I’d say that’s true of ideological Democrats. I don’t think it’s true of non-ideological Democrats who are in the party because of identity issues. For many of those voters, Obama trumps Pelosi. These are the voters that are now okay with surveillance and military action because Obama is doing it. If Clinton alienates Obama fans, they won’t be there for her.
The problem on the trade issue is that Obama has put a ton of political capital behind the effort. If he loses this fight, his Presidency is over. His fans won’t forget who was with him and who wasn’t if that happens.
We’ve discussed before, beginning here … there will be a balance between identifying with Obama and distancing herself. The easy answer is to side with most Democrats on this issue. Most Democrats, especially the base, want to see her supporting what they think they want, not parroting Obama. Disagreeing with Obama some on issues that the base disagrees with him is safe politics. She tends to play it safe so likely will do that.
The gutsier move would be to go against what most Democrats believe they want and make a good argument defending that position. Not because it avoids offending Obama fanbois, but because it goes against her image as someone who says what the polls demand. It makes her other positions that placate the progressive wing more believable while still positioning her more as a centrist for the general. Since I think her track record is more consistent with that POV I’d rather see her demonstrate the spine to defend what she believes.
THe other problem with her position is that I don’t think anyone even somewhat informed on trade issues believes for a minute that she won’t support TPP once elected. We haven’t had a protectionist President since Hoover, for good reason. Not supporting the President in this case gets her no benefit, because I doubt anyone believes her, and those that do are low information voters who trust Obama and wonder why she’s siding with those who are trying to ruin his Presidency.
A President can do things with the opposition party against him. He can’t do things when both parties are against him. He really can’t do anything when his own party and its prospective nominee is against him. Obama drew a ton of first time voters who voted for him and have since only voted for him, staying home for midterms. They won’t come out for Clinton if she is Brutus in this Caesar play.
She isn’t acting much like Brutus, unless Brutus was throwing flowers at Caesar and not stabbing him. Except for this one issue, she’s pretty much in agreement with his policies and praised him in her campaign opening speech. She’s moving left because the country is moving left while Republicans are lurching so far starboard that they’re about to capsize.
I’m back everyone! Let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work…
I see no reason to be confident in this (the “credible” part) yet. Jeb has seemed less than credible lately, and the only possible other ‘credible’ Republicans I’ve seen (to me, obviously) have been the ones who haven’t been seen much, like Kasich.
So far, all the disagreement with Obama has been far from “dissing”, and pretty mundane and respectful. I see no reason to believe that Obama voters would care particularly much if Hillary occasionally disagrees on issues (like trade) that are not particularly fundamental to the political identity of either.
I see no reason to believe that disagreement on trade will alienate any significant number of Obama voters. If you have any evidence of this, I’d love to see it.
Ridiculous hyperbole. This trade deal is a blip, at least in the consciousness of Democratic voters, compared to health care, the environment, and various other achievements of Obama. I’ve seen no reason to believe that the discussions about the trade deal are reaching more than just the hard-core politics fans.
Hillary Clinton 41%
Bernie Sanders 31%
Joe Biden 7%
Martin O’Malley 3%
Jim Webb 1%
Lincoln Chafee 1%
Two more interesting questions from the Monmouth poll were, “Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his positions, if (Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley) was the Democratic nominee would he have as good a chance as Hillary Clinton of winning the general election against a Republican, would (Sanders, O’Malley) have a better chance than Clinton, or would (Sanders, O’Malley) have a worse chance than Clinton?”
Sanders:
As good a chance as Clinton 15%
A better chance than Clinton 13%
A worse chance than Clinton 59%
O’Malley
As good a chance as Clinton 15%
A better chance than Clinton 8%
A worse chance than Clinton 60%
Interesting data from Nate Cohn that confirms an argument I’ve been making for some time: as demographics change, the Democratic Party will be less liberal, not more:
The Democratic Party’s liberal base is made up primarily of white, college educated voters. Latinos and African-Americans are less liberal.
This also goes back to what I was saying about many of Obama’s new voters(mostly young and minority voters) who side with him rather than being ideological. Clinton’s attempt to appeal to them by taking far left stances isn’t going to work because they don’t care about that stuff.
Depends on the issue. On economic issues (taxes on the wealthy, minimum wage, health care, safety net, etc.), from what I’ve seen black and Latino Democrats are as liberal or more liberal than the average Democrats. On social issues they are not.
But if you think the Democratic party is going to become less socially liberal, considering how the country is moving, then you’re nuts.
