the nomination, for whom do you predict the white progressives will vote for in November? My money is on Hillary. So she’ll get her primary voters plus most of Sanders’.
White progressives may have “rejected Clintonism” in numbers greater than the average (not that they all have) and white progressives are the primary demographic of Salon. This doesn’t translate to the Democratic base as a whole rejecting anything.
Related in a sense: Higher Voter Turnout Alone is Unlikely to Change the Outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election.
DADT was a stepping stone.
Nope. A majority of the white portion under 35 has rejected the Clintons, the ones who were at oldest teens during the Clinton administration. ALL other demographics are in Hillary’s favor. Every one.
As has been said, there’s more to the Democratic base than upper middle class white Millennial progressives.
Brainfart. All other demographics but 18-24 are for Hillary.
adaher has finally done it! Proof positive that Dems winning means they are losing.
Funny, I see very little but conservative victories during the Clinton years. Heck, I’ll take Democrats winning elections from now until 2300 if it means Clintonian policies.
You know what the difference is between Clintonism and Republicanism? One is smart conservatism and the other is dumb conservatism. If that’s the argument we’re going to have every election, then liberals are an irrelevancy. Which they were until like, yesterday. IT’s time to drive them back into their holes.
Sorry, adaher. Ted Cruz & most of his Republican cronies are Conservatives. (Too bad. Wm F Buckley was a loon but not stupid.)
Some Democrats are more liberal than the Clintons, but all of your pals consider them Evil Liberals.