joe
I think likely you'll want to take a look at this...
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174872
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Any comparison between the campaign promises and pronouncements of the current crop of Dem candidate and those of Bill Clinton when he ran reveals a tacking to the left. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Bill Clinton resided in the center, his would-be successors of the present are playing in fields noticeably to the left of his.
On another thread, Butrflynet linked in
a Time story about Hillary's new health care plan - and how it compares to the scheme the Clintons tried to launch in the early 90s. The conclusion: Hillary's
current plan is more like the counter-plan that was at the time proposed by Linc Chafee, the Republican, than what the Clintons were proposing back then:
No big shift to the left there, then; instead, if anything, a shift to the
right compared with the early Clinton years.
Very interesting. Thanks for the link.
I see that I did not respond to
Finn's post. My belated apologies.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Again, I understand the definition. You referred to the theory. ("If there is any validity to the theory of turning-point elections...") They could be phenomena or the predictable result of some social or political dynamic. The latter would suggest identifiable underlying causation. Do you have a theory about why they occur?
I don't. I'm sure that there are lots of political scientists out there who could offer some theories on why these types of turning-point elections occur, but I doubt if any of them could be considered definitive.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:But you are suggesting that certain blocs of conservative voters will turn toward a Democrat candidate. I too doubt that any of these blocs will coalesce around a third party candidate, but my point is that even this unlikely event is more likely that these blocs supporting a Democrat.
Well, there are conservative voters and then there are
conservative voters. The blocs that I've identified are composed of voters who tend to support the Republican Party but who are not part of the "core" of the conservative wing of the GOP.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:But it was you who argued that changing demographics in suburbia supports the notion that this will be a turning point election---"as the first-generation suburbanites are dying off, their kids are turning out to be more tolerant of racial and ethnic diversity..." --- If that isn't demographics I don't know what is. In any case, the argument that suburbanites have voted Republican because of racial fear and loathing remains, at best specious. It is particularly weightless when one considers that many suburbanites voted Republican over the last 8 years - only know they have seen the light about race? Their racially tolerant kids are just know coming of voting age? It may be that there is a shift in suburbia, but its certainly not because of increased racial tolerance.
You misunderstand. I said that demographic change wasn't
necessary in order to have a turning-point election. As for my views on increasing racial tolerance in suburbia, I suppose we'll just have to disagree on that point.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Any comparison between the campaign promises and pronouncements of the current crop of Dem candidate and those of Bill Clinton when he ran reveals a tacking to the left. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Bill Clinton resided in the center, his would-be successors of the present are playing in fields noticeably to the left of his.
I offer no opinions on this tangential point.
All of the presidential candidates seem to be picking up Barack Obama's theme of change and portraying themselves as agents of change. If things keep going the way they have been, the 2008 election now looks to be as defining a moment as 1932, 1968 or 1980. (If things keep going, that is. A lot can happen in ten months).
If 2008 turns out to be a pivotal election, defining a new political era, it is important to give credit where credit is due. Two key reasons for the change will be the crackup of the coalition of the dominant party of the era, the Republicans, and the almost complete political failure of George W. Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove. Let me begin with the second reason, and then move to the first....
Read more
joe
That's how I see it too. As something of a silver-lining argument after Bush won his second term, I argued here that there was a potential blessing in his win and I drew the parallel to what happened in Canada after Brian Mulroney's tenure when his party was so decimated in the next election that it disappeared...one of Canada's two oldest parties destroyed by a single administration.
The advantages for the Dems are deep and numerous now. The 'change' element (for the reasons your writer states and many others) looks absolutely central in importance and the Republicans have no candidate who will be able to represent or signify that element to any significant constituency. McCain clearly comes closest, which ain't very close.
But if Bloomburg does enter, then the bets are off.
The comparison to Mulroney is, I think, pretty apt. Bush has shown himself to be the reverse-Midas, turning everything he touches into base metal. Association with Bush destroyed Colin Powell. It has, I believe, fatally compromised John McCain. It demolished Bill Frist's political career. It has left a trail of dead and wounded in its wake that is, frankly, unprecedented. Bush is the Typhoid Mary of American politics.
Apropos of another point that I raised in my initial post:
...But everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, know why the GOP wants to face Hillary in November. It's not because they like the Clintons, but because the Clintons unite the Republican base like no other Democrat -- and perhaps like no other Republican. Hillary will star in thousands of mailers, television ads, and websites, all cajoling Republicans to open their wallets, organize, and get to the voting booth.
And -- it will work. Even in a year where the fractures among the Republican coalition have been painfully evident, everyone will unite to keep the Clintons out of the White House. While Obama may have won some moderate Republicans to his side just based on his personal appeal, none will endorse the Restoration. Fredheads, Log Cabins, evangelicals, small-L libertarians, and hawks will all find a truce to battle Hillary to the last vote.
If the Democrats didn't see this, they will have made their biggest mistake since John Kerry reported for duty and lost the Democrats an election they easily could have won.