So I don’t buy this analysis, at least not without knowing in detail how they determine which Democrats are more liberal and more conservative.
I guess I’m not seeing what you’re seeing. Black Democrats are 50% mostly or consistently liberal and 44% mixed. That doesn’t tell me that blacks are there for the conservatives to pick off.
It all depends on the issue. On gay rights, the nation has moved dramatically left. On abortion, the same divide that has always been there always will be there. The old saw that the US is a center-right nation just isn’t so.
One, the base has never been primarily White and college educated; it has always been a mixed bag. Yes, the higher educated minority of the America electorate fairly reliably swings more heavily Democratic but that has shifted from being identified as “college educated” to “post graduate” in more recent cycles and has always been a minority of the party which has always also included other groups with different priorities.
There has been an increase in some less liberal Latino and African voters and some loss of White center right Democratic voters. Overall for the party’s left/right balance likely much in balance. Depending on what dimensions of left/right you are measuring of course!
And a distinction that may seem fine but is still important. What Obama accomplished to a greater degree was getting the mostly young and minority voters to turn out in greater percentages.
He did not get them to vote Democratic over GOP when they voted. He got them in more commonly the habit of voting at all. It has been the GOP that has convinced them to vote Democratic when they vote.
I have not heard Clinton taking any “far left stances” so far by the way. She pretty solidly represents the more centrist elements of the party, which still cares about income equality and opportunity for all. Which “far left” stances are you referencing?
No, the Democratic Party won’t go conservative on any issues, so much as social issues and environmental issues will be deemphasized in favor of economic populism. Currently, the Democratic Party is more interested in what the white wealthy donors want, which is gay marriage and something done about climate change. And you see, the climate change is just a BIT of a problem, since that one collides with things like low energy prices and jobs, so that will pretty much have to go when the rich white guys aren’t making the decisions anymore.
I don’t buy your analysis of what the Democratic Party is interested in. I think health care, minimum wage, and other issues are equally as ‘big’ (or more) in the party as those.
No, ever since the EPA made moves to protect the environment this idea that the number of jobs will be reduced is a dumb one. China and India are just beginning to notice how pollution is now destroying many job opportunities (with rivers with no water or with polluted water many industries are not developing now)
And according to a report from the Department of Economics of the University of Maryland the EPA’s proposed carbon rule would create hundreds of thousands of Jobs.
No wonder Republican scientists many times become independents, Republicans are indeed wilfully ignoring that Republican scientists also overwhelmingly agree that we have a problem, and this issue should not had been used as political test by the Republicans, they were better about it even a few years back.
[QUOTE]
**It's frustrating because there shouldn’t be a serious role for politics in climate science in my opinion, the science is science, and it was!... 12 years ago.**
[/QUOTE]
At least Richard Alley remains hopeful that the Republicans will become reasonable again… someday, but I’m afraid it is more likely that he will become an independent and/or vote for the Democratic party.
Health care, yes. Minimum wage, they had every opportunity to easily raise it and did not. Climate change came third, after the stimulus and ACA. Immigration and minimum wage were completely ignored. Once Latinos are dominant, they will be the top issues instead.
I’m not implying that there’s anything wrong with a liberal party having those priorities, only pointing out that the Democratic Party in the post-Reagan era has been less a workers’ party and more the enlightened, socially conscious, environmental rich folks’ party. It’s going to go back to what it was during the FDR era, a working man’s party, but that also means they’ll converge a little more with the Republicans on the “lack of patience for science when it makes us uncomfortable” train. Climate change has never resonated with the working man and won’t anytime soon. Pretty much all of the momentum on that issue is rich guys like Tom Steyer making it their pet issue. Plus if the Democrats become the party of the working man, but without taxing the working man, instead getting all their revenue from guys like Tom Steyer, then there won’t be many Tom Steyers left interested in funding the party. Why should they, when their issues are ignored and the Democratic base is coming after their wealth?
I don’t buy your analysis. They didn’t have “every opportunity” to raise the minimum wage.
And I think this is bad analysis. What you’re “pointing out” is mostly wrong, IMO. I think you fundamentally lack the ability to understand how most Democrats think, how most liberals think, and what most of them/us want. And you seem unwilling to be educated by people who actually are Democrats and liberals.
One thing your missing is how disorganized/unfocused the Democratic party often is – different issues will be at the forefront at different times, and with different leaders. I see no reason to believe that the current leadership values what you say they do more than ‘workers’, health care, minimum wage, etc.