How Democrats Can heal the Schism in Their Party

[uti2]

The idea Hillary Clinton ran a campaign on a strong civil rights agenda is blatant revisionism.

Agreed. Anybody who thought Clinton even had a coherent narrative to voters beyond being third term Obama is lying to themselves. I still can't figure out what her core message was. I know what Trump's was: trade and immigration. Hillary? Could've been anything.

Tom Perrielo basically hits on the themes of the upcoming realignment, which is the shift from neoliberalism to populism. He understands that if the Democratic Party emphasizes economic growth and equality but maintains the socially liberal ideology they had they can win a realigning election. There's a reason Hillary won the popular vote with Bernie's platform and it wasn't all Trump's fat mouth.

I think that a lot of it can be attributed to Trump though. I don't think Rubio or Kasich would've lost the PV against Clinton.

Imagine the former post in the context of your latter post. She was going to run an Obama 2012 style economic populist campaign and run as a successor to Obama similar to Bush Sr., Truman or LBJ. All the plans were made, she only widely diverged from her original strategy specifically due to Trump.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137093/clinton-campaign-decision-made-may-doom-down-ballot-democrats

By the way, the 1920s GOP ran on platforms of isolationism and protectionism. None of the GOP candidates were offering anything remotely close to that besides Trump. Both of the two you mentioned backed the TPP, as did almost all of the GOP candidates.

Would it be that difficult to run a populist campaign against a guy who wanted to cut Mitt Romney's net income tax liability to zero (by abolishing capital gains/dividends taxes)?

[uti2]

Tom Perrielo basically hits on the themes of the upcoming realignment, which is the shift from neoliberalism to populism. He understands that if the Democratic Party emphasizes economic growth and equality but maintains the socially liberal ideology they had they can win a realigning election. There's a reason Hillary won the popular vote with Bernie's platform and it wasn't all Trump's fat mouth.

I think that a lot of it can be attributed to Trump though. I don't think Rubio or Kasich would've lost the PV against Clinton.

They would've, and easily. Trump really WAS the only one who could expose all these flaws. Because with all his, he could foul the whole process up and show the divides as they really are while the media kept trying to artificially even things out for horse-races' sake.

Hillary would've run a 2012-esque campaign and probably won easily given how utterly lacking in charisma everyone else in the clown car was in every sense. Little different from Nixon vs the 1972 field of Democrats in that sense.

Also, Bush '88 pulled it off despite most of the same accusations on him, while Dukakis was an outsider. I have little doubt Rubio would've been Dukakis'd in such a situation.

Trump turned it into 1976 though.

The former case was that of the in-party slowly coming apart and barely holding on, but ripe pickens for booted hard next election with the next big flop and with a moderate caretaker policy in-between

The latter (and the result) is a case of the in-party getting barely taken out by a desperate wilderness party ramming the biggest non-establishment through the convention and hoping it works and thus foisting the struggles onto the new in-party.

Either way, the schism is there.

Not a chance. Hillary Clinton had a 56% unfavorability rating and was the most disliked Presidential candidate in moderate American history (minus Trump at 65%). 2/3's of Americans thought she was untrustworthy. She barely beat the most disliked candidate in American history by 2 percentage points.

Rubio and Kasich wouldn't have had such god awful unfavorables (certainly nowhere near Trump's 65%). I don't believe for one minute that Hillary Clinton could've defeated either of these men in the PV or EC given the plethora of problems she had against such a weak candidate in Trump. Her campaign was always gonna be a mess between the old guard battling it out with the rising figures from the Obama camp. To this day I haven't been able to figure out what her campaign narrative was.

It was originally the same as Obama's. Run as a populist, anti-TPP, attacking the wealthy, opposing free trade deals, etc. It was a continuation of Obama's 2012 plan. She changed her strategy dramatically against Trump if you read the links.

Her unfavorables were literally the same as Jeb and Cruz, and Cruz's unfavs only skyrocked in the last couple months of the campaign as a result of Trump's attacks (which included the same kind of National Enquirer hysteria/conspiracy theories that Hillary had been subjected to). You also saw rubio's numbers following the same trend, but he dropped out sooner. Check the trendlines on the data.

[uti2]

Clinton would have lost due to the email scandal tanking her credibility, no matter who her GOP opponent was.

That's what was said about Iran-Contra and Bush.

[uti2]

The problem with Hillary co-opting that strategy is that the progressive base associates her with her husband and not Obama (2008 primaries featured Obama hammering her on trade and Iraq). Plus she's been in Washington DC since 1993. She could've ran that strategy, but it would've been just as much of a flop as Trump running as a compassionate conservative in 2020. She's one of the worst messengers for such a narrative out of everybody in the Party. She's even on video tape record saying the TPP is the gold standard.

