Charles Krauthammer - Clinton wing has no message

[Shadows]

Krauthammer said the party under Nancy Pelosi's leadership has no coherent ideas, unlike Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign. He agreed with Carlson that Sanders at least had ideas to run on last year, though they were "anti-capitalist" and not a particularly good strategy. He said Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and others on the far left want to create "a Germany in the U.S." with higher taxes, heavy regulation, open borders and government-run health care.

Krauthammer said in the absence of an overall message, the rest of the Democrats have focused on "identity politics". He said the strategy worked with a charismatic candidate like Barack Obama, but still lacks "ideological [or] intellectual coherence" and isn't a strategy for long-term survival. "So when you say, 'what do you stand for?' they can't give an answer. So what do they do? They invent this idea of diversity. This is a party of diversity. [But] diversity is an adjective that describes the world as it is, it's not a political aspiration," said

Krauthammer.http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/23/charles-krauthammer-dems-have-no-message-sanders-had-coherent-ideas

I disagree with the Sanders/Warren ideas suck & the whole Diversity BS that he is saying but he is right on the message. The so-called Clinton/moderate wing has no message & has no purpose & is entirely dependent on the GOP being racist & has no targets & goals. The so-called coalition of older voters & the African American voters & older hispanics etc are not bound together by a common economic purpose & goal.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The Clinton wing does have a message. It's just a message that's severely outdated, unpopular with the base, and has ran its course.

[JA]

The Clinton wing does have a message. It's just a message that's severely outdated, unpopular with the base, and has ran its course.

Exactly. It was a message fit for the period between the late '70s and the Great Recession. Since then, however, it has no solutions to current problems. That is what made President Obama, his Presidency, and the Democratic Congress so inept. There was nothing in their playbook for the new reality in which they found themselves. Republicans had a message: resentment. They resented diversity, multiculturalism, the increasing power and influence of minority groups, the alleged favoritism directed by Democrats at those groups using "their money," a government that no longer catered to their desires, globalization, and a foreign policy aimed at alliance building and further integrating America into the global community.

Republicans have found their new voice and message. Trump is an incompetent leader, but he was able to unify almost an entire party behind him and craft a new message that speaks to and for a very large segment of the population. Even after Trump is out of the White House, there are many Republicans ready to champion the platform and coalition he forged. There will continue to be Republicans opposed to the new reality, but like Lincoln Chaffee and other "RINOs," they'll eventually either leave politics or switch parties. Democrats have failed to form a coherent response, hence why they've obsessed over Trump's personal problems, the rise in open bigotry, and the Russia investigation. The Democrats will have to find their message for today's politics and it will likely define the battle lines for the next several decades.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Clintons have done plenty of make the Democratic party be an absolute cesspool in 2016. Democrats need to talk about the issues that affect people: jobs, healthcare, the environment, and not pretending to give a rats ass about some identity group when the same terrible Clintons scored political points bashing those groups in the 1990s. Their divide and conquer identity politics needs to die.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Democrats have failed to form a coherent response, hence why they've obsessed over Trump's personal problems, the rise in open bigotry, and the Russia investigation. The Democrats will have to find their message for today's politics and it will likely define the battle lines for the next several decades.

This is something that's gonna take some time to thrash out. Right now the Russia scandal hasn't really put that much of a dent in Trump's AR (538 average for him has stabilized at 39% these past 5 and a half weeks) and the SJW message definitely doesn't resonate either (the guy who ran on "build the wall" and was endorsed by the Klan got higher numbers of African American and Hispanic support than the last GOP nominee for President did).

So the Democrats are now twiddling their thumbs and throwing mud hoping that it sticks...but that's not a message. I also don't find Obama-Tea Party analogies to be useful here (the idea that an anti-Trump message will pay dividends the same way an anti-Obama obstructionist message did for the Tea Party) since the GOP base is radically different from the Democratic base. Throwing mud might lead to short term success but I seriously doubt that it'll translate into sizeable or long lasting gains. The honest to God problem with this Party is that nobody seems them as being the concise representatives of working class people. If you ask people on the street which political Party best represents working class people many will say neither, some will say the Democrats, some Republican, etc. Without that concise branding the Democrats will continue to fall short to Trump's faux populist rhetoric (and many will resort to just voting their cultural views first).

This clip sums up a lot of the problems Democrats will have moving forward.