Link
joe
I understood that was your assumption re a Hillary candidacy. If the analysis/assumption is close to being correct, then I'd share your (and the writer's) trepidation. I'm just not sure that it is correct.
There's no question that her candidacy would be beset by all that has happened over the last fifteen or so years, namely the general media relationship to both bill and her (what's happening presently isn't likely to change much) and a myriad of notions held broadly about them as a consequence of a sustained and purposeful smear campaign, along with with this writer suggests...a reinvigorated Republican hatred and consensus leading to otherwise less likely activism to stop the Dem candidate. And, running below the surface, a deep sexist prejudice against women in power. I think this is all true. It is also, I think, manifestly unjust and it is this injustice which has me wanting to line up a lot of people on this site for a stooge-slap.
But, as I said, I'm not sure that the consequence of her candidacy will mean a Dem loss. If I was, I'd hire a figure skater to kneecap her. We must not lose. I am certain, on the other hand, that IF she wins the nomination, that the left MUST release itself from the grip of all the negative narratives promulgated by the right and carried enthusiastically by the parasitic media and reconceive who she is and what she can do. Easier said than done, of course, people being as phucking stupid as they are.
Last night's results suggest that her electoral future isn't so dreary. The women came out for her in large numbers and they surely would have done so in the prior caucus had Obama not been in the mix. Clearly, "change" is the magic for the coming election but we conceive of this aspect in light of Obama's presence even though it would surely have been dead center even if he weren't part of the equation. That Hillary doesn't equal change is a fundamental meme forwarded (of necessity) by Obama's camaign. Yet, as a woman, she surely does represent enormous change for many in the electorate. And she is clearly NOT BUSH, and that means change too.
I could go on... bill's high popularity through the impeachment and through today...all the factors (war, economy, medicaire, corruption, mistrust of Republicans) which (as Krugman details in his latest book) make the nineties look very good in contrast to today and which look to be pushing strongly for a deep change in direction towards a return to previous valuations of progressive policies are working for a Dem win, broad and deep.
And that brings up the question of who would be best able to take a Dem win and really do something with it. Another question of which I have no good answer but it certainly isn't clear to me that she would be worse than the other two in this respect.
Bernie wrote-
Quote:And she is clearly NOT BUSH
Are you kidding Bernie? She's Bush alright. Why do you think the ladies are voting for her?
How big is that white flag you are waving?
Not as big as Leo Vincey's I hope.
blatham wrote:There's no question that her candidacy would be beset by all that has happened over the last fifteen or so years, namely the general media relationship to both bill and her (what's happening presently isn't likely to change much) and a myriad of notions held broadly about them as a consequence of a sustained and purposeful smear campaign, along with with this writer suggests...a reinvigorated Republican hatred and consensus leading to otherwise less likely activism to stop the Dem candidate. And, running below the surface, a deep sexist prejudice against women in power. I think this is all true. It is also, I think, manifestly unjust and it is this injustice which has me wanting to line up a lot of people on this site for a stooge-slap.
Yes, much of it was unjust, and I think that there is a convincing case to be made that HRC was right when she talked about that "vast right-wing conspiracy." But whether her treatment has been fair or unfair is irrelevant to the general issue of her electability and the specific issue of this thread.
blatham wrote:But, as I said, I'm not sure that the consequence of her candidacy will mean a Dem loss. If I was, I'd hire a figure skater to kneecap her. We must not lose. I am certain, on the other hand, that IF she wins the nomination, that the left MUST release itself from the grip of all the negative narratives promulgated by the right and carried enthusiastically by the parasitic media and reconceive who she is and what she can do. Easier said than done, of course, people being as phucking stupid as they are.
I certainly have not said that HRC will lose if nominated (in fact, I've said in this thread that I expect that she would win). Nor do I think that was the point being made by Captain Ed, the author of the blog entry I linked. His point is that HRC would have a harder time winning than any other Democratic candidate, and my point has been that her candidacy would likely scuttle any hopes for a turning-point election in the Democrats' favor this year.
joe
I took this...
Quote:And -- it will work. Even in a year where the fractures among the Republican coalition have been painfully evident, everyone will unite to keep the Clintons out of the White House.
to suggest electoral loss.
In any case, it's my opinion too that an Obama candidacy has the potential to bring about deeper changes in the paradigm of modern american politics. To succeed, he'd have to pull the best of the best people in around him because of who and what he'll face. But he does represent change and a hopeful redirection more than the others, certainly.
Edwards? In this present situation, he'd be starting off with a lot of deeply disappointed women and african americans who aren't much interested in a 'change' of one white male to another white male, again. He would not only have to really believe his stump speech contents (as opposed to having established those contents in order to differentiate himself from the other two candidates) but he'd have to be something of a superman to pull it off with (what I'd imagine was) a smaller and less passionate electorate behind him given the financial and power structures his stump speech targets.
blatham wrote:joe
I took this...
Quote:And -- it will work. Even in a year where the fractures among the Republican coalition have been painfully evident, everyone will unite to keep the Clintons out of the White House.
to suggest electoral loss.