Rubio and Kasich's favorables would've declined as a result of polarization. But there's no way in Hell they could've gotten anywhere close to Trump's 65%. They would've hovered below Clinton's. Maybe 50% or so.

How did Gore win the popular vote despite progressive hatred?

Gore actually ran a campaign very similar to James Cox. On the other hand, Hillary ran almost entirely as a successor to Obama. Don't forget that the conservative base also hated Bush Sr. in 1980.

In 1988, Bush Sr. had a contrast in the form of Dukakis, Hillary's conventional opponent would've been a total contrast. Unlike in 2000, where Bush tried to blur the lines by opposing interventionism and supporting medicare expansion, Hillary was to the left of a conventional opponent on pretty much every single issue. As far as Hillary's interventionist streak goes, in a contrast, her interventionist policies would clearly be less hawkish than a conventional republican's. It would be definitively clear who the more left wing candidate would be.

[uti2]

Clinton would have lost due to the email scandal tanking her credibility, no matter who her GOP opponent was.

That's what was said about Iran-Contra and Bush.

Great, who cares. We're talking about the 2016 election, not 1988.

The point is that scandals don't make the candidate. Bill Clinton had many scandals and he was still reelected and his successor also won the popular vote.

[uti2]

The progressive base in 2016 grew significantly over the course of those 16 years leading up to it. Gore and 2000 isn't comparable in any way, shape, or form in that regard. Bush was also on track to win the PV until the DUI scandal hit a week before the election. Gore tied Bush with 18-24 year old voters and Gore won the elderly demographic. That's so patently different from how 2016 broke down that I think it's silly to compare the two.

You do realize that progressives, young people, minorities, etc. despise Trump just as much as any other Republican right? It's not as though a Kasich or Rubio candidacy was gonna gin up any more support for Secretary Clinton from those groups than Trump did. She was a horrible fit for a lot of progressives and younger voters. They don't like her, they don't like the Clintons, they don't want the 90's style of Democratic politics coming back, etc.

So long as Kasich and Rubio didn't brag about grabbing p*ssy they would've won the PV.

If you want to talk about the DUI story, then Hillary was also on her way to winning the election until the comey announcement, which was precipitated by Comey acting on a forged russian intelligence document designed to assist Trump.

Conservatives hated Bush Sr. as I pointed out, they supported him anyway.

By the way, it's interesting to note how Harding totally ignored Cox (despite Cox trying to distance himself from Wilson) and focused on running against Wilson, that's very similar to Bush ignoring Gore and focusing on Clinton(Lewinsky). Bush wanted to restore 'morality' to the White House that had been gone for the past 8 years.

'76 was also all about Nixon. In contrast, as you point out, this election was very much about Hillary, similar to how '88 and '48 were about Bush and Truman.

[uti2]

The progressive base in 2016 grew significantly over the course of those 16 years leading up to it. Gore and 2000 isn't comparable in any way, shape, or form in that regard. Bush was also on track to win the PV until the DUI scandal hit a week before the election. Gore tied Bush with 18-24 year old voters and Gore won the elderly demographic. That's so patently different from how 2016 broke down that I think it's silly to compare the two.

You do realize that progressives, young people, minorities, etc. despise Trump just as much as any other Republican right? It's not as though a Kasich or Rubio candidacy was gonna gin up any more support for Secretary Clinton from those groups than Trump did. She was a horrible fit for a lot of progressives and younger voters. They don't like her, they don't like the Clintons, they don't want the 90's style of Democratic politics coming back, etc.

So long as Kasich and Rubio didn't brag about grabbing p*ssy they would've won the PV.

If you want to talk about the DUI story, then Hillary was also on her way to winning the election until the comey announcement, which was precipitated by Comey acting on a forged russian intelligence document designed to assist Trump.

Agreed.

Conservatives hated Bush Sr. as I pointed out, they supported him anyway.

Reagan had won by 18 points in 1984 (a 9 point improvement from his 1980 performance) whereas Obama had won by only 4 points (which was a 3 point decline from his 2012 performance). The GOP had a much better base of support going into the 1988 presidential election than the Democrats did in 2016.

By the way, it's interesting to note how Harding totally ignored Cox (despite Cox trying to distance himself from Wilson) and focused on running against Wilson, that's very similar to Bush ignoring Gore and focusing on Clinton(Lewinsky). Bush wanted to restore 'morality' to the White House that had been gone for the past 8 years.