[Crumpets]

There is no Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. She won the nomination because she cobbled together a coalition of several wings of the party including the minority interest/civil rights wing, the feminist wing, the DLC/corporate shill wing, and the urban wing. Each of these have their own message, and of course it's hard to parse out a single message when you have a base that diverse. That being said, what did her in was how easily she was tied to the least popular wing and worst at coming up with a coherent message, the DWS/DLC wing. I don't think even her most die-hard supporters, myself included, would argue they are helping formulate or advance the Democratic agenda, but at the same time, it's ridiculous to say that the feminist+LGBTQ+Civil rights wings of the Democratic Party have "no message."

[Hindsight was 2020]

The reps didn't have a message in 2009 either, messages and platforms are normally developed when people start running for midterms so around spring of next year. Also the dems are the opposition party so whatever they do run on has to be first dictated by Trump's legislative actions

[Yank2133]

Clinton's message in 2016 was nothing like what her husband and DLC ran on in the 1990s. Anyone who says that wasn't actually paying attention and is trying create a narrative that doesn't exist.

[uti2]

So the Democrats are now twiddling their thumbs and throwing mud hoping that it sticks...but that's not a message. I also don't find Obama-Tea Party analogies to be useful here (the idea that an anti-Trump message will pay dividends the same way an anti-Obama obstructionist message did for the Tea Party) since the GOP base is radically different from the Democratic base.

This is why the Nixon/Obama analogies are imprecise, Obama ran a grassroots campaign equivalent to the Reagan '68 campaign in 2008, while Hillary ran a Clinton/Gore-style campaign in '08. However, Hillary's campaign strategy in 2016 was far removed from her original '08 strategy, she basically ran as a successor to Obama '12, her campaign was modeled after Obama '12.

If the Nixon analogy were precise, then Gore or Hillary should've won in 2008 - beating back the insurgent Reagan wing of the party.

I don't understand how you can compare Ford to Hillary or Biden, they not alike at all. Ford mostly ran against his predecessor. Ford literally ran the opposite of Nixon's '72 campaign. Hillary/Biden were running campaigns in their predecessor's make similar to Bush Sr. LBJ and Truman.

I think the best way to describe Obama is something like this - it would be as if Reagan won '68 (or FDR in '12 or Lincoln in '48), there's no way the Congress would've cooperated with him and he wouldn't have gotten much of his agenda passed. Then you need to ask the question - if Reagan had been a failed president, who would his successor have been? Modern Reaganism as an ideology wouldn't really exist, it would've been watered down. This is sort of what happened to Obama - however, that doesn't mean Reaganism shouldn't have succeeded electorally. What else would there be besides Goldwater/Reaganism for the GOP? It's like where would the GOP be without Lincoln '60 or the Democrats without FDR '32? It's very likely they still would've been 'transformative', but the transformation would've been a much weaker one. I.E. w/ Lincoln '48, slavery would've been abolished in the territories, but would've continued in the south for decades. With FDR '12, he would've driven the country further to the left, but not as far as he did, tax rates would never have gone as high as they did, as an example.

Who else besides Reagan could've been the GOP Reagan if he failed in '68? Is that even possible?

[Technocracy Timmy]

^ Obama didn't transform anything. Most of the GOP inability to pass legislation is their own fault and has nothing to do with Obama shifting public support. Cutting entitlements has always been the weakest endeavor for the GOP coalition to undertake. The Democratic Party lost a third term in office, the GOP swoop to a government trifecta without moderating at all at the congressional and local levels (the Tea Party, if anything, drug them further right), the country was more polarized after Obama left office than when he entered, the Demcorats are at their weakest point in political power since the 1920's, etc.

I try not to deal with past hypotheticals of "Well if Reagan had won in 1968" because he didn't win. Nobody can be sure as to what would've happened exactly so it's much easier to take what's already happened and move on from there. As it stands, Obama wasn't 1/100 the transformative figure that Reagan or Franklin Roosevelt was. He was clearly a continued step (albeit a half hearted one) in the Reagan era. His lack of triangulation caused the GOP to not work with him; and that strategy paid dividends for the GOP in a way that it never did under FDR. Obama was at best a foreshadowing figure but so far nothing in his legacy points to him being anything long lasting or beyond the pale of Reagan Republicanism besides financial reform. Even Obamacare was a centrist market based healthcare plan that had adopted proposals from Nixon, Gringrich and Grassley, and the Heritage Foundation.

[Virginiá]

This is something that's gonna take some time to thrash out. Right now the Russia scandal hasn't really put that much of a dent in Trump's AR (538 average for him has stabilized at 39% these past 5 and a half weeks) and the SJW message definitely doesn't resonate either (the guy who ran on "build the wall" and was endorsed by the Klan got higher numbers of African American and Hispanic support than the last GOP nominee for President did).