Hmmm. I suppose there are two ways to read that: (1) "everyone will unite
and will keep the Clintons out of the White House;" or (2) "everyone will unite
in order to keep the Clintons out of the White House." I read it the second way, I think you read it the first way. I suppose it all depends on what your definition of "to" is.
Will 2008 be a turning-point election?
Nah. The turning point is long gone.
I can't understand why men bother to vote. They lost the argument years ago. I've only ever voted once and that was quite sufficient for me to have got the picture. Media runs the show now and media is female territory for business reasons.The US and UK are matriarchies now. Our entry into the EU reminds me of nothing so much as a Jane Austen marriage arrangement. The weakest hand being played using hysteria.
These guys who come on here are merely trying to make politics look masculine but they are under the cosh.
The Great White Hope here goes by the name of Jeremy Clarkson and he is famous for making the safe controlled unutterably boring experience of driving a car look macho. I suppose it appeals to blokes who's only ever opportunity to get out from under the apron is behind a wheel and he shows them how to jolly well act out the last vestiges of the fading sexuality. Some of them were even outraged at Bill having the loan of Monica's big gob for a couple of minutes. At least Bill kept the flag fluttering a bit which is why he was popular. The small, perfectly formed juvenile breast at the Superbowl test settled it. I would have got Dolly Parton in for a stunt like that.
People push the envelope. See what happens. Like when the knickerless can-can was licensed for the world record shortest period of time between a licence being granted and it being revoked. The riot scene in Apocalypse Now reminded me of the incident. It was worth every penny that great movie cost just for that one scene.
Anyway- you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows after the Superbowl breast-bud test.
The men who take part in the political process in anyway whatsoever, and it doesn't constitute taking part in it to view it for the laughs or to bet on it, simply legitimise men's abject defeat, disgrace and ignomony and encourage the direction of the drift towards humiliation. And Mr Jeremy Clarkson goes home like a good little boy, given the money he has, to Emily(13), Finlo(11), Katya(9) and Francie, his well bred wife who was a "successful recruitment consultant" earlier in life, BJ so to speak, and who's age and reputation I will refrain from mentioning to show what an honourable gentleman I am. Is he in the **** or is he in the ****? The attrition rate of the wife and two daughters syndrome round here is tragic.
The drive way to his house is cluttered up with macho turboprops, the vestiges thing, and stuff, and round the back are the horses in their stables and we all know what Lord Birkenhead said about people who had daughters and horses. Inside he is being loaded up with energy giving nutrient and cosseted like a new gift kitten. On all known form his recent drive to the Pole movie, how imaginative can you get, where he was really, really, really macho had one item essential to the production censored from the screen. I refer, of course, to the helicopter.
And Jeremy is very popular. A psychologist will explain it for you better than I can. Humphrey Bogart played a macho bloke in African Queen. Assuming his not tipping her over the side was because its makers wanted a full length movie with a happy ending.
I think these primaries are designed to provide as many people as possible with a happy ending (and to make money natch). So people are looking for a candidate to follow who will provide most happy endings amid scenes of high emotional arousal. A permanent movie in effect with crowd scenes and opportunities to be seen around the world. Media joy must be unconstrained. They can even milk the pollster's balls up with new and even more sophisticated explanations which it flatters people's intelligence to think they understand.
But the game is up lads. We've lost. You're helping to accelerate the process.
Who were all those people I saw in Manchester just trudging past the islands of light as if they weren't there? Seeing them for what they are no doubt. Pinpricks on the landscape.
Stop voting lads and encourage your mates to do the same. Let women run the show. Vote for Mrs Clinton. "Bring 'em on".
Nothing
No change
Business as usual.
people will die
war will be waged.
Barbarism in the name of civilization will endure.
Time is out for USA
Carrying on with the theme that George W. Bush has, almost singlehandedly, destroyed the Republican Party, we get
this:
George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.
Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.
And this needs saying, because if you don't know what broke the elephant you can't put it together again. The party cannot re-find itself if it can't trace back the moment at which it became lost. It cannot heal an illness whose origin is kept obscure.
Amazingly, this was written by Peggy Noonan, former Reagan and Bush I speechwriter and GWB flunky who has had her head so firmly ensconced in the collective rear end of the GOP leadership that it is a miracle she is able to write her often laughably incoherent column for the
Wall Street Journal. Putting the elephant back together again indeed!
joefromchicago wrote:Carrying on with the theme that George W. Bush has, almost singlehandedly, destroyed the Republican Party, we get
this:
George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.
Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.
And this needs saying, because if you don't know what broke the elephant you can't put it together again. The party cannot re-find itself if it can't trace back the moment at which it became lost. It cannot heal an illness whose origin is kept obscure.
Amazingly, this was written by Peggy Noonan, former Reagan and Bush I speechwriter and GWB flunky who has had her head so firmly ensconced in the collective rear end of the GOP leadership that it is a miracle she is able to write her often laughably incoherent column for the
Wall Street Journal. Putting the elephant back together again indeed!
Joe
I read this column the other day and suffered a brief mental paralysis.