'76 was also all about Nixon. In contrast, as you point out, this election was very much about Hillary, similar to how '88 and '48 were about Bush and Truman.

Obama was also the most recent president in history to be re-elected with a lower re-election margin besides guess who? FDR.

Bill won by 10 points in '96, while LBJ and Nixon '72 both won by 20+, they didn't help their parties in the following cycles.

[uti2]

This is overblown the Republican had so many schism's over the past years. I remember several articles of the coming 'GOP civil war' that never came the party was unified against Obama and that was that mattered. The Dem party under Bush had the same divisions progs vs. blue dogs, SoCons vs. Libs that was kept together by their hatred of Bush.

Both Parties curently have schisms, but the GOP isn't one that gonna be easily reconciled the way the schism in the Democratic Party can. Democrats can solve their schism by moving to the left. The GOP have a much bigger problem trying to reconcile right wing nationalist populism with Reaganite conservatism. These two visions are usually in direct conflict with one another.

And again, this dynamic wouldn't have presented itself without Trump, who was a pseudo-third party candidate. So, if Trump had lost the primary while smearing his opponent nominee with conspiracy theories and calling the whole system 'rigged', how would the GOP have reconciled that?

[uti2]

This is overblown the Republican had so many schism's over the past years. I remember several articles of the coming 'GOP civil war' that never came the party was unified against Obama and that was that mattered. The Dem party under Bush had the same divisions progs vs. blue dogs, SoCons vs. Libs that was kept together by their hatred of Bush.

Both Parties curently have schisms, but the GOP isn't one that gonna be easily reconciled the way the schism in the Democratic Party can. Democrats can solve their schism by moving to the left. The GOP have a much bigger problem trying to reconcile right wing nationalist populism with Reaganite conservatism. These two visions are usually in direct conflict with one another.

And again, this dynamic wouldn't have presented itself without Trump, who was a pseudo-third party candidate. So, if Trump had lost the primary while smearing his opponent nominee with conspiracy theories and calling the whole system 'rigged', how would the GOP have reconciled that?

Their base would've been #anybodybutHillary.

I can't think of a Third Party run that hurt a political Party which had already been on the political outs of the WH for 8 years.

1836

[uti2]

This is overblown the Republican had so many schism's over the past years. I remember several articles of the coming 'GOP civil war' that never came the party was unified against Obama and that was that mattered. The Dem party under Bush had the same divisions progs vs. blue dogs, SoCons vs. Libs that was kept together by their hatred of Bush.

Both Parties curently have schisms, but the GOP isn't one that gonna be easily reconciled the way the schism in the Democratic Party can. Democrats can solve their schism by moving to the left. The GOP have a much bigger problem trying to reconcile right wing nationalist populism with Reaganite conservatism. These two visions are usually in direct conflict with one another.

And again, this dynamic wouldn't have presented itself without Trump, who was a pseudo-third party candidate. So, if Trump had lost the primary while smearing his opponent nominee with conspiracy theories and calling the whole system 'rigged', how would the GOP have reconciled that?

Their base would've been #anybodybutHillary.

I can't think of a Third Party run that hurt a political Party which had already been on the political outs of the WH for 8 years.

1836

That's a single event from a freakishly long time ago (by contemporary American standards). Plus the Whigs had just formed as a result of the National Republican Party falling out and (as jfern noted) was a weird strategy they pursued on their own volition.

I mean if you're suggesting that the GOP divisions were so huge and that they were really larger than the democratic divisions, then the parallel would be 1836. It's an example of what can happen in that scenario. The multiple nominees also reflected on many of the internal divisions presented in the party.

[uti2]

If Trump was ballsy enough to run third party in the event that he doesn't get the nom in 2016 then I don't see why Sanders wouldn't have also ran third party as well. The dislike of the GOP leadership by the base isn't that far off from the progressive wing's dislike of Clinton.

Sanders and Clinton clearly didn't see eye to eye or get along in the aftermath of the primaries.

Sanders had already penned a letter rationalizing his support for Clinton in the 90s despite disagreeing with him. Sanders also said he would endorse the Democratic nominee from the start, unlike Trump, who made no such assurances. Sanders also has a record of snubbing Nader and the Green Party.

Also, even in a 4 way race, as in 1912, the primary beneficiary would be the Center-Left, as they represent the plurality faction of the electorate.

It was reported in 2015 that Sanders hadn't returned Nader's phone calls in over 15 years, obviously we can see how he felt about him and his movement.