Is it even possible for Congresscritters and party officials to push the kind of coherent, inspiring message people keep saying Democrats need? I mean Republicans have their thing, but it's not like those principles and the general theme has not been pushed by presidential candidate after presidential candidate since Reagan. What Democrats really need is that one person to come along and unite the party, because that is when people pay attention. Presidents are far more effective in that kind of messaging.

Because if that's the case, I don't even really get what people expect Democrats to do right now. Are there even any cases of a party doing this without a president to deliver it?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

There was a feeling back in 2016 Hillary haven't articulated why she's running other than creating the impression of it "being her turn".

[uti2]

^ Obama didn't transform anything. Most of the GOP inability to pass legislation is their own fault and has nothing to do with Obama shifting public support. Cutting entitlements has always been the weakest endeavor for the GOP coalition to undertake. The Democratic Party lost a third term in office, the GOP swoop to a government trifecta without moderating at all at the congressional and local levels (the Tea Party, if anything, drug them further right), the country was more polarized after Obama left office than when he entered, the Demcorats are at their weakest point in political power since the 1920's, etc.

I try not to deal with past hypotheticals of "Well if Reagan had won in 1968" because he didn't win. Nobody can be sure as to what would've happened exactly so it's much easier to take what's already happened and move on from there. As it stands, Obama wasn't 1/100 the transformative figure that Reagan or Franklin Roosevelt was. He was clearly a continued step (albeit a half hearted one) in the Reagan era. His lack of triangulation caused the GOP to not work with him; and that strategy paid dividends for the GOP in a way that it never did under FDR. Obama was at best a foreshadowing figure but so far nothing in his legacy points to him being anything long lasting or beyond the pale of Reagan Republicanism besides financial reform. Even Obamacare was a centrist market based healthcare plan that had adopted proposals from Nixon, Gringrich and Grassley, and the Heritage Foundation.

This speaks to the question if you believe whether or not candidates are simply cogs in the machine or if they have independent transformational capabilities that are in part driven by their tactical abilities and characteristics. It's hard to imagine Bob Dole or Al Smith playing the role of Reagan or FDR, for example.

[PragmaticPopulist]

There was a feeling back in 2016 Hillary haven't articulated why she's running other than creating the impression of it "being her turn".

Couldn't agree more. She was practically a completely different candidate than she was in 2008. I don't know enough about how Bill Clinton campaigned to make a comparison, though there was evidence that if she had been the nominee in 2008, she would've won the more traditional Democratic base of working-class whites, while holding onto the gains that Bill Clinton made with suburban voters. To put this into perspective, if Hillary had been the nominee to 2008, she almost certainly would've won Arkansas, and been competitive in Kentucky and West Virginia.

[hueylong]

Pundits have no message other than 'Democrats have no message'.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Germany is one of the most successful countries in the world.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The Clinton wing does have a message. It's just a message that's severely outdated, unpopular with the base, and has ran its course.

Exactly. It was a message fit for the period between the late '70s and the Great Recession. Since then, however, it has no solutions to current problems. That is what made President Obama, his Presidency, and the Democratic Congress so inept. There was nothing in their playbook for the new reality in which they found themselves. Republicans had a message: resentment. They resented diversity, multiculturalism, the increasing power and influence of minority groups, the alleged favoritism directed by Democrats at those groups using "their money," a government that no longer catered to their desires, globalization, and a foreign policy aimed at alliance building and further integrating America into the global community.

Republicans have found their new voice and message. Trump is an incompetent leader, but he was able to unify almost an entire party behind him and craft a new message that speaks to and for a very large segment of the population. Even after Trump is out of the White House, there are many Republicans ready to champion the platform and coalition he forged. There will continue to be Republicans opposed to the new reality, but like Lincoln Chaffee and other "RINOs," they'll eventually either leave politics or switch parties. Democrats have failed to form a coherent response, hence why they've obsessed over Trump's personal problems, the rise in open bigotry, and the Russia investigation. The Democrats will have to find their message for today's politics and it will likely define the battle lines for the next several decades.

It's funny: the Republicans have a message without any policy and the Democrats have policy without any message. I think that's just the nature of the two parties, one a hardened ideological coalition and the other a coalition of disparate interests.

[Technocracy Timmy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Germany is one of the most successful countries in the world.

Germany is also an export driven manufacturing economy that has benefitted greatly from the neoliberal order from roughly 1980 to today which has been predicated on targeting inflation and price stability. The US is an import driven service economy. I don't see why people like Krauthammer always want to conflate two very different economically structured countries. Asia and Europe generally saves and exports while the US (and much of North America) spends and consumes.

[JA]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Germany is one of the most successful countries in the world.

Germany is also an export driven manufacturing economy that has benefitted greatly from the neoliberal order from roughly 1980 to today which has been predicated on targeting inflation and price stability. The US is an import driven service economy. I don't see why people like Krauthammer always want to conflate two very different economically structured countries. Asia and Europe generally saves and exports while the US (and much of North America) spends and consumes.

Because they fundamentally don't understand what they're talking about. It just makes for a good sound bite.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Germany is one of the most successful countries in the world.

Germany is also an export driven manufacturing economy that has benefitted greatly from the neoliberal order from roughly 1980 to today which has been predicated on targeting inflation and price stability. The US is an import driven service economy. I don't see why people like Krauthammer always want to conflate two very different economically structured countries. Asia and Europe generally saves and exports while the US (and much of North America) spends and consumes.

The irony is that if you want to bring back the manufacturing jobs like Trump and his supporters want, Germany would be the model...

[Fuzzy Bear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Germany is one of the most successful countries in the world.

Germany is also an export driven manufacturing economy that has benefitted greatly from the neoliberal order from roughly 1980 to today which has been predicated on targeting inflation and price stability. The US is an import driven service economy. I don't see why people like Krauthammer always want to conflate two very different economically structured countries. Asia and Europe generally saves and exports while the US (and much of North America) spends and consumes.

The irony is that if you want to bring back the manufacturing jobs like Trump and his supporters want, Germany would be the model...

Not really, because Germany doesn't pay to defend itself.  We defend Germany.  This makes it easy for Germany to "save and export".

[Statilius the Epicurean]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Germany is one of the most successful countries in the world.

Germany is also an export driven manufacturing economy that has benefitted greatly from the neoliberal order from roughly 1980 to today which has been predicated on targeting inflation and price stability. The US is an import driven service economy. I don't see why people like Krauthammer always want to conflate two very different economically structured countries. Asia and Europe generally saves and exports while the US (and much of North America) spends and consumes.

The irony is that if you want to bring back the manufacturing jobs like Trump and his supporters want, Germany would be the model...

Not really, because Germany doesn't pay to defend itself.  We defend Germany.  This makes it easy for Germany to "save and export".

What does military spending have to do with monetary and trade policy?

[Yank2133]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are selling Obama short here.

Half the GOP's problem is the fact that Obama policies have changed public opinion. The ACA is the perfect example of this. It is not just entitlement cuts that are unpopular all the time, but the GOP's real stance on healthcare is just unacceptable to the majority of Americans and you can credit the ACA for that.

They want to return to pre-ACA days. But thanks to the ACA, they can't do that and that is why we have this half-assed AHCA, which is basically Obamacare without any of the goodies.

Hell, the majority of Trump's EO's aren't even rolling back Obama era policies, but establish a committee to look into it (in other words not make any changes.).

[Technocracy Timmy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are selling Obama short here.

Half the GOP's problem is the fact that Obama policies have changed public opinion. The ACA is the perfect example of this. It is not just entitlement cuts that are unpopular all the time, but the GOP's real stance on healthcare is just unacceptable to the majority of Americans and you can credit the ACA for that.

They want to return to pre-ACA days. But thanks to the ACA, they can't do that and that is why we have this half-assed AHCA, which is basically Obamacare without any of the goodies.

Hell, the majority of Trump's EO's aren't even rolling back Obama era policies, but establish a committee to look into it (in other words not make any changes.).

Public opinion hasn't shifted from the unwillingness to go along with full scale entitlement reform and cuts to the safety net (certainly not in large numbers). That's been a constant going back to Reagan and Obama taking credit for a trend that's been in place for decades isn't anything that should be attributed to him. In regards to Obamacare itself: it was a step in a leftwards direction but it was still a compromise and centrist market based policy. There was no public option, no Medicare buy in program, no discernible way for government to negotiate for lower costs with healthcare companies, etc. Dodd-Frank was the only big ticket liberal item that appears likely to stay mostly in tact.

All in all Obama is much more of a continuation of Reagan with a more liberal streak to him. All of his big ticket items came from a trifecta and a willingness to act during a crisis from 2009-2011. But there was no great system reset during the financial crisis as there was in the 1930's or 1980's. We bailed out the system, sprinkled in financial reform, and called it a day. Obama has a legacy, but it isn't one that's anywhere near Roosevelt's or Reagan's (as the OP was suggesting).

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Another piece along similar lines from a more anti-establishment source:

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/03/the-democratic-partys-deadly-dead-end/